Notable Biblical Allusions of Inglourious Basterds

The world of the arts is profoundly interconnected; authors, screenwriters, poets, and playwrights have been alluding to other works for as long as they have been producing works of their own. Perhaps nothing is more rewarding than coming across an allusion in a work and actually understanding what it is referring to and why. While some of these references are results of the artist’s own saturation in another work, most allusions are constructed with an intended purpose. The Bible is the most-widely read book in history, and as such, it has been alluded to more than any other piece of literature ever penned. Nearly every movie you watch, book you read, or song you listen to will be interspersed with allusions to the Bible. With this in mind, I want to spotlight a few significant allusions to the Bible found in Quentin Tarantino’s film, Inglourious Basterds. 

Quentin Tarantino has been hailed as one of the greatest directors and screenwriters of our time. He operates under his own extraordinarily unique style and has written and directed some of the most recognizable films in recent memory: Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Django Unchained, Kill Bill, and Inglourious Basterds, to name a few. To me, it is no coincidence that this highly-decorated director and screenwriter is able to connect his movies to important works in history. 

Inglorious Basterds depicts an alternate version of events surrounding World War II. Being a work of historical fiction focusing on the events surrounding the most recognizable act of genocide ever committed, the Holocaust, many questions surrounding religion beg to be asked and answered. The first allusion I want to focus on addresses the question that has been asked for centuries about Adolf Hitler’s genocide of the Jewish people: where was God while all of this happened? That being said, the movie does not explain where God was or what he was doing, but Tarantino does offer an alternative form of retribution and justice. The Basterds, a group of Jewish-American special forces soldiers, dish out justice in the place of God. They never take prisoners. When the group encounters Nazi soldiers, those soldiers either die or are allowed to live to spread the legend of the Basterds. If a Nazi soldier is allowed to live, he is always given something to remember the occasion by. The Basterds cut a Swastika into the forehead of every Nazi soldier they set free, a la the mark of Cain in Genesis 4. Like Cain, the Nazis have committed an unforgivable act, and an act such as this deserves punishment. The Basterds take the place of Yahweh in the film, and the mark they cut into foreheads of Nazi soldiers is their form of justice. The mark of Cain was meant to deter other people from killing him; this way, he can experience the full extent of the curse placed on him by Yahweh. Likewise, the Swastika carved into the flesh of a Nazi soldier was meant to forever label him as a Nazi. So, when the soldier went back home after the war and put his uniform up, everyone would be able to recognize him for what he was. The leader of the Jewish-American militant group puts it this way: “We like our Nazis in uniform. That way we can spot 'em just like that. We're gonna give you a little something you can’t take off.” Thus, this mark serves a very similar purpose to the mark placed on Cain in Genesis; both serve to identify the bearer and are given to ensure that justice is served for the remainder of the bearer’s time on Earth. 

Heroes come in all manner of different packages, and every heroic story carries with it a unique set of circumstances and motivation. The other noteworthy allusion to the Bible present in this movie deals with a heroic event straight from the book of Judges. Shosanna Dreyfus is a Jewish girl who manages to escape the red hands that so easily subdued so many like her. She fled to Paris, France and became the owner of a cinema under an alias. With the image of her family’s blood-spattered bodies still fresh in her mind, she jumps at the first opportunity for revenge on the Nazi party. The Third Reich throws a grandiose movie premiere that sees the most high-ranking Nazi officials in attendance. The venue? None other than Shosanna Dreyfus’ cinema. Feeling the grasp of enemy suspicions slowly tightening around her, her carefully laid out plan to end the lives of the people attending the premiere soon becomes a plunge into martyrdom. Like Samson, who kills his captors in Judges by toppling the building from the inside out (Judges 16:30), Shosanna sets her beloved cinema on fire while still in the building with those whom she intends to kill. Therefore, she does more for her fellow Jews in death than she could ever accomplish in life. Among those who were in the cinema as it burned to the ground? Adolph Hitler himself. Shosanna sacrificed her own life in order to take the life of the man responsible for her people’s persecution. This event obviously echoes the story of Samson. 

These allusions were not made by accident, and I do not think it is a small matter that they were made to the book upon which the Jewish people base their beliefs. While Inglourious Basterds is not a foray into religion, it does retrospectively provide justice in a way that echoes Old Testament values. These allusions help probe into the age-old questions surrounding the God of the Jewish people and his apparent absence when they needed him most. 

Who exactly were the Rephaim?

From the Nephilim to Goliath, giants are mentioned frequently in biblical texts. Giants conquered and were conquered, killed and were killed, lived and died. The mention of the humongous beings is so matter-of-fact that a modern reader can almost be whisked away into a fantastical land. It’s easy to forget the possibility that these people could have actually existed. The Rephaim, in particular, is a group of apparent giants mentioned several times throughout the Bible, and they always seem to be in opposition to the people of Israel. Having Yahweh on your side would most definitely come in handy if you were across the battlefield from people at least twice your size. But who exactly were the Rephaim, and where did they come from? 

Perhaps it will be easiest to start with the last in this case. Og, the king of Bashan, is mentioned as the last “remnant of the Rephaim” by Moses. It is no wonder that Moses’ saw fit to recollect his military victory over Og in his last words to the people of Israel. According to Deuteronomy 3:11, “his bed was a bed of iron...nine cubits was its lenth, and four cubits its breadth.” Now, in modern measurements, this means that Og’s bed was about 13.5 feet long and over 6 feet wide. As I look over at my bed right now, only one thought is running through my mind: this guy was BIG. Not to mention that his bed was made of iron. I mean, what sort of person requires a bed made of extremely dense metal to hold them up? I don’t blame Moses for recounting this story; personally, I would have found a way to interject this tidbit of information at least 13 more times before I quit talking. 

The Rephaim came to be equated with the kingdom of Bashan. They, and several other people groups known to be great in stature, inhabited the region just east of the Jordan River. This means that the Israelites had to make it through a land literally filled with giants in order to reach the land promised to them by Yahweh. Deuteronomy 3:3-4 states that the Israelites captured 60 cities from the Rephaim in the region Argob. So, at one point, thousands of giants stood in the way of the Israelites’ inheritance.

Even though Moses was convinced Og was the last remaining Rephaim, other stories in the Bible place descendants of Rephaim in the land of Canaan itself. All the way up to David’s war against the Phillistines, there are accounts of the Rephaim:

“And after this there arose war with the Philistines at Gezer. Then Sibbecai the Hushathite struck down Sippai, who was one of the descendants of the giants, and the Philistines were subdued. And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants. And when he taunted Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea, David's brother, struck him down. These were descended from the giants in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.” (1 Chronicles 20:4-8)

So, apparently Moses had not quite rid the Earth of the giant Rephaim. One source in particular suggests that Moses’ claim could have been referring only to the Rephaim living in the land Argob. Since the Israelites destroyed all 60 cities in the region, Moses would have had good reason to consider the giants a problem of the past. 

There are many theories of where the Rephaim actually came from, but most theories fall back to one starting point. The Rephaim, along other groups of giants mention in the  Bible, most likely descended from the Nephilim found in the book of Genesis. Deuteronomy establishes a connection between the Anakim and the Rephaim, and in earlier parts of scripture, the Anakim were called descendants of the Nephilim (Numbers 13:32-33). So, it makes sense that the Rephaim descended from the Nephilim found in Genesis. 

I suppose this is one way to imagine the Nephilim

In a nutshell, the Rephaim were huge, and they most likely descended from the infamous Nephilim found in the book of Genesis. The Israelites most likely got their money’s worth when fighting through an entire nation of these gargantuan men to reach the Promised Land. 

What sort of guy was Balaam, anyway?

I believe it is a safe assumption that everyone has known at least one person who just has a bad reputation in general. That person is always associated with bad things and bad places. Whether that reputation was justly garnered varies from case to case. While reading through Numbers, I found particular interest in Balaam, the prophet. I decided to do a little research to see if I could find out a little bit more about him, and by all accounts, this guy gets a pretty bad rap. However, I did not really see anything in Numbers that would have caused this bad reputation. Sure, he hit his donkey a few times, but who hasn’t done that, right? So, in lieu of this newfound “bad guy,” I decided to find out exactly what kind of guy he was. 

Balaam is introduced in Numbers 22-24. Balak, the king of Moab, request Balaam to come and curse the Israelites so he could defeat them. Balak even offered to pay the prophet. However, Balaam refuses these offers twice, but upon seeking God’s a will a third time, he heard the Lord say it was ok for him to go. The Lord’s only stipulation being found in Numbers 22:20; the Lord said to Balaam, “If the men  have come to call you, rise, go with them; but only do what I tell you.” So, Balaam went to the king of Moab. On his journey, he is met with an angel of the Lord blocking his path. At first, I thought Balaam would be forced to turn back, but the Lord gives him permission to continue while reiterating his stipulation. Once Balaam reaches his destination, Balak asks him to curse the Israelites on three separate occasions. Each time, Balaam seeks the voice of the Lord, and in turn, blessed the Israelites instead. As a last act, the prophet tells the Moabite king that Israel will soon overthrow him. Balak, furious, sends Balaam back to his own land. *SIDE NOTE* This is an extremely short summary of Balaam’s story, I recommend you read it for yourself as it is very interesting and suspenseful. 

From my reading of Balaam’s story, I could not possibly fathom how he has garnered such a bad reputation. 2 Peter 2:15-16, Jude 11, and Revelation 2:14 all attribute the prophet with some nasty qualities and group him with other despicable names. A particular passage that caught my eye was this: “Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness” (2 Peter 2:15-16 ESV). 

This suggests that Balaam was told not to journey to Balak, but in Numbers 22:35, the angel of the Lord clearly tells Balaam to continue with the men. Many sources label Balaam as soothsayer (a glorified fortune teller). However, I do not think this is a fair label. Balaam is blatantly seen seeking the voice of the Lord, and each time, he follows through with what he hears. Smith’s Bible Dictionary says “He yielded to the temptations of riches and honor which Balak set before him; but God’s anger was kindled at this manifestation of determined self-will, and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him.” Yet again, I think it is important to point out that Balaam was given full permission to go after the angel appeared to him. Further still, Jewish literature paints Balaam as “one of seven heathen prophets,” and as being absolutely intent on cursing the Israelites. However, Balaam consistently tells Balak that he will only speak what he hears from the Lord. 

Other sources blame Balaam for the sinfulness of the Israelites described in Numbers 25. The Israelites “took Moabite and Midianite women and worshipped the Moabite god, Baal-peor.” Once again, there is no direct information found in Numbers 25 to link Balaam to the incident. The only thing that immediately causes me to question the truth of this accusation is the similarities in name between Balaam and Baal of Peor. But, upon further research, I found nothing that would cause me to believe Balaam was serving Baal. 

In my opinion, there is not sufficient information found in the text to justify the awful reputation bestowed upon Balaam. Perhaps it was common knowledge in the days of Moses that Balaam was a bad guy who was manipulating the gift of prophecy. However, the account of this tale in Numbers does not offer any proof of this accusation. I can’t help but feel sorry for Balaam. With the information provided in Numbers, it seems that he was paying much more attention to the Lord than many of the Israelites. 

I found this video that is a good example of stories in the bible being taken out of context, or in this case, blatantly told the wrong way. 

What effect did consecration have on the firstborn sons of the Israelites?

Sibling rivalry is prevalent in the western world, and it has fueled many fights among families. Personally, I grew up with a brother who is three years older than me. In my eyes, he was always my parents’ favorite child, but in his eyes our parents treated me much better. I suppose that is what made the consecration of every firstborn son stand out to me. With all the emphasis placed on equality and fairness among siblings in our time, anything that sets a certain son apart from his siblings is certain to raise our proverbial eyebrows. So, what exactly did it mean for a son to be consecrated to Yahweh, and what sort of effect did it have on his life? I wonder if he always got better Christmas presents like my brother did..

Immediately following the exodus of his people from Egypt, Yahweh commands his people to “consecrate to me all the firstborn. Whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast is mine” (Exodus 13:2). Now, as well versed as I am in ancient Hebrew culture, I thought it might be best to research what exactly consecration is. “Consecration is the solemn dedication to a special purpose or service.” Yahweh commanded all the people of Israel to dedicate their firstborn sons and animals to be used for his service. In my mind, that makes them pretty special. I mean, wouldn’t Yahweh want all of his people to be dedicated to him? However, he had a reason for specifically choosing the firstborn males for this person. Remember those devastating plagues he darn near destroyed Egypt with? Well, the very last once (the one that finally scared Pharaoh enough to let the Israelites leave) just so happened to kill every single firstborn Egyptian male. Yahweh’s justification for having each firstborn Israelite consecrated is to remind his people of what he did for them in Egypt. Think Hunger Games as a reminder of the uprising against Panem.. except with less death (maybe). 

Shortly after the Lord commands his people to consecrate the firstborn of man and animal, he delves a little more deeply into what this means:

You shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb. All the firstborn of your animals that are males shall be the Lord’s. Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if yo will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem (Exodus 13:12-13).

So, the reader learns that the firstborn males of every clean animal are effectively sacrificed to the Lord, and the unclean animals are redeemed with the sacrifice of a lamb. But Yahweh wouldn’t be saying that the firstborn sons of the Israelites have to be redeemed in order to live, would he? Remember that Isaac was set to be sacrificed to the Lord by his father, Abraham, until he was redeemed by a ram found at the altar (Genesis 22:11-13). In effect, Yahweh has done the same thing with the Israelites. He has made it clear the firstborn sons are not to be withheld from him. However, once again, he gives the Israelites the option of redeeming their sons. Whether that redemption must be paid for with a sacrificial offering of a lamb or was already paid for by the deaths of the firstborn Egyptians is often speculated about, and there is even some evidence available to testify to a monetary redemption. A transaction had to be made in order for the Israelites to keep their eldest sons. Despite the cloudiness that surrounds the “price” of a firstborn son, it is clear that Yahweh is telling the people of Israel their sons belong to him, that he is the reason they are where they are. God’s people were immediately indebted to him the moment they were born. The consecration and subsequent redemption of firstborn males was meant to serve as a constant reminder of this fact (Exodus 13:16). This could also serve as a foreshadowing of the ultimate redemption to take place later, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The writer effectively uses a symbol as a reminder of past events and to foreshadow future events. 

Does this mean that the consecration of the firstborn son serves as nothing more than a reminder of Yahweh’s glory and the decimation of the Egyptians? Not necessarily. There are several instances in the text that point to eldest sons being awarded unique privileges (besides being the heir of the household). While Moses is seen as the leader of the Israelites, it was Aaron, Moses’ older brother and the firstborn Amram, who “had the distinctive privilege of being Moses’ close associate and also the one selected as the first high priest of God’s people”. In Exodus 28 and 29 the reader learns of the extensive consecration of Aaron to God, and thus he became the first high priest of Israel. The entire priesthood was given to the Levite tribe of Israel (of which Aaron was a descendant). Furthermore, only Aaron and his sons were given the role of priests, and only the firstborn sons of Aaron’s lineage could hold the position of high priest. Other Levites involved with the priesthood would serve underneath Aaron and his descendants. It’s obvious that Aaron was attributed a special role in the nation of God’s people, and I don’t think it is a coincidence that he was the eldest son of his family. Special privileges like these are bestowed upon the eldest sons of families in many instances throughout the old testament. To be first was to be the best in that particular culture, so it is natural that the Hebrew writers recorded occurrences like this. 

While the consecration and redemption of firstborn sons served mainly as a reminder of Yahweh’s power and ownership of Israel, I think that it is obvious certain perks were attached to the title. These perks may not have come in the form of better Christmas presents like my ooohhhh so wonderful older brother got, but being consecrated as the high priest of God’s people is nothing to roll your eyes at. So, in effect, being the firstborn son of a family in the nation of Israel definitely had an impact on a man’s life. For the most part, it was a very positive impact. Go figure.. the oldest always have it better, don’t they?

Why was Lot not considered the heir of Abraham before the birth of Ishmael and Isaac?

For several chapters, Abraham is seen obviously fretting over the fact that he does not have a son of his own to inherit his worldly possessions (not to mention everything Yahweh was promising through the covenant). In fact, he blatantly complains to Yahweh about the heir apparent: “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” (Genesis 15:2). It seems to me that Lot should have been the first in line to inherit Abraham’s household before any sons entered the picture. Since this obviously was not the case, I decided to find out why, and it did not take long to find an answer. Every single piece of information I came across noted that, no matter the circumstance, only sons could be the heir of a household. This probed a much more cloudy question: how was Eliezer of Damascus in the position to be Abraham’s heir since he is never mentioned as Abraham’s son?

There are many theories floating around this exact question, so I decided to probe into the ones that I found most plausible. One theory I found very interesting made the case that Eliezer could have been Abraham’s adopted son. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, it was a common practice in the culture of this time period for childless couples to adopt a son to bury and mourn them when they died, and in return for his services, he would be named the family’s heir (providing no natural-born son enters the picture, of course). These adopted sons were often former slaves, and since Abraham later says in Genesis 15:3 that Eliezer is a member of his household (meaning one of his possessions), the adopted slave theory would make sense in this situation. Also, interestingly enough, Abraham and Sarah were at advanced ages before Yahweh promised them a child of their own, so it makes sense that they could have been worried enough to adopt a member of the household as a sort of backup plan. In his essay, Dr. Robert Paulissian explains that these adopted sons sometimes came from complete strangers looking for a better life for their children; so, it is also plausible that Abraham adopted Eliezer while passing through Damascus on the road to Canaan. In fact, Abraham would have passed through Damascus at a fairly advanced age, and he could have already been worrying about the future of his household (perhaps enough to even adopt a son). 

Indeed, the thought of Abraham and Sarah adopting a son to take care of their affairs when they die makes sense, but there is another theory that sticks out as the most sensible, in my opinion. In her blog, Alice Linsley attributes Eliezer’s position as heir to him being conceived by one of Abraham’s concubines. This makes sense on many different levels. First of all, readers know that Abraham kept the company of concubines thanks to Genesis 25:5-6 when he gives gifts to the sons of his concubines. It was not uncommon in ancient Mesopotamia for the children of concubines to be treated as legal offspring, and in other cases, the children of concubines assumed the role of slave in the house to which they were born. As a result, the argument could be made that Eliezer was the oldest son of Abraham’s concubines; if this was the case, he would have been both heir and property to Abraham. To even further bolster the argument of Eliezer being the son of a concubine, it would explain why Abraham was not very happy that Eliezer would inherit his household if he died without a legitimate son. Concubines were treated as property; they did not have the social status to actually marry the ruler they served. Therefore, any sons born to them would subsequently bear a considerably lower social standing than any sons born to a legal wife. It would not have been ideal for a man of Abraham’s stature to leave his household in the name of someone of a lower social class.

These concubines were kept in a part of the household known as a harem (pictured above). As a general rule, more wealth = more concubines. It is obvious to readers that Abraham was a very wealthy man, and it is hard to imagine a room like the one pictured above not resulting in a few children, am I right?

Reading Abraham’s story today, it may seem logical that Abraham would leave his possessions to Lot, his beloved nephew. However, thanks to the social and legal practices of the time period, the reader gains insight to the tangled web of lineage weaved by Abraham. In my opinion, the writer used this tangled lineage as a tool to highlight the exactness of the protagonist’s plan. In order for events to unfold like they did, the protagonist had to untangle a gigantic ball of problematic circumstances.