Is Matthew 1-2 Midrash?

Roger Le Deaut, “Apropos a Definition of Midrash,” Interpretation 25 (1971) 276.

Perrot…hesitates to use the term midrash for the narratives of Matt. 1-2, because of the central reference to Jesus rather than to Scripture. But for the Christians, did not the life and word of Christ themselves represent Scripture?

A number of years ago, I read John Shelby Spong’s Liberating the Gospels, and his point was that the Gospels are midrash: their accounts of Jesus did not literally happen, but they were stories concocted from biblical concepts.

Take Matthew 1-2, for example. The story of Jesus’ birth draws upon a variety of biblical ideas. We have Joseph the dreamer, and the Book of Genesis has a dreamer named Joseph. A star in the heavens heralds the Messiah’s birth, and Numbers 24:7 mentions a star from Jacob who will crush Israel’s enemies. The wise men bring Jesus gold, frankincense, and myhrr, and Isaiah 60:6 says to Israel: ”A multitude of camels shall cover you, the young camels of Midian and Ephah; all those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the LORD” (NRSV). King Herod tries to slaughter the little children of Bethlehem, much like the first Pharaoh of the Book of Exodus, who ordered the slaughter of every Hebrew baby boy.

Many conservative Christians would point to this as evidence that the Old Testament points to the new, while many liberals would contend the New Testament is concocting a narrative out of Old Testament concepts.

But I wondered at the time that I read Spong: Is construction of a story out of biblical concepts the same thing as midrash? When I read Jewish midrash, what I see is an attempt to interpret the biblical text. It goes verse by verse, explaining the meanings of words and phrases. Granted, it often goes on tangents, and one can legitimately ask if it’s doing exegesis (drawing ideas out of the text) or eisegesis (reading ideas into the text). But it claims to be interpreting Scripture. And the verb in the Hebrew word “midrash,” “darash,” means to search. The idea of midrash is to search for meaning in Scripture.

Does Matthew 1-2 do that? I don’t think that it’s doing midrash every time it draws a concept from Scripture and uses it in its story. But it does interpret Scripture, as when it applies Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus’ virgin birth, or Micah 5:2 to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. Unlike midrash, however, Matthew 1-2 doesn’t present a wide array of interpretive possibilities, for its only assertion is that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies. Matthew resembles the interpretive method known as pesher, which was used at Qumran: pesher applied the Scriptures to the situation of the Qumran community. That’s what Matthew does when he interprets scriptures as referring to Jesus.

But Matthew differs from midrash and pesher in that his method is not to go line-by-line through Scripture and interpret it; rather, he tells the story of Jesus, and draws on Old Testament verses and themes to illustrate who Jesus is.

Constitution Day

September 17 is Constitution Day. In my post last year (Sick, Constitution Day, Lenders, Palin on Hannity), I was somewhat ambivalent about the American constitution. I wondered if we should view it as an absolute in the war against terror, since those were the days when domestic wiretapping and the Patriot Act were in the news. And, while I sympathized with the framers' goal of preventing an all-powerful State, I thought that the separation of powers kept things from getting done.

One year later, what do I think? There were town-hall meetings all across the county, and I've watched more than once that scene in which an attractive woman in her 30's boldly asked a befuddled Senator Arlen Specter when he will defend the Constitution of the United States. Lately, when the Right mentions the Constitution, it has in mind the Tenth Amendment: the federal government being limited, and certain powers being reserved for the states and the people.

Strangely, when this lady was on Chris Matthews' Hardball, she didn't object to the existence of Medicare, even though nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to interfere in health care. And the Tenth Amendment states that the powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. Maybe she should have said that she's not against a program like Medicare, as long as it's a program of the states, not the feds, as each state handles health care in its own way.

I also thought about the First Amendment this morning when I read Polycarp's post, Christian Legitimization of the Assassination of President Obama. Polycarp talked about the Right's hatred of President Obama, and how that could lead to an assassination attempt. Racism may be a factor among some of his haters, but not among all. They see Obama as a wannabe dictator, someone who is expanding the reach of the federal government, thereby threatening their freedoms. Their point of view is legitimate in the market-place of ideas, and our framers wanted free speech. But what happens when that speech becomes hateful and inflammatory?

There's potential danger when we allow people to say anything they want, but free speech can also keep our leaders in check. Glenn Beck exposing the President's czars and ACORN has led to correction of those problems (if you see it as a "correction"). And it's interesting that Bush changed his war policy after all the criticism that he received.

Overall, the Right and the Left pretty much pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they want to emphasize. The Right dislikes Canadian anti-hate speech laws on free speech grounds, yet it wants to limit porn because it can encourage people to misbehave sexually. The Right loves the Second and Tenth Amendments, whereas the liberal Warren Court added teeth to the right to privacy and the right of criminals not to incriminate themselves. The Right, however, views these as a hindrance to law enforcement.

So I guess I find myself in the same place as last year: I like the Constitution because it protects our freedoms from the government. Yet, I wonder if lines should be drawn, and if so, where?

The Rabbis (and Rashi) on Israel's "Sojourn"

Jacob Neusner, The Midrash: An Introduction (Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1990) 206.

Neusner quotes Song of Songs Rabbah (sixth-seventh centuries):

"When he came and said to the Israelites, 'In this month you will be redeemed,' they said to him, 'Our lord, Moses, how are we going to be redeemed? And did not the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Abraham, "And they shall work them and torment them for four hundred years" (Genesis 15:13), and now we have in hand only two hundred and ten years!" He said to them, 'Since he wants to redeem you, he is not going to pay attention to these reckonings of yours.'"

Genesis 15:13 seems to say that the Israelites would be in Egypt for 400 years, but other passages of the Pentateuch indicate they were there for a shorter duration. Rashi (eleventh century) identifies the same problem:

Now, if you should say that they were 400 years in Egypt, [this is not so] because Kehath was one of those who descended to Egypt. If you compute the years of Kehath (133) and those of Amram (his son, 137), and the 80 years of Moses, his age when they left Egypt, you will find only 350 [years]. And you must still subtract from them all the years that Kehath lived after the birth of Amram and that Amram lived after the birth of Moses.

To calculate how long the Israelites were in Egypt, Rashi interprets Genesis 46:11 to mean that Kohath the son of Levi went down to Egypt with Jacob, when Jacob took his entire family to that country. Exodus 6 says how long Kohath and Amram lived, as well as Moses' age at the time of the Exodus, and it doesn't add up to 400 years, but to 350. And, even then, you have to subtract the overlapping years, for Kohath and Amram lived at the same time for a certain number of years, as did Amram and Moses.

Like Song of Songs Rabbah, Rashi holds that the Israelites were in Egypt for 210 years. This number is derived from the gematria of the Hebrew word redu ("go down") in Genesis 42:2, in which Jacob tells his sons to go down to Egypt for food. In gematria, each letter of the Hebrew alphabet has a numerical value, and redu adds up to 210.

Rashi attempts to reconcile the 400 years in Genesis 15:13 with the shorter duration of the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt. He points out that Genesis 15:13 says that Abraham's seed would be a sojourner (Hebrew, ger) in a land that's not theirs for 400 years. It doesn't say that the land in question would be Egypt alone. There are texts that present Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob sojourning in countries that aren't theirs (Genesis 20:1; 21:34; 47:4; Psalm 105:23). For Rashi, Genesis 15:13 predicts that Abraham's seed would sojourn in countries not their own for 400 years, which stretches from the time of Isaac's birth to the Exodus.

Song of Songs Rabbah, however, offers a different solution: God will redeem Israel when he wants to redeem her. He's not bound by the calculations of Israelites! Song of Songs Rabbah may be saying that God changed his mind about Israel being in Egypt for 400 years, so he decided to deliver her prematurely. Or perhaps it means that Israel was misinterpreting Genesis 15:13 to mean that she had to be in Egypt for 400 years, when actually it meant what Rashi later said. Notice that God calls the reckonings "yours," meaning Israel's. But didn't God speak Genesis 15:13? Yes, but the reckoning may be Israel's in the sense that she misinterpreted God's words in that verse.

But doesn't Exodus 12:40 say that "The time that the Israelites had lived in Egypt was four hundred thirty years" (NRSV)?

Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (second-eighth centuries) offers an interesting interpretation of this verse. As Rashi did years later, the Mekhilta counts the 400 years from the birth of Isaac to the Exodus, when Abraham's seed sojourned in countries that weren't theirs. But the extra 30 years that Exodus 12:40 mentions is that between God's revelation to Abraham in Genesis 15 and the birth of Isaac. From Genesis 15 to the Exodus, you have 430 years. Because Exodus 12:41 says, "At the end of four hundred thirty years, on that very day, all the companies of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt," the Mekhilta contends that exactly 430 years passed from Genesis 15 to the Exodus, not a day more, nor a day less. Consequently, God's revelation to Abraham in Genesis 15 occurred on Nisan 15, the day when Israel later left Egypt.

But "Rabbi" in Mekhilta offers what seems to be a different view: he tries to reconcile the 400 years of Genesis 15:13 with Genesis 15:16's statement that Abraham's seed would return to Canaan in the "fourth generation," which is sooner than 400 years. Rabbi says that these are two alternative possibilities: If Israel repents, God will deliver her after four generations. If not, he will deliver her after 400 years. Rabbi appears to assume that the 400 years refer to Israel's time in Egypt, not the time-span of the sojourning of Abraham's seed from Isaac to the Exodus.

Echoing Babylonian Talmud Sotah 11b, however, Rashi maintains that both the 400 years and the four generations are true: And so it was: Jacob descended to Egypt. Go forth and figure his generations: Judah, Perez, and Hezron, and Caleb the son of Hezron was one of those who entered the land (Sotah 11b). Rashi sees the 400 years as the time from Isaac's birth to the Exodus, the total duration of the "sojourn." And he also affirms that the fourth generation from Judah (who entered Egypt with Jacob) was the one that left Egypt.

But, back to Exodus 12:40, the King James translates it literally: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years." One can read that to mean that the sojourn of the Israelites in various countries was 430 years, not that they were in Egypt for that whole amount of time. The rabbinic sources may assume that reading, for they don't take Exodus 12:40 to mean that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. I don't think that works, though, for Isaac technically wasn't an Israelite, since Israelites are descendants of Jacob/Israel.

This post is a rough ride, I know, but hopefully I've made somewhat clear the contradictions in the biblical text, as well as the rabbinic efforts to reconcile them.

Mary of Peter, Paul, and Mary

I just read that Mary of Peter, Paul, and Mary has passed away at the age of 72.

My mom used to play their music on the piano, particularly "Puff, the Magic Dragon" and "Blowing in the Wind." My brother and sister liked the "Puff" song, and my sister had the book of the animated movie. And one of my classmates liked to sing "Blowing in the Wind." So did Gomer Pyle, as well as the Keaton kids, who made fun of the 60's.

I guess I've mostly found myself acting like the Keaton kids: making fun of the music of the 60's, even though I like its tune. And there's a part of me that's always viewed the 60's with disdain, with its intolerant liberalism, its blowing up of buildings, its free sex, etc.

I'm not sure why I'm so "nostalgic" (if you can call it that, since I didn't exactly live back then!) about the 1960's right now. Maybe it's because I just read Frank Schaeffer's Crazy for God, and he describes his father Francis as a Christian thinker who could identify with the youth of the 1960's, with their rejection of their parents' "bourgeois" values that appeared to them to be hollow and inauthentic (though their parents would undoubtedly call that "making a living"). Or it may be because of all the shows I've watched about the 60's, about the soldiers who fought in Vietnam, those who tried to dodge the draft, and the numerous other people living their lives in that turbulent period. I admire the soldiers, but I can't really blame those who didn't want to die in Vietnam, especially considering that we lost that war. This hits home to me whenever I watch ABC's This Week and see the names of those who died each week in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers with families and friends. I hope these wars turn out to be for something.

The 60's were a time when people of the younger generation were concerned about causes greater than themselves, yet they were also a time of seeking pleasure with a complete disregard for consequences. Drugs and free sex are examples of the latter.

One of the articles I read about Mary said that the group's music was popular throughout America, even among those who weren't radical--the types Nixon called the "Silent Majority." There's a part of me that enjoys controversy and debate. But I also like to see bridges that bring people together, allowing people to interact on a human level regardless of their religion or politics.

Shachan

Throughout Deuteronomy, the central sanctuary is referred to as the "place which the LORD God will cause his name to dwell" (KJV). The Hebrew word translated as "cause to dwell" is the piel of shachan.

In other parts of the Torah, the qal of shachan is used to refer to God dwelling in the earthly sanctuary. Here are the passages, in the NRSV, with the translation of shachan in bold-face:

Exodus 25:8: And have them make me a sanctuary, so that I may dwell among them.

Exodus 29:45-46: I will dwell among the Israelites, and I will be their God. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them; I am the LORD their God.

Numbers 5:3: you shall put out both male and female, putting them outside the camp; they must not defile their camp, where I dwell among them.

Numbers 35:34: You shall not defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell; for I the LORD dwell among the Israelites.

Outside of the Torah:

1 Kings 6:13: I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel."

Psalm 74:2: Remember your congregation, which you acquired long ago, which you redeemed to be the tribe of your heritage. Remember Mount Zion, where you came to dwell.

Isaiah 8:18: See, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.

Ezekiel 43:7: He said to me: Mortal, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet, where I will reside among the people of Israel forever. The house of Israel shall no more defile my holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their whoring, and by the corpses of their kings at their death.

Ezekiel 43:9: Now let them put away their idolatry and the corpses of their kings far from me, and I will reside among them forever.

Joel 3:17: So you shall know that I, the LORD your God, dwell in Zion, my holy mountain. And Jerusalem shall be holy, and strangers shall never again pass through it.

Joel 3:21 I will avenge their blood, and I will not clear the guilty, for the LORD dwells in Zion.

Zechariah 2:10-11: Sing and rejoice, O daughter Zion! For lo, I will come and dwell in your midst, says the LORD. Many nations shall join themselves to the LORD on that day, and shall be my people; and I will dwell in your midst. And you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you.

Zechariah 8:3: Thus says the LORD: I will return to Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; Jerusalem shall be called the faithful city, and the mountain of the LORD of hosts shall be called the holy mountain.

We see the view that God dwells (shachan) in the midst of Israel in the tabernacle or the temple on Zion. I think that the Deuteronomist responds to this view with another use of shachan--the piel--to say that God doesn't dwell in his sanctuary, but he causes his name to dwell there. Something else of significance: Exodus-Numbers often use the term mishkan (tabernacle), which has the root of shachan. But Deuteronomy doesn't use that term. Could this be because it carries the association of God dwelling in a sanctuary, a concept that Deuteronomy disputes?

Another issue I've wondered about: Does shachan mean to permanently dwell in a place, or can it mean "to visit"? If it's the latter, then God can live in heaven and only visit the Tabernacle on certain occasions. It turns out that the word can mean the latter. Exodus 24:16 uses the word for God's glory abiding on Sinai for a set period of time. Exodus 40:35 has the same thing with the Tabernacle: God's cloud comes and fills it at its dedication, but it's not always there. But shachan often means living in a tent, or in a region. Since the Tabernacle is God's tent, I think many of the shachan passages mean God is living in Israel's midst. Plus, I Kings 8:27 (Dtr) goes out of its way to dispute that God dwells on the earth. It uses yeshev rather than shachan, but it's still disputing that idea.

See ^{7931 for all the uses of shachan.}

The Messiah in Ruth Rabbah

Jacob Neusner, The Midrash: An Introduction (Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1990) 176.

In the case of Ruth Rabbah, the issue is the nature of leadership, the leader from the periphery, the Messiah from Moab…All contemporary scholarship reads the Book of Ruth as a powerful statement on that very issue: the Messiah from Moab.

I was wondering what Neusner meant by “Messiah from Moab,” so I googled the phrase and found his The classics of Judaism: a textbook and reader. What I got was that the Messiah himself would not come from Moab, but he’d be the “Messiah from Moab” in the sense that he’d descend from Ruth the Moabitess. And the Messiah would receive God’s blessings and his qualities on account of Ruth’s devotion to God. Neusner summarizes this view by saying that the Messiah is what he is on account of his ancestors, including Ruth. I wonder if this also means that the Messiah will have the DNA of faithfulness from his great, great grandmother. Joel Osteen talked about a similar idea in a sermon: when we become Christians, the faithful of the Old Testament become our ancestors, so we have all sorts of positive attributes in our bloodline.

I searched for “Messiah” on my Judaic Classics Library, and I didn’t find much in Ruth Rabbah (sixth century C.E.), but here are a few interesting morsels:

1. In Ruth Rabbah 5:6, we see various interpretations of Ruth 2:14, which states, “At mealtime Boaz said to her, ‘Come here, and eat some of this bread, and dip your morsel in the sour wine.’ So she sat beside the reapers, and he heaped up for her some parched grain. She ate until she was satisfied, and she had some left over” (NRSV). One of the interpretations applies to the Messiah:

 The fifth interpretation makes it refer to the Messiah. COME HITHER: approach to royal state. AND EAT OF THE BREAD refers to the bread of royalty; AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is said, But he was wounded because of our transgressions (Isa. LIII, 5). AND SHE SAT BESIDE THE REAPERS, for he will be deprived of his sovereignty for a time, as it is said, For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken (Zech. XIV, 2). AND THEY REACHED HER PARCHED CORN, means that he will be restored to his throne, as it is said, And he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth (Isa. XI, 4).  R. Berekiah said in the name of R. Levi: The future Redeemer will be like the former Redeemer. Just as the former Redeemer revealed himself and later was hidden from them (and how long was he hidden? Three months, as it is said, And they met Moses and Aaron (Ex. V, 20), so the future Redeemer will be revealed to them, and then be hidden from them. And how long will he be hidden? R. Tanhuma, in the name of the Rabbis, said: Forty-five days, as it is said, And from the time that the continual burnt offering shall be taken away… there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Happy is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days (Dan. XII, 11-12). What are these extra days? R. Isaac b. Kazarta said on behalf of R. Jonah: These are the forty-five days during which Israel shall pluck saltwort and eat it, as it is said, They pluck salt-wort with wormwood (Job XXX, 4). Where will he lead them? From the land of Israel to the wilderness of Judah, as it is said, Behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness (Hos. II, 16); while some say to the wilderness of Sihon and Og, as it is said, I will yet again make thee to dwell in tents, as in the days of the appointed season (ib. XII, 10). He who believes in him will live, and he who does not believe will depart to the Gentile nations and they will put him to death.6 R. Isaac b. Marion said: Finally the Holy One, blessed be He, will reveal Himself to them, and He will rain down manna upon them, And there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl. I, 9).

We see here a grand narrative about the Messiah: that he will suffer for the sins of Israel and be deprived of his sovereignty while the Gentiles are ransacking Jerusalem; that he will return to his throne; that the Messiah will be revealed to Israel, then will be hidden from her for a time; that Israel will go to the wilderness of Judah and receive manna, as in the time of Moses; that the unbelieving Jews will go to the Gentile lands and die, either literally or to Judaism.

This passage applies Isaiah 53 to the Messiah ben David, although there is another view that interprets the Suffering Servant as the Messiah ben Joseph, who will die (see Messiah ben Joseph). Does the former view say that the Suffering Servant will not die, whereas the latter affirms that he will? In modern biblical scholarship, there is debate over whether the Suffering Servant will actually die, or merely suffer a near-death experience, since “death” was a fluid concept in the ancient world. Maybe the same debate existed in ancient times. When I read Neubauer’s book on Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53, I encountered medieval Jewish scenarios in which the Messiah suffers for the sins of Israel but does not die, and his experience is tied to Isaiah 53.

2. Later in Ruth Rabbah 5:6, we read the following: R. Cohen and R. Joshua of Siknin said in the name of R. Levi: In the past when a man performed a good deed, the prophet placed it on record; but nowadays when a man performs a good deed, who records it? Elijah records it and the Messiah and the Holy One, blessed be He, subscribe their seal to it. This is the meaning of the verse, Then they that feared the Lord spoke with one another; and the Lord hearkened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him (Mal. III, 16).

I wonder what this passage means. It says that, “today,” Elijah, Messiah, and God record the good deeds of human beings. Did Rabbi Levi believe that the Messiah was around in his time? There’s so much that I don’t know about Jewish conceptions of the Messiah!

3. Ruth Rabbah 7:2 states: Hezekiah, as it is said, That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it, through justice and through righteousness (Isa. IX, 6). And his name is called Pele- joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom (ib. 5). Some observe that l’marbeh (be increased) is written with a closed mem. A note at the bottom of the page says, “ The Rabbis maintain that God intended Hezekiah to be the Messiah, but the closed mem teaches that he was shut out from that honour because he had not sung God’s praises (Sanh. 94a).”

I’ve heard this concept before, but I still find it profound. Many historical-critics of the Hebrew Bible maintain that the OT prophets believed their prophecies about Israel’s restoration and paradise under a Davidic king would be fulfilled in their time, not in the far-off future. But Ruth Rabbah 7:2 actually agrees with this sort of idea, for it applies Isaiah 9:6 to Hezekiah. Hezekiah was to be the Messiah who’d reign over an age of peace, but he blew it when he failed to offer God praise. Yet, the rabbis believed that these prophecies would still have a future realization, for they express God’s will, even if those originally intended to carry that out blew it.

And, from a Christian perspective, perhaps I can take this a step further: of course they blew it, for only Christ, the perfect man, could carry these prophecies out. Yet, God wanted to show human beings their weakness in carrying out his will, the same way Luther said God gave Israel the law knowing she couldn’t keep it, influencing her to recognize her need for Christ. This sort of view combines a regard with the prophecies’ original contexts with the view that they can be future as well, with a Christian viewpoint thrown into the mix.

Authenticity

In Crazy for God, Frank Schaeffer talks about how he used to be inauthentic. When he was on the right-wing Christian speaking circuit, he felt inauthentic, as if he were playing a role, for he didn't truly believe in what he was saying. When he made secular movies that turned out to be flops (even though one of them had Dr. David Marcus from the Star Trek movies), he was being inauthentic, for his aim in making those movies was to make a big name for himself in the secular world. Those movies were a means to an end, not an authentic expression of himself. With his writing, however, about his family and his life experiences and the things that inspire him, etc., he has a chance to finally be authentic, and to make a living in the process.

I thought about authenticity as I watched Jodie Foster on Biography today. Jodie said she's at the point in her career where she can act in and create movies that inspire her. They flow from her very being, as if they have to be made. And, in discussing a movie she made that received bad reviews, she said that at least she had an opportunity to say what she needed to say, and, if she's the only person in the audience who receives benefit from that movie, then so be it. It was worth it!

But does authenticity pay the bills? Suppose I were to be a writer. I can be authentic in (say) my writing, but if no one is interested, can my writing be called "good" or pay the bills?

Can one accept constructive criticism from others about one's work, and still be authentic?

Does America force us to be inauthentic? I was watching Joyce Meyer yesterday, and she was talking about how people are laid back in other countries. Here, however, we have to do and be everything. Few of us can be ourselves because of demands placed upon us to succeed, or even to survive. People like to talk about having a job that "fits" them, that doesn't really feel like work, but how many of those kinds of jobs are there? Bills need to be paid, people must work to pay them, and the result is that they find themselves doing things that aren't expressions of who they truly are. I believe Marx called that "alienation."

Is authenticity a luxury?

I get the impression as I read certain narratives that hard work and being authentic lead to success. It can lead to failure too! I think of John-Boy on the Waltons (which I haven't seen in a long time). He wrote a book about his family life, but he found that the company he wanted to publish it had numerous other manuscripts to read. Here are writers who have worked hard, yet they might not even have an audience! I'd like to write, since that's something I enjoy doing, but would that pay the bills? There are successes, but there are failures too.

But these are my authentic ramblings for the day!