Who Shot JR?

The TV drama “Dallas” commanded a popular following in the late 1970s. But its fan base rocketed to the stratosphere when it ended a season with an unknown assailant shooting the villainous lead character, J.R. Ewing. “Who shot JR?” became not just a minor puzzle for gossip but instead captured the nation’s attention as if it were the assassination of a beloved political figure. Speculation about potential suspects and conspiracy theories filtered through millions of conversations. When the mystery was finally cleared up eight months later, some 83 million television viewers tuned in to watch.

President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign desperately needs a “Who Shot JR?” moment. 

After Biden was inaugurated in 2021, millions of Americans waited patiently for the Department of Justice to move against Donald Trump and his accomplices for their involvement in the January 6 insurrection. Patience with the DOJ wore out eventually, and finally the House of Representatives appointed a select committee to investigate the January 6 uprising. 

In a brilliant move, the committee hired an experienced TV executive to produce its televised hearings. Millions of viewers watched every moment of the hearings. When one hearing was mysteriously postponed for a day, it was almost as if a camera had focused on JR Ewing suddenly clutching his hand to a bullet wound just before the screen faded to black. Wait—what happened? Why did they postpone the hearing? Was it because something went wrong? Did someone behind the scenes sabotage the event? It turned out the postponement was to line up Cassidy Hutchinson, the star witness who virtually exploded onto the national scene with testimony that pointed the finger squarely and unmistakably at former President Donald J. Trump. 

It was the January 6 Committee’s dramatic televised hearings that shamed the DOJ to finally appoint a special counsel to investigate and prosecute the disgraced former president. The House committee delivered a “Who Shot JR?” moment. 

Fast-forward to the 2024 presidential campaign. Barring some unexpected phenomenal catastrophe, the general election will likely be a rematch of the 2020 contest. Trump, the seasoned showman, will surely eclipse Biden in the media because the current president can’t seem to generate any enthusiasm among voters. I’m not suggesting that Biden run TV ads featuring car chases, explosions, and seductive models. But he should at least follow the example of the January 6 Committee and hire a professional TV producer to effectively put his message across to the voters. His current campaign strategy is certainly failing on that goal.

New and Improved

A popular brand of toilet paper recently released a new and improved product. What was the change? Would it help ease the household shopping budget? Increase absorbency? Make our restroom visits more pleasant?

Um, no. The change is that, instead of a straight perforated line, the individual sheets are now separated by a curvy perforated line. I could not make this up. Check it out at your local market. 

This reminds me of the countless advertisements aired during my lifetime for “new and improved” versions of old products. The old laundry detergent, for instance, made clothes their whitest white and brightest bright, but the new and improved detergent also made them their brightest white. In other words, there was no change except perhaps a slight increase in costs to put the new words on the packaging. The added cost would of course be passed on to consumers eventually.

Inevitably, some variation of the “new and improved” mantra comes up in all realms of social interaction. The American public is getting inundated with it in the political arena at present. While one major candidate says he will continue doing the job he has been doing for the past several years, another major candidate is promising an updated version of the job he did for four years, which was rejected by voters at the polls when he sought reelection. He is promising more of the same policies that he gave us before, only delivered more expertly this time. From all appearances, if elected, he would replace the straight perforated lines between his political acts with curvy perforated lines, but little else would change. 

My cynicism for “new and improved” does not mean I do not support innovation. Of course, we want changes that improve our world. Of course, we are willing to try new approaches to solving old problems. But returning to rejected policies of the past does not fit the bill.

Was Jesus teaching us Psych 101?

Does the study of Jesus’ sayings run parallel to Psych 101? Was the central figure of Christianity trying, sometimes unsuccessfully, to teach his followers get their own minds in order before attempting to spread the “good news” to others and tell them how to live? And, if that were the case, how much of that message survives among modern-day Christians?

Let’s sample just a few of his best-known pronouncements, starting with what he said were the two greatest commandments of all:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength. And you shall love your neighbor as yourself. There are no other commandments greater than these.”

Let’s break this down. The first great commandment is essentially telling you to use your heart AND your mind, and to take action on your convictions. In other words, get engaged rather than remain passive, and don’t just follow blindly what other people tell you. Unfortunately, far too many modern-day Christians fail on this commandment, sitting on their sofa and unquestionably absorbing whatever the rich and photogenic televangelist of the day says.

And many of those who do attempt to follow the first great commandment faithfully in all three of those aspects still fall short because they ignore or misinterpret the second great commandment:

Love your neighbor as yourself. Most fail to realize that, first, they must learn to love themselves. The vast majority of us humans harbor some degree of hidden insecurity or self-hatred. We try to hide our own weaknesses by over-compensating in other areas, often becoming belligerent or too focused on obtaining riches or power. Rather than build ourselves up, we belittle others to make ourselves look better by comparison. If someone tries to “love his neighbor” while at the same time projecting his own insecurities onto that neighbor, the result ain’t often pretty. Unintended consequences can spoil even the best intentions. But if that person first learns to accept his own imperfections and love himself anyway, then it is much easier for him to love his neighbor in the manner the commandment intends.

This is closely related to other of Jesus’ statements. “Do not judge, and you will not be judged… Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye and never notice the log in your own?” Once again, stop complaining about other people’s faults and concentrate on improving yourself.

Unfortunately, a very large number of my fellow Christians have made it their mission to go about pointing out the evils and flaws in other people’s characters, but utterly flunk on honest self-assessment. Even Jesus is quoted in the Gospels calling such people hypocrites, and they give the faith a bad name.

When we think of Christians today, we often picture the stereotype of the Bible-thumping street preacher (or, more likely, the TV televangelist) calling bystanders a brood of vipers, to borrow John the Baptist’s phrase. But try to feel sympathy for such Christians, who still have, ahem, room to grow in their faith. Lots of room. They will get better eventually.

In the meantime, learn to love yourself with all your faults. Improve but don’t beat yourself up, and especially don’t beat up people who have the same shortcomings as yourself. That is the second great commandment.

What can we learn from Mary Magdalene?

What lessons can we learn from Mary Magdalene?

This question could inspire several chapters, or even several books. Indeed, I guess it already has done that and more. The New Testament character known to us as Mary Magdalene offers us many nuggets of wisdom. I will touch on just a few here:

First, with our tongues planted firmly in our cheeks, we would note that the woman teaches us the dangers of giving our daughters common popular names. The New Testament has no shortage of Marys—the mother of Jesus, the sister of the mother of Jesus, the sister of Martha, the “other Mary” who accompanied them to the anointing of the body, and the Magdalene, just to name a few. Was the Magdalene the woman with the unclean spirits, or was she the woman who wept before Jesus and dried his feet with her hair? Was she the one who sat at Jesus’ feet while her sister Martha served the guests? It can be difficult sorting out what lessons we can learn when identifying the correct Mary is not easy.

But more importantly, Mary Magdalene teaches us to be brave. While the Romans were torturing and crucifying Jesus, his male disciples fled to avoid arrest themselves. Mary Magdalene stayed and witnessed the flogging, the nailing to the cross, the slow, painful death, the removal of the body from the cross, and its placement in a nearby cave. It was she who saw where they laid him so that she could return after the Sabbath to anoint his body. It was she who first learned that he was alive again.

Third, Mary Magdalene teaches us that women are not second-class in Jesus’ eyes, no matter what rules and restrictions that his male followers may have imposed later. As mentioned above, she was present at the crucifixion while all the men had run and hidden. Any stories about what happened at the crucifixion likely came from Mary because the men were not there to witness it. (For this reason, I believe that Mary was probably the “beloved disciple” to whom the dying Jesus entrusts the care of his own mother in the crucifixion story told in the Gospel According to John. The male-dominated church decided many years later that, since they were attributing authorship of that gospel to a disciple named John, then John himself must have been the beloved disciple. But there is nothing in the gospel to back up such an assertion other than the author quoting Jesus, “Woman, behold your son,” from the cross. John’s gospel was written 60 to 80 years after the crucifixion and decades after the destruction of Jerusalem. If the decision had already been made to highlight the men and downplay the women, changing the gender on one noun would not have been difficult. Or it is even possible that he was telling his mother to behold himself rather than the beloved disciple.)

Fourth, she teaches us the value of persistence. Mary, the first witness of the resurrection, tells the male disciples and they refuse to believe her. In the Gospel according to Mark, the first account to be written and widely circulated, the male disciples continue to disbelieve her even after others have come forward, until Jesus himself appears to them. Matthew, written 10 or 15 years later, expands on the story but leaves it for Jesus to meet up with the males back in Galilee. Luke, written even later, also recounts that the males disbelieve her but allows Peter to run to the tomb to see for himself. Finally, in John, Mary tells the males that the body has been removed, and two of the men come to the tomb, find it empty and then go home. Mary stays behind and sees Jesus after the others have left. In all four differing accounts, it is Mary who refuses to give in to the men’s skepticism but instead tells the disciples—and thus the world—that Jesus is alive. In later years, the so-called “church fathers” created the structure that elevated men and degraded women. But in the days of the very birth of the church, a more likely story emerges:

Men gave speeches and wrote history books about their own noble deeds. But women did most of the work.

Do we know if any of the original twelve apostles were illiterate (i.e., unable to read or write)?

A more apt question might be: Do we know if any of the original twelve apostles were literate?

Much would depend on where they were raised. The Gospels indicate most of them were fishermen or laborers from rural areas of Galilee. Scholar Richard A. Horsley wrote that “nearly all Galilean villagers would have been illiterate.” Stephen M. Wylen noted that in the latter part of the Hasmonean Dynasty, there was supposed to be universal education for all Jewish boys from the age of five, but other scholars believe that was mostly true only for the elite.

So, if any apostles were able to read and write, they would be exceptions to the general trend unless they conducted extensive trade (which required Greek fluency) or were raised in a city.

Contrary to what many believe, I am not aware of any evidence that any of the apostles who personally worked with Jesus were the authors of any of the Gospels. Mark is believed to have emerged around 70 AD, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army, and almost 40 years after the crucifixion. Matthew probably came out about ten years later, and Luke maybe in 85 or later. John is said to have been written in 100, give or take a few years.

The earliest books of the New Testament are Paul’s Epistles, probably written in the 40s and 50s. Paul, a Roman citizen from Tarsus, was certainly literate, but he was not one of the Twelve.

What did Paul think of himself in relation to the other apostles?

Though he preached in the name of Jesus, Saul of Tarsus clearly thought of himself as the chosen one. He said in one of his letters that he was singled out before birth to take the gospel to the Gentiles, i.e. everyone in the world who was not Jewish.

Though the author of Acts tells the famous Road to Damascus story and says Saul went immediately afterward to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles, Saul himself gave no such account in Galatians, which he wrote decades earlier than Acts. He wrote merely that God chose to reveal Jesus to him and that after his revelation he went immediately to Arabia for three years where he learned things from God that no other human would be allowed to hear.

When he came back to Judah, he mostly refused to speak to the people who had lived and worked with Jesus, insisting that his own revelations were more important than the recollections of eyewitnesses.

Saul (now called Paul) did not quote Jesus’ parables and other teachings, but rather emphasized the doctrine of Atonement, that Jesus died to atone for the sins of all mankind. And he vehemently condemned anyone who disagreed with him.

Was Jesus married?

Based on real evidence available to us, no one can answer this question definitively one way or the other. It certainly would have been unusual for a rabbi at that time to NOT be married. And the lack of mention of a wife in the gospels is no proof, as there is no mention of the apostles’ wives’ activities either. Paul is the only one who indicates that he himself is single, and he was not one of the Twelve who traveled and worked with Jesus.

But the topic makes for great speculation in fiction. In my own novels, for instance, Jesus is unavailable for the marriage to Mary that had been arranged by their respective fathers, so his younger look-alike brother Judas Thomas (The Twin) marries her in his stead and fathers a daughter who later becomes known as the Black Madonna in what is now southern France. Jesus and Judas (and any offspring) would likely have had dark complexions in comparison to the western Europeans, hence her title.

Who was the bad neighbor in the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke chapter 10?

This question points up one of the great contradictions in Christianity as it has been taught in the past two millennia, so let’s try to respond in steps.

First, there is no good neighbor or bad neighbor in the Good Samaritan story. In the question that Jesus puts to the lawyer, there is only a neighbor. The lawyer correctly answers the question. Now, on the surface, and as the lesson has always been taught to us, this means that even a born lifelong enemy (i.e., the Samaritan) deserves your love as a neighbor.

But look just a bit deeper. Immediately before this story, Jesus tells the lawyer the two great commandments—to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength, AND to love your neighbor as yourself. The lawyer then asks Jesus who is his neighbor, and Jesus tells the story indicating that the wounded victim’s only neighbor was the one who helped him recover from his injuries. Extrapolating, then, you should love the people who do right by you, but not necessarily the people who refuse to help you when you are down.

Now, I realize that Christians would be horrified by such an interpretation of the Good Samaritan, and I am sure that I will be denounced for putting it in print here. But they should take that up with the author of Luke. He’s the one who wrote it that way.

Third, I would like to delve further into this story and point out that it is more about you, the reader, than about your neighbors. You shall love your neighbor as much as you love yourself. If you do not first learn how to love yourself, then the second commandment is useless to you. If you have any degree of self-hate because of your own sense of guilt or insecurities, you will project that same attitude onto your neighbor (perhaps unconsciously) and will treat them with less honest love and respect than they deserve. Get your own psyche in order so that you can behave appropriately to your neighbor. Jesus has told you that you are forgiven; then accept forgiveness and stop carrying all the baggage that your sense of guilt has dumped on you. And when you have learned to accept forgiveness, then you can forgive others who have wronged you.

(Bonus tip: Forgiveness doesn’t mean saying it’s okay and thus inviting them to hurt you again, it just means letting go of the baggage that the hurt caused you; you should still avoid allowing that person to cause you pain again.)

So, back to your question, there is no “bad neighbor” in the story. There was just one neighbor, the Samaritan.

What are the differences between Luke’s and Matthew’s versions of the Annunciation?

In Matthew’s version, an angel appears to Joseph telling the man to marry Mary even though she is pregnant. Though the text quotes the angel saying the child was conceived from the Holy Spirit, that is merely a short phrase in a very short narrative. This could have left the impression that Jesus was an illegitimate bastard of some other, unnamed man. Luke, written at least 10 years after Matthew, overcomes this blooper by having the angel Gabriel appear to Mary and inform her in detail that, though she is still a virgin, the Holy Spirit will come upon her and the power of God will overshadow her so that she will conceive without having sexual intercourse. Thus Luke, written for Gentiles (i.e. non-Jewish subjects of the Roman empire), provided the only scriptural foundation for the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. This remains a foundational belief in the Roman Catholic faith to this day.

Author of Second Born, and Acts of the Women

Decreasing attention spans, increasing binge-watching

Reading habits are changing, and writers are adapting to keep up.

Thousands of authors worldwide participate in a free program to try to write a novel from start to finish during the month of November. I joined this past fall and wrote a 55,000-word story in slightly less than one month. Then I put it away for two weeks so I could read and edit the manuscript with fresh eyes, and came to realize I needed to add about 15,000 more words of material to flesh out the characters and add depth to the story. 

But in the three months since then, the additional material remains elusive. Why? With no deadline to keep me focused, my productivity dropped like Wile E. Coyote chasing the Roadrunner to the edge of a cliff. My attention span seems to wander far and wide when I don’t have a reason to focus.

It’s not just me. Over the years I have noticed movie and TV producers have shortened scenes and even advertisements to flit rapidly to a different idea or storyline, as if the viewers can’t follow a train of thought for more than half a minute.

In fact, this trend has even come to the attention of Professor Gloria Mark of the University of California at Davis. She recently authored a book entitled, Attention Span: A Groundbreaking Way to Restore Balance, Happiness and Productivity, which draws on almost 20 years of study she has conducted on attention spans.

Mark’s work, and an overview of the general problem, were recently discussed in a Newsweek article by Aristos Georgiou, “Our Attention Spans Are Declining, and Technology Is Not Solely to Blame.”

However, at the same time that our attention spans are plummeting, we are seeing an increasing trend for TV viewers to “binge-watch” series on streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, and Prime TV. A recent study reported by Johns Hopkins Medicine found that binge-watching has been steadily increasing in recent years, especially during the pandemic. 

So, while people struggle to focus on a single screen of material for more than a few dozen heartbeats, they will spend about four hours a night watching a string of episodes of a series that they would ordinarily have to see one per week. Is it because commercial TV programming has become so mundane that they flee to alternatives to the usual format? Or, the author asks, is it similar to binge-eating as a response to stress?

I would also note that many TV series these days seem to keep at least four sub-plots running at the same time as the primary story, and the flitting from one short scene to the next also often involves jumping from one sub-storyline to another—sometimes even in different time periods. Many series may preface a scene with an onscreen notice reading, “Five Weeks Earlier” or “Ten Years Later” to give either the backstory or the long-term aftermath of the action in the current scene. 

Perhaps this is related to the decline in attention spans. Rather than wait for weekly installments of a series, binge-watchers want to see it all right now, and they want immediate answers as to why such-and-such happens and what happens later down the road. But rather than focus just on the main story, they need to “multi-task” by trying to follow four or five storylines simultaneously because the viewers are used to interruptions. We have grown so accustomed to interruptions of our concentration that we have built-in assumptions that we will be interrupted; when no external interruptions occur, we create our own. (Cue the social media, email, and computer solitaire.)

As an author, I have noticed that I write very short chapters and keep several side plots going at the same time as the main story. I was a print journalist for many years, so I have always tried to write as concisely as possible. As much as I admire JRR Tolkien and find his novels so much deeper and more fulfilling than the movies based on them, I could probably never build a world with thousands of years of historical lore like Middle Earth. Frank Herbert’s universe in Dune would also be a stretch for me. Many of my chapters range from a mere 750 to 1,500 words. Tolkien might use that many words just to recount an abbreviated tale of an ancient heroic elf that lays the background for a single scene in a much longer chapter of current events.

Looking to the future of literature, we also must take into account the increased popularity of audiobooks. According to Statistica.com, the use of audiobooks has grown ten-fold in the past decade. This development will have a significant impact for authors. If people are listening rather than reading our text, we will probably need to write shorter sentences and use less complex language. Writing dialogue may mean using fewer voices or at least identifying speakers at the beginning of paragraphs rather than the middle or end. Using multiple voice actors to differentiate between characters would prove too costly.

The world of writing has changed significantly since I got into journalism decades ago. When I celebrate my 125^th birthday, I probably will not even attempt to read the news that day. Whatever medium writers are using to deliver information at that time, I can be fairly certain that it won’t require me to hold a sheet of paper in my hand or gaze onto a desktop computer screen. Maybe I’ll invite some 75-year-old kid to my birthday party who can show me how to use whatever technology is popular among the younger generation.