Steven Carr

The Bible is a book which classifies whole tribes of people as good or bad, simply because they belong to a particular tribe, and such a Biblical ethos has worked itself popular culture, as shown by Eagleton's use of the 'Philistine' meme.

Genesis 9 is one of the more blatant passages

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."

26 He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.

27 May God extend the territory of Japheth ;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his slave."

Declaring that it is divine will that one tribe be the slaves of other tribes is not good.

Of course, Eagleton says that the New Testament reformed all of that. 'This false consciousness is overthrown in the person of Jesus, who reveals the Father as friend and lover rather than judge. '

Which means that Eagleton implicitly condemns religions which do not accept the New Testament.

But then it was a very badly thought out review...

one allegiance

Even if it was...the Bible doesn't claim to be politcally correct.

Laura D.

First, I blush and confess that I had not yet read Mr. Eagleton’s review. My defense of philistine and vandal was purely selfish. I am quite sure that if the time came to break out a litany of insults, I would prefer philistine to jackass, vandal to barbarian.

It appears, however, we have reached that exalted state of correct consciousness whereby such terms are now racist. So I consider whether to excise these ancient—albeit Biblically derived—terms from my vocabulary. In defense, I note that writers recognized for their wit, style and grace such as Steve Plinket still retain philistine in their vocabularies (albiet not in the blatantly ad hominem context of our dear Mr. Eagleton). See e.g., Less Faith, More Reason by Steven Pinker, Harvard Crimson (October 27, 2006).

Second, I turn to Mr. Eagleton’s review. How do I put this? Imagine someone holding forth on Dawkins whose only knowledge of rhetoric and review is the Book of Bitter Blather, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Terry Eagleton on The God Delusion. It’s not a review, it’s a rant. I would call his effort to critique Mr. Dawkins’ ideas nominal, but that grossly overstates the case. I might suspect he lacks the qualifications to do so, but then I too would be guilty of ad hominem attack.

In reading this review, I could not ascertain whether The God Delusion is worth reading. It was only apparent to me that Mr. Eagleton does not care much for Mr. Dawkins himself. I contemplated calling Mr. Eagleton a philistine, but I prefer not to appear racist. So I refrain.

If you would read a legitimate critique, I recommend that of Jim Holt in the October 22, 2006, New York Times. While you may disagree with Mr. Holt, his style, critical analysis, and overall discourse exceeds greatly Mr. Eagleton's efforts.

Laura

Toto

It doesn't?? The Bible does claim to be (more or less) inerrant and a font of all wisdom. But this is disproven again and again. The Bible endorses slavery and the oppression of women and other subordinate groups. Are you going to dismiss all modern progress towards equality and human self-worth as just "politically correct" as if it were just a choice of fashion?

</rant>

In any case, barbarian is another of those words. It means non-Greek.

Toto

more on ethnic words used in a negative fashion on the Volokh conspiracy. The only other Biblical slur that is mentioned is "Sodomite."

Laura D.

Excellent cite (or site as you choose). So helpful in my quest to blue-line more potentially racist, political incorrectness. But the primary reason for this post is to correct my earlier missive by noting the non-Biblical origin of vandal (sloppy writing on my part).

To make up for it, I offer Scythian as yet another word we might eschew. Thankfully, however, slubberdegullion remains safe. If only on the ground that it's etymology is sufficiently obscure.

Laura

Steven Carr

You should definitely avoid calling people scythian , if the aim of your essay is that scythes have only ever been used for peaceful , beneficial purposes.

Perhaps if Dawkins had written a piece attacking Hitler, we should respond that only an Untermensch would write such an entartete book.

hinduwoman

Anyway Philistines are all dead, so they cannot sue anyone.

Jabu Khan

Yes but the point of its irony is they still existed when those bible versus were written

BH

Well, if you daughter married someone from North Africa or Spain it is quite possible that he is part Vandal.