Pajiba

I heard about this book! At first I thought it sounded really gimmicky, and I kept expecting him to get a reality show, but I'm glad it's a decent read. I might just have to pick it up.

Thank you for this review although I wish it were a little bit longer. If I were your English teacher I would tell you to give more examples to back up your general statements. ;-D

I recall a book review about 'Hipster Dads' a few months ago and how 'Hipster-ism' was really about living more consciously, especially as a parent, and questioning our consumerism/mores/pop culture. This book seems an extension of that theme...

I hope that regardless of his epiphany (or not), Jacobs learned about living more consciously- that is to say thoughtfully, and with a little more awareness about the foods we eat, the clothes we wear and the interactions we have with strangers and family. Isn't that better than fighting about which imaginary friend (Richard Jeni's words) really exists?

-Amanda

P.S. I can't help but point out that this review ends with a TMZ Ad for "2007 Celebrity Train Wrecks". Classic.

dude looks cuter with the jesus beard.

Jennifer- Great review, but I clicked on the link that you put up for the Encyclopedia Brittanica and got an error page.

I wonder how many Bible rules I've broken today alone?

Oops. Corrected. -- Ed.

I waited forever for AJ Jacobs to write another book after the Know It All, and while this one is funny, you should definitely start with the encyclopedia one first. It's gut-busting, laugh out loud funny, whereas the Year of Living Biblically is more thought provoking.

smash Jennifer- Great review, but I clicked on the link that you put up for the Encyclopedia Brittanica and got an error page.

Yeah, also you've repeated yourself a bit (literally) in the first paragraph, certainly looks like a cut and paste mistake

(That was entirely my fault -- all if fixed now, I think. -- DR

AllGussiedUp sorry for the miss-attribution

I just finished reading this book and there were some very humourous (yes, that's how you spell it in Canada) parts, especially with his wife who did not agree to live biblically as well but was along for the ride, so to speak. The initial shock of how many 'rules' we break everyday made me feel like I was definitely going to hell, but going along with Mr. Jacobs as he explores as many extremes (I enjoyed the visit with the snake handler)and intrepretations as he could made me realize that, like the reviewer said, for every rule there is a contradictory one, there is no one way to view anything in the bible. So I think I'll just follow ET's advice and "Be Good."

I read "Know It All" couple of years ago and, although I liked the premise and some of the book's content, I totally disliked the author. He is such a wuss and completely under the thumb of his wife - and likes it! I don't know, it kinda irritated me. I am all for equality, see.

Haven't read this yet but I have been interested in doing so. I assume the is an Old Testament only year? As an Orthodox Jew I am curious, if slightly leary of being insulted/aggravated/condescended by his year of living Jewish

Actually, the rule against wearing clothing of mixed fibers makes sense. Back in the old days there was no soap, no detergents, etc. Wool and other animal fibers were washed differently than cotton, linen and other plant fibers. That's actually still true today. There's a reason you don't find many wool/cotton yarns, as they are hard to launder. Wool requires acid, and cotton requires alkali. You can't have your water be both at the same time. Aged urine was used, for example. What cleaned one fiber type, dirtied the other, so just don't mix them in the same cloth and the problem is solved.

Oh, and when I first saw the pics at the top of the page, I thought this was about the Unibomber.

BWeaves - the rule is only against mixing Wool and Linen

I would expect an English teacher to know the difference between "pouring" and "poring."

BWeaves - the rule is only against mixing Wool and Linen.

True, but the washing instructions are the same.
Even today, you'd send your wool clothing to the dry cleaner, but you can wash linen at home in the washing machine very easily. It's not different.

As a weaver (hence the name BWeaves), I never weave wool and linen together because they have to be finished (i.e. washed) completely differently, even if I do both processes at home.

Anyway, my point is, that the rule makes sense.

It's not so much biblical as practical.

I was wondering the same thing as Brian. Did he live by the Old or New Testament or both (The Bible means both of them where I come from)? For instance, when someone really offended him, did he take an eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? I realize that there are enough contradictions in the Old Testament alone to drive a person crazy, so I'm curious if he also incorporated the New?

Seems like an Old Testament year to me. If he had even cracked the New Testament he would have read that our corrupted nature makes the law impossible to follow and thus the only way to get with God is as a result of faith in him as opposed to works as a result of following the law. In fact, the letter to the Romans says the Law was put into the world so that sin might increase and make clear to us our fallen nature so that by this realization we might be reconciled with our creator.

Proof, pudding etc:

"21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." - Romans 3:21-26 (NASB)

Hmmmmm I'll be expecting an update on how his putting every man, woman and child to the sword once he reaches the promised land goes.

Meanwhile --

Alackaday! You're right - it seems that even I am not immune to the evil typo, especially one that Word does not nicely underline in bright red. I blush to admit that I was hurried and did not proofread my work as thoroughly as I should have. What can I say? It's a busy time of year. Mea culpa, mea culpa, and all that.

Brian (and PaddyDog) --

I should have included in my review that Jacobs spent 8 months on the Old Testament and 4 on the New. That I forgot to include this information is to me a more egregious error than the pour/pore bit. Mea maxima culpa.

Happy Holidays to you all.

I read this book a while back and enjoyed it. It's really funny, and also really thought provoking.

BWeaves - Thanks for the explanation of the no-mixed-fibers rule. I really scratched my head over that one, but I never considered the issue of differences in laundering.

BarbadoSlim - No, he doesn't put every man, woman and child to the sword. But he does write Biblical verses on his doorpost, and he does start carrying a handy seat with him everywhere he goes so he doesn't have to risk sitting where an unclean woman sat, and he even attaches tassles to all his clothes and goes through this bizarre ritual of snatching an egg from the nest of a frightened dove (or something like that).

I presume that he lived primarily the old testament. Since a.) he's of Jewish upbringing. And b.) the rules in the New Testament are a lot more general (ie. the two commandments of "love God above all" and "love thy neighbor as thyself". vs. the ten commandments) than the old testament (ie. mixed fabrics, etc.)

PaddyDog:I realize that there are enough contradictions in the Old Testament alone to drive a person crazy

Though, I wonder how many contradictions there actually are in the Old Testament. I mean people always say there are contradictions but no one ever backs it up. I mean if there are so many contradictions how would "The Year of Living Biblically" be possible? And there are Orthodox Jews that live this stuff to a tee.

I think that the level of commitment required for such a lifestyle is what would drive people crazy. The constant fighting of urges to do something you feel God doesn't want you to do. That is what would be maddening.

I have been hearing some really good thing about this book. Maybe I will have to check it out.

I know that whole Onan thing was a personal source of torture before it was clarified by a religion teacher in college. Let me tell you, that was a relief in more than one way.

In a related note, What happened to "Jesus, Etc."? The supposedly recurring religiousity column? Nothing worth reporting on anymore?

I hope he didn't have a disobedient son. It'd be a shame if he had him stoned to death at the town gates for a book deal.

I read this a short while ago, and it's definitely worth the read.

It's not really mentioned in the review, but as he goes over the rules, he also traces their roots in ancient culture, so he tries to explain the rational (if any) reason the rule was included in the bible.

This guy inspires me to spend a year living entirely by the rules of the Tao Te Ching.

Bibli: many thanks for reviewing this, the premise struck me as very interesting, but I wanted to find out if it lived up to the idea before I picked it up. For some reason, I'm glad to know that it was written by someone who didn't start out with firm preconceived notions on the whole God thing.

Hmmm, now to think of someone who'd like it for Christmas...so I can borrow it when they're done....Books that I want to read make the best gifts!

As for stoning your son at the town gates, Jacobs does a good job of addressing rules like that.

I just finished the book yesterday. I have't read his other book but would recommend this one to anyone, be they religously inclined or not.

I felt like he was skimming over the the New Testament parts, but not badly so. A good read.

As for stoning your son at the town gates, Jacobs does a good job of addressing rules like that.

I just finished the book yesterday. I have't read his other book but would recommend this one to anyone, be they religously inclined or not.

I felt like he was skimming over the the New Testament parts, but not badly so. A good read.

YAWWWWWN

I'd be interested to read this as I've been half heartedly following the Year of Living Biblically feature that Slate was running.

Just out of curiosity for anyone who's read it: Does he make a sacrifice of cake on a Wednesday? I remember finding that in Leviticus in my Bible study class(yes, lil old staunchly Atheist me took Religious Studies for A-Level, it was brilliant) and used it as an excuse to start a baking syndicate. Aaah, good times.

Sorry to be "that guy," but it's "pore over" not "pour over."

Tanner: According to most accounts, there are at least 100 contradictions in the Old Testament (and quite a few in the New as well). Many of them have to do with discrepancies in numbers and dates, but there are others that directly contradict each other on the "law". For instance,
A man may marry his brother's widow
Deut 25:5
A man may not marry his brother's widow
Lev 20:21
I'm sure most of these have to do (as noted above) with interpretation, but it would make it very hard to decide which one to choose. Note: what I have put in here is about as much as I know about the Old Testament and that only because I love trivia, so criticize at will.

[b]PaddyDog[/b]: The two passages you name are talking about two different things. Deut 25 is talking about if a brother's wife dies and she has no children, the man is to marry his brother's wife. This makes sense in the context of the ancient world as woman had almost no way of making money except prostitution which obviously the bible does not condone.

On the other hand Lev. 20 says "If there is a man who takes his brother's wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness. They will be childless." This, like the passage directly before it, is talking about a man sleeping with his brother's wife. The context is clear and the previous passage even says "If there is a man who lies with his uncle's wife he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness" so this passage is in fact talking about having an affair with your brother's wife and not marrying her.

I study the bible pretty often and have yet to run into a contradiction that I can't explain with the use of proper textual analysis and sound exegesis. I agree with Tanner that people throw out these insane numbers of contradictions but few even quote them and fewer still are willing to actually read the damn thing enough to understand things like context, translation peculiarities, etc.

I wonder what these people were thinking when they wrote the bible. I mean if you have a bit of handy laundry advice, that you write down to save people making clothes they end up not being able to wear, do you really intend that to passed down for 2000 years as (literally) an article of faith?? And I remember Newton had problems in Cambridge about some interpretation of the meaning of the word trinity. If you wanted to hold an academic post you had to swear a statement, which in Newtons case was against his beliefs. I bet if you could go back in time and ask the authors as to which of these MANY layers of interpreteation they intended they would say 'HUH? It's just a holy book, you really shouldn't take it so seriously' (okay maybe not).

Of course supposed to marry vs NOT supposed to marry your brothers widow is somewhat famous because when Henry the VIII was in love with Catherine of Aragon (who had been married to his older brother Arthur) he picked the one he wanted (supposed to) and when he wanted to trade her in for a younger model he picked the one he wanted (NOT supposed to). Poor Catherine never understood that he was dumping her because he wanted to and went to her death bed thinking it was about what the Bible said.
On that note, is it possible in the US for a man to marry his widow's sister?

ChrisD: Don't quote me, but I beleive it is okay in the US.

The general rule is as long as it isn't a relaitive within a generation from you, someone of the same sex, or a non-human or corpse, you can marry them. Oh, and you can't be married to more than one person.

yeah, and I will live out 2008 according to Greek mythology. should be fun and the greeks always seemed a bit smarter than those middle eastern peasants who wrote the bible. anyway, give me zeus over jehova any day...

Got you Vermillion :-)
Sorry it's a really bad joke, but I thought I'd give it a go. I'm just that childish.

Jason Bateman with a beard? Sex-ay.

This actually seemed like an interesting book I'd be willing to read. I'm not a staunch follower of any religion, I've had my own crisis of faith recently, about whether I do believe or do, but I'm definatly pro-science.

But I hate the way many atheist feel it's their duty to dump on religion, in the same manner many religious people, feel it's their right to tell everyone else how to live. I liked the review and was a bit relieved I was going to get another sermon about "religion is bad and stupid and it makes no sense ... if you don't believe you are a genius" ...

That's funny ChrisD... I think it might be legal San Francisco...

That's funny ChrisD... I think it might be legal in San Francisco...

Maria - I hate when people do that, too. I know that on a national scale, the religous dictate to the non-religious, but in my experience here in NYC, the non-religious think it's perfectly acceptable to condescend to people who identify as religious about their superstitious beliefs. I have had to endure many ridiculous comments about my Catholicism (i.e. "Priests not getting married is so stupid") from otherwise-tolerant people.

I read it maybe a month ago. I really enjoyed it, and decided to pick up the Know-it-all. That too is proving great.