You are on page 1of 4

Bob Dylan-Christs Rolling Stone Mag Crucifixion: Father Forgive the Evangelical Apologists for They Know Not

What They Equate

The transfigured Bob Dylan to Mikal Gilmore on the non-attribution-ofborrowings hoopla (to quote Dylans own term for it):
As if that is in some kind of way equitable to betraying our Lord and delivering him up to be crucified. All those evil motherfuckers can rot in hell. Read more:

Equatable with, Bob. Equitable to is a malapropism. But what is malappropriate, to coin a malapropism, is for the evangelical apologists to dive in at high speed to dissect it and in a manner that, in at least one case, effectively claims Dylan as evangelical puppet in a somewhat infantilely gloating manner while patronising him for his sinful condition evidenced, apparently, by this very routine fashionable American outburst. Bob Dylan: I still believe in Jesus, mofos!
Posted on September 13th, 2012 by Sean Curnyn Well, how could I be expected to resist a title like that?

Well, no, he couldnt, and thats just the problem. This is more incongruous than Dylans outburst of, shall we say, devout profanity: Curnyn feels the need to interpret to the world in spite of it supposedly being the rest of fandom that is doing all the endless analyzing -- that Dylans Our Lord proves hes believed in Jesus all the years since (we must infer because Curnyn would never mention it one time) 1985s Messianic complex since which fans have been parsing over this or would have been if everyone had had broadband Internet since then, which we clearly havent.
He then follows it up with what some may consider a vaguely un-Christian statement: All those evil motherf**kers can rot in hell.

Fence-sitting. But not quite.

Which just goes to show were all sinners.

Why? How? Non sequitur. This does not prove the historical existence of Adam and Eve. Dylans comment is throwaway, not theological or ontological. This, his response, has nothing to do with Christs blood or the saving power in or attributed to it. Its simply popular dismissive American slang. Obviously you

dont get away with saying it in church, but Dylan doesnt have a normal church life. Compare the irrepressible Dutch evangelist Kees de Graafs Bob Dylan's 'Pay in Blood' - an analysis - Part 1 - IntroductionWhat is notable, however, is that Dylan follows the RS interview up with a very nasty statement which may be called anything but Christian: . . . Matt. 7:1 Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. No man has the right to wish other people in hell, no matter how justified Dylans remarks about the Judas accusations may be. At the end of times, on Judgment Day, the final judgment will be made but we have to bear in mind that this will be a divine privilege. This nasty remark proves the more so that Dylan is a sinner and needs cleansing through blood, in the same way as we are all sinners and need cleansing. At the same time utterances like this stress the need for continuous payment in blood.

Whats most laughable is that these evangelical apologists (for Dylans work and statements generally) find Dylans being on the receiving end, albeit in the most abstract and theoretical of manners with Mikal Gilmore sitting on the fence, of the suggestion he may not have attributed his sources sufficiently, to be, shall we say, equitable to the crucifixion of Our Lord while feeling uncomfortable over how Dylans response (to Gilmores crucifying him by fence-sitting proxy) is not equatable with that of Jesus on the cross. So what? Luke 23:33-35 New International Version - UK (NIVUK)
33 When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals one on his right, the other on his left. 34 Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.[a] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. 35 The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, He saved others; let him save himself if he is Gods Messiah, the Chosen One.

It doesnt need to be because there is no comparison. Dylan doesnt need Christs blood to atone for his outburst. But he may need tashlich breadcrumbs and they, the evangelical apologists, may need the Blood of Christ to atone for their (devilish) interpretation of Jokerman as being about Jesus . . .

Jonathan Cott, the loquacious laconic1 Jonathan Cott, in Dylan (circa 1985) p 202:
To give the devil (or should I say angel?) his due, I should remind both myself and the reader that, as the Jungian analyst Jeffrey Satinover has written: "Once the star is established, his fans will tear him to pieces should ever he fail to carry for them the projected childhood Self. A recent example from pop culture is the fans' vituperative reaction to Bob Dylan's unexpected changes of style. Once a narcissistic complementation has been set up between any leader and his following, he is as bound as they. The rigidity of the relationship and the strength of the forces maintaining the status quo stem from the mutual common individual fear of fragmentation." Or as Dylan told the Minneapolis weekly City Pages in 1983: "People want to know where I'm at because they don't know where they're at."

But back to the Rolling Stone interview with Mikal Gilmore.

Dylan: Everything people say about you or me, they are saying about themselves. They're telling about themselves. Ever notice that? In my case, there's a whole world of scholars, professors and Dylanologists, and everything I do affects them in some way. And, you know, in some ways, I've given them life. They'd be nowhere without me. Gilmore: And inspiration. Dylan: No, they're not good for that.

John 6:52-54 New International Version (NIV)

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Jesus said to them, Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

John 6:52-54 King James Version (KJV)

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Loquacious if you are Terry Kelly or (implicitly) laconic if you are Michael (p 255) commenting on the predominance of photos in the book Dylan.

Dylan to Scott Cohen for Spin magazine in 1985 (as reported by Cohen but by definition without the all-significant vocal nuance to give the full context of where the pauses and emphases are):
What I learned in Bible school was just another side of an extension of the same thing I believed in all along, but just couldnt verbalize or articulate. Whether you want to believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah is irrelevant, but whether youre aware of the messianic complex, thats all thats important.

Compare from BELIEF IN MOSHIACH POSSIBILITY OR CERTAINTY c) 1992 Wellsprings, an interview between Susan Handelman and Rabbi Manis Friedman, Bobs Lubavitch Hasidic pal from at least the mid Eighties:
FRIEDMAN: If people can point a finger to someone and say, "This is Moshiach," that simply shows how alive and vibrant their faith in Moshiach is. Whether this person is or is not Moshiach is irrelevant. HANDELMAN: Would you say that it is irrelevant even if, for example, we decide on the wrong person? New religions have been formed as a result of the belief that certain persons were the Moshiach, and Judaism suffered considerably when these other religions persecuted the Jews for refusing to accept these "Messiahs."

Bobs evangelical apologists? And, you know, in some ways, I've given them life. They'd be nowhere without me. Very truly I tell them, unless they eat the flesh of the Transfigured Bob and drink his blood, they have no life in them. Drink up his blood like wine . . .

Paul Kirkman 2012