Searching for Ryan Hunter, Dreams, Psalm 29

1.  My WordPress stats jumped dramatically today, and I think I know why.  The Sci Fi Channel had a Joan of Arcadia marathon today, and people (like me a year or two ago) have been left hanging with the last episode.  Is Ryan Hunter good, bad, or neither?  What role will Joan’s friends and mom play in Joan’s battle with Ryan?  Since I posted links to fan-fiction, which you can access by clicking on “Joan of Arcadia Season 3″ underneath this post, people are flocking to this site and leaving it to visit the stories of MShaffer, Charles the Bold, Neias, and others.

I just watched this episode for the second time.  This time around, I wasn’t mad at there not being a Season 3 on television, as I was when I watched the episode the first time.   I’ve seen various attempts to continue the story, and there are ways that I’d continue it, if I knew how to write fiction.  It’s been a while since I read fan-fiction on Ryan Hunter, but there are some things I wished it addressed.  For example, I don’t recall the charism of Joan’s mom (i.e., dreams, premonitions) being used that much.  I also don’t remember the dead little boy popping up either, though Judith did.  Also, I wish the fan-fiction presented Ryan making a deal with the devil, which would explain why a fierce wind blows in his aftermath.  But maybe the fan-fiction addressed some of those things, and I don’t remember it.  The fan-fiction did an excellent job showing why Ryan Hunter was mad at God, however.  I also want to add that I haven’t read all of the fan-fiction.  I read how MShaffer and Neias treated Ryan, but I haven’t yet read Charles the Bold, who has a lot of first-person character studies.  I hope to get to that sometime.

Enjoy the fan-fiction!  I enjoyed listening to the Lady in the Water soundtrack while I read it.  It was a therapeutic experience!

2.  In Ancient Israelite Religion, I read “Aspects of Aramean Religion,” by Jonas Greenfield.  What stood out to me today was the importance of dreams in ancient Near Eastern religion.  A god could appear to someone in a dream with a message of “Fear not.”  One figure, Keret, induced a dream athrough incubation (whatever that is) and was commanded therein “to sacrifice to the gods, to muster his troops, and to go on a campaign to acquire a wife” (73).  Even a god could see dreams.  The high god El knew that Baal (the storm god) had been dead for seven years, but he declared that Baal was alive after seeing a dream of rain and prosperity.  And the Mesha Stone says that King Mesha of Moab was told by the god Chemosh to attack Israel.   

Did they actually see these dreams?  Jeremiah 23:32 talks about dreams of deception.  Yet, Judges 11:24 appears to regard Chemosh as an actual god who blesses his people, Moab.  So would the biblical authors be open to the possibility that Chemosh could guide Mesha through a dream?  But God in II Kings 3 promises that Israel would defeat Mesha.  Both can’t be legitimate prophecies, can they?  Perhaps they can—it depends on which god is stronger and able to effect his will!  Yet, Israel failed to defeat Moab, either because Mesha’s sacrifice of his child appeased his god and led him to give the Moabites extra help, or because it disgusted the Israelites and made them withdraw.

Some of these dreams may reflect wishful thinking.  A person wants comfort, and he gets it in a dream.  Or he desires a wife, and a dream encourages him to go out and get one.  It’s somewhat like the topic of Rachel Held Evans’ blog-post for today, Does God Speak To You? :  Many Christians hear from God what they want to hear, which calls into question whether they’re hearing from God at all!

But I have heard stories about people dreaming of things they couldn’t have known on their own.  Ex-cessationist Jack Deere has some in his book, Surprised by the Voice of God.  These dreams enable God’s people to minister to others.

And dreams can also be a means for God to teach moral lessons, or to comfort and encourage.  Yes, skeptics can say that people in those cases are doing some “wishful dreaming,” but, as a person of faith, I believe that God can comfort people through dreams, as he can through other means, such as the reading of the Scriptures, sermons, and other people.

I read in some essay that the ancients believed dreams and the real-world were both aspects of reality.  Moderns would view dreams as fiction in our heads, or as real in the sense that they are windows into our sub-conscious.  But the ancients may have believed that dreams were from the gods.  We know they thought some were, at least. 

I had a weird dream yesterday.  It was 2000, and Al Gore was talking about the recount.  I told a person next to me that Bush would win, and that crucial events would occur during his Presidency: a terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, and a financial crisis, which I blamed on the government pushing unwise home-sales and people speculating with bad mortgages.  Surprisingly, the person believed me!  What’s the meaning of that, in terms of my own sub-conscious or reality, if dreams have a significance beyond myself (which may not be the case for all of them).

Anyway, now that I’ve written myself into this hole, on to number 3!

3.  I finished Matitiahu Tsevat’s The Meaning of the Book of Job and Other Biblical Studies.  Tsevat states on pages 196-197:

Imagine now the reaction of scholars should there come to light an ancient duplicate of a biblical text with Baal appearing where now we have Yhwh.  Our received text would by unanimous pronouncement be declared to be an Israelite adaptation of a Canaanite original.  But we need not appeal to imagine when, in fact, a biblical text, Psalm 29, has been and is, with mounting frequency, being identified as such in the absence of that imaginary duplicate or any other textual evidence deserving this name.

I long assumed that Psalm 29 came from a Canaanite hymn to Baal, for whom the Israelites substituted YHWH so they could use it for their own religion.  But Tsevat says there’s no evidence for this.  After reading that, I realized that I should check out why scholars believe Psalm 29 is a re-used Baal Psalm.

I didn’t read all of the relevant articles, but I looked at what Mitchell Dahood had to say about Psalm 29.  According to him, the discovery of Ugaritic Ras Shamra texts had unearthed parallels to Psalm 29 in Ugaritic literature.  But, as far as I can tell, there’s no actual “Psalm 29 to Baal” text in Ugaritic.  Here’s a Christian apologetic article, which has useful information: Apologetics Press – Pagan Mythology and the Bible.  But I’m sure there’s more to the issue than I found in my google search and reading of Dahood!

Another Joan, Season 3

I found this on a Joan of Arcadia fan site–the one where MShaffer has his stories. It’s another Season 3 of Joan, and it looks lengthy and well-written:

http://www.fanfiction.net/u/963303/CharlesTheBold

This should satisfy my Joan palate for a while! Before I get to that, though, I want to read MShaffer’s newest story, The Child, Part 2.

Judaism, Abortion, and Joan

I read MShaffer’s Joan of Arcadia: Season 3 episode, Episode 3.18, The Child, Part 1.

Joan’s brother Luke has gotten Grace pregnant. Luke wants Grace to abort the baby, for he just got into MIT (his lifelong dream) and doesn’t want the responsibility of raising a child. Grace, however, is reluctant. As she struggles with her options, she finds the answer to her dilemma in her Hebrew class. The instructor discusses Exodus 21:22-25, which states (in the KJV):

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

There is debate about what this passage means. Pro-choicers argue this: If the woman suffers a miscarriage, then the guilty party pays a fine. But if there is harm to the woman, then lex talionis (eye for eye, up to the death penalty) takes effect. By contrast, pro-lifers contend as follows: If the baby comes out of the woman not fully formed, then the guilty party pays a fine. But if there is damage to the baby, then lex talionis is brought into play. Is lex talionis (eye for eye, et al.) the punishment for harming the woman or the baby? That is the debate.

Grace’s Hebrew instructor opts for the “both” answer. After noting that the Hebrew word yeled in Exodus 21:22 means “child” and that Amos 1:13-14 condemns the Ammonites for deliberately ripping open pregnant women in Gilead, he offers the following conclusions about Exodus 21:22-25:

“This passage means the very opposite of what some who support abortion profess. In this case, the woman is accidentally struck, but if she or the child dies as a result, then the guilty party could be sentenced to death. This is the only instance in the Torah where involuntary manslaughter calls for the death penalty.”

I’m impressed by MShaffer’s command of the Hebrew language and the debate over Exodus 21:22-25. But, in terms of real life, would someone hear this sort of message in a temple or synagogue? I have my doubts for two reasons.

1. In the history of Judaism, you find the sort of position that Grace’s Hebrew instructor advocates–that the Torah mandates the death penalty for unintentionally causing the death of the fetus. It’s in the Septuagint’s translation of Exodus 21:22-25, Philo of Alexandria’s Special Laws 3:108-109, the Samaritan Targum, and Karaite commentators. The problem is that these are not the forms of Judaism that came to dominate in Jewish communities. The Septuagint and Philo represent Hellenistic Judaism, not the rabbinic Judaism that became normative for Jews after 70 C.E. The Samaritans were considered outsiders because they weren’t full Israelites, and the Karaites were a marginal voice within Judaism, which went the rabbinic route (even though the Karaites may have given us the Masoretic Text).

Palestinian and rabbinic Judaism, however, interpreted Exodus 21:22-25 to mean (1.) a fine for miscarriage, and (2.) lex talionis for harm to the mother. Josephus goes that route in Antiquities 4:278. Encyclopedia Judaica‘s well-documented article on “Abortion” (which I recommend, though I can’t cut-and-paste parts of it) characterizes the position of the rabbis and medieval codes as follows: Exodus 21:22-25 imposes a fine for unintentionally causing a miscarriage, but abortion is still prohibited within Judaism, except to save the life of the mother. There seems to be debate about whether or not the fetus is a person. Normative post-70 Judaism appears to have an anti-abortion position, but it’s not rooted in Exodus 21:22-25.

2. Grace could have heard an anti-abortion message in an orthodox Hebrew class, although I doubt it would have justified its beliefs from Exodus 21:22-25. But Grace is not orthodox, since she had a bat mitzvah, at which men and women were sitting together. In most orthodox synagogues, there are only bar mitzvahs (with some exceptions), and men and women sit apart.

Grace may be conservative or Reform. If she’s conservative, she could have heard an anti-abortion message, since conservatives are interested in the halacha. If she is Reform, however, then I seriously doubt that she would hear it. With the exception of one professor, most of my Reform Jewish colleagues with whom I’ve discussed abortion claim on the basis of Exodus 21:22-25 that the fetus is not a person. If they have any conservative leanings whatsoever, they usually relate to Israel. On abortion, however, they’re mostly pro-choice.

But I don’t mind Grace’s Hebrew teacher channeling the Septuagint, Philo, and the Karaites! Although they didn’t dominate within Judaism, they had their influence on the world. The Septuagint and possibly Philo were big in Christianity, and (as I said above) the Karaites may have given us the Masoretic Text.

Another Season 3 from Joan

I found this just now: Ryan Hunter: A Dot Com Millionaire. It’s someone’s “autobiography” of Ryan Hunter, the rich guy on Joan of Arcadia who saw God and has an ax to grind against him. I’ve not read it yet, and I’m not even sure if it’s finished. But I’m posting it here so I’ll have access to it.

Evil

What is the source of evil acts? I’ve been thinking about this today–basing my thoughts on things I’ve read and seen on television.

I recently resumed my reading of Joan of Arcadia, Season 3. As many of you know, Joan of Arcadia only lasted for two seasons, and the second season had a huge cliffhanger. Consequently, excellent writers have decided to continue the series online, with a virtual Season 3.  For the two versions, see here and here.

At the end of Season 2, we meet Ryan Hunter, a rich guy who (like Joan) has encountered God. His main difference from Joan is that he hates the Almighty.

How did he get to be this way? In the first version, God gave Ryan assignments to help people when he was younger, and the assignments interfered with his life and relationships. Ryan didn’t feel he could tell his friends about his experiences with God, since even his religious friend deemed such a scenario to be evidence of mental illness. As a result, Ryan became bitter and turned against God.

In the second version, God gives Ryan assignments in his youth, but Ryan turns against God when his girlfriend decides to become a nun. Ryan concludes that God has stolen his girl, and he resolves from that point on to undermine the Almighty. Ryan still has good in him, but he does bad things (i.e., destroying houses of worship).

I didn’t see the first scenario as significant enough by itself to turn Ryan against God. After all, Ryan had free will. He didn’t have to do the assignments that God gave him. He could have simply stopped carrying them out, without becoming bitter against God.

At first, the second scenario didn’t appeal to me either. “Why do writers today have to root everything in romance?,” I thought. But, as I contemplated the matter further, I realized that there may be a profound insight about evil here. A Christian thinker once said that evil is making something or someone other than God the object of our worship, and that something or someone may be good.

Take Revenge of the Sith, which is Episode III of Star Wars. Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader in an attempt to prevent his wife’s death. His evil began as a pursuit of good.

I was also thinking about evil as I watched Desperate Housewives last night. Orson Hodge has been stealing because he feels emasculated by the success of his millionaire wife, Bree. Here, pride and a low self-image (which can actually co-exist) is the cause of Orson’s evil.

Eedie’s husband Dave is mad at Mike Delfino because he killed Dave’s family in an automobile accident. So Dave pretends to be Mike’s best friend and lures him and Mike’s girlfriend, Katherine, into the woods. Dave’s goal is to kill Katherine and put Mike through the same grief that he has endured. Here, a sense of justice is the root of Dave’s evil.

Carlos’ ex-girlfriend is the vice-president of his company, and she treats the employees pretty shabbily. She makes them work long hours, and she yells at Carlos’ kids, thinking they belong to a Latino cleaning lady. She feels she has to be ruthless to make the company compete. Here, ambition and stress are the causes of her evil.

What can lead to goodness? I’m not sure. In another sub-plot of last night’s episode, Susan has compassion on her lawyer ex-husband as he experiences what he put her through years earlier: his wife left him to raise a child on his own. Susan could have been happy at this “justice,” but she had moved on years before, plus she didn’t want anyone to have to endure that kind of pain. She saw her husband as human, so she felt bad for him. Moving on. Letting time heal. Using pain as a means to become compassionate. Take from this what you will!

In the case of Ryan Hunter, I can understand why he is upset–in both versions of Season 3! Perhaps he should’ve focused on the fact that his assignments from God were helping people.

My New Obsession–Season 3 of Joan!

I’ve been reading two versions of Joan of Arcadia: Season 3. You can find them here and here.

For background on where season 2 ended, see my post, Joan of Arcadia, Season 3.

These authors are not Barbara Hall, the creator of the program, but I’m beginning to feel as if I’m watching the show when I read their work. There are times when I’m moved to tears, or sitting on the edge of my seat in suspense (I had to pull myself from my computer last night to go to bed!). And there are a few scenes that don’t strike me as all that believable. But that’s how it was with the real series. I mean, the drunk driver who paralyzed Kevin is suing Kevin’s family for emotional damages? Things don’t work that way in real life, do they?

Both versions of season 3 are taking different routes. One is slow and gradual, and the other cuts to the chase really fast. The first presents the villain of the story slowly ingratiating himself into Joan’s social environment, thereby putting Joan in isolation. And the other has Joan’s friends and family deciding at the outset to unite against the villain. I’m interested to see what the latter version does in the course of the series.

WWBHD–What would Barbara Hall do? I think that she’d start out with the first version, but she’d gradually get to the second. The second season ended at a climax, but after a climax comes the mendacity of real life. I’d expect Joan to go through her day-to-day life of carrying out her usual assignments for God, as she encounters the villain every now and then.

But we still must have another climax. God told Joan at the end of season 2 that he was preparing her for a spiritual battle, and he implied that her goofy friends would be part of her army. Moreover, Joan’s mother, Helen, has been having visions, which her spiritual advisor Lilly calls a “charism” (“gift”) from God. God has been giving her those dreams for a reason, so it’s only logical that they’d be a part of Joan’s battle with evil, or amorality, or disappointment with God, or whatever the new villain represents. So I think the second version jumps the gun a bit, but he gets to the juice that I was thirsty for when I saw the last episode of the second season.

One thing I’m hoping is that the characters grow in the course of these stories, since it would be so easy to copy the stereotypes of the TV characters rather than developing them. The author of the second version seems to be sensitive to this issue, since he explicitly notes that Grace has grown. At one point, Grace was against everything, since she’s quite the anarchist! But she decides to join Joan in her spiritual battle because she believes in her.

So this is my new obsession! I’m going to write some of my paper right now so I can read an episode or two later tonight. And Desperate Housewives is taping in the other room!

Joan of Arcadia, Season 3

I’m posting this so I’ll have access to it anytime I want. You know how bookmarks can get pretty crowded!

It’s Joan of Arcadia Virtual Season 3. As many of you know, Joan of Arcadia was cancelled after its second season. I don’t like the story being left hanging, so I’d like to read some effort to continue it. Granted, season 3 is not the work of those who actually wrote the series, but people in the general public can be creative and insightful, too.

At the end of season 2, we’re introduced to a new character who also hears from God, yet he’s not exactly good. The show’s writers called him evil, but that’s not really what I see. “God” did not label him “evil” but acknowledged that he did some pretty good things. For example, he rescued Joan’s ex-boyfriend, Adam (whom I don’t care for as a character, but that’s another story).

This character has issues with God. I’m not sure if he’s mad at him, or if he just likes to play games. He said God is a good debater, and he called Joan a worthy opponent. He’s taken over a local newspaper, a group that monitors the police, and the school board, plus he’s quite charismatic. And he may be the guy who’s been vandalizing local houses of worship.

God tells Joan that he (God) has been preparing her for this serious conflict, and he hints that her goofy friends may be instrumental in helping her defeat evil, or amorality, or whatever the new villain represents. And so we see the biblical motif of God using the base elements of the world to do his righteous will.

Shows about spirituality often touch on evil, since they probably feel that they have too. And it can get pretty cheesy. I can think of some pretty bad Touched by an Angel episodes that did this (e.g., bad Monica, “ooh, the light show!”). So maybe this “season 3″ of Joan of Arcadia will be good, and maybe it will not. It will be interesting to read!

UPDATE: MShaffer suggested another virtual season 3 link: mshaffer.livejournal.com/767.html