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.