Up to Leviticus

I'm up to Leviticus in The Good Book, and I've mainly been comparing it's commentary along with it's perspective and contemporary tone of voice difference to The Bible. Thus far, I'm trying to figure out what God really wants for humans to "do." What I'm looking for in each story is a moral to remember it by, and, sure, there are plenty of rules of thumb. In fact, God acts a lot like a roughneck Dad. He wants you to know that as long as you're under his roof you're going to follow his rules. You are punishable if any of these rules are broken, and there are a flippin' lot of 'em.

The tough thing I'm trying to get over is the fact that we don't know any of these anonymous writers. Their words sometimes overlap, but sometimes their writings conflict. Then again, the U.S. Constitution wasn't written with one opinion.

Genesis seems to lay the foundation, literally and figuratively, of where we live and who's the land's main rulers. Genesis and Exodus give us stories which act somewhat like parables, and you're supposed to find the underlying moral in the, what I would call, usually short amount of scripture. Also, the heralded Ten Commandments is a highlight of the initial rules of the Bible which continue throughout Leviticus. Additionally, I didn't know that Leviticus consisted of mainly rules and rituals. I traced back the word "Leviticus" (the Greek meaning: "relating to the Levites"--the Hebrew meaning: "and He called"), and it lead to Levi [who'da thunk?], founder of the Israelite tribe of Levi. Were these Levites the soul developers of the third book of the Torah? How many were there? Their written laws vary from contemporary common sense to convoluted, close-minded conservatism (and yes, I'm reading it 'in-context' as well I can), much of which is punishable by death, pain, exile, or even just forcing yourself to bath. I think that It'd be interesting if one person wrote The Bible. How would the almighty code differ?

Now think back on the first two books of Genesis; two different writers, right? Maybe the second writer was reading the first's article on the presumed creation of the world and thought, "Oh heck nah, and here's my two cents." He's an analyst, critic, and writer; another David Plotz from the old, old days.

I have a hard time believing The Bible when Plotz is so much, for lack of a better word, fun to read. I mean, even if the first story is true then can't the second story act as an imagination exercise. The problem is, where does reality split from imagination when adapting your perspective in written work?