John Orsi's blog

I read John's blog and was moved. It took me screaming back to Emergent Literature and my fascination with Shakespeare's The Tempest. Also, one line in his blog seems to sum up the entirety of the Bible: "It also represents the ethereal nature of life, that we shall rise up, stir amongst the world and then dissapate, irrigating the stage for the next act of apparitions." Prior to this inspired line, John was talking about "from dust we came, to dust we will return". The Bible seems to be an endless, seamless act of recurrence and as he said, every ritual we perform, every act of simple living, is to "set the stage" for those who will walk after us. It also seems to speak of the ritual of cleansing, renewal, the pouring down of rain meant to bring about a new beginning.

I Did Not Know

"And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness." Leviticus 16:21

I had no idea where the idea of a scapegoat really came from. I also didn't realize that the poor goat, in illo tempore, was carrying so much on his head. Poor little guy running around in the wilderness, burdened with the sins of thousands of people. It makes sense though, since the scapegoat really does cover just about every iniquity, so why not the sins of the chosen people?

Words With Power

"It has been long known that legends of a great flood, in which almost all men perished, are widely diffused over the world; and accordingly what I have tried to do is to collect and compare these legends, and to inquire what conclusions are to be deduced from the comparison." Frazer: Folklore in the Old Testament (pg. 105)

Randomly opening Folklore in the Old Testament, this is what I discovered. I was stunned and pleased simultaneously, knowing the importance of the material we are covering in class. Opening my blog sight, intending to write about Frye, I am now on an uncharted path, hurtling towards an epiphany...

I will start with the quote from Frye: "I am still too close to it to guess how useful this second part will be, but the success of a book that takes no risks is hardly worth achieving." Frye Intro pg. xxii

Now, contextually, Frye, in his Introduction, is speaking about the second part of Words With Power. The second part of this book, according to NF, is intended to outline why the poets subjected to extensive study are ones who use the kind of imagery he identifies in the first part of the book and also is bent towards covering the idea of axis mundi(vertical dimension of cosmos linking upper and lower worlds). In the true form of a critic, the first part of the book, explicit in the introduction, is about the voice of the poet and what real power he/she may have. He also is very perfunctory in saying that the reader holds no candle to the importance of the poet so any of you die-hard Barthes fans hold yourselves back, he is simply another critic with another point of view.

Now, after that digression, I will try to illicit some sort of theme from NF's synopsis of the first part of his book. As I read his introduction, and as the class seems to point towards this as an axiom, the Bible may enjoyably be read as myth and metaphor. So... Frye, in an extensively rationalized way, undoubtedly common to his mode of thought, is attempting to outline the Bible as myth and metaphor while simultaneously critiquing its influence on Western literature, and also bringing in another irresistable element of the critic in applying it to the themes and images which drive commonly studied poets, artists, what have you, and why it is that these poets are so "popular". If that is completely off key, I suppose, according to the Bible, I should be punished for "raising a false report." (Exodus 23:1)

Now... The line I read from Frazer's Folklore seems to aid in Frye's quote about taking risks in writing and also seems to play into the themes he is covering in Words With Power. Tangent time! The wording of both of these quotes seems very important in that it shows the uncertainty of the reaction of the unknowable audience. Also, the theme of the flood takes us back to axis mundi, when God was still touching the earth with his power, when the disconnect between the heavens and the earth was still at bay. The words in the Bible about the flood are indeed very powerful and they show the depth of a story and, as Frazer has said, the inexhaustible recurrence of the same story in relation to different cultures. Now, in comparing those stories, Frazer and Frye are on the same page in that the mythological power of the theme of a flood holds boundless amounts of importance and in critiquing it, Frazer has fallen into Frye's paradigm of the "commonly studied images".

That is my mini-epiphany, do with it what you will...

Biblical Rythms

In reading the Bible, I have begun to create a method. Thanks to Leviticus, I have found a way to make myself read the details, no matter how repetetive they are, with a feeling danerously near to interest. Accepting that this was the way of writing, just as I have accepted multiple ways of writing in the past, I am now trying to train my brain to not drift as I sort through the endless passages of description. My last post about the subject was frustrated but I suppose I have realized that I have to calm down, stop worrying about the thousands of other things I need to do, and become rythmic. If I concentrate, the repetition of the sacrifices, descriptions of the tabernacle, and further descriptions of every aspect of the worship of the Lord, become similar to a steady drum beat and I can start to feel a rythm to what I'm reading. Also, if I use my inner priest-voice the rythm seems to become even more relevant. These words were meant to be spoken, more so than read, and by making the voice in my head change to something entirely different than what I am accustomed to, I can find meaning and importance in otherwise dull passages.

Acronyms

My acronym for JEDPR: Jehovah Enjoys Disastrous Plagues Regularly

My acronym for CELWPGA: Classless Emus Like Watching Penguins Go Asunder

Sarah Knox: Author P

So, I'm pretty sure I have found a drawn out area of the Bible written by Mr. P. I don't know if the rest of you have experienced this, but I was completely thwarted by the extensive descriptions of the tabernacle. I really don't know how many times we need to be told that a curtain is 50 cubits long. I found that I was pretty sure of this after being told once. Liss liss! Mr. P is mind-numbing and I actually fell asleep several times while reading this. But it gets better! After the tabernacle is built, every form of sacrifice and the reasons for such have to be repeatedly drilled into the reader's brain. I'm pretty sure every animal sacrifice involves the sinner, peace offerer, repenter, etc. putting his hand on the head of the doomed creature, then slaughtering it in front of the tabernacle, then burning the fat and blood for a "sweet savour unto the Lord." I realize the proper procedures while sacrificing are extremely important but I kind of felt like I was beating my head against a wall while reading it. I have not made the "mysterious mental maneuver" as of yet, but I assure you, I am working on it.

Smiting

Now on the subject of smiting. I'm actually flabbergasted at the exceptions made in the field of man smiting man. It is NOT OK to smite a fellow man alright? If you do so, you will instantly be put to death (unless the Lord directs your smiteful hand). But wait, servants are kind of men, but not really, more like property. So if a master of a servant smites said subject, "he shall surely be punished" (sidenote: Bible being very blatant, there is a definite distinction between being "punished" and being "put to death" although forms of punishment remain hazy). But, alas, if you were merciful enough to only half-smite your victim, in such a way that he or she lives another one or two days, it's totally OK. I mean, the servant "is your money", so really, you do with him/her what you will. That is Barbaric with a capital B.

First Post

Hello everyone! I have started reading Genesis and I agree with Jennifer. She talked about how important geneologies were during those times. "Be fruitful and multiply." God says these words countless times throughout the first book and blesses his prophets with thousands of children and grandchildren. Populating the earth was first and foremost at that time (even if it required a touch of imbreeding).

I also noticed a little wee bit of favoritism on the side of the Maker. How is it that Abraham gets everything when everyone else is left to struggle? He also seems to be somewhat of a liar. For example: Genesis 12:10-13. This particular passage shows Abraham beseeching his wife to lie about their marriage, telling the Pharoah that she is his sister, rather than his wife. This is to save his own skin and not only does he live, he prospers. "And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she-asses, and camels." Greedy much? I was always taught that greed is hateful, but I suppose I have never read the Old Testament and perhaps it is his willingness to abandon these riches that makes Abraham special. I do think, though, that his prosperity throughout the entire first book is note worthy and could perhaps be construed as something entirely different than fear of God.

Now, what really astounded me: Jacob. The man who tricked his father into blessing him, who was then blessed by the Lord. Sly little guy. He managed to slip under the radar not only once, but twice. Poor Esau, the diligent, skilled hunter, is cheated of his birthright, then his blessing. I suppose I have always assumed that trickery is something akin to blatant lying, which I always supposed was discouraged by God. Loopholes eh? Kidding. But these are the things that seem awry in Genesis, and I am sure I will find many more as I read.