Of Fig Leaves and Murder

Like Jesuits removing genitalia from Vatican statuary and covering the mutilated with fig leaves helps us all understand Rome's definition of saintliness (and sex toys): the king's translators helped Matthew clarify what would have otherwise been a fig leaf over Bathsheba's dower. In reciting that part of Jesus' heritage which is generally discounted as non- applicable elsewhere (Joseph's lineage), Matthew writes: "And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her of Urias [Matthew 1:6]."

The above could be misunderstood as indicating Uriah the Hittite ("Urias,") as Solomon's maternal grandfather. So the translators added five words: "And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias [Matthew 1:6]."

Why is such clarification necessary? Why mention Uriah at all? Is this a reminder that Bathsheba didn't scream "rape!" [Deuteronomy 22: 23 & 24] to be saved from being diddled by King Davey while Uriah was gone on mighty- man maneuvers with Joab and the army-- even though Davey porked Bath-sheba in the city? Does Bathsheba's willingness to cavort with her king behind her husband's back make Solomon "the son of a strange woman [2 Samuel 11:2, et. al.]?"

Regardless of the apostle Matthew's intent, the 'faithfulness' of the messenger- killing King of the Jews toward his subjects is underscored by the translators' help. Perhaps so 'poking the blind eye' was Matthew's intent from the start. After all, for a Book with so many curses imposed on any and all who would alter it in any way (including, of course, adding words to make sense of the tens- of- thousands of otherwise senseless gaps left in the narrative by those who wrote it): the 'Holy Bible' is gibberish without the help.

This intentional senselessness of a canon of doctrine presumably so carefully codified as to predict the future not only as a matter of prognostication but of bibliomancy and mathematical divination begs the question: What is the inspiration of such senselessness? What kind of hoodwink are the authors attempting to delude the masses with? Why would Matthew mention Bathsheba, even obliquely? What purpose does this mention of her serve? The answers to such questions almost always reside in the vale of siddim (or Shittim): in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Most, if not all, biblical scholars are likely unaware of the spiritual sodomy of adultery: even though the 'Holy Bible' is the only doctrine I know of which defines adultery so. In Leviticus 18:16 (et. al.), Moses writes: "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness." It simply cannot be stated more simply that adultery is sodomy.

Thus, by referring as often as possible to David's wives as the wives of other men ("Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite [1 Samuel 30:5, et. al.]" being another such case in point), the writers of the 'Holy Bible' 'get their freak on' while seemingly distancing themselves from and condemning those they write about (in glowing terms, nonetheless, mind you). The apostle Paul calls this 'taking pleasure in wickedness [Romans 1:32]', to paraphrase; while John the divine admits the spirit which presides over that city in which David reigned and Jesus was murdered is Sodom [Revelation 11:8].

See what it means to be "The King of the Jews?" I wonder how many of his disciples molested Jesus as he hung on the cross in Sodom. Perhaps Jesus considered it lovemaking, not molestation; but the fact remains that a man crucified has no way to protect himself from perverts; and Jesus' father David [Luke 1:32] took pleasure in other men, even when the only way he could do so was to take their wives away and kill the male objects of his ardor to figleaf his envy of men as love of women.