What Is Not There Can't Be Counted

2 Samuel 3:6-21

 6 While there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner was making himself strong in the house of Saul. 7 Now Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah daughter of Aiah. And Ishbaal said to Abner, "Why have you gone in to my father's concubine?" 8 The words of Ishbaal made Abner very angry; he said, "Am I a dog's head for Judah? Today I keep showing loyalty to the house of your father Saul, to his brothers, and to his friends, and have not given you into the hand of David; and yet you charge me now with a crime concerning this woman. 9 So may God do to Abner and so may he add to it! For just what the LORD has sworn to David, that will I accomplish for him, 10 to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul, and set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan to Beer-sheba." 11 And Ishbaal could not answer Abner another word, because he feared him. (New Revised Standard Version)

-OR-

 8 These words of Ish-Boshet’s enraged Avner. “What am I,” he shouted, “[that you treat me with such contempt]? A dog’s head in Y’hudah? Till this moment I have shown only kindness to the house of Sha’ul your father, and to his brothers and to his friends; and I haven’t handed you over to David. Yet you choose today to pick a fight with me over this woman!  9 May God bring terrible curses on Avner and worse ones yet if I don’t accomplish what Adonai swore to David —  10 to transfer the kingdom from the house of Sha’ul and set up the throne of David over Isra’el and Y’hudah, from Dan all the way to Be’er-Sheva!”  11 Ish-Boshet couldn’t answer Avner a word, because he was afraid of him. (Complete Jewish Bible)

 

It was odd how I went through about 10 different commentaries trying to figure out what “a dog’s head for Judah” meant; what made Abner so angry; and what Abner meant when he said “So may God do to Abner and so may he add to it!” It wasn’t until I switched translations that it made any kind of sense. I am beginning to believe that many Bible commentaries are highly prejudicial, and over-influenced by preconceptions. I think that the plain sense of the grammar and sentence construction should be the first consideration. If that does not make sense, then what is the point of writing a commentary that tries to wrench meaning from muddle? It’s in the Jewish Bible that verse 9 finally makes sense! It even carries over idiomatically into modern usage: “May God curse me if I don’t do this!” (Whatever it is.) So it all comes down to politics, and wars over territory. Abner’s defensiveness, petulance and power-politics reminds me very much of the current situation in the White House. Infighting, shifting allegiances, backbiting, cursing, intimidating, and peevish accusations born out of insecurity. Some commentaries suggest that Abner was a “sinner” in that he knew he was on the wrong side but still supported Ish-boshet because of his own self-interest. It was only when he got his feelings hurt that he switched sides, for no reason other than petty revenge against Ish-Boshet, and not because he believed David’s claim to the throne was legitimate. Quoting from Ecclesiastes:

9

So in truth, nothing changes under the sun.

what has been done is what will be done,

and there is nothing new

under the sun.

10

Is there something of which it is said,

“See, this is new”?

It existed already in the ages before us. 

11

No one remembers the people of long ago;

and those to come will not be remembered

by those who come after them.

*****

15

What is crooked can’t be straightened;

what is not there can’t be counted.

I don’t know if it’s a relief or not, to realize that in all of human history the vain have shoved and shouted their way into prominence, and bragged; the cruel have terrorized the defenseless, and gloated; the profiteers have betrayed the trust of the innocent, and sniggered; the petulant have cut off their nose to spite their face, and whined that it isn’t their fault.

Nothing’s changed, and I suppose we can take some comfort from knowing that we’ve survived it all many times before, but there’s still a deep desolation in the knowledge that we never remember it, or learn from it, and so it will never change.

 

Acts 16:6-15

8 so, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. 9 During the night Paul had a vision: there stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him and saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." 10 When he had seen the vision, we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia… (bold text mine)

 

It may be insignificant, but my eye was caught by the pronoun shift from “they” to “we.” The prevailing view in biblical scholarship is that the author of Acts was an actual eyewitness to events, who joined Paul personally at this point. This is borne out by a later shift back to “they,” perhaps indicating that the writer stayed behind at that point in the narrative. As I researched this pronoun shift, I found myself being swayed by the “redactor” theory that that says the “we” section represents an interpolation from an earlier source that was written by an eyewitness to events. It would have been copied into the larger text verbatim, by the person who wrote Acts. There is compelling textual evidence that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author. It would make sense that this person was compiling his books from a variety of sources that he believed were reliable. In that case, whoever it was that wrote Acts must have been a scholar. I can almost see him, bent over a table piled with bits of parchment and scrolls held down against the breeze with polished stones, in some sunny Roman villa in Troas or Philippi with tessellated pavement and rosebushes in urns along the courtyard colonnade.

 

Mark 6:30-46

31 He said to them, "Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest a while."

 

I’ve been searching lately for truly deserted places, places with no people where there is quiet, and shade, and maybe birdsong and running water. I’m afraid that they no longer exist, or worse, that they do but can’t be found by the means available to modern wanderers. I keep hoping to find the right Google search terms to bypass all the advertisers, the resort managers, the campground reservation sites, and the complacent assumption that I will want to go to “popular” places. I mourn for the lost childhood days when my father would flip a coin at some crossroads. When we would pass the time by singing songs in the car. When the road was hot and dusty and the only air-conditioning we could get was the breeze from the wing-windows. When we had a book revered by travelers, a sacred tome known as “The Campground Guide,” which has now passed out of all recollection. When we had our favorite places, but they were insignificant to everyone but us; one rest stop out of all the others that had the best view; one little restaurant in a tiny backwater town that had the best french fries and milkshakes; one place hidden away in the Colorado mountains where the wranglers would let us rent a horse all day without a guide; one old mine museum where the peculiar proprietor entertained himself by sawing firewood on an antique sawmill, and delivering it to all his campground guests for free. I don’t know how to find those kinds of places now, and I’m afraid the ones I knew have disappeared forever. I have looked in what I thought were likely places, but I’ve only found old beer cans, candy wrappers, and dirty disposable diapers among the underbrush. I long for old companions and old songs, but lacking those, I wish for the courage to keep trying to find a deserted place all by myself, and rest awhile.