A New Beginning

This picture is of Armageddon, a weak misreading or interpretation of the Bible, you see.

The world doesn't end because that's not how it works, even in the Bible.

This course has reached its apocalypse. Not its termination, because at the end of every day is a new one. Over the course of this class I've accumulated knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. Zig-zag-zig, Pa-POW! I'm accomplished much, yet fell short with the most important task.

Positives/accomplishments: I finished The Good Book, The Slave, and most of Words With Power.

My TO DO list: Read Folklore in the Old Testament, and, most importantly, The Bible.

Yes, I finally feel like I'm ready to read The Bible, cover to cover. It'll take time, but it's a learning experience. Before I wasn't up to it, but that's no excuse. Instead I should look towards the future, to the apocalypse, to a new beginning.

It's been fun, and I'll see you, whoever you may be, on the other side.

Jacob and Esau

One of the elements which I didn't get the chance to address in my paper was Jacob's paranoia about the outside world. For example, Jacob always was scared to escape from his captivity or enslavement because of the monstrous, evil creatures which lurked in the woods.

If we incorporate the story of Jacob and Esau from Genesis in the Bible then we'll learn that Esau, Jacob's brother, is a man of the outdoors. He prefers, say, hunting instead of studying in tents, like Jacob. Esau is a much more physically strong, manly, and confident character, and Jacob trusts Esau's courage. Jacob is a part of the inside world, Esau the outside world.

I feel that Isaac Bashevis Singer utilizes this symbolism through Jacob's, from The Slave, worldview. Finally nearing the end of the novel Jacob comes across the ferryman. He had an epiphany on his execution road and decided to not be so scared of the wild because there's nothing scarier than the walk to your death.

Jacob tell the ferryman that "Robbers do not worry him." Robbers entails any evil variables, inferentially including monstrous, evil creatures granted he was walking through the scary woods for some time until he came across the ferryman.

In The Slave it is hard to pinpoint the character who embodies Esau from the Bible's story, but my theory is that he's not in it at all. My final paper advocates that the ferryman has many characteristics, but he doesn't enter the story until Jacob has realized that he doesn't need Esau to keep him safe from the outside world.

Final Paper: The Slave

There are five characters in The Slave who are full of intrigue. Naturally, Jacob, the main character and slave, is one, but the other four are minor, yet copious and near prophetic, characters. The second and third characters are Adam Pilitzky and Theresa (Lady) Pilitzky; the fourth and fifth are Waclaw the ferryman and the Jewish emissary. Also, there will be frequent references to a Wanda/Sarah, Jacob’s wife, although she is physically present in neither scenario. Jacob has a conversation with each of them, but their conflicting personalities and beliefs open the field for inquisition. In literary terminology, everyone fulfills an archetypal and/or biblical role! For this essay I’m going to examine two sequences of events which involve several of the most intriguing characters. First, I’m going to establish consistency amongst the character of Jacob. I’m going to test the consistency between the The Slave’s Jacob with that of The Bible’s Jacob. Second, I’m going to analyze Jacob’s encounters with the aforementioned minor characters. Though they are short-lived characters, their lessons and impacts are powerful.

Jacob is the archetypal hero. Isaac Bashevis Singer, the author of The Slave, was obviously heavily inspired by The Bible. We know little about is his life before his textual life. And ain’t it quaint; Jacob happens to be an early biblical figure. We must examine the scriptural, textual, and literary inception (within the Biblical paradigm and timeline) of Jacob. Go!: He is begot of Rebekah, his father is Isaac [son of Abraham]. Given our instated biblical paradigm, immediately we must note that Jacob is of royal blood. Symbolically speaking, he is grandson of the real king, Abraham. Jacob is also a twin; he and his outdoorsman brother, Esau, are rival twins. In Genesis the Lord says to Rebekah, “Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels: and the one people shall be stronger than the other people: and the elder shall serve the younger.” (Genesis 25:23) Jacob is a house cat, not a hunting dog; “And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents. And Isaac loved Esau…but Rebekah loved Jacob.” (Genesis 25:27). The brothers’ inherent power struggle grows so fierce that Jacob’s foil and equal grows to hate him. From the eyes of Esau, Jacob has ashamed him, though you could say he grew jealous from the combination of a bad business deal and a brief moment of favoritism. Therefore, he plans to slay his brother. Soon thereafter, Isaac and Rebekah catch wind of the plot and instruct Jacob to flee. This where Jacob’s biblical recount will cease because of Isaac’s final wishes for his son. “And Isaac called to Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, ‘Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.’” This is a biblical call for anti-miscegenation. Singer’s Jacob character embodies the sensitive, studious, nerdy character from The Bible. In the novel, it’s ironic that Jacob is an actual slave. Yet, Jacob’s temperament is that of a Prince, subordinate to the code of the Father(s) [entailing either Isaac or God]. Singer’s Jacob is a granary dweller. There’s not nothing in them “tents,” there’s books and knowledge! Like the nerd he is, Jacob ritualistically studies the divine rules of the Torah and Talmud. Its rules guide his philosophy and guide his life, and Jacob is very strict with himself. You could call him oppressed because of his enslavement, but “His rule was to prefer difficult to easy.” (Singer, 297) One might call it oppression, butJacob might call it equilibrium.

After Isaac’s final wishes, Singer begins The Slave. The Cossacks’, the barbarians, revolutionaries, or war engagers [whichever you prefer], bring the “wrath of Esau” upon Jacob’s life. They pillage Jacob’s home, murder his family, and launch his career as a bona fide slave. The wrath has afflicted his livelihood, and Jacob still finds himself in a different town, as his parents instructed in The Bible. Thereafter, Jacob continues what he’s been doing since his pretext. He’s back to his normative routine, he works and studies in solitude, but then a girl enters the picture. Wanda/Sarah changes everything. Jacob’s divine, enslaving instructions forbid Wanda from him, yet his submission to the laws isn’t enough to control his emotions. Sexually associating himself with a gentile would make him guilty of lust, idolatry, eventual miscegenation and lying, and numerous continuing acts of blasphemy against his Father(s). You see; in one case, by sticking with his normative routine with no girl, he’s indentured to the gentiles. In the other case, if he gets the girl he’s a guilty blasphemer. Conceptually, he’s a slave no matter how he plays it.

The first sequence of events is between Jacob, Adam, and Lady Pilitzky in their home after a recent scuffle involving Jacob and Adam, whence there was a miracle amongst the townspeople (or merely an exploitation of Jacob and his wife’s, Wanda and/or Sarah, secret). His wife has committed two sins simultaneously, miscegenation and “mute-ation” (the aforementioned secret), and he’s a contributing blasphemer. Wanda/Sarah is eight months pregnant, give or take, with Jacob’s child and her fate lies within the arms of the Adam the skeptic. Simply, Jacob is in a tight spot going into this examination. Adam’s realistic and a proud, Christian-bred leader, though he is quite paranoid, seldom optimistic, and a socially clumsy drunk. He is outspoken for most of his conversation with Jacob because he’s trying inform Jacob of skeptical views about God. For example, Adam asks Jacob with a slant in his tone, “Have you ever heard of Democritus, Jew?” Jacob does not know, and Adam continues. “Democritus was a philosopher who said that chance ruled everything. The Church has proscribed his writings, but I read him. He believed in neither idols nor Gods. The world, he said, was the result of blind powers.” (Singer, 187). Jacob probably expected a more interrogative format; instead it was a philosophical converse. Then the conversation seamlessly transgresses after Adam’s final proclamation. Theresa asks the heretical Adam to retire for the evening, and she is now Jacob’s lone host. She embodies the archetype of the temptress, a flickering-eyed femme fatale; a good and bad idiosyncrasy. For example, she’s honest about what she speaks or shows. She tells Jacob of when the Swedes invaded the Pilitzky manor. They flogged (or tortured) her with amusement. Jacob inquires why people would do such a thing, and Theresa half-jokingly responds, “’If my suitor had been young and handsome, or at least healthy’ (Lady Pilitzky’s tone changed) ‘I might have been tempted. ‘All’s fair in love and war,’ as they say.” Jacob then compares the Swedes actions to those of the Cossacks, but Theresa smiles and interjects, “Ah, the Swedes are angels? No, Jacob, all men are alike. Frankly, I don’t blame them. Women have only one use for them.” Jacob denies any Jewish involvement with such bad behavior, but Theresa’s witticism is, “Jew or Tartar, a man is a man. Why, your men were allowed a host of wives. The great kings and prophets had harems.” Jacob appeals to Judaism’s rules, what’s forbidden, and prior speculative Rabbi-administered edicts, but Theresa at long last delivers her argument’s nail in the coffin. “The Christians forbid it too.” She begins. “But what does human nature care about edicts? I don’t condemn a man for wanting. If he gets a woman to say ‘yes’ I don’t condemn her either. My view is that everything comes from God – including lust. And not everyone’s a saint, and not every saint was always saintly. Anyway, how does it hurt God? Some take the position that a secret sin where there is no sacrilege injures no one…” (Singer, 189) Adam is a more traditional Christian fundamentalist as opposed to Theresa, an analytic or synthetic Christian.

If we refer back to the pretext, the biblical account of Jacob, then there are a couple parallels which we could draw. For example, Adam advocates anti-miscegenation between Jews and Christians (or gentiles). Isaac, Jacob’s father from The Bible, shares this view with Adam from The Slave. Moreover, if Adam acts somewhat like Jacob’s father they share the view regarding the forbiddance of racial intermixture. His symbolic mother figure must be Theresa. In The Bible, Jacob’s father favored his brother, but his mother is like Theresa. Undoubtedly, Theresa is fond, or “favors,” of Jacob. She is all too honest and friendly. These parallels are malleable, but what we do have above is an argument which justifies all of Jacob’s sins. He was beaten in this argument, plain and simple, and he is free to absolve himself of his sins if he can accept Theresa’s incredulous, and extraordinarily insightful, advice.

The second sequence is between Jacob and Waclaw the ferryman. At this point, Jacob has lost his wife, lost his son, and most recently escaped the road to execution, and he’s been on the fresh fugitive path for some time until he runs into a river. He needs to cross, then, naturally, he finds the Waclaw ferryman. He’s a self-sufficient, self-aware, hard worker and has everything going for him in his own eyes. Although, if he were a character from the biblical pretext then his tendencies and characteristics scream Esau reincarnate. “He was as black as a gipsy, barefoot, half naked, with long, curly hair, and wore trousers turned up to the knee” whom lives amongst nature in a hut along the river and even has a dog. This is the image of a man of the wild, an outdoorsman like Esau. Even the name Esau literally distinguishes his hair from the rest of his characteristics. Such references from The Bible include his birth description, “And the first came out red, all over like a hairy garment,” (Genesis 25:25) or Jacob’s account, “Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man.” (Genesis 27:11) The symbolism continues when Waclaw gives Jacob an apple and bread. The Lord prophesized that one of the brothers would serve the other. Jacob is fresh out of captivity, this is the freest he’s felt in some time, and Jacob would usually refuse nearly all hospitality. For example, earlier in the book he refused anything from poorhouse beds to single slices of bread. Now, he’s accepting an entire slab of Waclaw’s bread and an apple. This behavior is unheard of from Jacob! He’s being served by his long-lost counterpart; Jacob is taking a break from slavery, even if it’s for only a moment, by accepting the food. “One thing I’ve learned in my life: don’t get attached to anything. You own a cow or a horse and you’re its slave. Marry and you’re the slave of your wife, her bastards, and her mother…When I hear such things, I say to myself, Waclaw, not you. You’ll be nobody’s slave. I’m not a peasant. I have noble blood…Here at the ferry I’m as free as a bird. I think what I please. Twice a day the passengers come and I do my job.” (Singer, 259) Jacob’s knee-jerk reaction is “No, man cannot be entirely free…Somebody must plow and sow and reap. Children must be raised.” (Singer, 260) Waclaw finally insists that’s not the type of life he’s interested in. Instead, Waclaw is proud of whom he is, though he doesn’t know his origin he acts like a noble Prince from a lost bloodline of prestige. Now, the two once “rival” brothers have now matured, and even though they disagree they still can agree to disagree like adults. The next day Jacob’s salvation, a Jewish emissary, comes to the ferry services. Jacob initiates contact and eventually shares his entire experience with the wise, old man (his suggested archetype). His story contains all of the joys and pains from his first wife, the Cossacks tirade, his enslavement, his new love, fleeing from the gentiles, her conception and death, and even the blaspheming or idolatrous details. The emissary’s feedback appeals to the religious law, “But behind the law, there is mercy. Without mercy, there would be no law.” (Singer, 265)

Every side character in the two examined sequences brings something to the table. They may not be prophets, but they provide auspicious insight. First, Adam referred to Democritus, a believer in neither Gods nor idols. If neither of these concepts exists then neither does sin. We may choose to rely on pure faith or pure materialism, but neither is wrong. Adam’s brief, radical notion promotes absolute free thinking and belief to Jacob a loyal subordinate of the Torah. Second, Theresa loosely suggests that ‘All’s fair in love and war.’ Love is an ecstatic feeling of enlightenment of happiness, paradise, faith, or even understanding God. On the contrary, war is an epitomic symbol of suffering, hatred, and hell. All’s fair in love and war because anything goes in a world of extremities. If you experience love or war then you’ve seen the edge of the abyss. Theresa’s perfunctory lesson advocates Jacob to think less about who he’s allowed to love, and more about who he wants to love. If Jacob truly loves Wanda then the sin of miscegenation should be in the back of his mind. Together, Adam and Theresa are two sides of the same coin, and they provide Jacob with some food for thought. Their point is that amnesty is achievable amongst sinners. That’s the first sequence of events, now onto the second. The third character, Waclaw, is a curveball. He and Jacob get along great, but they believe in opposite ideas. Waclaw is an example of a free thinker because he’s not attached to anything. That’s his lesson: “don’t get attached to anything…[or]…you’re its slave.” Whereas, Jacob says you can never become unattached because someone has to do the dirty work (i.e. raising children, common manual labor). Jacob believes that women are naturally meant to wed as children are meant to be raised, but the irony here is that his two wives are dead as are three of his children. That Jacob’s point, though; he’ll always feel their ethereal presence. He’s ‘attached’ for eternity through love. Fourth, and lastly, the emissary essentially pardons Jacob. He empathizes with Jacob, and extends God’s mercy upon him. Absolution of men is possible in a compassionate world. The presence of these four other side characters allow Jacob to die with peace in mind. His last thoughts are trivial; from Proverbs, “Who can find a virtuous woman?” (Singer, 311) Jacob, a sinner, found at least two. Jacob recognizes near his death that a virtue of a woman is not preordained, they are judged by those who long for love. All in together now, these four teachers of Jacob conclude that God’s written rules needn’t be the lone determinant of your life’s philosophy.

“Free will exists, but so does foreknowledge. ‘All is foreseen but the choice is given.’ Each soul must accomplish its task, or else it would not have been sent here.” (Singer, 266) You choose to love, but love chooses you back. Your soul chooses you, too, and you’ll find God if you espouse your soul, submit to love, and let yourself become a slave to the best things in life.

A Game of Chess...

...is like reading The Bible. It's an exercise for the mind. Each story has unique characters, each word is pertinent, and you must interpret each lesson on your own. You're the king, and The Bible is the other king. You may think you have the board figured out, but it's not that simple.

As I've just heard the television say, "You can look at X's and O's or how to play the game, but..."

Even the less experienced can play with the best if they have heart. What you need most is heart. You don't have to be a baller at chess, but a true chess player must trust his heart. Any player can get the best of you, but that doesn't make you heartless. Heart is an element you use alongside your skills.

This semester I've picked up some of each. I've learned how to predetermine the board (my interpretation skills with The Bible) as well as express my heart.

They say, "A game of chess is like a sword fight, you must think first...before you move." Every time you read The Bible, you must see the board with predetermination then use your heart to once you're "in it." 'Cause once you're in it, you ain't done till you're...done.

My last Words With Power

Frye's thoughts and beliefs from Words With Power (more precisely, from his second variation of a symbol, The Garden) resonate in my mind. The most intriguing idea which I (and my group) derived from Frye is the transcendence from a harmonious, ignorant, paradisaic state to a chaotic, enlightened state of downfall. Literally, The Fall is another word for the transgression of man.

We've been exiled from the world of Eden because of the nature of curiosity. The serpent's trickstery, Eve's gullibility, and Adam's infatuation with women and fast food are some of the reasons for The Fall. In God's initial eyes, his creations needn't experience suffering in a perfect world, a divine oasis, but it takes one wrongdoing or misunderstanding to alter the way of the world.

Many things changed: Paradise has become a lost oasis. The oasis contained trees which needn't be watered; this is to say that we've inherited the curse of agriculture after The Fall. The oasis beholds a world of divine secrets, namely that "perfect world." We're a suffering world; we're farmers now, not spoiled children.

Above is a picture from Darren Aronofsky's film, The Fountain. I highly recommend it to Northrop Frye.

The Break

My take:

"Lacuna" - a disjunction or 'break' from recorded time and from the all the semantic details betwixt.

The irony here is that I've taken a break from blogging, and I'm providing little detail between what's happened from then (whenever that initial point in time was) to now.

Think about it this way, if you read the provided bible above then you will extract the same information that you would have if you were to read my blogs from November 3rd to now.

Condescendingly, if The Holy Bible skips some time then I, a prodigious son of God, must be allowed, too.

A Tao

The RZA is the co-founder and head-honcho of the legendary hip-hop crew, The Wu-Tang Clan. He's well read in many things; from Comics to The Bible. He released this philosophical memoir in 2009, look above. In this book, he explains something which relates to the topic in which Zach based his final essay on.

The RZA says that if you fast for a few days then you'll feel yourself getting closer with God. Another tactic would be to sleep on the floor or not sleep at all for a few days, too.

These practices are common of the "religion" in which Zach wrote of, Jainism. If you utilize such primitive practices as the RZA mentions then you're nourishing yourself with an utmost purity or ethical connection with God. When your mind and body are weakest or most tired then they gain strength. The strength experienced or obtained is from spiritual awakening.

In The Slave, Jacob is a Jew, but he understands these primitive practices. His character and understanding of the world embodies that of a Jainist. For example, he's a vegetarian (vegan?) and prefers sleeping in unorthodox (one would mostly likely call uncomfortable) fashions. His lifestyle and belief system, to some extent, runs parallel with The RZA (not in religious sense, more of a pragmatic sense).

The Tao of Wu is a quick read, but it's full of parables and simple lessons. Jacob and Zach could learn something from the hip-hop guru's wisdom.

Post-Good Book

One book down, and it's The Good Book. It's interesting to see the Plotz's writing-style change. Howso? His analyses near the end tend to become more positive, and (because of this) it feels, when reading The Bible, like he's out to find the importances of the stories and characters rather than voicing, first and foremost, criticism.

Some of Plotz's favorite words used to describe the Bible in, say, the first half of his book are "smite" and "rebuke." Later on, he reminded me of one of my best friends from high school; on at least three occasions he would say something along the lines of "This is possibly my favorite book (and/or verse) from The Bible!" Plotz uses similar expressions when blogging about Ruth, Job, and Ecclesiastes (all of which are of the latter part of the Old Testament/Hebrew scripture.

Dryer, slower, and more commanding books (i.e. endlessly filled with rules, laws, and genealogies) tend to draw a relatively more negative review from Plotz. Examples of these books include Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and, arguably, Psalms. Plotz is a person who believes in the world before God, and he enjoys stories where humans do most of the work and, so to speak, mischiefmaking because God's actions are recognizably, if taken literally, more smiteful rather than forgiving.

I enjoyed Plotz book very much, and his practical POV of the Bible is, above-all, helpful, though his POV is arguably supportive of, say, atheism along with Judaism. Pragmaticism within the interpretation of sacred, holy scripture?

"Carrying on with Plato's figure of a ladder, it seems as though with the imagination there is a journey upward into a world where subject and object are at one. This takes place, apparently, in literature, through an interchange of illusion and reality. Illusion, something created by human imagination, is what becomes real; reality, most of which in our experience is a fossilized former human creation from the past, becomes illusory."

So we find ourselves with the Bible. This concept conjured up by Northrop Frye suggests that, when it comes to text or stories, our illusory imagination must command the reader. Why? Because reading, say, The Bible with a realistic context (without the interchange) is exactly like taking the bible literally (not literarily). If the stories and intentions of the Bible are primarily allegorical then reality's applicability is less than that of illusion.

More importantly to Frye, reading literature is like meditating. It's a practice, it takes practice, and the more you practice the more you develop your illusory tactics. What I'm saying is that one may not experience that "interchange" if they're not a seasoned reader, though that "interchange" is what readers should develop, theoretically. So, if one's not a seasoned reader then they might use their fossilized memories as allegories for the story. This is not the purpose of literature; it's purpose is to have the story and its characters get caught up in your head of ideas. I suppose that the Bible is meant to be understood as a journey of the development of your imagination and ideas vicariously experienced through the characters and concepts of literature. Using your fossilized experience, reality, is almost utilizing close-mindedness. Interchangabilty allows open-mindedness, conceptual progression, and for you to live lives which aren't yours.

Playing logician

The theory of theodicy is a dicey divine discrepancy. As we've learned from Frye, "All literature is displaced myth." The concept of theodicy is, mythologically speaking, God's permittance of suffering. But is suffering a force of [Mother] nature or an act of the God(s)? Or is a "bad day" considered suffering? Let's say that a bad day is, yes in fact, a case of suffering; although, "bad day" is a restrictive variable. Consider the billions of people who use a vast variety of calendars to live by and around, and they probably have bad days, too. Whatever calender is in play, "bad day" may be interpreted as a period time experienced by one (or more) whom were smote by God. Realistically speaking, if [whoever] has a bad day then an act of theodicy should be considered a plausible cause? Yes. Over this relative increment of time a person is experiencing theodicy. Moreover, we must consider the alternative notion of bad luck.

Consider these variables and equalities thus far (warning: forgive all unbelievable equalities)

S=Suffering or Smite

M=force of [Mother] nature

G=act of the God(s) T=S&G if G then S G=~M

B=Bad Luck B=M B=~G if ~G then ~S

T=Theodicy D=T if ~G&~S then ~T ~T=~D

D=Bad Day

I see (many) flaws in my logic. Wouldn't you consider bad luck to be the potential cause of a bad day; that is, it is as plausible a theory as theodicy? Yes. Thus, B=D. But D=T. Therefore, bad luck is equal to theodicy. This can go anywhere if we change variables values. For example, if D=T then T=M. This is debatable. The only problem present is that I believe that luck doesn't have much to do with the divine. It's more a force of nature. Theodicy just seems to cover all of everything when we're regarding mythology as a pertinent source of societal value. The Bible is one of these pertinent sources, too. We believe in concepts such as theodicy because of Biblical stories such as Job. Ol' average-Job as Plotz would say. This guy is subject to Satan and the Lord's scheming, but was he a victim of bad luck or theodicy? It's a matter of subjective belief.

Peter & Susanna

Susanna has a sultry stature in the Daniel's time. So her subordinates feel they must dispose of her beauty. They are so because they have the same love for one woman, yet they know they cannot have equal lust, attraction, or possibly love for one woman less than preferred. This storytelling preference for one woman allows these garden elders to conspire a Law-and-Order type plan to fool the judicial board. Susanna is sentenced, and although her body is gone her beauty lives on.

Susanna's most valued attribute was the cause of her downfall. It's almost like the elders didn't want her lust-prone beauty to infect any others. Maybe she was one of those drop-dead gorgeous. Lust, I mean, love at first site. One of those girls that cause epidemics amongst local socialism.

Avast, Wallace Stevens' retort is a cry to Hosanna. The story of the destruction of Susanna and her beauty hurts his heart. His poem "Peter Quince at the Clavier" recounts, more or less, the main events of the apocryphal legend. Stevens' added poetic emotion is a parallelism of, potentially, how we're supposed to feel for Susanna. Stevens' semantics, stuttering style, and mythological approach show his affection for Susanna. Through this poem, I believe Wallace Stevens is retorting his feelings of ecstasy towards Susanna's conundrum and fate. Yet, if Susanna's beauty lives on then it might cause some lustful tendencies. Lust is a behind-the-scenes thing, and this is this can be correlated, if not the causation, of the valid biblical judicial system. Thus, the so-called justifiers are making the wrong calls which is why we remember Susanna. And her beauty.

How many heroes?

Plotz claims that very few characters of the Bible fit the archetype of the "Hero." But a Bible Hero is different than the typical, archetypal hero. The archetypal Biblical hero, according to Plotz, "speaks a modern language of faith." His brief list of Bible heroes includes Abraham, Joseph, Caleb, Samuel, and Gideon.

Plotz’s standards are stringent. As I read the Bible, I see myself agreeing with Plotz more than the sacred text. He and I both attempt to analyze the Bible in a literal, realistic, and witty fashion in order to step into the characters’ shoes. Call it allegorical application of the world.

One of the main interpretation issues I’m having is with all the violence. God has this rep for being a merciful fellow, but how are people supposed to use the brutality in the Bible to their advantage? Maybe the Bible is like Hollywood. It’s like a big action-comedy. Like we were taught in class, structurally speaking the Bible is technically a comedy. Another Divine Comedy. Like in Dante’s story, the grotesque stages in the Bible are meant to be humorous.

Additionally, there may be some sub-tragedies in the Bible, but not all of them are of the same gender. Also, this isn’t Hollywood so there are only two genre of story: comedy and tragedy. This holds true if, in fact, the Bible is being read in a literal sense. Thus, if there are many stories in the Bible then there is a different “hero” for every single story. And, each hero will have different traits, attributes, and tendencies given their comedic or tragic character development.

My question is, are Plotz’s heroes from comedies or tragedies? On the other hand, are there heroes which we should account more for although they may not fit a typical archetype? If they believe and trust and fear in God then their character might show some flex and substance. What I’m saying is that does Plotz have too stringent of standards? Are his (and thus, my) analytic methods for interpreting archetypes in a literal sense valid?

So I guess we’ve learned that even if we don’t agree with some of the barbarism and violence in the Bible then we can still try to learn something from the hero of the story.

We Are All Women

One of the most interesting points which was mentioned within the topical realm of the Bible entailing a patriarchal societal structure. But moreover, this structure doesn't mean that the human male is the top of the hierarchy. Also, there are only two levels; those being the "Father" and the "Mother." Of course according the Bible, everytime the Lord our God is the "Father." He's the man of the house, and we, the people of the world, are the "Mother(s)" inside His inconceivably huge house.

Now, unless there's three level to the hierarchy which might look like: 1.) "Divine" 2.) "Father" 3.) "Mother." If this is the case then the human women are biblical subordinates of the human men who are subordinates of God. It's a matter of chain-of-command. But, this wasn't the argument which struck me in class. This argument keeps everything more straightforward and less politically complex by having God as the "Father" and men and women as the "Mother." Think about it. What are two of the most important things in order to keep order. We need the earth and women. I'll end by making two hasty generalizations. "Mother Earth" came before anything in the Bible, except for maybe light and Heaven, but those don't pertain to this gander unless you want to argue that Heaven supports patriarchy (which it might). No matter. Lastly, linguistically "Eve" means the mother of all living. Hypothetically, if Eve hadn't have been created or present then her creation and presence filled the void for the first "Mother." She allowed procreation to proceed much alike of what "Mother Earth" has allowed.

A New Era

With Moses gone, God had to deem a new earthly leader. Joshua becomes God's next top advocate; he is presented with the ground rules and he is given a task.

Joshua 1:3-6

"Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said to Moses. From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast. There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land which I swore unto their fathers to give them."

This is inauguration of Joshua, and he must speak the word of the Lord to the people before they begin their next conquest. In chapter two Joshua sends a couple spies off to live with Rahab, an alleged prostitute, and gather information from the walled-off Jericho. Thereafter, Joshua collects his infantry, speaks the word of the Lord unto them, cleanses them, and passes them over. It's only been 4 & 1/2 books into Joshua and he's already gained so much respect that "On that day the Lord magnified Joshua in the sight of all Israel; and they feared him, as they feared Moses, all the days of his life."(Joshua 4: 14) God is going about his usual routine. He gets the ear of one human and asks/commands them to preach His words, which are passionate yet quite violent and ethnocentric. "And Joshua said unto the children of Israel, 'Come hither, and hear the words of the Lord your God.' And Joshua said, 'Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.'"(Joshua 3:9-10) These words contain promises and initiate actions which are attempts to 'send a message' to His non-followers (non-knowers) using power and force over diplomacy. God has many rules and obligations which all seems to have and endpoint along the same merciless lines.

Now this is actually a story I know and taught; Joshua and the walls of Jericho. It's now time for Joshua and his/God's followers begin their quest to claim the next prized real estate. Joshua and his army circle the wall once each day for six days then circle it seven times on the seventh day. The walls come tumbling down and it's open season. The warriors had pillage the city and kill each blasphemer (including those who know not of blasphemy). No inhabitant nor house must be saved, but one expensive tithe is Jericho's exception. I didn't know that all the treasure was to be collected and put aside for the Lord.

But wait, there's one survivor, that being Rahab. Sure, she gave Joshua's chosen men hospitality, but what exactly was those men's purpose? They spied for what benefit? They must have been in it for the booty (pun intended?).

Catching Up

CELWPGA is an acronym for Northrop Frye's seven word summation of the Bible. This is how I'll remember those seven words:

"Celebrating Existence Lets Will Power Gain Attractivenss"

... = Creation, Exodus (Revolution), Law, Wisdom, Prophecy, Gospel, Apocalypse (Revelation).

Now that we have that out of the way, I'll talk briefly about what I've read in Frye's Words with Power. Frye says that Literature, and in our case The Bible, should be read and analyzed in a very specific way. He says that if one approached literature looking to fulfill an ideological query then you're perspective may only take away a portion of the reading. The big picture may be caught in a haze of personal conflict. Frye says that, "In such approaches literature is subordinated to something else which by definition is more important and urgent" (p. 27). But literature shoudn't have a boss; it is what it is. We can allow The Bible to adhere to an agenda, but the scripture will misrepresent itself too much if we focus on proving or disproving an agenda. We shouldn't be a critic when reading scripture because The Bible's fruitful content.

There's one last enticing quote which I'll share: "it is criticism which separates science from superstition, history from rumor and legend, philosophy and politics from propaganda, and the like." So to what extent should we question, analyze, and criticize the Bible?

Up to Leviticus

I'm up to Leviticus in The Good Book, and I've mainly been comparing it's commentary along with it's perspective and contemporary tone of voice difference to The Bible. Thus far, I'm trying to figure out what God really wants for humans to "do." What I'm looking for in each story is a moral to remember it by, and, sure, there are plenty of rules of thumb. In fact, God acts a lot like a roughneck Dad. He wants you to know that as long as you're under his roof you're going to follow his rules. You are punishable if any of these rules are broken, and there are a flippin' lot of 'em.

The tough thing I'm trying to get over is the fact that we don't know any of these anonymous writers. Their words sometimes overlap, but sometimes their writings conflict. Then again, the U.S. Constitution wasn't written with one opinion.

Genesis seems to lay the foundation, literally and figuratively, of where we live and who's the land's main rulers. Genesis and Exodus give us stories which act somewhat like parables, and you're supposed to find the underlying moral in the, what I would call, usually short amount of scripture. Also, the heralded Ten Commandments is a highlight of the initial rules of the Bible which continue throughout Leviticus. Additionally, I didn't know that Leviticus consisted of mainly rules and rituals. I traced back the word "Leviticus" (the Greek meaning: "relating to the Levites"--the Hebrew meaning: "and He called"), and it lead to Levi [who'da thunk?], founder of the Israelite tribe of Levi. Were these Levites the soul developers of the third book of the Torah? How many were there? Their written laws vary from contemporary common sense to convoluted, close-minded conservatism (and yes, I'm reading it 'in-context' as well I can), much of which is punishable by death, pain, exile, or even just forcing yourself to bath. I think that It'd be interesting if one person wrote The Bible. How would the almighty code differ?

Now think back on the first two books of Genesis; two different writers, right? Maybe the second writer was reading the first's article on the presumed creation of the world and thought, "Oh heck nah, and here's my two cents." He's an analyst, critic, and writer; another David Plotz from the old, old days.

I have a hard time believing The Bible when Plotz is so much, for lack of a better word, fun to read. I mean, even if the first story is true then can't the second story act as an imagination exercise. The problem is, where does reality split from imagination when adapting your perspective in written work?

A Past Experience

As I read Plotz's commentary, I can't help but agree with his overall feel for the Bible (thus far). He is a skeptic, but his take is not wrong. For example, if we examine Sodom and Gomorrah then we'll learn that God destroyed those cities and peoples after he said that he wouldn't. Whether it was 5 or 50 righteous men, the cities would be spared. Then there's Chapter 19, and the Lord flimsily sticks to his word. He'll spare the righteous if they leave Sodom and Gomorrah; some of the people may be saved, but the cities are on their last legs. Abraham's motivation for mercy was irrelevant. The Bible shows that God will choose what He wants for the endgame. The people in the Bible show some moral structure and understanding, but God must use extremity to make his point. This is where we can look back into Plotz's argument.

Plotz says of Genesis: Chapters 18&19, "how do you teach this in Sunday School? What is the moral lesson here?" This is one of my problems with Evangelical actions; sometimes the point being made or the story being told has a counterpart; a deficiency.

For example, I was a Bible storyteller and puppeteer for a week of Vacation Bible School this summer. We didn't cover the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Instead, one of our stories was the story of Elijah, the prophets of Baal, and the altar (found in 1 Kings: Chapter 17-19). Our audience consisted of some younger elementary schoolers. On the surface, the story is a good one to tell because Elijah proves to the prophets of Baal that they believed in the wrong God because Elijah's God puts fire to the drenched altar. The story shows the power of the "right" God. At VBS we were told to stop here, but there's more to the story and character of Elijah. If we continue on then we'll discover that Elijah may have an underdeveloped stance on morality although he believes in the "right" God. 1 Kings, Chapter 19, Verse 1 says, "And Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and withal how he had slain all the prophets with the sword." According to my fellow VBS storytellers, once Elijah proved his point he brought all (allegedly around 400) the prophets of Baal down to the river and beheaded them. According to the Bible, God and his devout followers act in ways that are straight-up wicked.

What I find to be interesting is the fact that many Christians aren't presented with the whole story. I'm a born and raised Presbyterian, and I am one of those kids who hasn't been presented with all the facts. Only until recent have I read the raw material contained in the Bible.

Whether we're talking about Genesis, Kings, or whatever, God seems to have a pretty stone-set worldview. Plotz shows, through the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, that God can be wicked, and I've showed that his followers can be wicked, too.

God is a consistent decision maker, and commonly if one person or many people make the "wrong" decision then they are offed. From what I've read or learned, there's not a lot of "going back" or "I'm sorry" because those who are wrong are blasphemers, cannot be forgiven, and must pay the price. God can either be merciful or a masochist, but everything must be read and taken in context, right? Lastly, I'm not saying that all of God's actions are wicked, but, as a contemporary reader, should we analyze and account for all of God's decisions? If God makes any "wicked" decision then should we ding him for it? Say I'm a devout Christian; to me, should he be considered omnibenevolent? Should we draw any lines with God?

First Thoughts

The bible says some things that don't make sense. On the first day, it says, light was let into the world of nothingness. Then, yada yada yada, it's the fourth day and God now thinks that there should be some things which are the composers of this light. These things are the stars and the sun.

Now I suppose that this first book, chapter, and page might infer that God has this kind of divine, creationist power. So light existed a few days before it was given a power source. They say that the Lord works in mysterious ways, but sometimes His ways are logically irrational. But we, as a majority, let it slide, and, all things considered, still this book has managed to maintain global respect.

This is something that I'm going to have to internally fight, understand, and accept in order to find the underlying morals from this divine text. I suppose that since I do not actively advocate Christianity or accept what I've already learned from the Bible then I should change something about the way I interpret the Bible in order to learn about other things which it gives or shows. I must look at it in a way which will enrich my understanding of writing style, moral grasp, or literary inspiration.

It's hard to let things be irrational since this book carries so much weight, but maybe I'll let it slide, too.

Before Beginning the Bible...

...I have a few things to express.

Our assignment is simple, although it is not easy. To read the Bible before...What was it?...October 2nd (Yes, that's it.). The Bible! In one month! Quite the request, eh.

It's like being asked/dared to become a vegetarian for one month. This goes without saying, it's harder than it sounds. Your body and mind will have to struggle with the content and adapt to the style. The reading content may be as boring as a leaf of lettuce, and time after time it'll make you want to quit the challenge then and there because you could just as easily be chowing down a cheeseburger (a Good-er book). Yesterday in class, for example, one student spoke about how some words or passages meant nothing. That words were empty, that many-many readings were puzzling, that there was no meat.

So why would anyone want to go vegetarian for a month if their body and mind wasn't recognizing the nutrients that it was extracting? The fact of the matter is that vegetarianism is a healthy practice (although it's fun may be lacking). If your not used to being one then you might not notice as quickly what benefits you're slowly accumulating. Your interest in participating may not spark until later in the game. You may not understand that you don't necessarily need many of the energy-rich proteins in, say, fried chicken or pizzas. But veggies have their own zest too, and the Good Book's, arguably most dynamic and stimulating, content/nutrients might spark a new type of appetite.

Let's just hope that my enjoyment spark commences sometime in Genesis, in the beginning of the game.