Reading the Bible: Genesis, 1

This past month I’ve resumed my close reading of the Bible. I began last year, reading overviews of the Old Testament before reading the New Testament itself closely, taking notes on personal reactions, and reading commentaries and noting salient points from them. The sources I’m using were described in this first post on the topic, from March 2016 (other posts from 2016 can be found under the ‘Reviews’ menu item, above), and which can be quickly summarized and linked thus:

(I have other relevant volumes as well, including an “Illustrated Family Bible”, a volume for non-Christians that attempts to explain “Christian Mythology”, R. Crumb’s graphic novel version of “Genesis”, and a fascinating recent book that identifies an evolutionary subtext of the Bible. Trying to get as many different perspectives as possible.)

As I said in this post, I am “reading as a non-believer, inclined to skepticism, often to simple bemusement. The history of the world of supernatural claims is too broad to take any of them, even one that has inspired millions of adherents throughout history, seriously without any kind of thinking about their likely origin, and all the psychological and historical factors that went into their composition.”

It occurs to me now that there are two perhaps more primary reasons to study this now—

First, as Ehrman writes at the beginning of his Chapter One,

The Bible is the most commonly purchased, widely read, and deeply cherished book in the history of Western civilization. It is also the most widely misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misused.

There is repeated evidence that believers are no more likely to be familiar with the Bible, even vaguely, let alone to have read it, than nonbelievers. (Especially active nonbelievers who have reason to be nonbelievers; thus an Asimov quote, Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.)

Second, to become familiar with this cultural landmark and confront for myself, firsthand, this supposed fount of supernatural wisdom that provides, for many people, all the answers to the purpose of life and the origin of the universe. As other skeptics – Asimov, Coyne, Shermer – have done before me, I’ve set out to read my way through the Bible, reacting to what it says at face value, while at the same time consulting references and commentaries, from both believers and skeptics, for insight into subtexts and cultural assumptions.

One of the most striking conclusions I reached in what I read last year, is how thin is the so-called ‘evidence’ in the Biblical texts for supernatural claims that have become the foundation of thousands of Christian sects over two thousand years. The whole notion of Mary as a virgin, for example, seems to be based on one gospel writer’s dubious citation of an OT prophet, whose own story about a young woman used a term for her that might have meant virgin but just as likely merely met a young woman. The gospel writer chose the meaning that suited his purpose, to make his story all the more remarkable; and from such a slender thread, has millennia of veneration followed.

But let’s move on. The OT is another kettle of fish, compared to the NT; far more ancient texts, and many variant texts edited together over hundreds of years, a situation apparently beyond dispute among scholars of the Bible, for decades in detail and centuries as a notion, yet a situation likely completely unknown to the vast majority of ordinary ‘believers’, who follow their religious community without any thorough, or even general, knowledge of their holy book.

I’ve started to read Genesis from the beginning, and will expand my earlier posts on what I read in 2016 with additional comments. Some general stipulations:

  • Oxford’s introduction to the Pentateuch, and to Genesis in particular, outlines the current understanding of where these books came from. In general terms: they were composed over many centuries, initially as oral traditions. These layers of different authors have been identified and teased apart beginning 300 years ago, and have become established scholarship over the past century. Oxford points out that the structure of Genesis moves from primeval history of the world (drawing from creation myths of older Mesopotamian cultures) to ancestral history of the storytellers, and acknowledges the dissonance between its creation stories and the modern understanding of the earth and universe and discovered by scientific inquiry in recent centuries.
  • All modern sources acknowledge four strands of composition: the J text, composed 10th century bce, in which ‘Yahweh’ or Lord is used; the E text, for Elohim, the name given God, and composed sometime after Solomon; the P text, Priestly, composed in the 6th century bce, during the Babylonian exile; and Deuteronomy in particular, composed sometimes in the 7th century bce.
  • The most obvious evidence for multiple authors of different texts that were later integrated into a single book are the various doublets and contradictions – two stories of creations, told one after the other; two stories of the flood, intertwined so as to avoid the impression of two separate floods; details in rival accounts that don’t match.
  • The ‘redaction’ of these various accounts was apparently conducted sometime in the 6th century bce, during the Babylonian exile.

Following are my annotations and comment by specific verse, much through Chapter 5 already posted, but now expanded a bit, then continued.

The two creations

  • 1:1, the traditional “In the beginning God created…” is more usually translated, these days, as “In the beginning when God created” or even “began to create”.
  • 1:2, note that before “let there be light”, there were waters (over which “a wind from God swept over the face of”). Thus, something existed before God got creation going, it seems. Why is this not generally acknowledged or understood, while everyone who thinks for the universe to exist, something or someone, thus God, must have gotten it going? This passage seems to undermine every claim that for the world to exist, God must have caused it. Oxford spells this out in a footnote, p11: “the text does not describe creation out of nothing… Instead, the story emphasizes how God creates order from a watery chaos.” So even Biblical literalists might ask, where did the watery chaos come from? Not God.
  • 1:6, and so we live in a dome with waters above and waters below. Do Biblical literalists really believe this?
  • 1:9, with the waters under the sky gathered in one place. One can imagine the limited view of the world of those who told these myths, who might know that the sea was over in that direction (e.g. west) and have no knowledge of any other seas or oceans, let alone the true immensity of the planet.
  • 1:16, “God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars”. This might be plausible if the moon were actually in the sky all night; but of course, on average it’s only in the sky at night half the time. (This reminds me of how often filmmakers depict the moon, for whatever phase its shown in, in the wrong place in the sky. I seem to recall E.T. as sinning in this regard, though I haven’t seen the film in ages.)
  • 1:16, and at the end of this verse, almost as an afterthought, “and the stars”. Incidentally. Presumably meaning the unimaginably vast universe that we have, in recent centuries, detected to exist; a mere footnote to the creation of the human abode.
  • 1:17, this claims the sun, moon, and stars are “set…in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” Then why do billions of stars and galaxies exist that are not visible to the naked eye?
  • 1:21, “So God created the great sea monsters…” Sea monsters? KJV says “great whales”. You have to wonder what experience with large sea creatures the tellers of these myths had.
  • 1:24, “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things…’” Curious how first on the list is cattle, an animal surely of prime importance to the herders who composed these stories, rather than, say, elephants or giraffes or lions, surely more impressive animals to anyone familiar with the entire globe as we now know it.
  • 1:26, “Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness…” The devout are pleased to think of themselves as the image of the creator of the entire universe (with arms and legs and everything else, presumably). A cat deity would presumably resemble a cat. (Cf. Jerry Coyne’s ‘ceiling cat’, and the poem by Yeats I quoted here.)
  • But a second point about 1:26 is that the phrase “Let us make man in our image” (KJV) or “Let us make humankind in our image” (NRSV) is that the two different words there are translations of the Hebrew word adam -! That is, the first man being called Adam wasn’t necessarily a name given to him, but a generic word for man, or mankind. Looking carefully through the early chapters of Genesis, there is a point at which the first man is referred to as Adam, a proper name, without comment, a rather slippery elision.
  • 1:27, in this first version of creation, male and female are created simultaneously.
  • 1:28, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion…” A useful policy for any group in competition for survival with other groups, or with nature itself. The part about dominion and subduing alas justifies many people’s attitudes that are leading to the extermination of a large proportion of other species inhabiting the planet. (Cf Kolbert’s The Sixth Extinction)
  • 2:4, Here begins the second version of creation. The first one was about the seven days, in which on the fifth day God created humankind of both sexes—“male and female he created them” (1:27). The second version of creation involves shaping the first man out of mud, creating the female from his rib, and planting them in the garden of Eden. The first creation refers to the deity as “God”; the second refers to the deity as “Lord God”; these are the two separate accounts written by different people and stitched together much later, without much concern for consistency.
  • 2:9, And in the garden were two trees. An extremely potent metaphor: one is a tree of life, one is a tree of knowledge, and the latter is forbidden. Asimov spends several pages speculating on the identity of the four rivers flowing out of Eden. Two are obvious, two obscure.
  • 2:17, God promises they will die if they eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Later they do, and God does not kill them, thus breaking his promise. Anyway, why create something, place it in plain view, then forbid it? If a human parent did this to a child, he’d be regarded as sadistic.
  • 2:19, In this version animals are created as potential ‘companions’ for man/adam, and man/adam names them all. It would be churlish to point out the number of species on the planet as we now understand, and the obvious implausibility of these passages that presume man/adam can inspect and name them all. Yet, there are people who believe the Bible literally true.
  • 2:22, woman made from the rib of the man. Miller, annotator of his Skeptical Annotated Bible (SAB), points out that 16th century anatomist Vesalius shocked the faithful by pointing out that women really do have the same number of ribs as men.
  • 2:24, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Wait, what, what? At this point, the sudden discussion of father and mother and how a man “clings to his wife”, seems premature and out of context, since so far in this narrative there’s only one man and one woman. Hmm.
  • Ch3, Asimov points out how the story of the talking serpent, a talking animal, is one of only two such incidents in the Bible (the other is a story about Balaam’s ass), is quite un-Biblical, more likely a vestige of a more primitive nature myth. (Asimov p31.7)
  • 3.8, the Lord God is “walking in the garden” and so the man and his wife “hid themselves”. This is oddly anthropomorphic on the first point, and beggars God’s omniscience on the second. This entire parable is perhaps related to early humanity’s concern about agriculture, which might have been thought a kind of slavery (to the land) compared to the freedom of hunter-gathering. (Asimov p32). Thus, for eating fruit from the tree, the man [not yet named Adam in NRSV until 4:25] is cursed to work the ground and eat the plants of the field (3:17-18). But note that God blames first the serpent, and then the women, before getting around to the man.
  • 3:22, the two trees represent wisdom and eternal life, two things the ancients must have realized were unobtainable. Why? Um, because God forbid them.
  • 3:24, “He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim…” But not the woman? More to the point, the first man and woman are driven from the garden, and barred from going back. So, did this garden still exist? Did any of the ancients try to find it again? Where would it have been?

Cain, Abel, other people, other gods?

  • Ch4, Oxford notes that the name Cain derives from the Hebrew word for create, while Abel is the same word translated as “vanity” in Ecclesiastes. On the agricultural theme, it is Cain, tiller of the ground, who is jealous of his brother the sheepherder. Asimov, p33, says Cain is taken to mean “smith”, since metal-working was important in early civilization. (And a smith is a kind of creator.) More generally, the story here can be seen to represent the tension the came with the agricultural revolution; the freedom of the nomadic herders gave way to the stress of being stuck in one place.
  • 4:7, “sin is lurking at the door”; what is this supposed to mean? An evil witch ready to sweep in and overcome the righteous? Oxford notes this is the first mention of sin in the Bible.
  • 4:15, the Lord puts a “mark on Cain” before sending him a way, a handful of words that have inspired long traditions of racism. (The Mormon church, in particular, long prohibited blacks to be priests, because the mark of Cain was taken to mean black skin.)
  • 4:14, “and anyone who meets me may kill me”. Even before 4:17 following, this implies there are other people around. Where did they come from, if all humanity descended from Adam and Eve, beginning with Cain and Abel?
  • 4:17, “Cain knew his wife”, a famous phrase about which it is completely fair to ask, where did she come from? The answer perhaps is that the context (of the second creation story) implies the Garden and the area where Cain and Abel lived was imagined to be the creation of one particular god, suggesting other tribes in other lands (such as Nod) had their own gods. The polytheistic theme is also suggested by the use of plural pronouns by the deity.
  • 4:17… Cain presumably remains a nomad; it is his son who builds a city. Asimov, p34, compares notions of farming vs roaming to the 19th century ideal of being a cowboy.
  • Ch5, the descendants of Adam listed here (from the priestly source) do not match those listed in Ch4 (from the Yahwistic source)…of course!
  • 5:3 and other verses: not only are the long lives of these generations implausible, so is how old all the men were before they had their first sons. Except that such exaggerations were common in the myths of other cultures at the time, I haven’t seen any good explanation or suggestion for such inflated numbers. Asimov, p36: “These ages were legendary, reflecting parts of earlier Babylonian tales picked up the Jews during the Exile…” And, as Asimov goes on to explain, these figures were used by some to deduce the time since creation: the Jews, in the Middle Ages, figured it to be 3761 B.C.; Bishop Ussher, in 1654, figured it to be 4004 B.C. Oxford makes the same comments about how the ages reflect similar Babylonian lists.
  • 5:24, “Enoch walked with God…”, a mysterious phrase which inspired several books of ‘religious fiction’, so to speak, about Enoch’s past and future, written from 20 bc to 50 bc (Asimov p37b).
  • 5:29, “bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands”; more agonizing about the difficulties of farming.
  • 6:4, the famous KJV phrase “there were giants in the earth” becomes in NRSV “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days…” because no one really knew what the writers meant. Asimov later speculates that more advanced tribes, with taller or thicker walls barricading their towns, might have so impressed newcomers, that the latter might have imagined the builders to be truly impressive in many ways, such as being giants.

The flood, the ark, Gilgamesh

  • The story of the flood and Noah resembles, of course, flood stories from other Mesopotamian cultures, with the difference here the emphasis on God unmaking the world because of the wickedness of mankind. Yet, if God had wanted to destroy the Earth and start over, why all this bother? Why not just another wind sweeping over the waters and start from scratch? Instead, the story as it stands seems obviously a kind of ex post facto explanation for an actual natural disaster, much the same way some religious people today blame, for example, hurricanes on gays, or whoever else they don’t like.
  • Gilgamesh is the best known early legend that also involved a flood; it was only discovered in 1872. I have a couple versions and will be reading them shortly.
  • Passing thought: taking the story at face value, how is it that only Noah and his immediate family are the only righteous people in the entire world? What about Noah’s ancestors, were any of them still alive? Well, no…. look at those genealogies and ages. If you map them out along a timeline [I happen to have such a timeline, which I assume accurately plots the numbers from the Bible], it turns out they had all already died… even Methuselah, who, coincidentally, died *immediately before* the flood hit – so the timeline claims, in tiny print. Maybe it’s not so much that only Noah’s family were righteous; it’s that no one else on earth was of the right blood, so to speak. Because the OT is all about how the earth is given over by God to one particular family, and the tribes they founded. (Why couldn’t God handle managing everyone else? Why prioritize one family line? Or is it because all those other folks were the creation of rival gods? Cf. the 1st Commandment.)
  • Chs 6-9, it need hardly be said that the story of Noah and his ark is implausible on any number of counts, e.g., there’s not enough water in the world to literally cover all the mountains (or even the ones around Mesopotamia); there are far more species of animals in the world that could have been accommodated on such a boat, and anyway what did they eat for 40 days, or was it 150 days (7:24)? And so on.
  • 8:13 and 8:14, one example of how two early account of the flood were later edited together, not very well, leaving numerous inconsistencies and contradictions.
  • Even on its own terms, what is the point? 8:21, the Lord realizes humankind is still evil! (If God is omniscient, why couldn’t he fix that?) Furthermore, 8:20, as the animals exit the ark, Noah builds an altar and promptly slaughters some of them! You’d think having made the effort to keep them alive, God and Noah wouldn’t be so casual about making them dead. Ah, but God “smells the pleasing odor”, hmm.
  • 7:11, Asimov speculates that an inspiration for the various flood legends was the plausibility of a tidal wave that swept up the Persian Gulf (perhaps triggered by a meteor!?). To people at the time whose entire world was a relatively small river area, it might well have seemed a flood of the entire world.
  • Asimov also points out that Ararat was a region at the time, not a particular mountain.
  • 8:22, so God comes to peace with wicked humanity, so to speak, and immediately promises…to restore the cycle of the seasons, “summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” This underscores the worldview of the time, the agricultural life.
  • Ch9, God hands down new rules to Noah and his sons, and makes a covenant with a ‘bow’ (rainbow). Then follows an odd story in 9:20 to 9:27, in which Noah gets drunk, one of his sons, Ham, sees his father naked, and when Noah wakens he curses not Ham, but Ham’s son Canaan, to be a slave. None of the commentaries has much of an explanation for why this story should make sense…except to justify later attitudes against the Canaanites.

Tower of Babel

  • Ch11 tells about the tower of Babel, claiming 11:1 “Now the whole earth had one language and the same words”, despite mentions in Ch10, several times, of different descendants and tribes of Noah who, e.g., 10:5, “are the descendants of Japheth, in their lands, with their own language, by their families, in their nations”. Again, we have a just-so story legend in this tower of Babel story, nothing like plausible history. Also 10:20, 10:31.
  • The point of the story being, in a childlike way, to explain the diversity of languages; in a more general way, to warn against ambition and the search for knowledge – a religious tradition that continues to this day, as fundamentalist creeds of all stripes strive to protect their offspring from secular knowledge. (Don’t learn too much about the real world, lest doubt affect your literal belief in fantastic legends.)

Abram and Egypt

  • 11:10, another long chronology that somewhat resembles Ch10, though it’s notable in Ch11 how the first-named child, presumably the eldest, is always male. Was it that females simply didn’t count? Also notable is how the ridiculously implausible long ages gradually temper, becoming almost believable, though still not believable is how long they lived before they had children.
  • 11:26 to 11:27 is another switchover from a Priestly to a non-Priestly narrative, thus the repetition.
  • Ch12, Again, is it foolish to wonder at this point, why the LORD prefers this one family? Here he is promising Abram and his “kindred” the lands that he shows – never mind the Canaanites already there (12:6). Isn’t this *obviously* an ex post facto justification for a land grab by an ambitious tribe who eventually prevailed, and could therefore claim divine providence?
  • Asimov, about Chapter 12, provides some background about Ur, from which Abram originally left – its success as a port diminished as the delta of the Tigris and the Euphrates filled with silt. Thus Abram moved on, settling eventually in the far west, bringing with him the various Babylonian myths that we see versions of here in Genesis. Canaan had already been occupied, since 4000 BC.
  • 12:10-:17, “Now there was a famine in the land”. No sooner does God promise Abram [later Abraham] the land of the Canaanites, than does a drought strike and Abram and wife flee to Egypt. Afraid he might be killed for his beautiful wife Sarai [later Sarah] he presents her as his sister. And so Pharaoh [Asimov notes this is a general term for the office, like today saying ‘the White House’ to mean the administration and not some specific president] takes her as his wife. For which the LORD afflicts plagues on Pharaoh. Does this make sense? Why doesn’t the LORD afflict Abram for lying? Anyway, the text doesn’t explain how Pharaoh understands how the plagues were due to Abram’s lie. What, given the setup, was Abram’s alternative? To be killed? Anyway, Pharaoh banishes them.
  • So, in retrospect, what was the intrusion of the rather brief Babel story all about? Because, apparently, the focus on the tower conflicted with God’s command to fill the Earth, while the subsequent blessing of Abram and his family is the advancement of that command.
  • 12:16, a typically casual reference to “male and female slaves”; Biblical morality.
  • Ch13, Wealthy Abram splits from Lot, and in :14 the LORD again promises Abram the land in every direction he can see. What about the people already there? (:7, both Canaanites and Perizzites.) Why doesn’t God care about them? Again, the implication that people of this time were essentially polytheistic – each tribe had its own god – explains much, including the need for the 1st commandment.
  • Asimov, p61ff, outlines the history of Egypt; Abram arrives during the ‘Middle Kingdom’.
  • Ch14 describes battles and Lot’s capture and Abram’s rescue of Lot. Asimov, p72, discusses the tradition that some of the tribes involved were giants, like the Nephilim earlier, and why such folklore was common.
  • 14:14, a famous anachronism is the citation of Dan, for a place that did not become named Dan for hundreds of years after the events here took place (and hundreds of years after a presumed historical Moses could have written Genesis); it was a key bit of evidence for Thomas Paine, as <a href=>I noted last year</a>.
  • Ch15, another covenant (involving animal sacrifice of course) and, :19, a long list of nations to be displaced by Abram’s descendants. One can only imagine what those nations’ oral histories might have contained.
  • :20 About the Hittites in particular, Asimov, p77, discusses that it was only discovered in 1906 that they established a substantial empire, for some hundred years; but the height of their power came during the years Abram was in Egyptian bondage, roughly 1750-1200 bce, and so the Bible is unaware of that history.

Abram and Ishmael

  • Ch16, despite contemporary standards of traditional marriage, it was apparently quite acceptable for a man whose wife was barren to take her slave-girl and bear children by her instead. So since Sarai can’t conceive Abram takes Hagar, an Egyptian slave-girl, and has a son, Ishmael. There being bad blood between Sarai and Hagar, the latter flees temporarily, but returns with an angelic promise to have many offspring. (First appearance of an angel?) About :2, Oxford notes that “ancient surrogate motherhood customs” allowed such arrangements.
  • Oxford has an interesting long footnote that outlines a ‘chiasm’ in the Abraham story, a pattern of events in which the early themes are resumed, in reverse order, after a central event. In this case the Hagar-Ishmael story is the center of the chiasm, after which comes another covenant (about circumcision), another hospitality story, another wife-sister story, etc. It’s fascinating to imagine that the oral tradition of reciting the lives of the ancestors, told over and over again, gradually took shape to emphasize such narrative patterns, to make the story both more easily remembered, and more compelling to listeners. Though at the same time, likely less accurate to what actually happened.
  • :7 vs. :13, not an angel, apparently, but actually the Lord.
  • Asimov notes how this part of the story backgrounds the establishment of the Ishmaelite tribes; later, the Muslims adapted these stories and embroidered them to establish themselves as descendants of Abram and Ishmael, both of whom are taken to have been buried in Mecca.
  • Ch17, a story that parallels Ch15, about a different covenant, this one about circumcision, and the Lord changes Abram’s name to Abraham. As Asimov explains, p80, circumcision was an ancient practice, for reasons unknown, and was not particularly important to the early Jews until the Babylonian exile, when it became a mark of distinction and was especially enforced. Since this was also the time the OT was put into its final form, Genesis was edited to stress the point.
  • :15 Sarai is renamed Sarah. God promises Abraham, now 99, and Sarah, now 90, another son (Abraham laughs at this), and though Ishmael will prosper, God’s covenant will apply only to this new son, Isaac. (why? Because history is told by the winners?)
  • :23-:27, and so they all get circumcised, in one day.
  • Ch18, the Lord appears to Abraham in the guise of three men, in a hospitality incident (to foreshadow the Sodom story, perhaps); Oxford notes “the motif of secretly divine visitors is widespread in folklore”.
  • :17-19, the Lord debates with himself. (If ever there was a passage about whether it is fair to wonder, how did the author of this book know that this happened? Who was the witness? – it is this one.)

Sodom and Gomorrah

  • :22-33, at length, Abraham bargains with the Lord about how many righteous men would prevent the destruction, based on some kind of hearsay “outcry” (in :20) of Sodom.
  • Ch19, the familiar story of the destruction of Sodom: two angels come to the city, where Lot lives, and are welcomed by Lot. But all of the men of the city (:4) demand that the guests be sent out, so that, the men say, “we may know them”. Lot, incredibly, offers his supposedly virgin daughters instead (he says they “have not known a man” but a few verses later refers to his sons-in-law), and is refused; the angels set about destroying the city, while the merciful Lord allows Lot and his family to escape.
  • Except that Lot’s wife, told not to look back, looks back, and is turned into a pillar of salt. (Why?)
  • Because, as Oxford notes, of the preponderance of salt formations around the Dead Sea. The oral teller of this tale could point to them as ‘evidence’ of the tale. Asimov, p82, speculates the natural disaster might explain the descriptions of destruction, suggesting that the entire story was an ex post factor ‘explanation’ for the disaster, much the same way modern Christians blame hurricanes on the gays. The Sodom story would be the first!
  • Some modern Christian apologists, some of them gay, try to explain the Sodom story as one about hospitality, not the “wickedness” (:7) of men eager to know other men. Surely it fits into the pattern of these chapters as one about hospitality, but reading this now, the theme of the wicked intent of the men of Sodom seems pretty clear as well. Still, there’s no trace of a clue as to why *all* the men of this one city were so wicked; that is, not the slightest plausible justification for this story as any kind of real event, rather than a superstitious morality play.
  • :30 And then (!) Lot’s daughters, apparently thinking they are the last people left alive on Earth, and there being no other man around, both contrive to sleep with their father, in order to produce another generation. Biblical morality, again. Their subsequent sons (always sons) become ancestors of the Moabite and Ben-ammi tribes, in another just-so tale of ancient ancestry.
  • Asimov, furthermore, speculates that whatever catastrophe this was that destroyed the two cities flooded the until-then dry southern portion of the Dead Sea, submerging the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah, leaving only Zoar, the place Lot flees to, dry.

Abraham and Isaac

  • Ch20 is a rewrite of Ch12, with Abraham traveling and describing his wife as his sister, to avoid being killed himself. They even fool the same king, Abimelech, again. In :12 Abraham claims his wife is in fact his half-sister; Oxford wonders if this is true, or merely an excuse.
  • Ch21, Sarah has child Isaac. Though at the end of Ch17, when all the men were getting circumscribed, the older son Ishmael was 13 years old, here he is described as a child, as he and his mother are sent away.
  • In :15, Hagar is ready to let Ishmael die, until God intervenes, pointing out a nearby well. Asimov points out the significance of wells in this time and area, and how this area, Beersheeba, is about the furthest south a well might have been dug.
  • :34, another anachronism, as Asimov (and others) p85 points out: the Philistines did not live in that area for another five centuries—right about the time Genesis was reduced to writing.
  • Ch22, in which God famously tests Abraham, demanding that he sacrifice his precious son Isaac. On its face it seems cruel, even perverse, yet of course believers have rationalized the story throughout history.
  • :12 Only when Abraham is about to make the sacrifice does God admit, “now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son…”. Isn’t God omniscient? Why this cruel test?
  • :17 is notable, along with several later almost identical verses, for God’s promise to “make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies…” Which, even granting poetic license, has conspicuously failed to happen; the Jews remain an often reviled minority to the rest of the world.

Enough for now. Will finish rest of book, and review the various commentaries and versions noted above, over the next few weeks.

Posted in Bible | Comments Off on Reading the Bible: Genesis, 1

Pondering Immigration and the Future of the Nation

If there’s any one thing the United States might be remembered for, in future centuries or millennia long after the country has been superseded by newer, more advanced societies, it will be that it was a place for immigrants and refugees from less-advanced, more oppressive, countries around the globe. The entire country consisted of immigrants — the ones from Europe, beginning in the 15th century, who steadily exterminated most of the ‘native’ populations, themselves immigrants from Asia thousands of years before — immigrants who came in waves, one after another, claiming their refuge and then resenting, after a generation or less, the next wave who came after them.

Despite the ideals of this nation, these waves of immigrants have not been and are not immune to base human nature. Human nature is subject to xenophobia, to fear and demonization of strangers, of foreigners. Social contracts and rules of law are designed to overcome those base fears. But they do not always succeed.

Today on NPR I heard some man in Montana who seemed genuinely afraid that the Muslim hordes are about to flood in and take our [i.e. his] women.

And so the social ideals of even the US are periodically overtaken by psychological fears, social paranoia, authoritarian regimes. It’s happened before, and seems to be happening again. You might think the US, of any nation on Earth, might have the presence of historical mind to overcome those fears, and finally build, through social contracts, a more perfect union. But perhaps not.

Posted in Conservative Resistance, Human Progress | Comments Off on Pondering Immigration and the Future of the Nation

Link and Comments: science visions; the retrograde government; multiverse; faith; Wars v Trek; California as the future; Haidt on tribalism and the national rift

For today here are several links I’ve ‘saved’ on Facebook in recent weeks, with comments.

First, Plate Tectonics Movement During the Last 540 Million Years, a cool video animation, from a Facebook group called Geology Wonders, that shows the continents moving around and bumping back and forth together over that time. (Is this undermined by the misspelling as ‘tecnonics’ in the title of the post? I’ll assume not; I make my share of typos.)

Second, from Ars Technica, a 3D model of the Milky Way’s place in the larger universe, and how it’s being both pulled and ‘pushed’ by a void. We’re at the center of this map.

From Esquire, This Is Our Most Dangerously Retrograde Government in 150 Years, by Charles P. Pierce.

It’s been fun to point and laugh at the new administration. … But, while we’re doing that, slowly and steadily, an actual government has been forming, and it is the most dangerously retrograde government that our system has produced in at least the past 150 years. It is secretive and it is resistant to any empirical information that it does not want to hear. It is grotesquely anti-science. It seeks to roll back progressive achievements dating back to Teddy Roosevelt and it has the power to do so, even if it is in its own bungling way. And it really hasn’t gotten rolling yet.

From, Parallel Worlds, in which novelist Andrew Crumey wonders if the multiverse can explain the course of history, with references to PK Dick, Philip Roth, Stephen Hawking, and Lucretius.

And here’s a post by fantasy author Robert V.S. Redick, which captures a couple key points about ‘faith’ and why it’s so important to some to have some kind of it. (It’s not about interest in reality; it’s about tribalism.)

A man shows me a sealed wooden crate. “Do you believe that there’s a fluffy pillow in this crate?” he asks.

This is exactly how I feel when asked about belief in God. My own answer has to be no—and I don’t believe there’s a pillow in the crate, either, without evidence—but the question itself is fundamentally wrong. There’s no basis for belief in the pillow, and there’s no conclusive reason for disbelief. It’s a tactical query. It reduces faith, or lack thereof, to a small-minded loyalty test. Are you with Tribe Faith or Tribe Doubt? ‘Cause that other tribe is wicked, you know.

The New Yorker: Why Peter Thiel Fears “Star Trek”, by Manu Saadia. Part of the long Wars vs. Trek debate, on which I come down on the side of Trek, partly because Wars is Manichaean fantasy in which the solution to every problem is to blow something up, and Trek envisions a possible post-scarcity future in which progressive goals have prevailed. But that’s why Thiel doesn’t like it.

Asked by [Maureen] Dowd whether he was a bigger fan of “Star Wars” or “Star Trek,” Thiel replied that, as a capitalist, he preferred the former. “ ‘Star Trek’ is the communist one,” he said. “The whole plot of ‘Star Wars’ starts with Han Solo having this debt that he owes, and so the plot in ‘Star Wars’ is driven by money.”

Journalist Tim Rutten: The Right’s Hatred of California Is Really Fear of a Future that Already Is Working.

What’s really at work in the right-wing’s demonization of California is not really loyalty to Trumpism or traditionalist devotion to the Electoral College. It’s fear of the future. When Trump vowed to “make America great again” the right read his rhetoric as a promise to take us back in time—to the years when white men went off to work and white women stayed home with the kids and minority races were just that, minorities who kept to themselves.

California, by contrast, already is what more of America will look like in the years to come. No single race is in the majority or enjoys a lock on political or economic power. Seventeen percent of all Americans live in California and 38% of them are non-Hispanic whites, 38.8% are Latinos, 14.7% are Asians, 6.5% are African American, 1.7% are Native Americans—numerically, the country’s largest concentration of indigenous people—and 3.8% describe themselves as of mixed race. More Californians—43%–speak a language other than English in their homes, though it will confound Trump supporters to know that immigration from Mexico slowed long ago and the majority of new immigrants come from Asia, mainly China.

California, the 6th largest economy in the world — we must be doing something right — went for Hillary, of course.

And from way back in November, just before the election, an essay in Wall Street Journal by Jonathan Haidt (author of one of my essential nonfiction books, The Righteous Mind — my review here and here and here), How to Get Beyond Our Tribal Politics: “understanding the psychological causes of our national rift can help us bridge it”.

Human nature is tribal. We form teams easily, most likely because we have evolved for violent intergroup conflict. Our minds take to it so readily that we invent myths, games and sports—including war games like paintball—that let us enjoy the pleasures of intergroup conflict without the horrors of actual war.

Humans are tribal, but tribalism can be transcended. It exists in tension with our extraordinary ability to develop bonds with other human beings. Romeo and Juliet fell in love. French, British and German soldiers came out of their trenches in World War I to exchange food, cigarettes and Christmas greetings.

The key, as Cicero observed, is proximity, and a great deal of modern research backs him up. Students are more likely to become friends with the student whose dorm room is one door away than with the student whose room is four doors away. People who have at least one friend from the other political party are less likely to hate the supporters of that party.

This resonates with my thoughts, in PvC #10, about how “society will become increasingly global and more inclusive, … the race will become more homogeneous as previously separated groups intermix…” It’s harder to hate someone when you get to know them, and find that their everyday lives and priorities and goals aren’t so different from your own. On the other hand, the online tribalism of social network groups and competing versions of truth on websites that cater to “motivated reasoning” are making that more difficult.

Haidt again:

Our tribal minds are equipped with a powerful tool: shameless and clueless hypocrisy. It is a general rule of psychology that “thinking is for doing”: We think with a particular purpose in mind, and often that purpose isn’t to find the truth but to defend ourselves or attack our opponents.

Psychologists call this process “motivated reasoning.” It is found whenever self-interest is in play. When the interests of a group are added to the mix, this sort of biased, god-awful reasoning becomes positively virtuous—it signals your loyalty to the team. This is why partisans find it so easy to dismiss scandalous revelations about their own candidate while focusing so intently on scandalous revelations about the other candidate.

Motivated reasoning has interacted with tribalism and new media technologies since the 1990s in unfortunate ways. Social media, hackers and Google searches now help us to find hundreds of specks in our opponents’ eyes, but no technology can force us to acknowledge the logs in our own.

Posted in Conservative Resistance, Culture, Psychology, Religion, Science | Comments Off on Link and Comments: science visions; the retrograde government; multiverse; faith; Wars v Trek; California as the future; Haidt on tribalism and the national rift

Thought Leaders

A couple days ago I was dipping into Peter Singer’s latest book, Ethics in the Real World: 82 Brief Essays on Things That Matter, and saw him mention something about his being a “thought leader” according to some German outfit that, for the past five or six years, has been ranking influential people from across the globe based on their online presence and ‘influence’ calculated by some series of factors. The site is here at Thought Leaders, which on its homepage shows an impressive network chart of how their top ranked people interconnect with each other, and with various institutions, such as universities. Its Method page explains how they do what they do.

I’m not sure how much credence to give to their results — especially since they change so much from year to year — but their results are fascinating. The people identified are mostly not pop stars or politicians, nor are they exclusively intellectuals, though many of them are. They are also musicians, filmmakers, and religious leaders, and even some I might dismiss as cranks (Deepak C). And the top two are religious leaders: the Pope, and the Dalai Lama.

Still, I’m glancing through the latest results, the Toplist Global 2016, to see how many of them I recognize, especially those whose work I know, whose books I’ve read, or whose books I know about and want to read. A brief selection: Richard Dawkins is #4, Stephen Hawking is #15, J.K. Rowling is #17, Salman Rushdie is #19, (but why am I not aware of #20, physicist John C. Mather?), Daniel Dennett is #22, Peter Higgs is #23, Frank Wilczek is #25, Steven Weinberg is #27, Ray Kurzweil is #29, Jared Diamond is #33, (George Lucas is #35!), Peter Singer is #37, Noam Chomsky is #37 (tie apparently), Daniel Kahneman is #41, Paul Krugman is #47, Freeman Dyson is #52, Steven Pinker is #54, (and who is Elizabeth Blackburn, biology, at #57?), Edward O. Wilson is #59, Neil deGrasse Tyson is #60, and… skipping a bit more lightly… Michio Kaku (whom I’ve thought a lightweight popularizer) is #68, Deepak Chopra (whom I’ve thought pretty much a woo fraud) is #70, Thomas Nagel is #81, Ira Glass (a radio host?) is #81, Thomas L. Friedman is #89, Glenn Greenwald is #102, Sam Harris is #108, Matt Ridley is #111, Brian Greene is #113, David Deutsch is #118, Robert Trivers (surprised he’s still around) is #119, Douglas R. Hofstadter is #127, David Chalmers is #132, Karen Armstrong is #139, Malcolm Gladwell is #145, and Max Tegmark is #150.

The list goes on. Lisa Randall, #195! Yuval Noah Harari, #209!

I’ve glanced at the several years of previous lists, and found only one SF figure: Bruce Sterling, ranking an impressive #12 on the 2012 list. I don’t know what Bruce was doing in 2012 that gained him such a high ranking, that he has stopped doing since then to drop him completely out of the 2016 rankings. That the annual rankings change so much, is a cautionary note about taking any one list too seriously.

So– I don’t know what these lists really mean, if much. But they do provide a list of influential people, by whatever criteria, that offers some names I have not previously heard of, and will need to check out, within the parameters of my interest (especially the scientists and philosophers).

(Earlier this afternoon, using the theme of ‘thought leaders’, I re-organized the Bookmarks in the right sidebar of this site. It’s not quite complete.)

Posted in Culture, Links, Philosophy, Thinking | Comments Off on Thought Leaders

Links and Comments: Science, Abortion, Trump v Reality

Here’s a great statement by Neil deGrasse Tyson: What Science Is and How and Why It Works

The scientific method can be summarized in one sentence, which is all about objectivity: “Do whatever it takes to avoid fooling yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or that something is not true that is.”

Objective truths exist outside of your perception of reality, such as: the value of pi, E=mc2, Earth’s rate of rotation, and that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. These statements can be verified by anybody, at any time, and at any place. And they are true whether or not you believe in them. Meanwhile, personal truths are what you may hold dear, but there exists no simple way of convincing others who disagree except by heated argument, coercion, or by force. These are the foundations of most people’s opinions. Is Jesus your savior? Is Mohammad God’s last prophet on Earth? Should the government support poor people? Is Beyoncé a cultural queen? Kirk or Picard?

Note further that in science, conformity is anathema to success. The persistent accusations that we are all trying to agree with one another is laughable to scientists attempting to advance their careers. The best way to get famous in your own lifetime is to pose an idea that is counter to prevailing research and which ultimately earns a consistency of observations and experiment. This ensures healthy disagreement at all times while working on the bleeding edge of discovery.

Worth reading in full.


This essay summarizes my thoughts about the incoherence and hypocrisy of the pro-life movement [aside from the fundamental biological issues about how an embryo is not a human being] —

Slate: Why Do Pro-Life Activists Seem Only to Care About Unborn Lives?

If pro-life advocates genuinely saw saving unborn children as their top priority, then a significant number of them would also fight for a world in which all women and men can be confident that their children’s future will include education, food, and housing. Many would reject a political platform that cheers taxpayer funding of the military while simultaneously trying to cut health care funding—health care that might allow women to feel secure enough to bring a baby to term. And many would make contraception a central issue, instead of allowing religious prudery to take precedence over the unborn babies they are fighting for.

And yet, once children are born, conservatives have no concern for social welfare programs that might help them thrive. More fundamentally….. I think the revulsion against abortion is about the human compulsion to expand, to reproduce, to grow the tribe. Quantity over quality.


Salon: Trump’s “proof” of voter fraud is an anecdote from a golfer who may have committed voter fraud himself

Trump watches TV, especially Fox News, and watches social media, and reacts with impulsive tweets. From a larger perspective, this is about how stories — in the worst case, mere anecdotes — shape human perception and belief; while systematic investigation, statistical studies, science, while not intuitively easy for human cognition, actually leads to objectively verifiable facts.

And reality will prevail, as Jeffrey Kluger says in Time Magazine, Why Trump Will Lose His War on Science.

Science, it’s worth remembering, doesn’t read your Tweets. It doesn’t care about the size of your Electoral College victory. When rising oceans swamp coastal communities or unvaccinated children fall to outbreaks of measles or mumps or whooping cough, you can’t pin that on a crooked media or a rigged election. It’s simply the way the fact-based world works. That’s a lesson the Trump Administration had best learn — before we all pay the price.


Is Trump a liar or delusional, or something worse? In the past day or two, some clever person registered the domain with an automatic redirect to this piece of Psychology Today: Gaslighting: Know It and Identify It to Protect Yourself.

The idea of ‘gaslighting’, taken from the title of the 1944 film Gaslight, in which a man tries to drive his wife insane by insisting that things she hears and remembers aren’t true, has become more familiar in recent months. Are Trump’s insistence about things that are apparently not true deliberate attempts to ‘gaslight’ the public, in an Orwellian fashion? I’m not sure he’s that clever. I just think he’s a megolamaniac delusional.

But the Psych Today article lists 11 points, and Trump matches several of them, at least.


On a similar theme, Vox, Matthew Yglesias: The best theory for why Trump tells such obvious lies.

In short, Trump doesn’t care about truth or reality, he cares about tribal loyalty. He forces others to tell lies, or support his lies, as a mean of enforcing their loyalty to him.

Any Republican who is willing to publicly echo Trump’s lies does two things. One is that he proves he is willing to incur costs to his personal reputation in order to defend Trump. The other is that having in fact borne costs to his personal reputation, he objectively ties up his success with Trump’s.

In the context of my ‘provisional conclusions’, this echoes the way religions work. Religions are only incidentally about making factual claims about cosmic reality — whether gods exist and control human destiny, etc. — but are more about creating communities [tribes] of like-minded people who, through their religious commitments, trust and support one another. The test of this commitment is about whether they support the supernatural narrative of the tribe…no matter how implausible it might be. The smart ones of the tribe understand that those supernatural claims are ridiculous, serve a social purpose without being actually true, and keep this understanding to themselves. Cultural commitment is more important. That is human nature, and that is why its hijacking by anecdote is easy and dangerous.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Science, Abortion, Trump v Reality

The Stars Have Names

Here’s an interesting article from the December 6th, 2016 New York Times, Twinkle, Twinkle Little [Insert Name Here], by Dennis Overbye (the print title was “Twinkle, Twinkle, Who?”), about how the International Astronomical Union (IAU) has finally sat down to compile an *official* list of named stars. No, those certificates you bought naming some random star for your boyfriend or girlfriend don’t count.

This subject fascinated me for a period of several years in my teens, and college years. It overlapped my interest in genuine amateur astronomy — looking at Jupiter’s moons, Saturn’s rings, the nebulae, the globular clusters, the double stars, and double doubles like Epsilon Lyrae, and all the Messier objects, all through my three-inch refractor telescope, a 6th grade birthday gift) — but also tickled my interest in the mythologies and histories of how several hundred stars got the rather odd names they came to have, centuries ago, and still have. (Principle idea: most of the names are Arabic, from a time when Christian Europe wallowed in the Dark Ages and the Arabs were the scientists of the world.) It also appealed to my list-compiling instinct. I poured over three books in particular: a hefty Dover trade paperback called Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning, by Richard Hinckley Allen; a just-published hardcover, in September 1971, called What Star Is That?, by Peter Lancaster Brown, mostly an observer’s guide with constellation descriptions and maps, but which happened to include many proper names of individual stars [I can’t find a clean cover image of that book online just now, and my scanner is down, but will fill this in later]; and Outer Space: Myths, Name Meanings, Calendars: From the Emergence of History to the Present Day, by Gertrude and James Jobes, which I poured over in the Victorville Public Library during summers in Apple Valley, and which decades later I found a copy of for myself via Abebooks.

The first and third of these especially delved into history and mythology, citing names of constellations and stars from cultures worldwide. The Brown book compiled star names commonly used by astronomers, and over several years I sought out other volumes of star maps, astronomical guides, official dictionaries, and whatnot, and compiled hundreds (yes, hundreds) of handwritten, then typed, pages of lists of star names, by source and by constellation, cross-referenced (though, alas, all on paper; no way to easily digitize). Though the brightest and best-known stars have familiar names, even they have variations in spelling due to the translations from Arabic, over the centuries. There are one or two hundred name very commonly repeated in many sources, and another couple hundred less frequently cited, some of them contemporary appellations.

Seeing the IAU site, which has this homepage for the naming stars project, and several related pages with the official names in various orders, I this afternoon found, deep in my file cabinet, several folders of the data I compiled some 40 years ago, and am tempted to sort through it and see if the IAU is missing anything obvious. I cross-referenced all my sources… and can provide a bibliography of them.

Will follow up here if I do. As if I don’t have enough other projects underway…

(Quiet day today, staying home with a lingering cold or flu — last week it was a ticklish throat, and nothing else, no congestion or sneezing, but enough to trigger a cough. This week it’s transmuted to a mild chest congestion, enough to trigger a cough of a different kind. Still no temperature, or sinus congestion, but still a cough that it would be impolite to be out in public with.)

Posted in Astronomy, Personal history | Comments Off on The Stars Have Names

Not a Facebook post about Trump

I am not watching the inaugural this morning. I can’t bear it. I’ve even stopped watching most TV news, in the last week or two.

For decades, I have watched the Today Show every morning, on NBC, for at least the first half hour (before, especially in recent years, it devolves into consumer reports and fluff in the 2nd half hour, and in later hours). It was when I turned on the Today Show on 11 Sep 2001 at 7am West Coast time that I saw the second tower fall; it was on a Saturday morning in 2003 on the Today Show that I saw news of the Space Shuttle Challenger’s breakup as it descended over Texas.

I’m not sure I can still keep watching the TV news, including the Today Show. I cannot stand watching the vile, despicable person with his fourth-grade vocabulary who seems to be our new president, nor the simpering propaganda minister Kellyanne Conway, who, if Trump really did shoot someone on 5th avenue, would come on TV the next morning to explain how what he did was perfectly appropriate, and, anyway, Hillary.

There seems to be nothing that Donald Trump can say or do, however vile, that his supporters will not defend, and condemn anyone who does not.

I’ve tried hitting mute. It doesn’t work. I don’t think I can watch at all.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Not a Facebook post about Trump

Links and Comments: Right-Wing Prediction Failure; Why to Doubt; Culture Can’t be Rational

Conservatives, especially religious extremists, seem given over to paranoia and prophecies of doom, and they never learn.

10 Right-Wing Predictions About Obama That Never Came True

Among those implicated: Michele Bachman, Sarah Palin, Joseph Farah, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Larry Klayman, Janet Porter, Wayne LaPierre, Rafael Cruz, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones. These people never lose their audiences, no matter how repeatedly wrong they are.


On the more cerebral topic of belief in ‘god’.

A post by Robert V.S. Redick:

And a comment by Jesse Bering to one of his own posts, yesterday:

From an atheist’s perspective informed by psychological science, it’s not simply an absence of evidence for God. There is a plethora of evidence of innate cognitive biases that generate the sort of recalcitrant illusions (misattributions of agency, intentions, continuity of mind after death, etc) underlying the commonsense belief in God and the afterlife.

Bering wrote a whole book about this — The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life — one of the best books on reasons to set religious faith aside as a kind mental illusion.


And from Connor Wood’s “Science on Religion” blog: Trump shows why Rationalia would fail. I haven’t read this completely yet, but it seems to dovetail with a recurring theme in some of my reading, including having just finished Yuval Noah Harari’s Sapiens, where he emphasizes the human need for “imagined orders” including religions, political systems, and money, systems of shared trust among large groups of people, without which large societies could not function. Culture based on purely rationalistic terms (Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s “Rationalia”) would never work, Wood says. Will pursue.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Right-Wing Prediction Failure; Why to Doubt; Culture Can’t be Rational

Fb review of The Girl on the Train

We saw THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN today, an excellent thriller, starring Emily Blunt. It’s a mystery about a murder that Emily Blunt’s character, an alcoholic who has blackouts, fears she might have committed. It’s a complex story about several men and several women, in that New York suburb, visible from the train that Emily Blunt’s character takes every day, that takes some sorting out about who is involved with whom, for nearly half the movie. Eventually, everything comes into focus, and revelations ensue. The directing and acting is all very good to excellent (I didn’t recognize any of the other actors aside from Blunt, but they were all very good), and the eventual revelation is justified by numerous scenes about the various characters’ background — the baby in the bathtub; the dinner party. Perhaps it’s all a bit too contrived..? But if you like mystery/thriller stories about not just who-dun-it, but about what-really-happened, this is terrific.

Posted in Films | Comments Off on Fb review of The Girl on the Train

Fb review of Moonlight

So we saw Moonlight today, the low-budget art-house film that’s been getting lots of media coverage in the past couple weeks, about a young boy struggling with his identity as he grows up in a drug-infested ghetto of Miami. The story is told in three episodes, and in each, the boy is played by a different actor–as Chiron avoids his drug addicted mother; suffers schoolboy bullying at school; finally as a buff adult trying to find a connection in his life. The acting and cinematography and musical cues are all excellent, but by Hollywood standards the film is very slow and introspective. It might get some Oscar nods, but it will never be a box office hit. Finally, I have to say, without being any way spoilery, it has a subtly heartbreaking ending, in a way you almost certainly will not anticipate.

Note the movie poster image is a collage of the three actors playing the boy at different ages.

As an aside, the AMC theatre where we saw this showed at least 6 trailers before the film, including those for two violent action pictures, which seemed completely at odds with the tone of the film we were there to see. But all six film trailers involved black actors in leading roles.

Posted in Films | Comments Off on Fb review of Moonlight