Was at a little local group movie night and we watched Pulp Fiction… one thought comes to mind that I never really came up with a good answer for…
Samuel L. Jackson’s character says that he’s quoting Ezekiel 25:17. And while the sentiment he’s expressing is basically in various places in the Bible, the actual text is only kind of close to the passage he claims to have memorized. It DOES talk about the vengeance of the Lord, but it does not talk about the path of the righteous man being beset on all sides by evil. In fact, there isn’t anything like that anywhere in the vicinity, as best as I can tell.
So… given that a) the script draws specific attention to the quote and b) it’s not a “good” quoting of the Bible… what do you suppose that might mean?
Some of my own thoughts:
[ul]
[li]Inaccurate quoting of the Bible shows that Jules is still quite flawed, but even (or especially) the flawed can be saved.[/li][li]In things like witch trials it was assumed those possessed by evil spirits could not read the Bible verbatim. Suspects were asked to read or recite a passage and if they missed a word they were presumed to be under the influence of evil.[/li][li]The director thought he could find some cool-sounding “Terrible Swift Sword” language to put in the dialog, but in fact that’s more often PASSAGES then it is lines… so he had to paraphrase.[/li][li]It’s just thrown in there so nerds like me will still be talking about the movie.[/li][/ul]
Was at a little local group movie night and we watched Pulp Fiction… one thought comes to mind that I never really came up with a good answer for…
Samuel L. Jackson’s character says that he’s quoting Ezekiel 25:17. And while the sentiment he’s expressing is basically in various places in the Bible, the actual text is only kind of close to the passage he claims to have memorized. It DOES talk about the vengeance of the Lord, but it does not talk about the path of the righteous man being beset on all sides by evil. In fact, there isn’t anything like that anywhere in the vicinity, as best as I can tell.
He SAYS:
One translation of original text is:
So… given that a) the script draws specific attention to the quote and b) it’s not a “good” quoting of the Bible… what do you suppose that might mean?
Some of my own thoughts:
[ul]
[li]Inaccurate quoting of the Bible shows that Jules is still quite flawed, but even (or especially) the flawed can be saved.[/li][li]In things like witch trials it was assumed those possessed by evil spirits could not read the Bible verbatim. Suspects were asked to read or recite a passage and if they missed a word they were presumed to be under the influence of evil.[/li][li]The director thought he could find some cool-sounding “Terrible Swift Sword” language to put in the dialog, but in fact that’s more often PASSAGES then it is lines… so he had to paraphrase.[/li][li]It’s just thrown in there so nerds like me will still be talking about the movie.[/li][/ul]
I think Jules read the verse once many years before, found it meaningful and badass, and then mentally embellished the verse over the years until he had molded it into something that reflected his personal philosophy. And how many people who were on the receiving end of the verse were in a position to correct him? Not many, I’m guessing, since prior to the events of the coffee shop, hearing that verse “meant your ass.”
It’s just supposed to sound cool. It fits the character and if you can read something about him into it, that’s good, but I don’t think it was intended to convey anything with much depth, whether or not Jules can be saved and so on.
Jules admits in the movie that it was just some “badass shit to say to a muthafucka before I popped a cap in his ass” when he’s explaining his new meaning of life to Tim Roth. So his own explanation is that he just made it up.
It’s kind of funny when people misunderstand the bible to suit their own personal world view. Just like Arthur in “Minder” who would advise “Remember what the Good Book says – do unto others as they have done unto you”.
That’s especially funny because, to the best of my knowledge, the so-called ‘golden rule’ isn’t from the bible at all. I seem to remember having heard that it came from Confucius.
> That’s especially funny because, to the best of my knowledge, the so-
> called ‘golden rule’ isn’t from the bible at all. I seem to remember having heard
> that it came from Confucius.
Where do you get that from the Wikipedia entry? Something like the Golden Rule is found in many religions and philosophies:
Why would you claim that the Golden Rule doesn’t come from the Bible?
From the linked article, under the heading “Teachings”. “Perhaps his most famous teaching was the Golden Rule stated in the negative form, often called the silver rule…”
As I said, “To the best of my knowledge”. I never claimed to be a bible scholar. Isamu provided the chapter and verse. Ignorance fought.
Incidentally, Confucius predates Matthew by a few centuries. So, although it is highly unlikely that the one exposition of the principle led to the other, nevertheless, the Asian gentleman arguably got there first.
There’s no reason to think that the Golden Rule originated in Confucianism. The mentions of it in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism, and Judaism are earlier (or at least no later) than the mention of it in Confucianism. There’s no reason to think that it didn’t originate independently in several places.
As Susan B. Anthony, frustrated by male chauvinists who invariably cited the Bible, once said, “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.”
I would say a book written more than 2,000 years ago, translated and edited again and again is open to nothing but ones personal interpretation. The divinely inspired word of god has become the Western version of the I Ching.