the title of this entry cannot compete with the slave

Today was the first day of individual presentations. I was scheduled to entertain, so please find my paper about possible meanings of the title of "The Slave" below, in its entirety.

(If you're really bored, you can also check out the paper I wrote for the other class I'm taking from Dr. Sexson this semester--American Lit II--about the mystery of Rosebud in Orson Welles cinematic masterpiece, "Citizen Kane." Click here.)

The Title of This Essay Cannot Compete with The Slave

The title of a text—be it a newspaper article, poem, or film—is no frivolous matter. In our contemporary world of hit radio songs named simply after their most repeated phrase featured in the lyrics and movies carelessly labeled the same name as their main characters, the importance and potential brilliance of the title of any work of art is an easy matter to forget. Regardless, some artists remember and embrace the subtle art of choosing a title that highlights some theme or idea of their creation. Isaac Bashevis Singer, with his selection of the deceivingly simple title for his novel The Slave, proves himself one of these rare exceptions. Careful readers of The Slave journey throughout its pages continually defining and redefining the possible meaning of Singer’s poignant—and key—two little words.

The first chapter of the slave describes Jacob who is, in the most literal sense, a slave to Jan Bzik. Case closed, right? This story is obviously about a man named Jacob, and Jacob is a slave. Has the mystery of the title already been solved? Hardly.

Shortly after Jacob is introduced, Wanda’s name appears for the first time. This woman is kind to Jacob, but he believes that she has been put into his life by Satan in order to tempt him. All the same, Jacob cannot help longing for Wanda throughout all hours of the day (17). The reader may speculate that Jacob is a slave to his lust for Wanda, and the event of Jacob later succumbing to his desire for her serves as evidence that this speculation may have value. At this early point in the novel, Jacob is apparently enslaved by Wanda due almost entirely to desires the of his flesh. His enslavement to her, however, evolves as the story progresses.

Before Jacob and Wanda’s relationship has a chance to get anywhere beyond that of the physical variety, a poignant example is given of how Jacob appears to be a slave to his religion. A cynical reader may have picked up on this possibility on only the second page of the book, when immediately after waking, “[t]hree times [Jacob] washed his hands, the left first and then the right, according to the law” (11). Granted, at this point little is known about the newly introduced character, but the cynical mind wonders if Jacob’s fervent dedication to his religious practices borders on enslavement by them. A less cynical critic may argue that Jacob is not enslaved by God or by any of his religious beliefs, due to the definition of the very word itself. Slavery, after all, evokes the idea of laboring for someone else with no hope or chance of reward. Jacob, like any faithful Jew, labors for the rewards of Heaven. This argument holds up nicely until the conclusion of Chapter 3. Jacob, just before succumbing to Wanda’s seduction, says to himself, “I am forfeiting the world to come” (67). Still, regardless of clearly losing all hope of seeing Heaven, Jacob still insists that Wanda immerses herself in the stream along Jacob’s barn because, in his words, “God’s law requires it” (67).

Armed with the proof of these actions of Jacob, the cynic may just prove that his initial speculation had merit yet. Jacob’s potential reward for following the traditions and customs of the Jews, in his eyes, has now vanished. Nonetheless, although Jacob now considers the chance for compensation by God about as great as the chance for compensation by Jan Bzik, he labors on. Jacob is, in this sense, a slave to Judaism.

Shortly after Jacob and Wanda’s romantic relationship begins, the literal enslavement of Jacob to the Bzik family comes to an end. He returns to Josefov without a chance to wave his beloved adieu, but Wanda continues to haunt Jacob’s dreams (116). Jacob decides he must return to her village and rescue what he believes to be his pregnant lover under the pretext that, as he seems to assure himself, “The law obligated him” (117). As far as his actual motivation for again departing Josefov goes, the reader knows better. If Jacob had previously been a slave to his lust for Wanda, he is now a slave to his love for her. The power of both this enslavement and of these two people’s love continues to grow throughout the rest of the novel. Jacob stays up into the wee hours of the night instructing Wanda in the ways of his religion; Jacob remains at her side during her last breaths; and Jacob’s last act on earth is to recover his beloved’s bones and bury them in a more appropriate setting than that of her unholy hometown. The storyline of these star-crossed lovers suggests that love itself, in its purest form, is nothing other than enslavement.

So far, Jacob has been enslaved by Jan Bzik, by being a Jew, and by lusting after—and later by being in love with—Wanda. Clearly, Jacob must be The Slave’s title character. However, this novel is divided into three distinct parts, and curiously, none of them is entitled “Jacob.” Granted, Singer may have named the first two sections of The Slave “Wanda” and “Sarah” in order to show how Jacob’s life was affected by this character throughout these parts of the book. And “The Return”—Part Three—takes place entirely after Wanda has already passed on, so Jacob does act as the sole protagonist (and thus, the likely title character again) in this part of the book. However, even “The Return” centers completely on Wanda, since the sole purpose of Jacob’s journey back to Pilitz is to recover the remains of this woman. Other evidence also exists to suggest that perhaps Singer’s Slave is not Jacob at all, but the woman who fell in love with him.

Wanda was surely enslaved by lust for Jacob as much as Jacob was enslaved in return. At first, she had little hope for reward in laboring for him—bringing him food (23) and keeping him company (24) even before Jacob showed the slightest signs of interest in a romantic relationship of any kind—but she labored for him nonetheless. Like Jacob’s enslavement and love for his wife, Wanda’s enslavement also grows along with her love for her husband. She leaves all that she knows behind, changes her name, and surrenders her right to speak in order to be with him. She once asks Jacob, as a daughter of Israel, what she is allowed to do. Jacob’s answer reeks of oppressiveness, at the very least, if not slavery: “Bear children and serve God” (154). Wanda, however, accepts her husband’s commands willingly. Just as she tells Jacob after she bathes in the stream before consummating their physical relationship, “I have done this for you” (68). Along with being a slave to her husband, she in turn also becomes a slave to Judaism. This progression strikes one as completely natural, since Wanda follows Jacob in every aspect of his life, including his faith. Singer illustrates this inevitable sequence poignantly in the same scene just mentioned. After Wanda tells him that she bathed herself for him, Jacob corrects her, “No, not for me, […] for God” (68).

All of the above solutions for the mystery of why The Slave is such a brilliant title for this book suffice, but just when the reader feels he has a pretty good handle on why Singer titled this novel the way that he did, the masterful author throws in something new that has actually, as Singer illustrates, been present all along. At the conclusion of Part Two, Jacob realizes that “[l]ike the Biblical Jacob, he was crossing the river, bearing only a staff, pursued by another Esau” (258). “[H]e too had lost a beloved wife, the daughter of an idolator, among strangers; Sarah too was buried by the way and had left him a son” (258). Both Jacob and the reader are suddenly aware that Jacob and Wanda, as depicted in The Slave, have been acting out a script very similar to the life of a previous Jacob, as depicted in the Bible. Suddenly new light is shed on, for example, the name of the principal couple’s son (257), the description given to Jacob of the Cossacks’ brutalities against Dinah (102), and a comment previously made by Wanda, “I intend to bear you a dozen [children]” (154). All this time, both Jacob and Wanda have been slaves in the sense that they unwittingly followed a path and a script predetermined for them long before they ever loved, they ever met, and they ever even breathed life. Above all else, Jacob and Wanda are slaves to the story of Jacob and Rachel.

Implications of living out someone else’s previous life, being mostly ignorant of it, and consequently being enslaved by it are somewhat terrifying. However, this worry can be overcome, according to Dr. Michael Sexson, by means of the Bible. Sexson calls the Bible “the repository of all archetypes.” Hence, all one needs to do is read the Bible, learn all of its stories, characters, and symbols, and figure out which of these one’s life is following. From that point, one can know what is about to happen next in one’s predetermined “script” and assume control to change circumstances and outcomes if so desired, once and for all ending one’s enslavement to whichever story that originally played the role of master over one’s destiny and life itself. Regardless of whether one is willing to take this theory quite so far, the enslavement of fictional characters by a Biblical story told long ago is an exceptional turn for Singer to take with Jacob and Wanda in his novel chock full of religious allusions, and The Slave demonstrates once again how telling—and brilliant—a text’s title can prove itself to be.

Singer, Isaac Bashevis. The Slave. New York: Ballantine Books, 1962.

groups present: day two

Day 2 of Group Presentations today. Group 4 gave us a very entertaining contemporary version of the story of Ruth, followed by some insightful commentary. The dehydrated water (just add H2O!) was fantastic. And Josh was working that dress.

Group 6 was up next, with a highly energetic and informative enactment of the story of Jonah. (The lights flipped on and off three times to signify three days and nights passing was ingenious.) We were then treated to a barrage of Jonah images appropriately set to the Newsboys' "Belly of the Whale."

Group 5 presented a thorough summary and examination of the Book of Acts. Everyone's commentary was insightful, and I thought the contrast between Pentecost and the Tower of Babel was pretty brilliant.

As always, for complete notes on this day or any day, click on the link to them in the upper-right hand corner of this screen.

groups present: day one

I was absent (flying to Germany!) today, but my group presented our video about Judges. Hope presentations went well for everyone scheduled today.

Happy Thanksgiving to all! Enjoy the break.

literal... not literally

Though I don't agree with Frye in his applying this theory to the Bible, I like his theory about taking a book literally without, well, taking it literally, as it could be applied to other books. If I'm understanding him correctly, Frye's theory as applied to The Great Gatsby, for example, is to perceive each of that novel's characters as flesh-and-blood characters. This does not mean presuming that actual people named Jay Gatsby or Tom Buchanan ever actually existed in history as actual, real-life citizens of New York at any point in time. It does mean, however, thinking of Daisy as a woman that was caught in a love triangle between her long-time admirer and her husband, as opposed to thinking of her as a symbolic structure used to embody the idea of the American dream. As far as I'm concerned, that how Fitzgerald's novel should be read, so I'm glad to have the terms to explain it now, thanks to Frye.

Another brilliant point made by Frye--one that I do agree with--is his claim that the Bible was never meant to be argumentative. The style of its language simply does not align with argumentation. Upon opening up Genesis, you're not going to read, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and here's the evidence for that claim." You are going to read, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth..." The language of the Bible just assumes you agree with it, which aligns perfectly with the modern day Christian interpretation of the necessity of faith.

Finally, the quote of today's class indirectly pertains to the first topic addressed by this entry, and it was said by Dr. Sexson directly after quoting "Sing a Song of Sixpence" in its entirety. Sexson challenged, "You wanna refute that?"

note to self

Today was mostly test review, but two quick things from Frye that I want to blog simply so I don't forget them:

1) The Bible quite literally begins at the beginning and ends at the end [of the earth.] Now why didn't I think of that?

2) According to the philosophy of the Bible, just like in the Odyssey, everyone is trying to get home. However, a baseball player has to run around the bases first before he can get home so that when he gets there, it's not the same place anymore because his vision has changed.

All right, enjoy your re-memorization of Frye's seven stages!

un-re-defining the parable

In our class, we are defining the term "parable" as "an attack on the structure of one's expectations." While this description is applicable to many parables, it doesn't seem like a complete definition to me. It rather feels like the purpose of the definition itself is to attack the structure's of our expectations for how a parable is typically defined; not actually define one for us.

One of the parables we discussed in class at length in regard to the definition given was the parable of the prodigal son. In this story, indeed, the end is not what we would traditionally expect. A son that squanders away all of his inheritance is not rebuked by his father but heartily welcomed back into the family--which Jesus' audience probably found surprising. True. But the root of the surprise element in this story is much more significant to the parable than the surprise ending itself. The main difference separating the Old Testament from the New, according to the belief of most Christian churches, is grace. This is why the end surprised Jesus' audience. They had been taught "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth all their lives." And now the father in this story is showing undeserved love to his son?

Grace is not at the root of every parable's unexpected ending, but the significance of whatever theme that is far exceeds the parable's ending itself. Jesus did not end the story of the prodigal son with the father's forgiveness simply to shock his audience. If He was going for the shock factor, why not something even more surprising, like the son comes back and kills the father, his brother, and claims the entire estate as his own? That's a rhetorical question, of course--because the point of the story was a moral. This may be the traditional view of the parable, but in my opinion, it's the more accurate one.

On an even more controversial note, we were told to listen to "The End" by the Doors by next class meeting. I planned on linking the lyrics from my blog, but I just checked out the lyrics, and one line is pretty offensive. So, instead of hyperlinking you to this song, I'll warn you against it. If you're not a fan of swearing or incest in your poetry, steer clear.

For lyrics to a more subtle and, in my opinion, much better song of the Apocalyptic nature, click here. I say that I love a lot of songs, but I really love this one.

skin of my teeth

We continued our discussion of Job today, so I wanted to post links to two references Dr. Sexson gave us concerning this Book of the Bible. The first is the Joni Mitchell song based on Chapter 10 of Job. Find the complete lyrics from the artist's official website here.

Dr. Sexson also told us that the phrase "skin of your teeth" originated in Job. He was right; read the verse for yourself here. (Curiously, the NIV version of this verse reads, "I have escaped with only the skin of my teeth." I wonder when the phrased metamorphosized into "escaping by the skin of one's teeth.")

Finally, we had a lot of new vocab presented to us in today's lecture. Click on any of the following terms for their corresponding Wikipedia pages if you need to refresh your memory or want to dive deeper into the concepts.

Kerygma
Mystery religions
Eleusinian Mysteries (referred to in class simply as "Eleusis")
Pharisees
Sadducees
Essenes
Parataxis (as is characterized both by Mark and by the author pictured above)
Parable


Dr. Sexson also reminded us of his three favorite tragedies. Get more info about any of these works by clicking below:

The Bible's "Book of Job"
Shakespeare's "King Lear"
Dostoevsky's "Brothers Karamazov"

the patience of job

I have two qualms regarding our discussion about Job today. First, it was suggested that it must have been easy for Job to worship God when he was rich. There's a distinction that should be made here between "worshipping" and "refraining from cursing the Name of." When you're loaded, it may be easy to keep from complaining that God is injust, but it's also more difficult to make time to worship God when all is going well. (Why bother praying if you don't need anything?) This is where being poor makes it easier to be faithful.

Second, the claim was made that Job was no patient man, but was a wild man in impatience. While this seems pretty evident as Job is cursing the day he was born, I think this goes back to Frye's discussion of a true faith. Frye tells us that faith without doubt is not faith at all. I'm still deciding whether I agree with Frye or not, but this concept could also be applied to Job's personality trait in question. If faith and doubt cannot be separated because one depends on the other (since doubt is, according to Frye, an essential part of faith), the same thing goes for patience and impatience. If Frye's Christian has to go through spells of doubt in order to build and prove their still-standing faith, Job has to go through his spell of impatience in order to build and prove his still-enduring patience. Only because he reached the point of cursing the very day he was born can a reader believe him in later proclaiming that The Lord giveth and The Lord taketh away; Blessed be the Name of The Lord.

enslaved by the slave

Today we discussed our reactions to The Slave. I jotted down a few lines that caught my attention. (Unfortunately, though I did finish the novel, I have a bad habit of jotting stuff down for the first hundred pages or so, and then forgetting all about it.) Anyway, now you know why they generally come from the first half of the book, and here they are:


"It was said that in ancient times when the people had still been idol worshippers the Baba was thrown into the stream and drowned, but now the village was Christian" (48).

Singer's tone drips with irony here. The village is about as Christian as Wanda is Jewish before she changes her name and moves to Pilitz. While the village may not practice the fatal conclusion of this traditional practice anymore, that doesn't change the fact that they still practice their ancient traditions from idol worshipping days regardless. The average villager may now claim to believe in Jesus Christ, but little of his core personality has altered at all.


"Was there such a great difference between flesh and straw?" (49)

In the context of this paragraph, this is just a beautiful sentence. It also highlights the incomplete "conversion" of the villagers already mentioned. The Christian difference between flesh and straw, after all, is the immortal soul--but the weeping village girls don't know that.


"What can a daughter of Israel do?"
"Bear children and serve God."
"I intend to bear you a dozen."

This line screams of the story of Jacob's Biblical namesake. Clearly, parallels between Jacob/Wanda and Jacob/Rachel are being made here. Also note, later in the book, the couple's son's name and explanation for why that name was chosen.

**

The best authors often pay close attention to how they name their characters, but these choices seem particularly significant in The Slave. Given Singer's precision to details of these kind, I'm glad Dr. Sexson suggested explaining the title of this novel for a term paper idea. I like it.

justice, grace, and love

Shortly after learning the definition given in class for "Apocalypse," someone at my church actually asked me if I knew what that word really meant. I'm not kidding. I pretty excited to casually respond, "Well, most people think it means the end of the world, but it actually means 'the removing of the veil.'" What are the odds? The person I was talking to taught me that, according to the dictionary, "Apocalypse" also means "Revelation." College is slowly teaching me that every word in the English language has at least seven meanings.

The part of today's class that I heartily disagreed with was the suggestion that the Old Testament is "luggage" that no church has been able to deal with successfully. It's rather hard to argue with this statement in any specific way since reasons to back up the suggestion weren't given, but I'll try to address what I'm guessing might be at the root of it. The Old Testament of the Bible is generally characterized by the law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Justice was the name of the game. In the New Testament, the birth and death of Christ brought grace. Justice was replaced by forgiveness and undeserved love.

The philosophy of most Christian churches today is that we are still living in a time of grace. Perhaps the change from justice to grace is where the root of this classification of the Old Testament as "baggage" originates. Since God switched from justice to grace, does that imply that He was originally wrong? And since--according to Christian philosophy--God cannot be and is not ever wrong, is this the origin from which the baggage suggestion arose?

Just in case I'm close, I'll address my take on those questions as best I can. No, I don't believe that Christian philosophy would say that God changed from the doctrine of justice to the doctrine of grace because He was initially wrong. Actually, if you think about it in terms of very cold logic, justice makes more sense than grace. Do something bad, get punished. Step on somebody else's toe, get your toe stepped on in return. -X (bad deed done by you to another) + X (bad deed done to you in retribution for your deed) gets you back to 0 (equilibrium, where you want to be)--that kind of thing.

Grace, logically speaking, would be the real mystery. However, if you want to apply the same cold math to grace, I think it would go something like -X (bad deed done by you to another) + -X (bad deed done to Christ despite His never doing anything wrong) get you back to 0 (equilibrium, where you want to be.)

According to that explanation, God could not be concluded as being incorrect with instituting justice, but He could be concluded as being incorrect with instituting grace. (This is, after all, Someone Else paying for another person's sins.) The Christian explanation for this, I think, would be that grace is always motivated by love, and love is simply never wrong.

God's chosen

Joseph risks the life of his own father by requesting to see Benjamin in order to test his brothers. Moses kills an Egyptian whipping one of his slaves. David intentionally risks the life of a man whose wife he is attracted to. Joseph, Moses, and David are all favored by God.

Coincidence? Probably somewhat. After all, not everyone in the Bible who was favored by God was guilty of murder or risking the death of another. However, I do think these examples show the Bible's implication that God does not always simply favor those that other people would consider exemplary human beings. (Remember the story of the man that approached Jesus claiming to have followed all ten of the commandments since his youth but didn't automatically get The Lord's blessing due to his refusal to sell all he had and come and follow Jesus?) If God judges on a different level than people tend to, this is certainly proven by those He chooses--and those he doesn't choose--to do His bidding in the Bible.

Most of today's class was test review, but I also want to re-mention Genesis 49 (the chapter that speaks metaphorically.) I checked it out upon Dr. Sexson and Frye's recommendation, and man--I hope someone says something that poetic to me upon some parting or another (though preferably *not* death, thank you.) You can view the whole chapter by clicking here.

Happy studying!

three wise men bearing coats of many colors

If the claim made in class is true, I find it pretty amusing that a coat of many colors was never actually mentioned in the Bible, even though it's such a well-known symbol usually associated with the Bible. This reminded me of another element associated with the original Christmas that is characterized by the same phenomenon--the three wise men. The number three (concerning wise men, anyway) is featured nowhere in the Bible, but that trio certainly appears in ninety-nine of a hundred little wooden nativity scenes. (For the record, most assume that since three different gifts were enumerated, it naturally followed to assert that there were three different men.)

I don't agree with the suggestion made today concerning the tale of Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery. Dr. Sexson explained that the moral of this story couldn't be to be nice to your brothers. If Joseph's brothers had been nice to him, there would be no story, so the moral of this story has to be the story itself. This might just be a dispute over semantics, but I don't agree with this conclusion. The implications of that statement would be that for any story that has a plot, the moral of that story is the story itself. How is that a moral? Dr. Sexson is correct in asserting that the main moral of this story is not to be nice to your brothers. He is also right to assert that the story only exists because of the initial betrayal of Joseph's brothers to Joseph. The moral, however, comes much later. Joseph doesn't lose his trust in God + God blesses him immensely = Trust in God... the moral of the story.

j's giveaways

We're supposed to blog page 113 of the Rosenburg translation for today's blog. Here are the elements on that page that I found to suggest this page is an excerpt from J's writing, whether we knew it was part of a text called "The Book of J" or not:

1) The beginning of this page gives the conclusion of the story of Laban's search through Jacob's tents. The story's end is brought about by a trickster figure who is, in fact, a woman. This is a more interesting role than what is traditionally thought of as that which a woman in Biblical times would have gotten, so according to Bloom, this indicates J all the way.

2) The next story started on this page is the tale of Jacob's reconcilation with Esau after he stole the birthright that rightfully belonged to his brother. The conclusion of this tale--which comes later--is also indicative of J because we expect the story to end in revenge, but we get reconciliation instead.

3) Finally, the beginning of page 113's final paragraph starts the story of Jacob wrestling with an angel. Even though this version doesn't say that the being Jacob wrestles is an angel (it simply says "man"), it is still safe to assume that this being must have been somewhat divine, since Jacob immediately recognizes that the man is capable of blessing him. Such an intimate encounter with a divine being is also indicative of J; remember, J is the writer that depicts God as blowing into the nostrils of the man He creates.

On an almost completely unrelated note, today's lecture was the first time I've ever heard of this so-called "MSU Top 100 List." I was intrigued. =) Anyway, if anyone else is as excited about this wonderful new discovery as I am, click here to view the list in its entirety.

qualm

I quite enjoyed our discussion of "Jerry Springer culture" today. I know Dr. Sexson intended this phrase simply to imply the direct question/answer format of a typical talk-show, but for anyone that has ever been unfortunate enough to see an episode of Jerry Springer, that phrase carries along a few other (and stronger) connotations than just what was implied. Oh, dramatic irony. J could have written this script.

Part of today's class bothered me pretty deeply. Someone was discussing the beliefs she was raised with, and when she identified these beliefs, she got a furrowed brow from another. Immediately upon perceiving that look, she quickly said, "That's not necessarily my belief system now..." And maybe it really isn't. That's fine; that's not the point. We are banned from faith language in this class, and I absolutely understand why. However, this leaves those that feel they are betraying their religion by naming any Biblical tale a myth (no matter how "myth" is defined) often in the cold during class discussion. And while the continual portraying of faith as subordinate to reasoning is not surprising in a University class, I don't think that helps make it any less offensive to some. That said, today was one of few that struck me as offensive in this sense, and I am generally fairly pleased with how well many delicate topics are handled in lecture and discussion.

guest speaker

Our guest speaker today discussed many passages from the Bible that suggested that some women in the Bible were mentioned only because they needed to get pregnant and bear children. However, she also talked about women in the Bible given far more interesting roles than that, but she told us that these roles usually involved committing sins either of the sexual or deceitful nature. She opted not to mention women like the Old Testament's Ruth and the New Testament's Mary (either of the New Testament's Marys, actually)--women that fit neither negative profile. I'm just don't agree with the theory that either the Bible or Christianity is quite as sexist as was perhaps implied.

That said, the part of today's lecture about how a patriarchy works in general was pretty interesting. I also thought the explanations of some of the analogies made in the Bible along those lines were particularly insightful.

One thing in the presentation that I did disagree with was the direct comparison made between Abraham's almost sacrificing his son and Jephthah's sacrificing his daughter. Our speaker implied that since Jephthah was only sacrificing a female, God allowed her to be sacrificed despite His not allowing Isaac to be sacrificed earlier in the Bible. The chief difference between Abraham and Jephthah's stories, however, is not the gender of their children. Abraham's faith was being tested by God. Abraham passed the test, and he was rewarded because of it. Jephthah--according to the story as portrayed by today's lecture--was asking God for something. Jephthah made this bargain; he came up with the terms. Abraham only agreed to terms already set by God due to his faith. Abraham wasn't asking for something in exchange for his sacrifice. To me, then, it's not surprising that God permitted the sacrifice that Jephthah came up with to actually be sacrificed. In fewer words, the reason these stories involving human sacrifice had different outcomes does not rely on the sacrificial victims, but the hearts of the sacrificers themselves.

Overall, I thought today's lecture was very informative, and our guest speaker certainly proved that she has studied the Bible more than once or twice. Thanks to the other Dr. Sexson for coming in to challenge our brains. =)

tradition

Dr. Sexson posed the question, "What's the difference between Frye and Bloom?" He briefly addressed this question already in August 31's class. Frye claims that the Bible has always depended, from the very beginning, on translation. Bloom, on the other hand, wants to get back to the original story--he wants to extract J and focus solelyon her stories in the Bible, all but ignoring the rest. Frye's book, on the other hand, deals with the Bible in its entirety.

That's a pretty brief explanation, I know, but the semester is young. We were also asked to find the on-line Documentary Hypothesis flow chart. Check it out by clicking here.

I liked the analogy made today between the Trojan War and the Exodus from Egypt. The former is the key event in Greek tradition; the latter is the key event in Hebrew tradition. I also found it fitting that whether the event actually happened is something questioned by historians in both cases. Also, ironically, my guess is that the average American will probably dismiss any doubt that either of these events took place pretty quickly, if for no other reason than the key word used above: tradition. And trust me, if you are familiar with my personal beliefs at all, you know that I am not implying anything derogatory with that statement.

p, j, and alphabet soup

We talked about the difference between the depictions of God from two of our alphabet soup writer today--P and J. (Check out the notes corresponding to today's class for a better description of that difference if you need a refresher; just click here and scroll through the page until you find the date corresponding to the top of this entry.) It struck me today that modern Christianity undoubtedly views God closer to the way that J does than P, though the Puritans' image of God probably better aligned with the picture of God that P paints. Modern Christians view God as the One that physically carries you through hard times. Note the ever popular poem, Footprints. The Puritans viewed God as the One that was way above you, completely out of your reach, and His might and power didn't tend to be as much a reason to be happy that He was on your side as a reason to tremble in fear before Him. Note the ever terrifying sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.

In today's discussion, we also talked about shades of polytheism in the Bible when God talks about "Us" in Heaven (before man is even created, I think. Don't quote me on that.) To me, and according to what I learned in Sunday School, and according to that which is later suggested by Matthew 3:16-17 (verses traditionally thought to establish the three different Beings that compose the Holy Trinity) this doesn't imply shades of polytheism in Christianity at all. It is simply referring to the Holy Trinity depicted more thorougly later in the Bible. "Us" means The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit; the term has nothing to do with Zeus, Athena, Apollo, or Hades.

life philosophies & term papers

We discussed Dr. Sexson's life philosophy today, which goes something like, "For everything that is gained, something is lost." This doesn't strike me as too bad of a life philosophy, but there are two reasons why I will not be adopting it as my own. First, I've always thought that a life philosophy should act to influence your life decisions in some way. Simply describing the outcome of any decision you make--whether moral, immoral, impulsive, thought upon, good, bad, significant, or on the level of paper-or-plastic--doesn't help you make those decisions. Second, though it appears deceivingly objective in tone, it's actually fairly pessimistic. Why not say, "For everything that is lost, something is gained"?

I also thought it was very fitting that we also already started to talk about the general topic for our term paper due at the end of this semester. The paper is simply to, in some way, address the following question: "What do I know now that I didn't know before, and what difference does it make?" Relate this back to the philosophy mentioned above...

Something gained: A broad topic means you get to write about anything you want! No restrictions.

Something lost: A broad topic means you get to write about anything you want! No restrictions.

In other words, I'm psyched that we can discuss absolutely anything related to this class in our term papers, but that also means that we have the difficult task ahead of us of narrowing eight million potential term paper topics down to one. Good luck, everybody.

what are the odds?

We briefly discussed the difference between B.C. and B.C.E. in class today, but I didn't totally understand our discussion. So, for anyone else confused, check out the website found here for some clarity.

Last and anything but least, our professor talked about his suggested answer for the cliche, "What are the odds?" According to Dr. Sexson, you should always simply answer, "One in three." That's pretty amusing on its own with no context whatsoever, but what I really love about this bizarre class inside joke is Dr. Sexson's explanation for it. He explained that the longer he lives, the more he realizes that so much that happens in life is a coincidence. So much so, in fact, that coincidences almost come to be expected. Thus, what are the odds of a coincidence happening? Well--as life continues to prove--they're pretty good, actually.

scapegoat

Today, we discussed how a change of name in the Bible indicates a change of identity. Abram becomes Abraham; Jacob becomes Israel. Don't think this concept is confined to Biblical times. I'm rather ashamed to admit that I used to change my personalized license plate to a different name every six months. It went from a nickname someone else gave me, to Jane, to Theta... and then I stopped. Each name was supposed to highlight something specific in my personality, due to connotations of the names themselves. Either I'm pathetic or I was subconciously following a precedent already set thousands of years ago and recorded in the Bible. Yeah, I'm opting for the former.

I'm very glad to see that each of the authors of the texts we're studying this semester are so varied. As we talked about today, Frye is a non-traditional Christian, Bloom is a non-traditional Jew, and Singer is also Jewish but focuses more on the issue of theodicy than Bloom does. There's an aspect of education that can only be achieved by means of multiple perspectives, so I'm excited that the required reading of this course is setting up such an opportunity.

I never knew that the term "scapegoat" originated in the Book of Numbers, so I checked it out, and sure enough. Click here to view the relevant verses.

Last but not least, Aladdin is one of only two animated DVDs that I own, so I can't believe I've never noticed the fantastic Genie quote at the end of the movie! I still don't agree that mythology is always more important/powerful/significant than history, but as far as how that comment fits into that movie--that's brilliant.

For future reference, you can access my class notes in their entirety by clicking on the link to them in the upper-right hand corner of this webpage. (Or, for your convenience, just click here.) That way, they're out of that way and not cluttering up the rest of my blog.

Welcome to Mindtrip 211. Hang on.