Kerry's Foundations of Biblical Literature Blog

Presentations and Paper

2006-12-05T16:55:00.000-07:00

I have thoroughly enjoyed the individual presentations so far. I'm not really surprised that there has been such an array of topics, but it's been great hearing about such different things. For me, a lot of little things that we have talked about during the semester have been delved into, which has added depth to the material for me. I really liked Taylor's comparison of Tamar with Guinevere, also the presentations on Revelation were especially helpful, any help in understanding the book of Revelation is good for me. I'm looking forward to rest of the presentations on Thursday. And, here is my paper, for your reading pleasure, (I would say if there is one paragraph that encapsulates all of it, it would be the last one):

Kairos as a contributor to the success of the Bible

Everything is governed by time in our lives. Lives are lived through time and time is often the deciding factor in how events occur in our lives. Frye says of time, “Time is the fundamental category by which we perceive everything: we perceive nothing that is real except in time.” (217) Yet, for a concept that is so fundamental it seems to elude a common definition. Time is a vague concept that means something different to almost every person, thus it becomes very difficult to discuss time with people because they cannot convey to others what the experience of time is for them. When people encounter discussions of time, they are likely to impose their own ideas of time on the discourse and interpret it accordingly. In the Bible, where references to time are vague, people find themselves enabled to experience time in the Bible as they see fit, which is often different from others, but certainly cannot be deemed incorrect. The Bible does not encourage a succinct interpretation of time, but rather promotes that readers engage in experiencing time to the point where time is obliterated or in other words, readers move from kronos towards kairos.

References to specific time in the Bible are unquestionably vague, but the reasons for time being presented as vague are debatable. The two sides of the argument are that time was either intentionally or non-intentionally left vague. Those persuaded by the non-intentional argument see the concept of time being driven by historical circumstances. People believe that words which have connotations connected with time were going through an evolutionary stage when portions of the Bible were written and when the translations were made; the proper understandings of the words in the historical period in which the text was written were not understood. For instance, the word horae seems to mean hour, but at some point in history meant season. The other side of the argument is that the authors of the Bible intentionally left specific references of time out such that the readers do not have answers to questions regarding specific times, but are left to question, speculate, and interpret references of time for themselves. The intent of the authors of the Bible is to create events which are timeless. While history does play a role in creating ambiguous references to time, the Bible does not wish to be associated with specific moments in time and thus references to time are intentionally elusive throughout the Bible.

The Bible advocates a different interpretation of time, which is that associated with kairos. Kairos is defined by Dr. Sexson to literally refer to the notch in the arrow, and also, the crucial moment in time, the time of recognition and epiphany, the decisive moment in time, which obliterates time. There is much more attention towards this notion of time in the Bible than specific time, or kronos. The Old Testament introduces kairos by presenting time to the reader in an unfamiliar way. People in the Old Testament often live for hundreds of years, which indicates their transcendence through specific time, into the realm of kairos. The Old Testament is also filled with stories that are archetypal stories, which make it seem that the story is a part of every other story like it or stories that cycle through time such as Judges. In the New Testament, not only are cyclical notions of time present, but also advocated is having an experience to transcend through time.

Moses and the Exodus is a mythological archetype of deliverance. Frye argues that the Exodus is the only story in the Bible metaphorically; everything in the Bible is a retelling of the instance of Moses’ escape from Egypt, delivering the Isrealites. The New Testament is filled with references to the Exodus and Frye states that Jesus is the embodiment of the Exodus in an individual (93). Our lives can also be seen as such, the cyclical nature of continuously escaping that which holds us back, thus everyone lives in the moment that Moses escapes from Egypt. The Book of Judges also conveys a cyclical notion of time, the same story is told repeatedly: the Israelites are bad, they are sold to another people, they realize their mistake, they fight the people they are sold to, they forget Yahweh and become disobedient again, and thus the cycle continues.

In the New Testament, time is especially promoted as enveloping the here and the now, certainly by Jesus and also in the Revelation. Frye stresses that “Jesus’ emphasis is consistently on its immediacy.” (218) The kingdom of heaven is here now, one only needs to be able to allow oneself to see it. Dr. Sexson suggests that Christianity began as a mystery religion, which involved initiation ceremonies. The initiation was made up of a process in which the leader would say, do, and show. The show provoked an epiphany and a falling away of one realm of reality into a whole new one. The initiated realize the world in a whole new way, they experience kairos. In Mark 14:51-52, Jesus initiates the young man who follows Jesus and then runs off leaving his clothes behind. The young man seems to have had an incredibly awakening experience. Jesus encourages an epiphany that initiates the reader into a different realm, a new perspective. There are few references to specific times in the Bible, rather, the emphasis, especially in the New Testament, is overwhelmingly on having an experience that changes the way one considers life through kairos. The synoptic Gospels work to prevent readers from finding specific times associated with the stories. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell the same story in slightly different ways, which gives the reader a sense of repetition through time, in that the story encompasses time and does not hold to one point in time.

The Revelation is filled with references to the Old Testament. The imagery of the water at the end conjures up images of the water presented in the Creation. The Revelation is a story about an ending that stresses the beginning. The apocalypse is a removing of the veil such that one can see what was always there, but was not seen. The hope for the Revelation is that one who reads the Bible through to the ending experiences a revelation of their own, which allows for the beginning of their life to commence. The continuous dialogue the Revelation carries out with the rest of the Bible indicates that the Revelation wants the reader to experience the entire Bible all over again such that a sense of the entire Bible is encompassed in one moment, an example of kairos. The Revelation is a last attempt to evoke a transcendent experience in the reader.

The Bible emphasizes a desire for the reader to experience kairos, but no where does it allude to how to go about such an experience, which is intentional, it is left for the reader to discover. If the experience of kairos is laid out for the reader it will seize to be an experience outside of time, it is something that must be discovered by the reader. Strangely, the Bible does not even tell the readers what to see or realize when they transcend time; it is left to the interpretation of the reader. Not having any guidelines for what to realize significantly contributes to the success of the Bible as a text. With no guidelines, everyone who reads and experiences an awakening will have a different experience and form different opinions regarding their interpretation of the text because everyone holds a different notion of time. The experience the reader has with regards to kairos will govern the way in which the reader interprets the Bible and people will come to interpret the Bible very differently from one another. Those with similar experiences gather for discourse and this seems to be a way in which different denominations of religion emerge. No guidelines with regards to what readers are supposed to conclude and believe after their experience of awakening is risky for the Bible, in that people take advantage of the lacunae to deliberately misinform others for their own purposes. For instance, while Jesus stresses the here and now, Christianity adopts the idea of waiting for the infinite and eternal, tagging these two terms to be something that is later, in that the spiritual kingdom is not present now, but will be once one dies. While one is alive, one must behave according to the laws instituted by those who promise a later spiritual kingdom. While those risks are present, the numerous experiences that the Bible allows for readers to have adds to the splendor and realization of the Bible as a transformative book. The numerous interpretations and discussions allow for discourse regarding the Bible that propagates the reading of the text through time and thus allows it to continue to be a widely read text with great influence.

Even with the great size of the Bible, many aspects of the text are left sparse including the notion of time. Upon closer reading though, there appears to be greater patterns of time worked into the stories of the Bible. Moses’ story is a story that everyone experiences, Judges demonstrates cycles of time, and the synoptic Gospels address the notion that people do not perceive time or events in time the same way. The character of Jesus and the Book of Revelation encourage the reader to experience a transcendence of time that will allow the reader a new beginning of life, seeing life in a while new way, yet while such an experience is promoted, no where in the Bible dictates how to have this experience and what to transcend into. The different notions of time that people inherently possess foster a different experience for each reader, with perhaps radically different illuminations than other readers. The different experiences people have regarding the Bible promotes dialogue and intrigue with the Bible and thus serves the success of the Bible as a text that has been read for centuries. Although not the only factor that contributes to the success of readers reading the Bible today, enlightenment through the realization of time is significant to the continuation of the Bible’s success.

Works Cited

Frye, Northrop and MacPherson, Jay. Biblical and Classical Myths. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.

Sexson, Michael. Foundations of Biblical Literature Lecture. 9 November 2006 and 2 November 2006.

Main Points - Judges Group

2006-12-04T08:34:00.000-07:00

1. The book of Judges is one story re-told over and over.
2. In Judges, the women start as respectable characters, Achsah gets land from her father, Deborah is a Judge, but over time the position of women deteriorates to them being raped and killed by the end of Judges.
3. The death of Sisera by Jael (Judges 5) and the story of Samson (Judges 13-16) are the two stories the group focused on.
4. The group utilized attributes of the authors we've seen, eg. The P writer focuses on weights, measures and lineages. The D writer is judgmental and often describes violence.

Matthew vs. Mark

2006-11-28T08:15:00.000-07:00

Some of the passages in the synoptic Gospels are the same word for word, for instance, The Lesson of the Fig Tree, is the same in Matthew and Mark except for two words added in Mark 13:29 “So also, when you see these things taking place.” The first two stories in Mark 10 and Matthew 19, Teaching about Divorce and Jesus Blesses Little Children, are quite different in the two gospels. The moral of the two stories is the same, but they are told in very different tones. Matthew portrays Jesus as stern in these two stories, while Mark displays Jesus as very compassionate.

In the Divorce story, Jesus seems much more hostile to the nature of human beings and not very understanding. There is an entire extra paragraph in Matthew that is not in Mark about how not all men can carry the weight of understanding the teaching about marriage and those who cannot are either eunuchs or made eunuchs. In Matthew 19:8 Jesus says: “He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.’” This sentence takes on a very accusatory tone of humans. While Mark 10:5, “But Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you.’” This sentence is much more matter-of-fact and less judgmental.

In the Children story of both Matthew and Mark, Jesus says to the disciples not to chide those who brought the children to him because they are the ones who truly belong in the kingdom of heaven. The children who approach Jesus in Matthew’s version of the story: “And he laid his hands on them and went on his way.” (Matthew 19:15) The actual encounter with the children is very nonchalant. In the version of Mark however, Jesus is much more affectionate towards the children, seeming as if he genuinely values them: “And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them.” (Mark 10:16) Jesus is much warmer and believable in Mark than Matthew because he says compassionate and caring things in both Mark and Matthew, but he acts more caring in Mark and more sternly in Matthew.

Listening to Matthew and Mark

2006-11-26T09:43:00.000-07:00

I didn’t really think that the Bible on the whole was a listening book being that so many people partook in writing it. Some parts of the Bible are definitely poetic and I can imagine them being phenomenal read aloud, especially some of the books in the Old Testament. I didn’t really expect the Gospels of Matthew and Mark to be great listening, but I gave them a whirl and was surprised that they were both pretty engaging. I’ve listened to books on CD before and found myself drifting in and out of the story line, but with Matthew and Mark I either found myself completely engaged and even found that the parts where I wasn’t completely attune, I still gathered what was talked about. Parts of Matthew I found somewhat dry, but mostly the portions where Jesus was talking about the laws in Matthew 5-8. The story elements of Jesus and his followers in Matthew kept my attention as well as the parables. Then I listened to Mark, I thought that Mark drew me in a little more than Matthew. I was drawn in to Mark more probably because of his writing style and his parables. There seemed to be more parables in Mark, which I really enjoyed because they are quick, to the point, and as we discussed they are an attack on ones expectations, thus while listening I found myself looking forward to how the story would change from my expectations. Even the parts of Mark that were repetitions of Matthew were embedded in the story differently in Mark than in Matthew, making it seem a little different being told in another context. The endings of Mark and Matthew were both a little tedious to listen to because the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus are such common story elements that it is a story I already know well. After reading all four gospels in the New Testament, the story and lessons Jesus tries to convey are cemented very well in the mind of the reader.

Teaching the Bible

2006-11-25T17:39:00.000-07:00

I was thinking today how useful it would have been to have known the Bible previous to this point so that I could appreciate more of the books I have read and all their references to the Bible. I have a great deal of books I want to re-read after this class and some I want to read after having been mentioned in class like the Brothers Karamazov. I know that public schools have a difficult time approving curricula that are heavily steeped in religion, but we have successfully accomplished taking a secular approach to the Bible at a state institution. In the public high school I attended, I often remember missing allusions to the Bible and our teacher would point them out in class, which isn’t as much fun as finding them first yourself. I always knew how central the Bible was to literature, but I didn’t realize how immersed literature was in the Bible until now. It seems that authors of texts are in a constant dialogue with the Bible. Not picking up on references to the Bible, of which there are a great deal, means the reader is also missing out on understanding literary references. Authors interact with the Bible through numerous allusions and metaphor and to not gather these references while reading leaves an underdeveloped reader.

Today there are many different connotations surrounding the Bible. Many people become very conscious and defensive when talk of teaching the Bible in public schools arises. People seem to think that the teachers have underlying motives, that it is impossible to teach the Bible secularly. I myself was reluctant to ever read the Bible and it wasn’t until I took a Faulkner seminar that I realized the Bible was of profound literary merit that would enrich me as a reader. I think that if the Bible were promoted as a text of significant literary importance, a text that inspired Shakespeare, Blake, and countless others, the view on teaching it in public schools would change. Also, I think it is very possible to teach the Bible in a very secular manner and have the students understand the importance of the Bible in literature. Browsing websites for English classes at other institutions that regard the Bible I stumbled upon a class that studied Biblical influences in films where they watched a whole range of films, such as Hannibal, Magnolia and The Matrix, read portions of the Bible and then discussed the connections. Also, some classes looked at the Biblical influences in the Western tradition, reading the Bible and books like Moby Dick and Absalom, Absalom!

Here are a few websites I found about teaching the Bible as literature in schools:

A recent news article

Bible Literacy Project - An organization that sees the teaching of the Bible as a literary text as crucial in the education of secondary students

Experience of reading the Revelation

2006-11-18T14:53:00.000-07:00

I had a difficult time reading this book. The first attempt I made was listening to it on CD in the car on the way back from Seattle, WA. My friend lent me a copy of the New Testament read by James Earl Jones who is the voice of Darth Vader in Star Wars. It was late at night and I was alone driving. I found myself getting quite unsettled by it and so I shut it off after the sixth chapter. The next attempt I made I got through the tenth chapter. It wasn’t until after I read Frye’s chapter on the Removing of the Veil that I finally read through all of the Revelation. I think that thinking of the Revelation as metaphorical helped me a great deal.

I had the strongest reaction to Revelation when I listened to it in the car, I wasn’t engaged in it as I would be reading, my attention wasn’t fully focused on listening, but it was washing over me. Perhaps it being late at night and listening to Darth Vader enhanced my reaction, but I found it felt very heavy and profound, but yet I couldn’t quite put my finger on what was even going on. I found it irksome that it conjured a reaction out of me, but I couldn’t figure out why. When I re-read it, I found I still didn’t really know what was going on, but there is so much imagery and vivid description of characters and actions that the whole book together feels profound, which I guess is apocalyptic writing. I don’t think I have encountered writing like this anywhere else (I googled apocalyptic writing and found works by Dante, Blake and Milton as having some apocalyptic work, but I haven’t read any of them) and I’m still not really sure how to read it. On the one hand I want to go through it and map out every detail, but on the other, I think that letting it sweep over a couple of times might be as effective as delving into it.

The idea of the Revelation as metaphorical helped me because knowing that it all refers to something else makes the book almost seem hopeful. The Revelation really is a metaphor for a life-altering awakening that will feel as intense as what is described in the Revelation, which is exciting since Revelation is very powerful stuff.

On the success of the Bible

2006-11-12T17:53:00.000-07:00

Justin posed the question: "What if our presupposition for understanding the Bible is wrong?" And he hasn't updated yet, so I thought I would take a stab at it because something along the lines of this has been nawing at me, which is why is the Bible still around. It somewhat bothers me that perhaps we have don't have a true translation, but as class has gone on, I think that it does not matter whether the translation is completely accurate or not. The form we have now is valuable because we are able to learn out of it. Whether we are meant to take it in the context it was delivered to the Western world or not is also a point raised and I think our class disputes this. We are a group using the Bible to delve into the literary value of the text and as we have successfully done so, it has served a purpose other than a religious one. I am defining successful as Dr. Sexson does, learning something you did not know before. Perhaps the Bible was not intended for a class such as this, but irregardless, it has served us well in learning about influences of the Bible in literature and society.

The Bible is still around because it caters to so many people. The numerous religions that have spawned off of the Bible attests to its versatility. Sure there are the three main ones: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but there are varying interpretations within all three. The Bible is successful because it is vague. Sometimes I really detest the lacunae, but Frye makes the point somewhere along the way of where would we be without the lacunae? Since I want to know more, I make up what I want, as do all people and the people that fill in the lacunae with the same ideas make up a religion. I am sure there are numerous factors that contribute to the success of the Bible and this is just my two cents, feel free to add on, I am very curious to know what you guys all think.

Fate vs. Free Will in The Slave

2006-10-30T21:42:00.000-07:00

Fate- “something that unavoidably befalls a person, fortune, lot. The universal principle or ultimate agency by which the order of things is presumably prescribed”

Free will- “the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.” Definitions from dictionary.com

I found it very interesting that Jacob believed so strongly in free will, but at the same time felt bound to fate. Jacob tells Wanda early on, while he is still a slave in the hills, “What was the purpose of Creation? Free Will! Man must choose for himself between good and evil. This was the reason God had sent forth man’s soul from the Throne…” (82). I always thought that free will implied being free from fate, but here Jacob seems to define free will as the choices man makes. For Jacob, free will is the test that God puts before him, whether Jacob will make the right choice or the wrong choice. Free will is a test of ones faith, a method for God to craftily see who is worthy of heaven while making it seem as if people have a choice in the matter. Jacob’s conception of free will is clearly bound by God. If free will is choosing good or evil, then with every choice presented, one will hear the voices that appear on the shoulders of the good angel and the bad devil. The decision one makes is heavily regulated by religion and if one chooses the evil path, then later one will repent somehow, thus the choice is always influenced by external forces rather than being a pure internal choice.

Jacob admits to being bound by fate. He feels lead by fate often. When he travels, he conveys that he thinks something is leading him, he is not in control of the path he travels on; someone else has made the decisions and set out the path before him by giving him signs to follow. When he decided to find Wanda after he was returned to Josefov he remarked when he finally returned to her, “His fate was decided. He had passed beyond freedom, was both himself and another.” (139) Jacob felt so out of control of his fate that he relays that he feels as if he were watching his movements being played out by a stranger.

Two events occur towards the end of the book regarding fate. First, when Jacob is being led to the gallows, he is lead to believe that the gallows are his fate, but then he realizes that he can easily escape, thus he escapes his fate. He escapes to the river where he meets the ferryman who tries to be a “free man”, by living a life with no obligations. Jacob responds to him, “No, man cannot be entirely free.” (260) After having escaped the gallows it seems that surely Jacob would think that men can be free, but he says that there is always some degree to which man is bound to life. In these two events, escaping the gallows and then meeting the ferryman, Jacob does not actually take contradictory view points. Jacob realizes that by escaping the gallows, he was only carrying on what was meant to be. In other words, by escaping one fate, Jacob was pursuing what his real fate entailed. Jacob was still bound up in what God wished him to do. His remark to the ferryman was inline with what Jacob believes, that somehow everyone is connected to God and what God has in store for each person. The only part that man gets to decide upon is the choice of good and evil, which is still bound to God in that God is cheering on the sidelines for man to choose good, but really watching what one will do as a sort of test of mans worth.

At the end of The Slave, Jacob completely submits to what he feels his fate is. Despite warnings from his son and even the ghost of Sarah, Jacob returns to Sarah’s grave to complete his fate, which is to die where Sarah lies. Jacob allows himself to be guided on the journey to Sarah’s grave so that he may be buried with her, even though he does not realize the intent of the travels until sickness is upon him.

According to Jacob, fate and free will are not synonymous concepts. While Jacob is an advocate of believing in free will, free will only extends to making choices between good and evil, not choices of where to go in life, or what path to take, those are determined by God and known as fate. Jacob believes whole heartedly in fate and does not resist the callings that he receives in order to fulfill his fate. Jacob trusts God to lead him along his path. Ultimately, Jacob believes that people are very much tied to their fates, which are synonymous with God’s plan, and that people regardless of their being free from worldly obligations, can never be free from their fate set forth by God.

The significance of numbers in the Bible

2006-10-29T09:54:00.000-07:00

For my group I've been reading Judges. There are so many seemingly arbitrary numbers given in Judges, particularly after things have settled down, a Judge rules for a peaceful time of x number of years or a judge has forty sons or seventy sons. The most common number of years for a Judge to rule over an area peacefully is forty years. I began to wonder what the significance of these numbers was and after perusing several websites found that this one: Symbolism of Numbers in the Bible, has the most concise layout of the meaning of some of the numbers we have seen over and over, not only in Judges, but everywhere in the Bible, so take a look. There is a list of the numbers and their significance if you scroll a little ways down the page.

Reader Response Theory

2006-10-22T10:15:00.000-06:00

I was reading Richter for the Literary Criticism class I am taking and one sentence struck me as relevant to this class for obvious reasons:

"For Iser, the history of the novel is the history of the ways in which writers created gaps for their readers to fill..." (pg. 974)

Iser is a Reader-Response Theorist which means he thinks about texts in terms of how the reader relates to and interprets the text. It has become clear that the Bible is incredibly influential to all written works today. In my reading experience, the Bible is a book that has more lacunae than any other book I have read. There is so much left unsaid and so much left up to the reader. It struck me that the Bible is a book, more than most books, that is highly dependent upon the reader response. The Bible is most commonly looked at as a book that is judged based on what kind of reader you are. As we were talking about in class, you will to a cerain extent, read what you want to read. If there are parts of the book that you are not reading for, you will glide right over them even if they are striking when you read with different glasses on, like the passage in Exodus where god tries to kill Moses for inexplicable reasons.

For a text that has so many lacunae, it seems that an alternative, more succinct interpretation of the Bible would be called for rather than stressing the experience of individual people. If people fill in the lacunae and there are a great deal of them it becomes clear that nobody will agree on what the text is trying to say. Based on the emphasis of the reader, I realize why we have so many different religions with claims that contradict one another.

The Slave

2006-10-14T22:14:00.000-06:00

I just finished reading The Slave and I was pretty overwhelmed. There was so much going on throughout the entire novel. There was a great deal of questioning pretty much on every topic imaginable, but the two that stuck out in my mind were free will and one that we have become pretty familiar with in class, why do good people suffer more than bad people? I mean sure, there aren't any innocent people, but there are definitely people that are pretty bad and people that are pretty good. First, free will: Jacob seemed to regard some type of free will, but continuously he believed that he was following in some pre-determined path. Jacob felt like a slave continually throughout the book and I think a great deal of his feeling trapped was due to his lack of a sense of possessing free will. God seemed pretty much in command of peoples' lives and would do things for the general good of people, and people thought this without question, but yet they also thought about free will. I haven't really figured this out, but I think it would be interesting to discuss.

Some things I really enjoyed about the book were the connection of all the patriarchs. Jacob seemed at some point in the story to have attributes of each patriarch. Of course, he predominately resembled Jacob, but there were hints of the others. Abraham married Sarah and Jacob renamed Wanda Sarah. Also, Abraham being the first Jewish person had to convert everyone, including Sarah, like Jacob converted Wanda. Jacob's love for Sarah was reminicent of Jacob's love for Rachel. Jacob's continual brushes with death and escaping reminded me of Isaac's sacrifice. Also, it took Wanda a great deal of time to conceive her first child and like Rachel, she died in child birth with Benjamin.

Jacob also mentioned the battle the Biblical Jacob has with the unknown figure. Jacob thought that his battle with the unknown figure was a continual battle with life. Perhaps, the fight that Biblical Jacob has with the unknown figure is a metaphor for having to fight throughout his entire life for the favor of Yahweh. In the instance of both Jacobs, although they are both good people, they are not handed the easy route, but rather they both need to work hard, put their lives on the line and sometimes sneak themselves into getting into favor with Yahweh.

These are just preliminary thoughts, but I really enjoyed the book a great deal; perhaps more illumination will come later.

Monotheism

2006-10-09T10:54:00.000-06:00

The discussion of dying gods in Frye sparked my interest, especially the resemblance of Jesus to the dying gods. More and more I am realizing how many religions seem to be tied up in the same story types. It makes sense that religions have overlapping stories, if one religion is trying to create a following it would only be fitting that the stories presented to others are comfortable and familiar to those they are trying to convert. I was rather stunned to find that Jesus is just a typical model of a dying god story, complete with the wailing women that followed him to his crucifixion. The tying together of stories across religions helps me think of the religions that are spawned from the Bible as more and more mythic. Wikipedia has rather nice list of many life-death-rebirth deities in mythology and religions.

All of this overlap in religions also makes me think about the monotheism advocated in the religions from the Bible. As I am reading the Bible, I keep wondering, when is everyone going to start believing in one god? In the Bible it does not seem that Yahweh has an overwhelming following. Over and over people keep getting punished for straying from the beliefs of Yahweh. Sometimes a group will believe in Yahweh, but then they start to drift off when other opportunities arise. Also, people are very reluctant to give up their old beliefs, often just tagging on the new god with the old ones. For instance, Laban I presume believed in Yahweh, but he still has teraphim (household gods) in his home, which have great importance. The teraphim represent the deed to the land and supposedly bring fertility to the home. So when does monotheism really start to kick in?

This leads me to the following paradox: The Bible promotes one god and people who believe in other gods are looked down upon. But, this one god in the Bible, Yahweh, is just a conglomeration of the traits of several other gods.

Jacob

2006-09-26T20:17:00.000-06:00

For me, Jacob is the most fascinating of the patriarchs in Genesis. Jacob’s image changes so much over his lifetime that I sometimes do not think of him as a believable character. There is the phase of his life when he is connected with Esau and tries to take all of the privileges that are automatically given to Esau being the first born. Then there is Jacob at Laban’s when he meets Rachel and Leah. There is Jacob after he fights the stranger and becomes Israel. The most drastic character change is Jacob in his old age and Jacob in his young age. In Jacob’s young age he acts more like the trickster women than a patriarch. He is sly and steals his brother’s birthright over a bowl of stew. Then he receives his father’s blessing, although that is more of his mother’s bestowing than his own. The old Jacob adapts to the way of a patriarch. He is protective of his sons and behaves as the righteous and just patriarchs do, there is no more slyness left in him.

Jacob from his birth becomes quite an intriguing character. He comes out clutching Esau. Then, one of the sentences in the Bible that has captivated me the most thus far:

“Isaac loved Esau, because he was fond of game; but Rebekah loved Jacob.” (Genesis 25.28)

There is a reason given for why Isaac loved Esau, but there is no reason given for why Rebekah loved Jacob. I take there to be no reason given because Yahweh in fact loved Jacob, which was why Rebekah loved Jacob. Rebekah loving Jacob is also put after the fact that Isaac loved Esau, making Rebekahs’s love seem more important; the love that is approved of.

When Jacob travels to his uncle’s house, at first he seems to be lost without his mother. Laban proves to be as sly as his sister, Rebekah, and tricks Jacob into marrying Leah instead of Rachel. Jacob works seven years to marry Leah and then another seven for Rachel. Then, seemingly out of the blue, Jacob is struck with inspiration to fool his uncle into giving him the better animals in the flock and then sneaking away. Without his mother’s help and with fourteen years of diligent service, it seems unlikely that Jacob would be struck with this stroke of genius. I am not quite sure what to make of it.

After Jacob is attacked by the stranger in the night on his way back to his homeland he becomes like any other patriarch. He is summoned by Yahweh and told to go to certain lands to set up his new abode. Unfortunately, no longer is Jacob identified with his young, trickster self. Later during the famine, when Joseph has risen to power in Egypt, he is very protective of Benjamin, thought to be his only surviving son of Rachel when the brothers go down to Egypt to buy supplies. After the entire story of Joseph is revealed and Jacob once again appears in the story, the younger Jacob does not bare any resemblance to the old Jacob. I am not sure what to make of Jacob’s transformation. He becomes synonymous with the other patriarchs except for his colorful, deceitful beginnings. Maybe some of Jacob does linger in his older self, but I have not yet unraveled that yet in my reading. Nonetheless, I still find Jacob to be the most intriguing patriarch out of the bunch in Genesis.

Females in the Bible

2006-09-20T16:49:00.000-06:00

The main point I took away from Tuesday’s class was: The Bible represents a patriarchy in a phallocentric culture, but this does not necessarily mean that all the women were suppressed, it is much more complicated. In the beginning of class we talked about the definition of a patriarchy which is:

A society in which all women, most men, children, infirm, elderly are women because it is a society ruled by the father.

The definition thoroughly surprised me, but instantaneously made sense. There is almost more pressure on the men who are subordinated than women. Men need to constantly preserve their masculinity because it can be lost, while women are by default subordinated, there is no question of a woman’s status. I realized that with women knowing their position so well they can begin to figure out clever ways to manipulate the system they live in to their favor. In the Bible, Yahweh does not only work through the men, he also relies heavily upon the women to work for him as well, just in slicker ways. Of course, being in a patriarchy, it seems Yahweh has the greatest bond with the men, but when it comes to getting things done and not just making covenants of this and that, the women step up to the plate. Sarah commands Abraham to drive away Hagar and Ishmael, such that her son, Isaac, is favored by Yahweh. We have Rebekah to thank for Jacob prevailing over Esau. Later, in Judges Deborah told Barak how to battle against Sisera. Then, Jael killed Sisera. While women do have command of several of the actions that are really carried out in Yahweh’s name, they are depicted as sly and sneaky creatures. It seems that the men get to carry out the virtuous things that Yahweh wants done, while the women are left with all of the dirty work. Then, the women are shown as sinful usually in their sins of sexuality and deceit. While that is sort of bothersome to me, I also think it makes the women more interesting characters in the Bible. It is also quite fascinating how the women can be interpreted in such different ways. A reader can see the women as lying and tricky or can see them as truly following Yahweh regardless of what needs to be done.

Why the Bible is the Bible

2006-09-07T00:27:00.000-06:00

Lately, I have been thinking about how the Bible became a religious text. Frye addressed the topic in chapter 14 (p. 148-150), but only how it came to be originally, which was when one of the last kings of Judah found and instituted the laws of Deuteronomy. I would like to know how the Bible survived for as long as it has and how it has gained in popularity as a religious text. Frye mentioned that the way in which the Bible presents a monotheistic God, not affiliated with the current ruler, was not a popular way to deal with religion in the time the Bible first emerged. The Israelites seemed to take to a new way of thinking about religion.

I went hiking this weekend and had a great deal of time to think about this. I came up with a story I would like to believe. I have been really fascinated with the J writer so far, she/he seems to be the most interesting writer of the group that formulated the Bible, as well as the founder. Bloom has nothing but praise for the amazing writer that has been buried beneath layers of additions, editing and translations. My conjecture is that perhaps J's story was the greatest literature that had been produced up until the Bible was taken as a religious text and was therefore thought to be divinely inspired, worthy of becoming the foundation of a religion. In general, great writing seems to propagate through the ages and the work continues to be appreciated. Perhaps J's work was so brilliant that it was read through the years and caught on as a religion. It only takes one ruler to make a decree about which laws to follow, but for a work to continue to be followed over time seems to be the feat that the Bible has accomplished. In the true spirit of English 211's focus, I would like to think that the Bible succeeded through the centuries because it is literature that is of enormous quality and skill, which was recognized even when literacy was not widespread.

Lastly, a fun fact to know and tell: I googled Bible and got 163 million websites.

The Beginning

2006-08-30T23:57:00.000-06:00

I am very excited about taking this class. I suppose the class is fulfilling a requirement for one of the necessary classes I need for my english minor. I am a senior transfer student from Oberlin College where I am a physics major and an english minor. I have to take a class where pre-1800 material is covered, so this class will satisfy that requirement. Mostly though, I am taking this class to better understand William Faulkner's works. I took a class last semester on Faulkner and I realized if I knew a little more about the Bible I would probably understand more of Faulkner since he actually includes footnotes that point to passages in the Bible. I love Faulkner's novels, but frankly, I can use all the help I can get when I am trying to read him.

I grew up in a somewhat religious household, but I never really paid attention in church and my parents just let me pick up what I wanted, which was not very much. When I was very young I read an illustrated Bible for children, I remember being really proud of myself for accomplishing the feat, but again, I do not remember much. All this being said, I am very glad that we are taking the Bible as a literary text. The Bible definitely seems daunting, but I am very glad that I have the opportunity to learn and to discuss it in a class setting.