Numbers, a perfect day, and a humorous soulmate

“He was not inventing a myth so much as releasing it.” Frye

Numbers: a bit slow. Funny the proportion of text allotted for the ‘boring’ stuff versus the interesting moral/mythological/poetic bits. Pages upon pages describe what sacrifices to be done for which festivals on what days. Yet, in most, a single detail is changed, if that. In the story of Balaam, we are given only a few chapters. Interesting and well-written though they are, they are placed neither above nor below the quotas in importance. It seems the authors primary concern is rarely ever one of poetry, but I would argue that it is one of myth. As boring as I am, I do not see the beauty of lists. However, for the people, the lists were. They too mattered, they too had grave impact, they too were the breath of God.

Sometimes I just wish god had some breath freshener. Tic-tac Jahweh?

(GET IT? CAUSE IT STINKS….ITS A PUN) well, sort of.

Balaam, the Donkey, and the Angel

Talk about lacuna….without missing a beat Balaam talks right back to his talking donkey. This opens many questions, however: “God opened the mouth of the donkey.” Similar to opening the womb of Sarah, does this mean the Lord unblocked an already existing blockage? Were the words on the donkeys mind, could he simply not speak them? Or is God simply speaking through the mouth of the donkey? The feeling is given that it is indeed the donkey who talks. “Am I not your donkey, which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I been in the habit of treating you this way?” Then again, he sure does sound a lot like god.

If only I could interpret the bible as metaphorically or concrete as I can study Hinduism. The concrete language used is unmistakably un-descriptive: purely metaphor, purely stating that which cannot be explained by anything other than parable. Not annotated parables at that.

The bible throws in some snags though. At times, it seems almost sacrilegious to interpret this language as concrete. Yet searching for the history and empirical evidence is just as sacrilegious. Frye’s chapter on Mythos. One of my favorite lines thus far: “…though an open mind, to be sure, should be open at both ends, like the foodpipe, and have a capacity for excretion as well as intake.” Well, he sure makes me laugh, maybe I should take Professor Sexson’s advice, if I had been born about 80 years earlier.

Frye goes on to say, “What I am saying is that all explanations are an ersatz form of evidence, and evidence implies a criterion of truth external to the Bible which the Bible itself does not recognize.” (p.44)

Similar to what we talked about in class Thursday 24^th, no? I have good reason to believe this class has a plan for us all.

Back to Balaam and Balak:

“I have brought you to curse my enemies, but now you have done nothing but bless them.” He answered, “Must I not take care to say what the Lord puts in my mouth?” That, right there, is some damn good dialogue.

Numbers…numbers…..nuuuuumbers. AND THEN the daughters of Zelophehad: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, MIlcah, Tirzah. These women petitioned in the name of their father, who died and had no sons, to still receive his due inheritance. Women….requesting things….of men…..cool. And guess what? Lord was cool with it, and even agreed with them. I don’t know. I am not really a feminist, but its hard not to notice women in literature when there is such emphasis placed on their non-role in most other things. One just thinks that this mention of sex is significant. But then again, maybe that’s part of the problem.

“It is a day for you to blow the trumpets.” (Numbers 29.2) How’s that for the sounding of a perfect day ? What makes a perfect day perfect? Everything goes well? State of mind? Wheaties for breakfast? Or is it the soundtrack of all of these combined, the music that harmonizes to create a fanfare of trumpets in your soul.

Where is our city of refuge?

Leviticus "You Shall Be Holy, for I Am Holy"

"I am the Lord your God, sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. " The tone is set effectively in Leviticus not as a book of boring laws, but as a list of commandments most sacred, nay, most neccesary, for living as an Israelite. Strange they may seem to me, the words convey the importance and reverence with which they were held by the author, and his immediate audience.

Reading the Bible. Our task, set by God, to interpret its literary value. As we discussed in class, sometimes this responsibility seems too much. Indeed, in Leviticus, when Aaron’s sons offer up unholy smoke to the Lord, he smites them. Bam. “And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them….This is what the Lord meant when he said….” Not only must we worry about what the Lord said, we must worry about what the Lord means. And about what that means to us. Let us dive into the world of authors and see which sings loudest.

“All fat is the Lord’s.”

Sacrifice. This topic also popped up this week in my Indian Religions class. In particular, animal sacrifice came up a lot, given the controversy it creates, and the inability for many modern thinkers to comprehend a need to literally kill a sentient being on the altar before the Lord. Consequently, this practice seems to have gone out of style, at some point or another. My question is at what point in history did animal sacrifices become a fashion faux-paus. Does it have something to do with Northrop’s evolution of language? Some shift in perception as to what was socially acceptable, and more than that, religiously necessary? Was is a primitive PETA that threw red dye onto the robes of respected priests through-out the land?

A second question is raised. The bible very specifically describes each ritual of sacrifice, complete with purpose of sacrifice, dashing of blood and burning of body. Is this text describing a new correct process or an existing ritual already in practice? Interesting to chew on, if one doesn’t believe that this was the word of God. Seeing as the rest of the book is primarily a history of the people, would it not make sense that the laws of sacrifice are also an historical account? If one interprets the story like this, the author turns into a descriptive writer concerned with order rather than a metaphorical or allegorical writer concerned with function.

“When you realize your guilt.”

A phrase repeated often, referring to the process with which one might attain pardon from the Lord for erring. Simple, yet it incurs something greater than simply being made aware that you did a no-no. The words are deeper, they say: “Only when you realize, in the depth of your being, that you have committed an act which sits unwell in your heart, can you then beg for atonement.” This is no church buy-out, no petty act. This is a realization within the self that an action you have committed just feels wrong. In a sense, it is this realization that is the forgiveness, and the ritual that follows it merely recognition.

Leviticus, though an intriguing story, reminds me of the emphasis some authors place on the description rather than the story. Simultaneously as I read “Then he brought forward the ram of burnt offering. Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram and it was slaughtered (Lev. 8.18),” I read selected texts from my Indian Religion class. The Vedic scriptures, a prelude to Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, were written over many a century, with varied writers. Sound familiar? Except these texts were written to be sung: “The unborn one, free of crooked thoughts, has a fort with eleven gates; One who attends to it will not grieve, but, freed from it, he will be set free (Katha Upanisad).” The language is most certainly metaphoric, concrete, divine. Caught up in the beauty of the words, it is easy to forgo their meaning—which is sometimes the point. We see this beauty of verse earlier in J’s writing and later, in the Psalms.

Reciting such a phrase aloud, I am swept away in its beauty. I cannot concentrate on the meaning of individual words as I am drowning in the power of the verse. At first, I do not know from where this power gains its strength. The words, in their present state of divine configuration mean little to me. Searching for the source, I lose the beauty. Only once I submit to the rhythmic incantation once more are my eyes opened to a world I can understand intuitively, concretely, divinely

Exodus 13.0-End

13.33 “Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people.” This is a great image, metaphorical as well as concrete (Northrop’s languages). The lord does provide security for his people.

15.20 “The Israelites walked through the sea on dry ground.” This repetition is surely intentional, as it creates a very rhythmic reading of the entire chapter.

17.14 “…I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.” Ouch. Them’s is fightin words.

18 Pretty cool, the first court system in the bible, ordained by the bible. I didn’t know this would be mentioned.

In Exodus, the Lord really wants to prove himself. Yet, I can’t help but picture the women, children, asking “Why?” “Why did our father die chasing the Israelites?” “Why must this plague be upon us?” The bible sacrifices itself to the injustices of the world, giving itself up for a greater good. Why? Because God is trying to prove himself. Not in the critical way I, and Plotz, might first believe, but in a way as to offer an answer to the question. The best answer we can hope for is that all of the suffering, the wrong-doing, the pain, is caused not needlessly, but for a reason. We can try to believe in some grander scheme that we are blind to as of yet. The bible offers up a master of this scheme. Perhaps from the beginning the authors knew or hoped that at some point, readers would criticize God and his ways, call him frivolous and egotistical, come to blame him for the wrong in their lives. They hoped even more that we would come to understand He is merely offering himself up as a scapegoat, so that we may have faith in our times of trouble. That we may understand we do not know all.

For me, the medium—or characterization—of the Lord is unimportant. It is important only that I understand there is something greater, something with meaning, something to catch us when we fall.

Another example of a gracious god is the continual complaining of his Israelite people. They don’t stop, after multiple examples of his benevolence, just like the Pharaoh didn’t stop after the demonstrated threats. A god that will put up with all that and still provide is admirable. My only hope is that we haven’t been taking advantage of this?

The Prophetess Miriam. Plotz mentions her, as leading the singing and dancing when the Israelites finally cross the Red Sea. Her actual part so far in the bible was a small blurb, a mere mention. Does she appear later on? Even if she does, the small characters in this book are enough to build a story on. The writer in me wants to re-portray her dancing and singing in a bit more detail. But I suppose then there would be no room for the enthralling description of the tabernacle, the building of the tabernacle and the consecrating of the tabernacle.

This precise step by step process that eats up the last few chapters of Exodus must be somewhat important. Is it so descriptive so that we can duplicate it or admire it?

So. The commandments. Plotz notices something interesting about them that crept into my thought as well: as much as I had thought they were how to live morally, they are simply, as Plotz writes, “designed for keeping order.”This is an interesting observation, as this follows the first description of a court system, and precedes the more detailed rules about settlements for killing, stealing, ect. This is a very institutional section, as if showing the Israelites not how to live on their own, but how to live together as a society. The author repeatedly suggests a union of the tribes, in both J and P parts. This leads one, while reading the bible as literature, to keep in mind not only its merit in prose or literary allusions, but in the world of the people who take it as law, such as Jacob in The Slave. This is the book they read not only for faith and inspiration but for daily rituals and models for social institutions..

And as in any book, much is left to interpretation of the reader, no matter how specific the author thinks she is being. As Plotz notes, the verse on miscarriage/abortion can be read as both a prochoice and prolife supporter.

And the end. Exodus is fin.

Unsustainable Blogging

More reading, less blogging. I have tried the chapter by chapter approach, with very thorough results and little progress. My second experiment will be to capture the bible in bigger pieces and write about larger sections as a whole. This will serve to cut down my blog considerably and perhaps create a larger picture—giving me more time to think. On the downside, this will not be as specific or useful for my own purposes in remembering stories of the bible. At least that is my hypothesis. Who knew there was science in blogging? (Or in the Bible?)

My next entry was done in this fashion. I read most of Exodus and then wrote about it. I feel like this approach broadens my perspective on the bible. Instead of taking line for line as Plotz does, I am reading a text in its entirety and accepting it as a whole, as Northrop suggests is important. Indeed, I feel the snide remarks I might make are sliding into the backround, leaving more room for thoughts and ideas I have had time to digest and assign importance to.

Reading more at a time, beginning Northrop's book and listening to Goodman's high C have changed the way I intrepret the bible, for the better. Though some of Plotz's passages are insightful, he is becoming increasingly narrow minded in my book. I am hoping to see the beauty in the prose and the impact on the readers, as opposed to my own shock at a world that I never knew, and thus could never really understand.

Church of the Great Outdoors

So. I guess I haven’t really explained me yet. I was thinking of going with the whole discover me through my writing type thing. However, vanity being what it is, and my profound desire for readers not to get offended in the wrong places (yes, this does imply there are right places to be offended) led me to formulate a little Genesis of my own.

I was born and raised in small town Montana, Darby-small to be precise. My parents are loving creatures that have strived to provide the best for me, mainly in heart and soul. Dad was raised Polish Catholic—nuns, catholic school, watered down ketchup… the whole shebang. Mom was raised Protestant/Catholic/Christian. I guess her family kept switching between churches and the importance my mom places on organized religion (not much) reflects this.

The combination of my mother’s strong-willed liberal nature and the 70’s spent away from home persuaded my dad that perhaps church every Sunday wasn’t necessary for his soul.

Both combined their ideas over many years together, and thus the Church of the Great Outdoors was born. It is a church of prayers ever night to someone I address as Lord for lack of a better name, and hikes on Sundays. It is a religion, like many, filled with biases, beauty, and most of all, appreciation to be on this little blue marble. Over the years, my brother and I have adapted and expanded on this religion each in our own way.

My present self is entranced with the world. More often than not, I feel something deep within me that recognizes the essence of some greater self. Still trying to figure out just what it is. I have a deep respect for man’s positive search for Oneness, and a deep-rooted bias towards organized religions that forget this search.

I am really excited about reading the bible, and hope to finish it. I take that back. More than hope, I strive to finish this book, hopefully by the end of semester. If not, I will by the end of the year. There is literary merit and allusions abound in the reading. More than that, a little feeling deep inside me tells me that beauty, truth and inspiration must be within the pages. If this helps me overcome my pre-disposition to scoff at religion, I welcome it.

I will be honest in my blogs. Skepticism may abound. However, I am striving to read with an open heart ready to accept and a watchful eye searching for the poetry of the world.

Exodus 1-13.0: A Disney adventure explained...sort of

1

“Every boy that is born to the Hebrews you shall throw into the Nile…” Wow. This Pharaoh, as I knew he would be, is not so cool. The Israelites seem to breed like rabbits (good ol’ God’s promise), and though they are enslaved by the Egyptians, the Egyptians fear them—or maybe they fear them because they mistreat them and expect an uprising. The only logical solution? Mistreat them more.

This chapter was written in what I would characterize as the P version. Very precise, to the point, choppy.Yet it is more entertaining than a regular P, so perhaps J...

Plotz mentions the word slave, and its conspicuous absence in his version, even though the term is implied in the rest of his religion.

2

“He looked this way and that, and seeing no one he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” What? That came out of left field. What anti-climatic writing, and this is no Moses I remember. Brings up a good point. This is pre-commandments, pre-Jesus. Does anything fly? Really, up to this point, no one can be blamed for what they have done.

“The Israelites groaned under their slavery, and cried out.” Those are somewhat more powerful, loaded words. Why does an all-powerful God need to be reminded?

Time scale given by Plotz- about four hundred years, 20 generations.

3

“I AM WHO I AM.” Why the sudden mystery in the name of god? A pretty important chapter though, with the burning bush and the promise of the liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian hands. Not only liberation, but, is there a hint of reparation in there? “And so you shall plunder the Egyptians.”

4

First of all, Moses is anything but willing. The writing shows him protesting again and again to this gift of being the voice of god. People will not believe him, he cannot speak well, they will laugh at him…”O my Lord, please send someone else.” Is this a show of over-done modesty or of genuine stage-fright. Will this be part of the story, a nobody who comes up and achieves greatness , to set the pattern for countless other rags to riches tales? Or is the will of God really random, with the least deserving getting all the good roles?

There is to be no one worshipped before god, right? So then why does Moses get to serve as a god to Aaron?

So, act is set in motion, and we learn the reason for the killings of the firstborn son to come. Then comes a paragraph about Zipporah (Moses’s wife) and her son maybe going to get killed till she circumcises him, “A bridegroom of blood by circumcision.” Perhaps this is just bad editing, or maybe an attempt to show rather than tell the distinction of which newborn sons shall be killed. Clever?

5 Bricks Without Straw (cool subtitle)

Intense chapter. The Pharaoh is relentless in his cruelty and the Israelites come to blame Moses and Aaron for their increased labor. This is a theme that will be repeated again and again in human history, a core fault of humans to misunderstand on whom to place the blame. Why were we created with so little perspective?

Reading so far, I cannot help but list off the number of movies, songs, poems and books that I know of that have been inspired by the bible up to Exodus. Key words: so far, and ‘that I know of.’ The bible goes on and on, and the works that I know are hardly a fraction of what is really out there. Now I want to pay more attention just to catch those little allusions. Is there a work alluded to more widely in western culture?

6

Super genealogy.

7

Once again, Moses complains that he is not the man for the job. Once again, God tells him that he shall be god to the people, and Aaron shall be his prophet. Is this intentional literary repetition for effect or bad editing? Assuming it is for effect, the conclusion I can draw is that in a lack of displayed power, Moses still remains humble and doubts his power. Poor guy is getting promised the world but so far all he has to show for it is a mob of Israelites.

“But I will harden the Pharaoh’s heart, and I will multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt.” God likes his build-up. He’ll make a man out of Moses yet.

First plague: water into blood. As an afterthought, we are told, “And all the Egyptians had to dig along the Nile for water to drink, for they could not drink the water of the river.” Cause it was blood. No big deal. The bible really doesn’t make an individual feel too special as of yet, eh?

8

Second plague: Frogs. Pharaoh, why you so mean? Crazy Egyptians…

Third plague: Gnats. No more warnings this time, now Aaron and Moses are just raining down plagues. You had your chance Pharaoh…

Fourth plague: Flies. I keep forgetting how entranced I was with the plagues growing up. What a cool idea. I knew very little about them, but I remember thinking how cruel and unusual they were, and marveled at how widespread. Does every child grow up with this idea of striking righteous plagues down on others? Of impressing their enemies with just how much they can make them pay? Or was that just me?

9

Odd chapter placements. I would assume this is for ease of reading, for those who would pick out a verse or two to read.

Fifth plague: Livestock Diseased. I also wondered the significance of the plagues. Which brings me to flies. Why flies? Why gnats? They seemed like the same thing to me. Wondering if the number ten has any significance, I found “Thus wherever ten is found this completeness of order is also seen. Ten implies completeness of order, nothing lacking and nothing over. It signifies that the cycle is complete and that everything is in its proper order. Thus ten represents the perfection of divine order.” (http://www.vic.australis.com.au/hazz/number010.html) Perhaps a wee bit of borrowed significance, and in order to attain this number, God just had to be a bit redundant.

Sixth plague: Boils. How many children have had to memorize all of these horrible plagues in Sunday school? I have a vague remembrance of my eight year old friends being able to recite the order.

Seventh plague: Thunder and Hail. “For this is what I have let you live: to show you my power, and to make my name resound through all earth.” Yeah. Founding a religion can be tough work.

Wow. Which makes me think of The Chronicles of Narnia. I remember reading these books as a kid, and hearing some vague comments about the author being a Christian and the parallel between his stories and the bible. Or something. And anyways, is Aslan (the lion…) not unlike God? Both play large parts in the beginning, sacrifice their time when needed, then have long periods of absence where they are nowhere to be found, and their people must fend for themselves, until of course, both return and save the day. I dunno. God is a lion.

10

Eighth plague: Locusts. “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Stretch out your hand…’” Why must God act through Moses? This is confusing, as is exactly who is talking to the Pharaoh. Is it Moses, or Aaron, or God through Moses, or God through Moses through Aaron, or God directly or…or… Can He not act directly in a land ruled by heathens? Or is this just signifying the importance of Moses?

Ninth plague: Darkness. Ok already. We get it, Pharaoh is wishy washy liar. Stop listening to him? Is this the first comings of the time-honored tradition of Christian’s turning a cheek, giving everyone the benefit of the doubt? After reading this epic, I can understand why this is not as ingrained as we might wish.

“A darkness that can be felt.”

11

Final Plague “Indeed, when he lets you go, he will drive you away.” I don’t know why. These lines stuck to me.

12

Passover! Woah. Love this story. Don’t know why, but origins of rituals are fascinating to me. It’s like…this is where it all started. At least, this is where we gain importance in our religion. No one may remember to not sleep with his neighbor’s wife, but god damnit if they don’t observe a holiday. This sounds harsh, but in many ways traditions are some of the strongest and most admirable things to keep a religion together, for better or worse. The very potency of such rites deserves at least a little thought.

The specifics don’t matter much. Why unleavened bread? (We later find out this is God playing time traveler, as he commands the eating of unleavened bread because as they were driven out of Egypt, the Israelites had no time to leaven their bread) So this is symbolic. But why no penis flap? Was this divinely inspired or just a random man coming up with a rule? But because it is written to us, given straight with a warning, we obey. It is no more than a test of faithfulness and attentiveness. How much are you willing to sacrifice for what you believe?

I am utterly intrigued.

“And when your children ask you, ‘What do you mean by this observance?’ You shall say, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice to the Lord…” Maybe the question is not of sacrifice, but more of remembrance.

Genesis 36.0-end

The End of Genesis!

36

As Esau moves away from his brother, it is explained “For their possessions were too great for them to live together, the land where they were staying could not support them.” Hmm, this sounds like a familiar mentality—infinite room for infinite generations, right? Yay for finding the roots of our great American tradition.

As I read, another episode of ‘begots’ pops us. My eyes skim over the names, and while it is not exactly painful to read yet another paragraph of who’s who’s, I am frustrated by the fact that I have no idea of who these people are. I guess I could wiki them, or really pay close attention to the footnotes, or have been brought up Jewish to really understand who these people are and the tribes they are representative of. It really is a genealogy of an entire culture.

37

This is all narrative. Pretty entertaining as well. Joseph is introduced as a favorite, a boy who dreams himself to be great. Kudos to the authors/editors who infer this information rather than laying it down as law. A hint of a best-seller? Aha, but the tendency for redundancy is found again…”and they said, so the spoke…” Is this repetition a sign of the times, of how people spoke when they spake aloud unto the masses? Or did the editors just have a really pretentious mindset?

38

Judah and Tamar

J story. Yes, as many have already noted, this story is in the middle of nowhere. But, it does show an interesting character of Judah. Yes, he sleeps with his dead son’s wife and gets her pregnant, then tries to burn her, but what else can we expect? What is notable is the fact that when she shows him that she is in the right and he in the wrong, he recognizes and even accepts this fact. I would say a large leap for mankind.

One more point—karma is abound in Genesis. At least our perception of karma, not necessarily a natural effect of an action, but as a revenge made by god for your wrong-doing. I wonder if somehow destiny, even in Christian thought, is an implied cause/effect relationship, of if God already had all this planned out.

39 Joseph in Egypt

As the wife of Joseph’s master (he was sold by his brothers into slavery) accuses him of raping her after he DENIES the call of her flesh, I am struck again with the manipulation so evident in the foundations of our culture. So much for the good ol’ days. No wonder lying, thieving and other bad tricks are so deeply ingrained in our worldview. We really had no choice.

40 Dreams of Prisoners

I like Joseph. Finally a good useful guy, who is smart but NOT an ass. Also, this scene in the prison is portrayed very vividly. Great character depictions, and very realistic. I see the two servants of the king, and their reactions in that smelly little cell. Another hint of good writing, and a selling point for helping me to believe this story. Another selling point is the ridiculousness of it. No one can make this stuff up. And if they did, they truly are the best authors in the world.

41 Pharaoh’s Dream

Joseph, rather, God through Joseph, interprets the king’s dream as 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine. Joseph, himself then proceeds to offer advice. This advice is not how to avoid famine (God’s will, no karma after all), but how to prepare for it. Woah. A success story, as Joseph finally gets some credit as basically taking over the Pharaoh’s job, in everything but throne. Plotz interprets this as Joseph being a schemer, but I think he deserves it. He is strong, but not overbearing in his faith, and he uses his ability to the betterment of a people, with no hint of a desire for worldly riches. I still like Joseph.

42 Joseph’s Brother

So, famine time, and Joseph’s very own brothers come to visit. Jacob tells them to get some food, “that we may live and not die.” Joseph recognizes his brother, but not them him. Joseph tricks his brother, but the trick is not nasty, nor even really revenge for selling him into slavery. He is testing them, testing their virtue, in order to see if he can let them back into his life. This pains him, as he weeps for them, but yet perseveres over his emotions for the long term good. Hmmmm… I will have to think about the impact of this on our culture, if it is visible. I think it might be, I just have to stop being so skeptical.

43

As Jacob and his sons discuss their confusion at what, why they are being tested by Egypt, the language the editos uses makes me think there is an intended parallel here as to the lessons God teaches us humans, and our confusion or hatred toward a scheme we do not yet understand. In this story, Joseph is creating a test for his family, and they do not understand. Anyways, whether or not there is a god, it is an interesting parable, the confusion that ultimately (we hope) leads to a higher level of understanding, enlightenment, morality, ect.

44 Detaining of Benjamin

The lack of God’s immediate presence really is a change. Developing the human characters without direct influence reminds me of a parent (once again) leaving off his kids, letting them play by themselves for a bit. This lends for a more entertaining story. Or maybe, because this story in Genesis is not so rapish/incestish/depressingish that the editors and authors are enjoying themselves a bit more, and taking some creative liberties in their writing.

45 Reuniting with the Bros

“So it was not you who sent me here but God.” Like Esau, he has forgiven, but Joseph at least requires a test to see if his brethren really had changed. But Joseph’s insight is great. He is the first character in my memory in the bible to really transcend the squabbles of humanly existence in leu of the greater picture. Esau does this, but probably not through really understanding what he was doing. Joseph lives with an intent.

Also, good for the Pharaoh. Not a bad man, in fact, much more admirable than most of the other characters. He readily accepts help, but does not push it on another in a rude way.

Plotz mentions this pattern recognition theory. This is interesting, I would like to study that a bit more in depth. Coherency in the Incoherence of the bible? Intended or not, as Nothrop writes, it is the effect on the culture which matters. The bible is viewed as a whole unified text, and regardless of the truth, it should be read critically as a unified text in order to understand the impact it has.

46

Listing of all who came to Egypt with Jacob. So many stories in those names….

47 The Famine

Wow Joseph, Gett’re done! Plotz comments on this section are interesting again, a lot to chew on, but as of now I am not knowledgeable enough to interpret the effects of Joseph’s economic policies.

48

Thus far, we have seen Abel favored over Cain, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over his brothers, Joseph’s son over his other son. It is a continuing theme, and so are the revengeful actions of the un-favored brothers. My pattern-minded brain cannot dismiss the significance of this, and I am led to my first positive EPIPHANY in the reading of the bible. I am ecstatic over this. Let’s see, if a day later, it still has relevance.

So, Plotz views all this praising one over the other as bad foresight, of instigating bad actions by the other parties. I disagree. The theme of favoring is one God bestowed upon us, in his own image. We, reading the bible, are being told again and again that in our lives, we will sometimes be less favored than others. Some will be given everything in their lives, but this is NO EXCUSE to act with dishonor towards the favorite, or even with jealousy. In fact, we are repeatedly told that if ever we do this, our very well-being will be compromised in a crazy act of God. However, the bible is not telling us that those with no favor are inherently useless. Judah, a man who acted with intelligence, becomes one of the greatest tribes in Israel, although he is not immediately picked as a winner by God. This is a truly beautiful message, as it subtly shows the reader that favors can, in fact, be for no good reason (Cain and Abel…). The sad thing is, instead of recognizing this sad fact of life and accepting our own virtues as enough, we seek for a reason that Abel really was better than Cain. He was not. It was a test to see if men are strong enough to continue to act decently when not praised above all others. Some fail, some pass. Let’s pick up on this and start to pass. Be a stronger man.

49

Twelve tribes of Israel, the twelve sons of Jacob. Such an elaborate story depicting each tribe’s success or failure, in fact, a whole book of Genesis devoted to it. It makes one wonder, is this an explanation or an induction? Post facto argument or history?

50

Why embalm Jacob? Is this in the tradition? I don’t know.

The Brother’s Plea

“The brothers weep for fear. Joseph weeps because his brother still do not understand.” Well said Mr. Footnote Writer. Such is the burden of the aware, to suffer the ignorance in the face of true beauty.

ANNNNNNNNNNND DONE. Cool stuff. I shalt persevere, especially with this cliffhanger introducing the return to the Holy Land.

Genesis 29.0-36.0

Well, today I learned a lot. It was nice to have the differences in the J and P versions explained, at least the concrete ones. I had been wondering in my reading, and I will start to really pay attention now. Also, it has been great bookmarking the class’s sites, and I am excited to see what people have to say.

I skimmed over my past few blogs, and in my never ending self-conscious vanity I have found that they make little sense. I realize that as I spend an hour reading the bible, then Plotz, then writing, then bible, then Plotz, then writing, the result is a clash of words that just don’t flow. Sentences are out of order, important words are missing, violent and abstract thoughts are expressed, well, violently and abstractly. I do not know if this could be helped by anything other than coffee at eleven o clock at night, which I am just not willing to do, not even for God, not even for Dr. Sexson. So, if my haphazard writing does not improve, I apologize. I do believe that some meaning can be attained from my blogs even still, and I strive to better them in every non-caffeine related way I can.

So here is my third installment, Dear Internet:

29

Jacob Meeting Rachel, Marrying Her- J version

“So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and this seemed to him but a few days because of the love he had for her.” Indeed J somehow manages to weave poetry into the narratives, or at least human emotion. Have I been missing this human side of the bible, or is there a lack of human connections thus far? Aha, immediately this island of beauty is swept away in a myriad of human shortcomings and divine mis-interventions. Such is life.

30

Wow. Speaking of life, how about Rachel and Leah. This is one of the most entertaining bits I have read so far. Bartering of mandrakes for sex and providing Jacob a maid to sleep with in order to have more children by him. I am astounded. As this is coming from the E source, an older source comparable to the J, I cannot help but think the representation of women as nothing more than an episode of “Gossip Girl” is intentional. Subtle, for a book of Hellfire and Brimstone.

Yet, as I read on into Jacob Prospers at Laban’s Expense, I see a similar pattern. Both men wish to trick the other and go to great lengths for their own ends. However, the humor found in the previous passage is not here. The reader does not laugh at Jacob’s ingenius (if unscientific) way of increasing his riches as he does at the women’s squabbles.

More and more I cannot take this as a serious text. It is beginning to seem nothing more than a novel, a historical fiction: complete with humorous relief, violence, sex, drama and the occasional bit of insight. My hope in my continued reading is that I am forced to take the above statement back, that I do find in the Bible something truly meaning and wonderful. I guess I have a long ways to go.

31

Rachel steals the gods of her father’s house, then lies about it. Can no hero or heroine in this book accomplish anything without being an utter asshole?

Laban and Jacob Make a Covenant

The footnotes say this is wove together from E and J passages. The differences, though there, are melded into one. A hard task, I would assume.

32

As Jacob waits to meet his brother, he prays. This is the first account of a prayer to God that I can remember, at least this type of prayer. It is humble. (VERY unlike tradition) Is this showing another, truer side of Jacob? Or simply the desperation a man feels when he is backed into a corner?

Jacob Wrestles at Peniel

“For I have seen God face to face, [and I have wrestled with him?]” So. Confusing. But, Jacob is renamed Israel (that I get). My confusion mainly stems from the ‘no more eating the thigh muscle.’ Thigh muscle of humans? Or does this mean animal thighs? Is that even a good thing to be eating in the first place? For one from Montana, I have little knowledge of butchering. Help?

33

The most righteous words in the bible up to date: “But Esau said, ‘I have enough, my brother; keep what you have for yourself.’” Think about it. I doubt God agrees, what about Buddha?

34

“But they said, ‘Should our sister be treated like a whore?’” Yeah. Maybe she shouldn’t dress like one?

Ok, so that was crude. But so is the bible.

35

Ben-oni: Son of my Sorrow. This is beautiful, and so can be the bible.

Genesis 19.0-29.0

19

The Depravity of Sodom

Enough said about that. Lot’s courage in offering his daughters, oh that my own father could be so righteous? Well, I suppose he was doing the best he could with what he knew. This seems to come up again and again, I wonder if it is a purposeful lesson or simply an idea of how much times have changed: what once seemed acceptable, if regrettable, is no longer even allowed in bar-jokes. Or is it?

Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed

“But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.” The beginning of a Vonnegut book and, according to the footnotes, an explanation of an actual strange geological formation in the Dead Sea area. What an interesting scene. More than any passages I have read so far, this one seems very full of small meanings and great lessons. Lot’s being singled out as a innocent man, even in his slightly wicked ways; his inability to get his son-in-laws out of the city; his wife’s very human desire to look back, all are somehow moving. The scene is a mix between a riveting story of survival and a moral tale. Also, this is the J version, which up to date seems just a bit more wickedly imaginative…

The Shameful Origin of Moab and Ammon

Moabites and Ammonites. This episode, somewhat out of place, sounds like a dirty way to bash on your frenemies. “Yeah, don’t worry Mr. Moabite and Mrs. Ammonite, we mentioned you in the bible.” (snigger snigger) I guess we will see how the next mention of these two groups goes.

20

Abraham and Sarah at Gerar

Back to Gerar, but now told in the E source. “You have done things to me that not ought to be done.” When will we learn just what these things are, and why on earth is this a learned trait? Is it not something we should all be born with? Maybe we will learn, either later in the bible, or at the ‘end of the world as we know it.’ This brings to mind: how boring and short a book the bible might have been if only we knew better than to eat the fruit.

21

The Birth of Isaac

E, J and P sources all. Isaac means laughter, as Sarah laughs at her age in childbearing.

Hagar and Ishmael Sent Away

Ok. So third time, roughly of this story, this time the E version. Ishmael is a young boy, Hagar and Abraham’s son. They are sent away for “Isaac-ing” on the day of Isaac’s birth, but the Lord promises Abraham, this time ‘very distressed,’ that Ishmael too will be in some way more than ok. He is to become the father of Arabs. Is this all right? Very confusing to remember, so perhaps the repetition really is beneficial, if confusing.

Abraham and Abimelech Make a Covenant

E again. “And Abraham resided as an alien many days in the land of the Philistines.” So, he really is an alien, although the conflict is not as great as what it will become. He plants a tamarisk to signify the pact, and the pact signifies Israel’s ancient rights to the land. A bit of an important passage, if you’re into that sort of thing.

22

The Command to Sacrifice Isaac

E source. Upon first reading, very disturbing. But, once I read the footnotes I am reminded again of the gulf between cultures, even between practiced and perceived religions. Traditionally, the first son ‘belongs to god.’ Thus, Isaac is the Lord’s to take. Abraham knows this as surely as any Montanan knows it is their right to carry a gun. I cannot judge Abraham’s actions, which turn out to his (and his sons) benefit without fully comprehending the zeitgeist, if you will. A lesson in modesty. Also of note, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, where Abraham says “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.” Moving words, and once again they show the deep connection his people feel, and will feel for generations, to the land.

The Children of Nahor

J insert. Rebekah is a name I recognize, and I see she is coming up. I suppose this is just to provide some reference for family trees.

23

Not juicy. Relevant to followers as recognition of Holy (promised) Land, and astounding devotion to coverage of story from a literary standpoint. But, no murders. Yawn? Apparently, however, murders occur later according to Plotz. This becomes another contended site of Arabs and Jews, as if we needed another. How much pain and suffering can one text cause, even when it is not explicitly asking for it?

24

Abraham does not want his son to marry a Canaanite. One of the first restrictions? Where does this come from? It is frustrating, to not be able to love another, as in The Slave, where the Jew resists his feelings for the girl, with one reason being she is a Gentile. What is the historical or religious reason? Preservation of lineage? Pride? Anyways, hey Rebekah, welcome to Genesis.

25

Interesting foreshadowing in the account of Rebekah and Isaac’s children, Jacob and Esau. I must confess I am so ignorant of the Bible to know little of what will come to pass, but with or without this knowledge the passage is engaging. “Isaac loved Esau, because he was fond of game; but Rebekah loved Jacob.” This seems to be the first description of each parents’ feelings for the kids, a further enticing literary tool. The reader asks why, and reads on to find out. Is the bible intentionally full of small cliff hangers? Could it’s authors know that even the most devout would eventually need a little nudge?

Oh Jacob and Esau. A typical story of meathead and aspiring genius? J story, by the way, and it is hinted that this continues in later J translation in the footnotes. Congruity at last…

Also, Plotz notes the Genesis was written 1,000 years after Abraham was supposed to have lived. Just an interesting tidbit I would like to remember.

26

Once more God says “I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven…” (if you do this). And now people still expect this, and now there isn’t enough room. Bad call. I do wonder, why the emphasis on the spreading of the seed? Anyways, Isaac is off to Gerar. This J version closely resembles the E story of Abraham. Is this a purposeful repetition or a disagreeance of generation? I feel the answer could solve life’s riddles… Ok. So most likely a mistranslation or miscommunication. This follows too closely, and the ground with the wells and Philistines is named again, the same name.

27

“My son.” “Here I am.” Sounds familiar…just can’t quite place it. Oh right, sacrificial scene, how could I forget, no wonder those words are burned into Isaac’s memory. Once again, Jacob and Rebekah are conniving for Jacob’s success. Is this really the moral book I think it is? Is moral whatever God ordains, separate from human reason or intuition? Now his will is done, Jacob is master over his older brother, and perhaps this is the beginning of yet another feud.

Plotz calls to attention the difference, once again, between Sunday School heroes and the truth of the characters. I wonder, do the Sunday School teachers see something bright and shiny in these characters I do not, or do they choose not to see something. Are they trying to justify or make positive role models, hoping the children will never actually read the stories? I have little (NO) experience with bible school or true characters of the bible (working on it) but this just seems wrong. I protest.

Plotz also writes “God doesn’t suffer fools.” This is why he is allowed to be bamboozled. Huh. I have never seen intelligence to be too high up on the list for most….erm….everyday Christians. This must be some differing interpretation between the Jewish and the Christian ideals. Plotz mentions another difference between Christian and Jewish faiths, that of personal interest of God in everymans life. Makes one wonder just how much religion is based on a scripture, and how much based on a feeling.

28

P account of what just happened in the J story. This is much cleaner. It turns out Esau had already gave up his right to a blessing by marrying a Hittite woman, and so Jacob receives the blessing. He leaves to find a righteous wife, and on his way finds God. Of course. More endless loin-seeds sprouting everywhere, more importantly the consecrating of Bethel.

Ok. So, progress is slow. I may stop reading all the footnotes, am feeling this is a bit excessive, not to mention time consuming. So, will try to stop, although this may be the only chance I get in my life to read them in their entirety. I guess I will ask Prof. Sexson on his thoughts. Also, this is a long blog. Maybe a bit shorter next time… Experimenting is the name of the game.

This is it: Genesis 1.0 through 19.0

Here goes. So far, I have been reading the bible passages, then looking at “The Good Book” for Plotz’s notes on concurrent sections. This provides motivation to finish chapters, as I have some humor to look forward to once I do. We will see how long this works for me. Also, more notes on class discussions in the next blog, but for now its all me.

“And God saw that it was good.” Wow. Well put Bible. I wonder if things really can be this easy. And if God saw it as good, shouldn’t we? I am on the fence…This whole giving dominion over everything to men, and not giving rain until there was man to plow the fields sounds so offensive to me. Call me hippie, but I have been thinking lately that life on this planet is not here because of us, we are here as a result of it—being able to digest it, hear it, see it, marvel at its beauty. We are, though debatable, somewhat relatively adapted to being here, and that is not because we were set here, but because we were created from this world around us. This is, of course, speculation. And from a heliocentric world view, I cannot expect the bible to even perceive of life not always existing as it had. I don’t know the truth, but I feel people might live with a lot more respect if they weren’t told that the world was created for them as their dominion.

….But then again, maybe they wouldn’t.

“It is a story of paradise and why we are no longer in it.” Somber words for explaining the beginning of the world in the (J) story bible. On this, I am really much less (I’m sure soon to be more) confused about the whole dual story parts of the bible. It is really neat to see both translations and edition, each giving story and backround gives a very full picture that is pleasing to be a part of. This is such an intricate layered work of art that it is hard to believe even the editors and compilers intended for it to be read literally. But I wouldn’t say the contradictions and repetitions lessen the value or beauty of the bible; rather they serve to illustrate how many people related with Christianity in different ways. That is beautiful in itself. This is sort of explained in The Genesis of Genesis: “The editors were not embarrassed by the duplications of particular episodes…..but, rather, valued te preservation of different traditions.”

Good Book’s author Plotz suggests something I can agree with when he writes “You can call this ‘original sin,’ but maybe it’s just lax parenting.” He writes this in reference to God’s not following through in killing Adam and Eve when they eat the apple, thus not being a strict guardian and encouraging more strife. I feel this makes sense, and suggests (as the Bible does as well) that God is not as all knowing, or perhaps perfect as the bible writes. Perhaps the bible was written in our childhood, revering the father as all youngsters do their parents, believing he can do no wrong. As humanity progresses, we become more familiar with our spiritual father and see the wrongs he could have righted, the ways in which we can learn from him, rather than be taught by him. Make sense?

Ahhh Cain and Abel. What to say, to this day I struggle with this story, praising it only for it’s inspiring Steinbeck’s East of Eden, one of my favorite books. But the story itself is beyond my comprehension, it just confuses and irritates me. Poor Cain, poor Abel. Poor us.

“Man seems to have been made mortal, but will henceforth be conscience of his mortality.” SICK JOKE! What a pain….

Flood time, AHA. “He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground…” Is it irony? Prediction of things to come? That makes the rest of the world pay for our inherent evilness, back on the dominion idea. Let’s play around and mess around. Fuck things up? And when God feels bad, he makes a covenant, the first covenant. A bald-faced religious explanation for a natural phenomenon. I could see this story in any Greek legend…

Little Greek Boy: Father, what is that colored bow in the sky?

Big Greek Man: Well, our gods once became mad at us because too many little boys didn’t go to bed when they were asked. Thus, they created a storm to raise the waters of the oceans, drowning all of creation except for two (or seven) of every animal. Afterwards, the gods realized they couldn’t be so harsh, and to promise that after every rain there would be no more flood, they created the rainbow. Now go to bed.

So, why does this blow my mind? Of course this is what much of religious texts are, explaining of phenomenon. But for some reason I thought, in my Western World View, that the bible was a tiny bit more sophisticated than that. I think I like it more knowing that it’s not.

After the first covenant, comes the second. This one was made with Abram…to be father of multitudes, leader of Hebrews……all you have to do is cut your penis!

J version: “And he said, Oh yes, you did laugh.” Wow. Comedic relief. The two versions are interesting though, in how they differ like retelling an old family story, but the one part remains the same. In both versions Abraham or Sarah laugh that they will have children in their old age. Humor is universal?

Judgement on Sodom:

“Let me speak just once more” the narrowing down from fifty to ten innocent men. This is a great part, somehow beautiful I can’t put my finger on it. Maybe the courage with which Abraham confronts his Lord, or how the Lord hears him and considers. Slightly comical, almost as if the Lord is expecting it, or wishing for it. Again like a child/father relationship---going hunting, The Road, ect. Needing reassurance (both parties) and then “returning to his place”

All in all, a very inspiring first look at the bible.

Ethnographic means what?

Story of Babel interesting.

Ishmael—crazy---arab