The Bible as Literature

What does it take to liberate people from exceptionalism? To liberate a teaching?  Such a pernicious snare, that saying of yours, “family first.” It was your fear of losing the tribe that led you to elect a king and build a city against the will of God.  So he sent his Shepherd to rescue his sheep from Cain’s cities, to liberate his people and the Torah from the stone idols fashioned by Cain’s sons.

For those who have stayed with me on the podcast all these years, let me say it plainly:

The idea that all people are created equal—an American principle—is beautiful and correct, but like the Torah, it is held hostage by identity politics. Like the preaching of the Cross under a Roman standard, it has been corrupted by a military-industrial nationalist agenda that feeds on the broken backs of impoverished women and children.

Nothing changes under the sun.

The Gospel of Luke is the Gospel to the Poor. It is a radical Gospel of Liberation. It this scroll of the Torah, the Lion of Judah, breaking free from the gilded prison of Herod's Temple—shattering the gates of brass—raging against you for your sake on behalf of the poor.

He who has ears to hear to hear, let him hear!

Still, the scroll of Luke is not a “liberation theology.” It is a warning that we must forsake what we have built, not build back again, but abandon what Cain built to roam freely with the Lion in his land. As Paul said:

To borrow a term from psychology (one that I’ve used before), prophetic preaching keeps the disciple in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance, unable to fall back on the natural human instinct to reconcile our innate hypocrisies.

The teaching of Scripture is not “God is love.” The teaching of Scripture is “you are a hypocrite.”

Until you submit to this repetitive literary frame, you can’t hear what Moses said, let alone Jesus. You can’t be set free. That is why the Qur’an went to such great lengths to stress St. Paul’s teaching of submission.

Because the “children of the book” are no such thing. They still belong to Pharaoh.

This week, I discuss Luke 7:11-16.

Show Notes

The Hebrew word שַֽׁעַר (sha’ar) means “gate” or “entrance.” It corresponds to πύλη (pylē) in Luke 7:12, functional with Ruth 4:

This root relates to awareness, feeling, and literary expression in Arabic:

• شِعْر (shi‘r)—“poetry”: This is one of the most common words from this root, referring to poetry or verse, which is central to Arabic literary tradition.
• شَاعِر (shā‘ir) - “poet”: This word describes a person who composes poetry, playing a significant role in Arabic and Islamic culture.
• شَعَرَ (sha‘ara) - “to feel” or “to perceive”: This verb means to feel or become aware, capturing the idea of sensitivity or perception.
• مَشَاعِر (mashā‘ir) - “feelings” or “emotions”: This word, in the plural form, denotes feelings, emotions, or sentiments, often used to express emotional sensitivity.
• شعار (shi‘ār) “logo, emblem, or slogan”: identification or awareness through a symbol, slogan, or distinguishing mark, a “sign.”
• مَشْعَر (mash‘ar) - “place of awareness” or “sacred monument”: Used in Islamic contexts, mashʿar refers to a sacred or symbolic place, often in pilgrimage sites like Mashʿar al-Ḥarām near Mecca.

The word Ναΐν (Nain) is derived from the Hebrew word נָעִים (na'im), meaning “pleasant” or “lovely.” 

It, too, corresponds (prescriptively) to the books of Ruth נָעֳמִי (Naomi) but also to the Qur’an. For reference: 

• “Blessing,” “favor,” “bounty” (ni‘mah): نِعْمَة  “And if you count the blessings of God, you will not be able to enumerate them.” (Surah Ibrahim, 14:34)
• “Bliss,” “luxury,” “delight” (na‘īm): نَعِيم “In gardens of delight.” (Surah Al-Waqi’ah, 56:12)
• “To live in ease or comfort” (na‘ama): نَعَمَ “And for you in them are many comforts.” (Surah Al-Mu’minun, 23:21)
• “Bestower of blessings,” “benevolent one” (mun‘im): مُنْعِم “And indeed, your Lord is the Forgiving, Possessor of great bounty.” (Surah An-Najm, 53:32)
• “Soft,” “gentle,” “smooth” (nā‘im): نَاعِم “[Some] faces, that Day, will be radiant.” (Surah Al-Ghashiyah, 88:8)
• “The blessings” (al-ni‘am): النِّعَم “They recognize the favor of God; then they deny it.” (Surah An-Nahl, 16:83)
• “Softness,” “ease,” “comfort” (na‘mah): نَعْمَة “Lest His punishment should befall you if you deny his blessing.” (Surah Ibrahim, 14:7)

Elitist intellectuals are drawn to the concept of a psychological trap because others’ suffering entertains them and because their perception of another's supposed trap reinforces their sense of self-importance and permanence. Poor Sartre, poor DNC, poor duopoly.

“The fool says in his heart, There is no Judge.”

I agree, Jean-Paul: for your spiritual children, there can be “No Exit.”

The local Judean elders, who should be hearing and repeating Jesus’s words, are more concerned with manipulating the goodwill of their Roman occupiers to further their political agenda. In turn, the Roman servant, manipulated by the elders, shows zeal for the Torah. Still, his life remains in disrepair because the people of the Synagogue love their “nation” and their shiny new Synagogue more than the words—the debarim—of Isaiah.

What right do the Judeans have to call anyone “worthy” or good? Their human judgment, assessment, and feedback “build” a house that Jesus does not enter and a Synagogue that ultimately rejects him.

Is there an exit from Sartre’s hell? 

Yes. Clearly. 

French existentialism, like postmodernism, is silly.

There is only one Judge.

Stop listening to the people of Capernaum and start following Jesus. Imitate the obedience of the Centurion, who did not accept accolades from the people of Judaea but received instead the one vote that counts.

This week, I discuss Luke 7:1-10. 

Show Notes

ἔντιμος (éntimos) “precious,” “honored,” “honorable in rank” (Luke 7:2) aligns with יקר (yāqār) in Hebrew, which can function as “heavy,” “valuable,” “honored,” “dignified,” “dear,” or—relevant to Luke 7:2, 1 Peter 2:4 and 1 Peter 2:6—“precious.” The Arabic root و-ق-ر (waw-qaf-ra) implies dignity, and can funtion as “to honor.”

• وَقَار (waqār) — Dignity or solemnity. This word is often used to describe a person’s respectful or dignified demeanor.

• وَقِرَ (waqira) — To be weighty or important. In this form, it implies something substantial or of significant value.

• وَقَّرَ (waqqara) — To honor or respect. This is the form II verb (with shadda on the middle letter), meaning “to show respect or honor,” often used in contexts where someone honors or reveres another.

• تَوْقِير (tawqīr) — Reverence or high regard. This noun, derived from form II of the root, refers to the act of showing respect or esteem, often used in formal or respectful contexts.

• مُتَوَقِّر (mutawaqqir) — Dignified or solemn person. This adjective describes a person who carries themselves with dignity, calmness, and respectability.

• وَقُور (waqūr) — A dignified or composed person. This adjective describes someone who possesses an aura of respect, often used for people who are calm, collected, and reverent.

The Hebrew root רפא (rafa) is rich in function related to healing, repairing, and recovering, extending across various Semitic languages. Arabic uses the verb رَفَأَ, (rafa'a) “to mend or repair,” with a similar connotation. 

ἔντιμος (éntimos) also aligns to חֹר (ḥor), “free,” or “noble” 

• حُرّ (ḥurr) freeborn

• حرية (ḥurriya) “freedom” or “liberty

• حرر (ḥarrara): To liberate or set free

ἔντιμος appears only in Luke 7:2, 1 Peter 2:4, 1 Peter 2:6 and Philippians 2:29. 

The folly of human construction is similar to that of large language models. Noam Chomsky talks about this in his famous critique of the current state of artificial intelligence and the absence of scientific analysis. We imagine that these expansive predictive systems are creative. Sure, they are impressive, even helpful—for good and ill—and yes, they will likely replace or change your job, but these tools are not creative. They simply regurgitate what was already found before the LLMs themselves were made functional.

LLMs validate the power of syntax. In effect, a machine is Sola Syntaxis: by merely observing word order and function at scale, it can channel the content of a written text without philosophical abstraction or creativity. LLMs do not comprehend. A machine does not tell you what it thinks, feels, or experiences. Yet, it can often accurately repeat what is found in a text, unlike theologians and philosophers, who are tripped up by human creativity and reason.

At the same time, if you ask an LLM a question about a data set, instead of analyzing the data, it will accurately repeat what other people have said about that data. In that case, it often sounds as stupid as we do.

I believe the marketing people and even some programmers when they say that they do not understand how these systems work because they are neither scientists nor grammarians. They are capitalists, digital tycoons, corporate shills, and engineers. You know, the people who control education, media, politics, and religion in the West in the service of making a buck or pursuing their dreams.

I, myself, am not an expert. The industry may or may not be close to general artificial intelligence. Then again, food, water, and medicine may or may not reach Palestinian children who may or may not be in mortal danger and who may or may not deserve the same benefits upon which you gorge yourself daily. I don't need the Holocaust media to tell me that. I heard it in the Torah.

But hey, ignorance is strength, Habibi.

Whether or not large language models become creative, I do not doubt that industry will leverage them in harmful and destructive ways as we do with all technology—as we already have in West Asia because “nothing changes under the sun.”

But that’s the point. An LLM is just a mechanism of regurgitation. Ask it a question, and you get the same old answer, just faster, at scale. It does a miraculous job of aggregating, processing, regurgitating, and predicting more of the same more efficiently. That’s what human construction is. You take something that was there at the world’s foundation—something you did not create—and rearrange it. You can’t make something new because you are not the builder. The environmental crisis is just more damage piled up. Even the nuclear bomb, as ugly and stupid as it is, is just a bigger bomb. There’s nothing to brag about. It’s not new. It’s just bigger and dumber. You, O man, can’t make one hair on your head black or white.

Or do you have an arm like God? Can you thunder with a voice like his? (Job 40:9)

Unfortunately, I’m convinced that most of you, based on where you are found in the Parable of the Sower, are convinced that you do thunder with a voice like God’s—best of luck to you.

This week, I discuss Luke, chapter 6, verses 46 to 49.

Show Notes

In the original consonantal Hebrew, “sin” and “shin” are not differentiated; the reader must infer the correct pronunciation. Is Paul, the self-proclaimed “ἀρχιτέκτων” of 1 Corinthians 3:10, the חֶ֫רֶשׁ (ḥeresh)—the expert “artisan” or the wise חֶֽרֶשׂ (ḥeres), “earthen vessel” of Isaiah 3:3?

The Arabic function ح-ر-ش (ḥāʾ-rāʾ-shīn) conveys usages that relate to pottery, for example, “to scratch” or “to be rough” but functions more broadly concerning acts of incitement, provocation, and can mean “to stir up.” 

• حَرَشَ (ḥarasha)– to incite or stir up (as in creating conflict).
• تحريش (taḥrīsh) – incitement, provocation, or stirring up discord.

The Greek term πλήμμυρα (plēmmyra), “flood,” occurs only once in the New Testament (Luke 6:48) and only once in the LXX:

In Arabic, عَسَقَ (‘asaq) means “to commit injustice” or “to oppress” and extends to wrongful treatment or exploitation.

This week, Fr. Paul underscores how the Septuagint’s different ordering and classification of texts impact our ability to hear the words of God correctly, shifting Chronicles from the Ketubim to historical books, reframing them as historical events rather than wisdom writings. The same can be seen with Daniel’s placement between Ezekiel and the Twelve, which undermines its resonance as wisdom literature. (Episode 330)

For all you lost souls, reading books about how to be a better parent; For all you disciples of neoliberalism, believers in the new fascism, the elitist colonialism repackaged in a delusion tailor-made for people lured by the flattery of progress, fooled by a “new world” where the enlightened trample on the dead, comforted by the lie that they know better than all those who have ever lived, I have news for you:

It’s not “good” news; it’s just news, but if you insist on labeling it, please consider it “bad news.”

According to the Gospel of Luke, “a tree is known by its fruit.”

Now, before you get together with your breakfast buddies and start gossiping about each other’s children, again, I have “news” for you, Habibi.

You are gossiping.

Oops!

Like Jesus said, there is no such thing as a “good” teacher or a “good” parent because, as far as the eye can see, there has never been a family tree that has produced a “good” result.

You, Habibi, are the blind guide, just like the rest of us.

Let’s assume for a moment that the Platonic principle of the “moral arc of history” isn’t wishful thinking and make the wild assumption that you are an improvement on your parents, an incremental step forward, part of the sum total of history your ancestors and your society have achieved.

What’s the result?

What’s happening now in the world after everything supposedly learned by man less than a century ago? What did we learn? Did the war ever stop?

Did we “grow” in humility? Never mind that you can’t “grow” into something small. It’s a foolish statement, an antinomy.

No, our behavior has not improved, as evidenced by your parents’ fruit and yours.

We used to use religion to whitewash our tombs. Now, we use liberal values, which cynically ridicule religion while embracing the fiction of religious nationalism in West Asia to justify the desperate agenda of the dollar. In the end, the mechanism—the function—is the same. In the modern West, our heartfelt, introspective, socially conscious, “normie” liberal values are leveraged as the new opium of the people: “bread and circuses” as the elitist machine rages forward.

Luke’s message is clear: There is no such thing as progress. We are no better than our parents; the judgment of Genesis 6 is written, and God almighty has spoken the truth. We dare not test him.

No human tree ever bears good fruit. If there is any hope, we must put our hope in him.

This week, I discuss Luke 6:43-45.

Show Notes

The Hebrew עֵץ (‘eṣ) can refer to “tree,” “timber,” “wood,” or even a “handle.” It has a functional connection to עצה (‘eṣah), which pertains to advice or counsel. In Arabic عِضَاه (‘iḍāh) can refer to thorny trees and shrubs commonly found in arid or desert regions. Aligns to δένδρον (dendron) in Luke 6:43. 

In Arabic, sanan (سنن) is multi-functional. Though not directly used as “thorn” or “bush,” its root س-ن-ن (sīn-nūn-nūn) pertains to things like “point” or “sharp edge” and can relate to the idea of something pointed or thorn-like. The plural form, sunan, refers to “customs” or “practices,” particularly those of the Prophet Muhammad, known as Sunnah (سُنَّة), recalling, from the Bible, that wisdom has an edge and cuts against the grain:

When a student plays teacher with an earthen vessel, there comes a moment in their imaginary dialogue when the trust they thought they had is broken. It's not broken, of course, because the dialogue itself was platonic. It's akin to the crisis of faith a student has when they hear the Bible clearly for the first time and realize the Jesus they heard about in Sunday school is not the Jesus of the gospels. This crisis of trust is a sudden realization that the point of reference for the imaginary dialogue in your head is not the point of reference for the liberating monologue that breaks through to you from the lips of the earthen vessel. Your platonic dialogue exemplifies “the blind leading the blind,” leading you into a snare inside your mind. To break free from this crisis of faith, you must move past your confession that you don't trust the earthen vessel. You must realize the truth, namely, that it is the Torah that you do not trust. You trust in yourself and your construct of the blind leading the blind. You value the comfort of blindness more than the teaching of God. So, Habibi, you have to make a choice. The comfort of the snare and the pit, the blue pill, or the difficulty of the painful thing you don't trust, the red pill, which comes to you through the earthen vessel, the bitter delivery mechanism of God's monologue.

The problem, of course, is that the red pill shares nothing in common with everything about you. 

You can't find one book in your library, one stance in any corner of your broken premises that shares anything in fellowship with the red pill. Every time it is offered, it seems wrong and untrustworthy—the red pill, not the vessel, or is it the pill? Can you even decide which one you don't trust?

This week, I discuss Luke 6:41-42. 

Show Notes

Also, κάρφος does not appear in Paul’s letters, only in Matthew 7:3 and Luke 6:41.

The triliteral root of (qorah), which typically functions as “beam,” “rafter,” or “timberwork,” and is associated with houses and walls. It aligns with the Greek, δοκός (beam), clumsily translated as “log” by colonial/neoliberal scholars attempting to make sense of what they perceive as “oriental” hyperbole. 

Combining “function” and Tarazi’s “itinerant word” methodology, we learn instead that the word קֹרָה (qorah) usually refers to the construction of houses and, finally, the Temple of Solomon. (1 Kings 7:2)

Once you hear the biblical text and understand that the Bible satirizes and dismantles the arrogance and foolishness of war, political schemes, government powers, and the absurdity of any ruling authority, you can’t hear the Old Testament without bursting into laughter, the way that God laughs at us. 

The gift of biblical satire—with all its fury—is true freedom from the historical tyranny of the hell that surrounds us. 

Thank God that God judges and condemns us in the Bible. Only a monster would bless the monsters we are: men and women who do such monstrous things in his name, using his book, which lays out the epic parables of our monstrous forbears, whose legacy we are so desperate to manifest as our “new” destiny in West Asia. 

I challenge all of you to find one inch of Western society that hasn’t been coopted, sold, or sold itself out to slogans or navel-gazing. 

There are signs of hope, always, but we can count on our Western institutions to fight against them in the name of the almighty dollar. 

After all, our institutions were established by David and administered by Absalom. Ah, yes, “A student is not above his teacher.”

This week, I discuss Luke 6:39-40.

Show Notes

In Arabic, the word أَعْوَر ( ’a‘war) means “one-eyed” or “having one eye.” עִוֵּר corresponds to τυφλός in Luke 6:39, which also appears in Romans 2:19. 

The corresponding term βόθυνος (bothynos) does not appear in the New Testament, except in some Greek manuscripts where it onlyappears in Luke 6:39.

Why is there violence in the Bible?

Why did the authors of Deuteronomy present parables of genocide? 

Why did the gospel writers posit a story about tribal, religious, and political betrayals, acts of treason, and violent acts by the hand of God? 

Why do both Testaments deal with war, cruelty, violence, and the threat of God's wrath? 

The New Testament is not new in its content. It is the same old content directed at a new audience.

The Bible is not a bunch of broken fragments from different writers patched together arbitrarily. This is a boring orientalist theory invented by German colonial scholars that nobody who knows what they are talking about takes seriously anymore.

J,E,D,P,Q. The last one is my favorite. If you can't find the source, there must be an all-powerful imaginary source called “Q.” It was such an excellent idea that Gene Roddenberry named an entire race of fictional narcissistic deities “Q.” Good job, biblical scholarship! You're so “mystical.”

For heaven's sake, pick up a copy of Tarazi and catch up.

As inconvenient as it is for Westernized (Hellenized) Christians, Paul's teaching of grace—his repurposing of Roman gratia in submission to the teaching of the Cross—was a reapplication of Deuteronomy's literary wrath against Israel's sense of self-entitlement and self-importance. A redirection of God's judgment against the latest monsters to invade and occupy Mesopotamia. Deuteronomy was something like a “directed conversation” held indirectly with all parties in which God himself warns everyone, beginning with Israel:

The New Testament repeats this warning to a new audience: 

This verse or “sign” is the novelty of the prophetic self-destruction of the Temple and of the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, and its sign is clear: the Emperor has no clothes.

I wish Congress understood Deuteronomy. But how could they? Even Western scholars, let alone the clergy, don’t get it.

Remember, the writers of the Torah, who wrote under the pen name “Moses,” were something akin to disillusioned and disaffected State Department employees.

So why did Scripture deal with violence head-on, placing all violence in the hands of the unseen and indepictable God? Let me count the ways for you. For all of you “evolved” and “enlightened” Westerners.

The following are notable genocides and massacres committed by invaders against occupied populations, starting from the Mesopotamian era through the Greek and Roman periods.

• Conquest of Sumerian City-States by Sargon of Akkad (2334–2279 BC)
• Gutian Invasion and Destruction of Akkad (2150 BC)
• Destruction of Ur by the Elamites and Amorites (2004 BC)
• Destruction of Mari by Hammurabi (1761 BC)
• Destruction of Babylon by the Hittites (1595 BC)
• Elamite Conquest of Babylon (1155 BC)
• Assyrian Destruction of Susa (647 BC)
• Destruction of Babylon by Assyrians (689 BC)
• Persian Conquest of Elam (540 BC)
• Destruction of Thebes (335 BC)
• Siege of Tyre (332 BC)
• Destruction of Carthage (146 BC)
• Massacre of the Lusitanians (150 BC)
• Gallic Wars (58–50 BC)

If you want to get a sense of the cruelty and horror of each of these events, read Deuteronomy!

“NOTHING CHANGES UNDER THE SUN.” 🍉

This week, I discuss Luke 6:38.

Show Notes

• The triliteral root for the Hebrew word מִדָּה (middah) is מ-ד-ד (mem-dalet-dalet), which generally relates to the concept of measuring or measuring out. It corresponds to μέτρον in Luke 6:38. Its various uses can function as measures, portions, or the act of measuring something. The corresponding root in Arabic is م-د-د (mīm-dāl-dāl). This root generally relates to extension, lengthening, or spreading. Words derived from this function can include مدّ (madda), meaning "to extend" or "to stretch out," and مِقدار (miqdār), meaning "measure" or "amount."

Here are some common Arabic words derived from this function:

1. مَدَّ (madda) - to extend, stretch, or lengthen.
2. مَدّ (madd) - extension, lengthening, or a stretch.
3. مِدَاد (midād) - ink (historically referred to the extension of writing).
4. مُدَّة (mudda) - duration or period of time.
5. مِقدار (miqdār) - amount, measure, or quantity.
6. مَديد (madīd) - long or extended.
7. مُتَمَدِّد (mutamaddid) - stretched out, lying down, or expanded.
8. تَمْدِيد (tamdīd) - extension or prolongation.
9. مَامُود (mamūd) - a well-known old term meaning praised or extended (rare usage).
10. إِمْدَاد (imdād) - reinforcement, support, or supply.

• The triliteral root for the Hebrew word נתן (natan) is נ-ת-נ (nun-tav-nun). This root generally means “to give” or “to grant.” It is used in various contexts to denote acts of giving, granting, or placing. It corresponds to the word δίδωμι in Luke 6:38.

This week, Fr. Paul emphasizes that the hearing of scripture is a literary battleground where various traditions compete for control over its meaning. He critiques how translations like the Septuagint and later Christian adaptations have altered the original intent of the Hebrew consonantal text, arguing that figures such as Philo and Josephus Flavius laid the groundwork for this betrayal.

The word “آية” (āyah) in Arabic refers to a “verse” in Scripture. It can also mean a “sign” or “miracle.” Its root in Semitic is ء-ي-ي (hamza-ya-ya) or ء-ي-ن (hamza-ya-nun), depending on the classical derivation one follows.

The equivalent of “آية” (āyah) in biblical Hebrew is אוֹת (’ot), which means “sign,” "proof," or “mark.”

In Exodus, God himself spoke to Moses. The fact that God spoke is itself the sign, and Moses, in turn, is his sign—living proof of God's promise: “Certainly I will be with you, and you shall worship me.”

In Exodus, Moses is living, functional proof that God himself has spoken. Moses is the ’ot elohim, the “آية الله” (āyat allāh), the “sign of God,” the ”proof of God” to Pharaoh.

But as Moses confirms in Deuteronomy, the signs in Exodus are not the miracles and wonders themselves, but rather, the verses that carry them, the āyāt that record what God has spoken. These verses serve as the true “signs,” the otot that carry God’s will and instruction to the people.

In turn, all those who proclaim these verses—for example, Jesus in Luke’s Gospel—are judged by those who shun God. Yet, in fulfillment of God’s command, even Jesus would not judge them before the time. His only purpose was to give God’s signs as proof in anticipation of the one Judge whose Kingdom rules over all.

This week, I discuss Luke 6:37.

Show Notes

• The word “āyāt” in Arabic is written as آيات. It is the plural form of “āyah” (آية), which means “verse” or “sign” and is commonly used to refer to the verses of the Abrahamic texts. “They have sold the proofs' of God at a cheap price and turned away from? His path; evil is what they did.” (Surah Al-Tawbah 9:9) 

• To judge, to rule or govern, a judgment, to administer justice. 
• Related to the function ש-ל-מ (mem-sheen-lamed), mashal—can signify a parable but also signifies ruling, judging, and making comparisons. It can also mean “to rule” or “to have dominion.” In Arabic م-ث-ل (mīm-thāʾ-lām) is “to resemble” or “to compare” مثل (mathal).

• To be wicked, to act wickedly. A wicked person. In Arabic, رَسَعَ can mean looseness or slackness of limbs. From the Hadith of Ibn Amr ibn al-As: “بَكَى حَتَّى رَسَعَتْ عينُهُ” (baka hatta rasa‘at ‘aynu) “He cried until his eye changed, became damaged, or its eyelids stuck together.” The word رَسَعَتْ (rasa‘at) here means: 1. Changed or became altered, 2. Became damaged or corrupted, 3. The eyelids stuck together due to excessive crying. Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari. al-Nihāya fī Gharīb al-Hadīth wa-l-Athar. d. 1210, Arabic Lexicon.