Howdy folks, here is my paper on the parallelism between the two Jacobs. Cheers

Jacob vs. Jacob

Isaac Singer’s Jacob shares deliberate parallels with the biblical Jacob in a number of different ways.

From the very beginning of The Slave, the reader finds Jacob enslaved by Jan Bzik, father of the beautiful Wanda. This scenario is similar to that from Genesis 29, in which Jacob serves Laban for seven years in order to marry Rachel. Upon completing his seven years of labor, the biblical Jacob is given Leah in marriage, instead of Rachel. Jacob asks Rachel’s father,

“What is this you have done to me? Did I not serve with you for Rachel? Why then have you deceived me?” Laban said, “This is not done in our country—giving the younger before the first-born.”

-Genesis 29:25-26

Here, a barrier has arisen due to the cultural differences between Jacob and the traditions of Rachel and her family. Similarly, in The Slave, a cultural and religious barrier stands in between Jacob and Wanda. For one, Jacob is a strict Jewish man, faithful to the law that states one must not inter-marry or have any sexual relations with gentiles, and two, Wanda is of gentile birth and cannot by law marry an unconverted Jew.

As the story progresses and Jacob and Wanda give in to their love for one another and lead a new life together, Singer uses the bible’s influence even more profoundly. As in the Book of Genesis, Jacob assumes the role of a patriarch. He lives a life of discipline and honor, performs the duties of an educator and most importantly, lives by the laws of the Torah (minus the small fact that he married a gentile); in fact it could be argued that Singer’s Jacob lived a life even more honorable than that of the Bible’s Jacob. Singer’s Jacob is constantly looked up to by the people around him. Even at times when his social status says differently, those who surround him are affected by his essence of patriarchy. While enslaved, Jacob’s discipline for his Jewish traditions became common knowledge among the villagers and though it provoked a variety of responses, people overall accepted and respected him, notably Jan Bzik.

“Jan Bzik had been good and just, had never ridiculed him, nor called him by a nick-name. Jacob had become accustomed to him. There had been a secret understanding between the two men as if Bzik had somehow sensed that some day his cherished Wanda would belong to Jacob.”

- The Slave, 89

This passage reflects the way in which Jacob is respected by those who know/glimpse his true character, the character of the patriarch.

While assuming the role of the patriarch, the biblical Jacob is not without his flaws, as is seen in Genesis 27.

Jacob said to his father, “I am Esau your firstborn. I have done as you told me; now sit up and eat of my game, so that you may bless me.”

- Genesis 27:18-19

Esau said, “Is he not rightly named Jacob? For he has supplanted me these two times. He took away my birthright; and look, now he has taken away my blessing.”

- Genesis 27:36

The name Jacob literally means ‘He supplants’ or ‘He takes by the heel’. This is what Esau refers to when he asks, “Is he not rightly named Jacob?”, for a more perfect name could not have been given to a person of such character. Perhaps this is why God changed Jacob’s name to Israel; maybe he thought his chosen people would be more accepted if the name of their universal father did not reflect his attributes at his least respectable hour.

At first glance it doesn’t seem that Singer’s Jacob possesses such base characteristics, as those displayed from the biblical Jacob, put parallels do exist. With Jacob’s decision to steal back Wanda and his son, it could be Singer’s symbolization of the biblical Jacob’s theft of Esau’s birthright and blessing. It is also at this time that Singer’s Jacob is most notably seen fulfilling his namesake of ‘one who supplants’ when he claims the two things he loves most; Wanda and his son Benjamin. Though Jacob is justified in his actions, he is breaking in accordance with the law at the time, just as the biblical Jacob does when cheating Esau out of his birthright and blessing. As a reader, we see no wrong in (Singer’s) Jacob’s actions, and perhaps this is how we are meant to interpret Jacob’s story within Genesis. Perhaps we are not meant to see his actions as acts of cheating but as fulfillment of God’s will. As the son who was destined to father the nation of Israel, he is justified in his actions against his brother because his fate could not have been fulfilled without committing those acts of trickery.

Finally, one more major similarity presents itself through the deaths of Rachel and Sarah/Wanda. Both women, wives of Jacob, meet their end while giving birth to a son, a child named Ben-oni. This ‘child born of sorrow’ is responsible for taking away the women who both Jacobs loved most in this world, thus their namesake. Singer acknowledges this connection directly after Jacob reclaimed his son.

“At that instant, the name he must give the boy came to Jacob: Benjamin. Like the first Benjamin, this child was a Ben-oni, a child born of sorrow”

- The Slave, 278

As a reader I must ask the question why Singer uses such obvious biblical foundation for The Slave. Upon reflecting I can only conclude that, while Isaac Singer was a religious man taking inspiration from the holy texts, the Bible is also the foundation for all stories. There is really no such thing as a new story because it has already been told in some form or other in the Bible. Singer simply chooses to directly influence his text through the bible, rather than indirectly, like so many other storytellers.

“Everything remained the same: the ancient, the ancient grief. Perhaps four thousand years would again pass; somewhere, at another river, another Jacob would walk mourning another Rachel. Or who knew, perhaps it was always the same Jacob and the same Rachel.”

- The Slave, 279

Interesting Presentations

The presentations on Thursday were overall pretty impressive. A couple of my favorites were Shelby's, Melissa's, Craig West's and Ben's. This isn't to say I didn't like other people's presentations, I simply found these topics the most interesting.

Melissa's claim that the women of the Bible were in fact the key players to most biblical stories was interesting and completely valid in my mind, but then, the human race doesn't exactly continue its existence without them so this is a formidable argument in any story. She mentioned that women in the bible were constantly "pushing stories forward", and to add onto that, I think that they are not only pushing stories forward but acting as a hinge or joint in a fixed object. By this I mean they introduce new dynamics into their stories, rather than the consistent flatness possessed by so many biblical accounts.

Shelby's idea about the different paths of reading the bible was also an interesting observation. The image that stuck with me most was the 'picasso-esque' masterpiece of the person plunging from the cliff. That person was definitely me at the beginning of this class, I simply held my breath, opened the first page and dove into it. Now, I feel I have reached a 'higher plane (plain?)', and when reading the bible I approach it from a controlled literary vantage point. I no longer regard the bible as the heart of the historically harmful religious institutions, but rather as a foundational library of culture and modern thought.

Ben's presentation on the notion of anagogy was another idea that made the choo-choo in my brain start rolling. Naturally, anything stated by Frye, though severely intriguing, also severely surpasses my current powers of thought, so I can only hope that in time I will absorb more and more of his ideas. As Ben stated it, the notion of Anagoge is the ultimate level of reading a text. For some reason this rings a similar bell with me as the Buddhist (Hindu?) idea of nirvana. The ultimate level of reading a text... brilliant. Clearly Frye was a literary sage/medicine man. As wikipedia describes it, the anagogical is a method of spiritual interpretation of literal statements or events, and perhaps this was Frye's philosophy on reading the bible. This is probably something useful for me to find out but, either way, very cool.

Craig West chose to address the idea of 'hebel' on some level. A recap for you; 'hebel' is emptiness; a metaphorical kernal of fog; vapor. This idea from Ecclesiastes is that everything is but a breath, everything is pointless. When I think too much about this idea I find my thoughts become trapped in a maze of uncertainty. If everything is but a breath and nothing matters at all, why care about anything? But, from the other perspective, if everything is but a breath why should we spend one moment of our lives settling for mediocrity? Really, this idea of hebel is a ticket to some form of mental transcendence, the hard part is figuring out how to make it work. Craig confronted this issue, came up with some conclusions I can't remember, and quoted T.S. Eliot - "Surrender yourself in order to create a work of art." Great quote.

thoughts on the term paper

First thing's first, that test was a trickster. If I had to designate it as a specific animal it would certainly be the post-fall serpent. It was sliding through the grass, making us feel at ease, and then WHOOOPAAOWW! It struck with speed and cunning. I wish I had a second chance at bat, I'd hit that snake in the face, and thus, receive an A. Enough with the metaphors.

'The Slave' is absolutely one of the heaviest books I've ever read and it seems to be the most logical choice as a paper topic, but is it the right choice? I guess what I'm having second thoughts about is whether I can come up with the evidence I need to in order to produce a solid enough paper to help me bounce back, both emotionally and academically, from that test which just left me dead on the side of the road. Perhaps that's an exaggeration, but these are legitimate thoughts nonetheless.

Anyways, I have my thesis sentence written and whether it is actually going to work out is yet to be seen. I would share it with all of you here and now, but, I don't want anybody to end up with my same topic. That being said, it is extremely likely that the amount of students using my same idea is in the double digits so I won't be surprised if there are a bunch of us on the exact same page.

Adam and Eve... relapse

In my British Literature I class, we're currently reading Milton's Paradise Lost. For those who aren't familiar with it, Paradise Lost is basically about Satan's fall from heaven to hell and then his influence on Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and also the origin of Christ's sacrifice...

It's interesting to see Adam and Eve from a different perspective than Genesis' dry description, but that doesn't mean its an agreeable perspective. Milton portrays Eve as a beautiful, but somewhat empty-headed character who is afflicted with traits of narcissism and who clearly can't and shouldn't make decisions without the guidance of Adam.

Just to recap, from an unbiased, modernist perspective, Adam is guilty of just as great a crime as Eve. Though he did not physically take the first fruit off of the Tree of Knowledge, the relationship between Adam and Eve was structured in such a way that it was Adam's responsibility to keep Eve out of trouble. Also, he allowed himself to be seduced into eating of the fruit himself, thereby participating in the crime... So where are all of these anti-feminine vibes coming from? If men rule the world, then men should be hassled about the abundance of bad decisions they've made, starting with Adam and his negligence of monitoring Eve.

Anyways, here's a link to a blog with a comic of Adam and Eve depicted by the artist R. Crumb... The blog's a good read too, check it out.

http://maudnewton.com/blog/?p=9633

A Surprisingly Cynical Poem by Dylan Thomas

Here is a poem by Dylan Thomas titled Then was my neophyte.

Then was my neophyte,

Child in white blood bent on its knees

Under the bell of rocks,

Ducked in the twelve, disciple seas

The winder of the water-clocks

Calls a green day and night.

My sea hermaphrodite,

Snail of man in His ship of fires

That burn the bitten decks,

Knew all His horrible desires

The climber of the water sex

Calls the green rock of light.

Who in these labyrinths,

This tidethread and the lane of scales,

Twine in a moon-blown shell,

Escapes to the flat cities' sails

Furled on the fishes' house and hell,

Nor falls to His green myths?

Stretch the salt photographs,

The landscape grief, love in His oils

Mirror from man to whale

That the green child see like a grail

Through veil and fin and fire and coil

Time on the canvas paths.

He films my vanity.

Shot in the wind, by tilted arcs,

Over the water come

Children from homes and children's parks

Who speak on a finger and thumb,

And the masked, headless boy.

His reels and mystery

The winder of the clockwise scene

Wound like a ball of lakes

Then threw on that tide-hoisted screen

Love's image till my heartbone breaks

By a dramatic sea.

Who kills my history?

The year-hedged row is lame with flint,

Blunt scythe and water blade.

'Who could snap off the shapeless print

From your to-morrow-treading shade

With oracle for eye?'

Time kills me terribly.

'Time shall not murder you,' He said,

'Nor the green nought be hurt;

Who could hack out your unsucked heart,

O green and unborn and undead?'

I saw time murder me.

From the start we are under the impression that this 'neophyte' is the subject at hand... Wikipedia tells me a neophyte is a beginner. In the context of Christianity, the term often refers to a newly ordained priest, monk, or a new convert to the religion. With this information I can now grasp the darker undertone going on here.

Child in white blood bent on its knees

Under the bell of rocks,

This first image is of a child in white, an innocent newcomer into the religion who is now bleeding from the knees from kneeling before God "Under the bell of rocks". I take it this bell of rocks is a euphemism for a church, but it isn't portrayed with the usual brightness and alleluias but with a certain deadness brought out with the emphasis on the word rocks.

Throughout this piece Dylan Thomas recycles the idea that this neophyte is in some way heading down a path with no answers. Starting with the third line, the poem becomes one big sailing metaphor. We see the word green six times, which is associated with someone who is seasick, and thereby an inexperienced seaman.

I also feel that there is a controlling entity within the poem. It is referred to in two separate instances in a similar way.

"The winder of the water-clocks"

"The winder of the clockwise scene"

This is most likely Thomas' reference to God or the institution of the church; either way it gives the impression that one is bound by restrictions. At last the poem is concluded with a final message to the reader (or maybe the neophyte, who could also be seen as the reader...)

"Time kills me terribly.

'Time shall not murder you,' He said,"

...

"I saw time murder me."

Here we see the higher power, whoever it is, specifically say "Time shall not murder you". Yet the speaker disproves this statement with the final line by saying "I saw time murder me"... Thomas could only be more direct if he said, "You lied about everything".

I originally chose this poem because; one, Dylan Thomas is my favorite poet. And two, because of the references to neophytes and the twelve disciples and such. Little did I know this was such a cynical piece of poetry but, I believe I like it more now. Its late. The end

p.s. sorry about the sporadic font changes and spaces between the lines. The settings change on their own and I don't know how to fix them... cheers

Balaam and his Donkey

So. I have just finished 'Numbers', no small task, and can smell the finish line... of the Pentateuch. Clearly I'm no Alicia, who has already torn her way through 'Esther', but I'm doing what I can, chugging along day by day.

Down to business. 'Numbers' is by no means as dry as the title suggests. In fact, my favorite biblical story thus far takes place in Numbers 22.22, Balaam, the Donkey, and the Angel. In short, some surprisingly pleasant author slipped in an Aesop's Fable halfway through Numbers 22. Balaam, who we learn is an unknown prophet who converses with god as easily as does Moses, is riding his donkey to Moab when his donkey sees an angel with a drawn sword in the middle of the road. The donkey veers from the road and is struck by Balaam so that it turns back to the road. Again the donkey tries to escape from the angel and again Balaam strikes the animal. This happens a third time until finally, it lays down under Balaam.

Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey and it said to Balaam, "what have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?" Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have made a fool of me! I wish I had a sword in my hand! I would kill you right now!" But the donkey said to Balaam, "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?" And he said, "No."

Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he waw the angel of the Lord standing in the road, with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed down, falling on his face. The angel of the Lord said to him, "Why have you struck your donkey these three times? I have come out as an adversary, because your way is perverse before me. The donkey saw me, and turned away from me these three times. If it had not turned away from me, surely just now I would have killed you and let it live."

What moral are we to take from this? According to the all knowing textual critics at wikipedia, the entire episode is designed to mock Balaam. But maybe it is a deeper message concerning the sin of assumption. Balaam assumed his donkey was misbehaving and in response he punished the animal. If he had taken the time to examine his donkey's past and see that this behavior was out of the ordinary, Balaam would not have made an 'ass' (so funny) out of himself and beat the donkey for saving his life.

In addition to this tale, an actual Book of Balaam text was found in Deir Alla, Jordan in 1967. Check out this link

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a014.html

P.Q. At The Clavier?

After doing some research about "P.Q. at the Clavier" I now know that Wallace Stevens has created an ambiguous scene, in which the reader is being exposed to a musical piece/concerto on the surface and the biblical story of Susannah beneath it. Or maybe it's the other way around.

As far as my analytical skills can take me right now, that's it. But, as a student who appreciates poetry I can make a list of instinctive emotions/thoughts this poem brings forth to me:

• Beauty
• Lust
• Forbidden
• Longing
• Melodic Chaos
• Each Moment's Infinitenes
• Nature
• Background Music
• Death
• Praise

Who are these "red-eyed elders" and why are they spying on the naked Susannah? It is obvious this poem is hugely influenced by the theme of 'lust', made apparent by the lines,

The basses of their beings throb

In witching chords, and their thin blood

Pulse pizzicati of Hosanna.

As this poem progresses, it is accompanied by background music, such as the "Pulse pizzicati of Hosanna." The definition of Pizzicati is a method of playing bowed instruments by plucking the strings with the fingers rather than using the bow. In this case, I imagine a group of dirty, aroused old men, hiding behind a rock or tree as they watch the beautiful Susannah bathe naked, and all the while, the plucking of a cello sounds out as if to set the stage for whatever is yet to come.

reflecting on Leviticus

Leviticus is complete. Though it was a literary slice of wheat toast, I'm sure I will remember this book in years to come. This is most likely due to the smothered feeling I was left with upon my exposure to the overwhelming amount of rules.

Though I am not actively religious, I have been raised Roman Catholic and attended CCD (church class) from a young age. I believe this aspect of my background has left me with some subconscious tendencies towards caring what the bible says, and though the bible, especially the Pentateuch, was written a few thousand years ago and cannot possibly be conformed into modern day life, I find myself critiquing my own life in comparison with the many rules in Leviticus.

After 24 chapters of God's ordained rules for his followers, we the reader, reach a moment of refreshment. This is Leviticus 25, "The Year of Jubilee". It is here that God, takes a step back, holsters his wagging finger, and reminds his followers that every fifty years starting on July 10, they are to be good to one another and support each other.

This is one of the first times God has used positive influence rather than negative threats in the Bible... It is unfortunate that this was ordained only only twice every century.

Concerning Bodily Discharges

I had no idea until I reached the magical chapter of Leviticus 15, that God ordained to his followers how they are to conduct themselves concerning bodily discharges. How naive I was thirty minutes ago when I assumed my bodily discharges were strictly my business. They are God's business and he reminds us over and over that we humans are foul, unclean creatures in need of CONSTANT cleansing.

After having read The Slave and seeing the perspective of an orthodox Jewish lifestyle lived in accordance with the Old Testament, I wonder how any person could possibly have satisfied EVERY rule commanded of them. If mankind lived in accordance with the bible, sheep would be an extinct species. Every hiccup, cough, and cleansing ceremony calls for a gruesome display of slaughtered lamb and splattered blood. Are our natural biological processes not more clean and pure than the constant blood sacrifices demanded of us?

I must be honest and straightforward. I've killed chipmunks before. Not out of any necessity, but because the little bastards kept hopping about when I had an air rifle in my hands. So I shot them, out of the carnal instinct to take another creature's life because I can. After the bloody episode I felt disgusted and ashamed and I quietly wished them peace and asked their forgiveness. On the opposite end of the spectrum, hardly do I ever feel more cleansed and invigorated than after a bodily discharge... These discharges are literally biology's cleansing ceremony, in which they naturally conclude with a feeling of satisfaction.

So as I sit here and scrutinize the Bible, I guess what I am really trying to say is that our bodies are more holy and self cleansing than the bloody sacrifices in which they are supposed to partake.

Cheers

p.s. In case it was unclear what bodily discharges constitute:

for males; pooping, urinating, ejaculating

for female; pooping, urinating, menstruating

Lacuna Matata... Genesis 22

The absent emotions from Genesis are probably identical to what I am about to transcribe.

God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you."

Abraham replied, "So you want me to take my only child, who took over ninety years for my wife and I to conceive, and you want me to burn him alive as a sacrifice to you?"

God said, "Yes."

"Are you f@#$^&* crazy?" Asked Abraham.

"No, and I don't appreciate that tone Abraham! You owe me, and if you don't sacrifice your son to me I'll do something REALLY BAD. I'm not kidding, I'll send a lightning bold on a bee-line to your face. As a matter of fact, just for questioning me, I have created cancer. Question me one more time, go on, see what happens."

"I don't even know what cancer is, what do I care? You're asking me to kill my son for no reason."

"That's it!" God replied. "I have just laid the foundations for humanity to invent something called a nuclear weapon. This will enable man to virtually destroy the Earth and everything within it. Now what say you?"

Abraham paused and reflected for a moment. Finally, he said, "Ok, I'll do it. But you're a dick."

Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. Isaac said to his father Abraham, "Father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." He said, "The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?"

"I have never hated myself so much." thought Abraham. Abraham answered Isaac, "God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son."

When they came to the place that God had shown him, Abraham built an altar there and laid the wood in order.

As Abraham prepared for the sacrifice, his thoughts tormented him. Never before had he faced such a high mountain to climb, and the feat threatened to consume him. Thoughts entered his mind on how to escape such a fate and save his son.

"I could sacrifice myself." Thought Abraham. "Perhaps God will see it as the ultimate gift and he will grant my son his life." But he neither believed this nor acted on it.

Though his mind was in upheaval, his actions did not show it. He continued to prepare the altar, and at last he took hold of Isaac and bound him. Finally, the barrage of tears broke free and Abraham wept. As he wept, he then laid Isaac on the altar, on top of the wood, and removed the knife from his belt.

"I will never forgive you, Lord, for what I am about to do." And with this final thought, Isaac's fate was sealed.

But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."

He said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

Abraham dropped the knife in the dry Earth beneath his feet and retrieved his son from the altar top. He unbound him and wept, and held his son close.

post script

Following this episode, Abraham was constantly wary of God's sanity and motives for the rest of his life. Even Isaac, who was only a young boy at the time, could not shake the feeling of nearly being stabbed and burned by his own father at the wim of the Almighty. He kept these thoughts to himself though, because cancer and nuclear weapons had already been inherited for doubting God once before.

reflecting on Exodus

Exodus is now a part of my past and it, like the rest of the bible, has left me with with some critical observations.

For instance; Exodus 29.10-35 is God's ordination to the priests on how they should go about sacrificing to him. To sum it up, God commands vast animal sacrifices daily, and is very particular about what is to be done with each part of the slaughtered animal's body. What is the point of providing God, an immortal being, with such mortal offerings of sustenance? Why does he care? And why is he such a 'jealous' God? Jealousy is such a human emotion, why would God bother himself with it? For someone who knows the mysteries of the cosmos, it is surprising how adolescent he (or she) is portrayed...

While blogging for this class I find myself, every once in a while, having to overcome the subconscious feeling of wanting to look over my shoulder. Perhaps this is the remnants of my Catholic upbringing poking me in the back and shaking its large head adorned with the funny pope hat. Either way, I remind myself that it is the year 2009, where my thoughts are free to roam about on the internet with no consequence.

Questions About Exodus

I've currently read through Exodus 7 and already I have questions... big ones.

First of all, why is it Aaron, Moses' brother, is not well known? I thought I knew the story of Exodus, and right off the bat I learn about a main character who plays as big of a role as Moses so far. Also, it was previously unknown to me that Moses is actually a cowardly, whiney sort of fellow and when God commands him to 'man up for your people trapped in servitude', Moses pleads even more. Finally, like an exasperated father, God suggests to Moses to bring his brother Aaron along with him, that way Aaron can do all of the talking and Moses will stop whining.

This leads me to another revelation, which is the fact that God exhibits such human-like characteristics it is hard to take him seriously. His impossible feats such as the burning bush, and the serpent-staff are impressive enough, but, I'm under the impression that he's orchestrating an Exodus of the Israelites because he's 'behind' in his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. What do we mere humans do when an obligation becomes too pressing to avoid? We scramble about until it's fulfilled so we can move on with our lives with peace of mind. This is the sense of urgency I'm reading from God in Exodus so far.

My own personal image of God is strikingly similar to that of Dr. Manhattan from the comic series 'Watchmen'. Granted I've only seen the movie, but his character is that of a master of quantum physics. One who understands every intricacy of the universe and therefore can manipulate anything and everything. The God depicted in Exodus, doesn't seem to possess this power at all. In fact, it seems that there is no more difficult task for him than controlling the course of human lives. Example;

"But Moses said to the Lord, "O my Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor even now that you have spoken to your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue." Then the Lord said to him "Who gives speech to mortals? Who makes them mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you are to speak" But he said, " O my Lord, please send someone else." Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses and he said, "What of your brother Aaron the Levite? I know that he can speak fluently; even now he is coming to meet you, and when he sees you his heart will be glad. You shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and will teach you what you shall do. He indeed shall speak for you to the people; " Exodus 4.10-17

What threw me off here was God's powerful statement to Moses about "who gives speech to mortals?... Is it not I, the Lord?" and then a few lines later he seems to forget that it is he who does all of those things and recommends to Moses that maybe he should bring along his brother so his brother can do the talking... something is fishy.

Genesis; Dunzo

Finally, Genesis complete, but I have some things that I need to get off my chest. I'm going to be honest, some of the biblical heroes were shady individuals. The person who comes to mind first and foremost is Jacob/Israel. The guy dupes his brother into selling his birthright (which we never found out if he collected on) and then steals his blessing from their father Isaac. And this is the man in whose name all Israelites refer to... Next, I want to know where Jacob's wrestling match with God came from. Here's a recap "He took them (Jacob's family) and sent them across the stream, and likewise everything that he had. Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. Genesis 32.23" We find out after humanity's most random beat down that it had in fact been God that Jacob was wrestling, and following this match God blessed him. Who knew. Maybe the safest route to success in life is to wrestle strange men that you encounter in the night, just in case the individual is the Almighty.

"And his soul was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her. Genesis 34.3" This excerpt, which followed the story of Shechem's rape of Dinah, is the bible's first mention of the word 'love'. I believe this kind of story telling is J's signature, which she continues throughout the remainder of the bible. She is especially noticeable in the story of Joseph through huge displays of emotions from all different characters. Example; "Then he looked up and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother's son, and said, "Is this your youngest brother, of whom you spoke to me? God be gracious to you my son!" With that Joseph hurried out, because he was overcome with affection for his brother, and he was about to weep. Se he went into a private room and wept there. Genesis 43.29-31"

The act of Joseph going into a private room to weep is as heavy as I've seen it get in the bible, and I don't want to sound sexist, but perhaps these deep seeded emotions we're reading about reflect a feminine author.

One more thing about Joseph, in Genesis 47 Joseph made slaves of all the Egyptians because they had no more money to pay for grain. The only thing of value they had left was their land and their freedom, and Joseph purchased both from them... Isn't this a little hypocritical for an ex-slave to do?

Genesis takes the back seat to "The Slave"

So I've neglected the bible this week and digested Isaac Singer's "The Slave" faster than an obese child with a cheese cake. Everything Dr. Sexson preached about this book was true. It is the most emotional and draining literary experience I've had in my twenty years of existence... And yes, to answer the question you're wondering, it is even heavier than Harry Potter. If you consider yourself an emotional rock this book will probably make you wonder what that knot is doing in the back of your throat. If you are the type of person who tends to give in to your feelings, you will probably cry like a baby. If you are wondering what we are doing reading such a pleasant book in what is essentially a bible class, don't stress yourself out. "The Slave" is packed full of references to the Old Testament and even provides the reader with what seems to be a first hand account of sixteenth century Poland through the eyes of a passionate Jewish man. Really, when I say 'first hand account' it is no exaggeration. The author's ability to narrate the story seems so genuine it's as if the reader is watching in on this man's life rather than reading a novel. "The Slave" is truly a display of the unknowable power of fiction.

Genesis; the first half

From what I've gathered so far, the 'J' and 'P' authors are not as easily recognizable as I thought they were going to be. The first 8 chapters of Genesis are clear enough, but starting with Genesis 9, things got hairy. For instance, some of the writing in Gen. 9 is descriptive and story-like, such as verse 13, "I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth." But, it also possesses the orderly and methodical characteristics of 'P'... I've just now decided to assign 'P' as the author of Genesis 9, because the voice is noticeably different than that of Genesis 2, who is clearly authored by 'J'. 

I found that after awhile, the differences between the two authors becomes less and less discernible. For example, Genesis 4 is in my opinion clearly cut into two halves. The first half is authored by 'J' and the second half by 'P'.  This is one of the last chapters through Genesis 22 that I can easily tell the differences between the two.  This isn't to say I have found myself completely lost, I'm merely stating that I recognize elements of both authors in the same chapters.  

To get off topic from 'P' and 'J' for a moment, Genesis is immensely more entertaining than I had previously expected. So much going on in so few pages! I have learned the origins of a number of common widely accepted ideas.  For instance; I know that Lent in the Christian tradition lasts for forty days and forty nights because that is how long Jesus fasted for, but, perhaps the writers of the new testament made Jesus fast for that long because of those numbers' original connection to God's punishment; which is forty days and forty nights of rain causing the great flood (Genesis 7). Also, I found a contradiction early on when in Genesis 6, God restricts the human life span to exactly 120 years, but following this restriction, Noah and his descendants continued to live for well over that allotted amount of time...  Another fun fact, in Genesis 13.13 it says "Now the people of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord." This is clearly the origin of the word sodomy which means 1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 2. copulation with a member of the same sex. or 3. bestiality. Who knew the namesake of such frowned upon practices originated from the biblical city of Sodom. 

Back to 'J' and 'P', I found Genesis 15 to be less routine and to possess more of a story-like quality than many of the others, so I assigned 'J' as the author... I am interested to find out what chapters other classmates assigned to which authors, but for now I will have to wait until next class. Hopefully everybody is staying strong.

first day of class... what a trip

Wow. As far as first days of class go that one left a mark.  I find myself somewhere in between shell shocked and curiously soothed. Somehow, between the calming grandfatherly voice of Dr. Sexson and his vernacular choice of words, I was disengaged from my initial terror of reading the entire bible and now believe I can pull it off...  But the words "you will have no life outside of this classroom" are still resonating in my mind so I am now in the process of building up my mental fortitude and preparing myself for yet another semester here in the north country.  

After the good doctor's pitch on Singer's book 'The Slave', I am really looking forward to starting it. On top of that, I am also looking forward to diversifying myself technologically this semester through this blog and also through the seemingly simple process of buying a book on Amazon. So many people have already experienced this but I've yet to ever purchase a book outside of a bookstore... What an adrenaline rush. 

Anyways, I hope my fears (and I'm guessing all of ours) for this class are never realized and that only good things are to come. 

Good luck to everybody and let the reading begin!