still enamored with Jacob

I'm still pretty enamored with Jacob — he seems to be quite a complicated character, and as the people in The Living Conversation pointed out, he's the first really complicated character in the Bible. I find him fascinating, from his "woe is me" attitude whenever something bad seems to happen, to his trickster style. Two things are still going on in my mind:

1. When we are first introduced to Esau and Jacob as adults, the narrators write, "And the lads grew up, and Esau was a man skilled in hunting, a man of the field, and Jacob was a simple man, a dweller in tents. And Isaac loved Esau for the game that he brought him, but Rebekah loved Jacob" (25:27-28). Alter notes that "simple," tam, is the opposite of Jacob's name, 'aqob, which I think is a pretty interesting case of irony. I think I remember someone in The Living Conversation talking about Jacob and this "simple man" reference, and how Isaac liked Esau better because Jacob was so "domestic," so inward and home-drawn, instead of adventurous like Esau.

But I wonder if it's that simple. I wonder if this isn't another telling of Cain and Able, in a way. Obviously we have two brothers, and the younger one is favored by God, so the stories have parallels. But I wonder if when we learn that Esau hunts and is "a man of the field," if this doesn't mean he isn't a farmer - a recreation of Cain, in a way. And when we learn that Jacob is "simple" and lives in "tents," does this mean he's a shepherd? At this point in the story, the family is pretty sedentary - Isaac will be bedridden for 20 years, so I would guess the whole family doesn't live in tents. If Jacob does, my guess is he's a shepherd. Which then makes sense that God would favor him over Esau, because, as with the Cain and Able story, there is probably a pro-shepherd anti-urban bias going on with the narrators. We also learn that when Jacob is with his uncle he is an excellent shepherd, so I think this makes sense.

2. I like how Casey brings up poetry at the end of the course and the end of Genesis in his most recent post. He writes that he sees the poetry hightening the mood, or accentuating it. To be honest, the poetry in Genesis doesn't do a lot for me, but I think that's because Alter's translation is pretty poetic throughout, so the lined poetry isn't much better (or perhaps any better) than the prose poetry. I do, however, really like the poem at the end (Chapter 49), and I think part of this has to do with how Chris noted the couplets and how the second line rephrases the first line. I think this is a pretty interesting technique to do consistantly, and I imagine it helped for memorization in an oral culture.

I think Jacob's curses are really harsh in this chapter - I find the lines very startling:
Reuben, my firstborn are you—
my strength and first yield of my manhood
prevailing in rank and prevailing in might.
Unstead was water, you'll no more prevail!
This transition seems so abrupt. It pretty much reads: "You have won! You have won, you are great! Nope! Never again!" very suddenly. I like this twist, this abupt shift.

Jacob doesn't even bother saying anythign nice about Levi and Simeon, the ones who killed everyone in the village when Dinah was kidnapped. I think this cursing plays into Jacob's character - he was wronged, so his children will be cursed. This is very similar to God, too, I guess. It seems that the character in charge is willing to curse whoever transgresses against them - although there have been a few cases when a mother figure is willing to take the curse on herself (such as when Jacob's mother says she'll take the punishment if Jacob is found out taking his father's blessing in disguise).

on values and themes

Like Stephanie, I was struck by the conversation in the Bill Moyers video involving the feminist perspective and her demand to stick to particulars of a text. Stephanie writes, Someone asked whether or not a text that from our current perspective (and value system) could be read as misogynistic is redeemable or not. I think this is a great question. And it brings up many more, such as: Why, if this text is situated in a value system that doesn’t match ours, do we still look to this text?

I'm reminded of when I read Conrad's Heart of Darkness as an undergraduate, and we read an essay by Achebe accusing Conrad and the text of racism (and I agree with this). Achebe ultimately argues, though, that Heart of Darkness should not be taught in classes because of its racism. Here's where I have to disagree with Achebe because I think that it's almost impossible to find a text situated within a racist and sexist culture that is not racist and sexist. I think that ideology is pretty powerful, and that often, when we are trying not to be discriminatory, we still are, because the beliefs are so ingrained within us that they come out in our words and actions...

The feminist critique that claims we cannot ignore the misogyny in Genesis is important, and also limiting, I think.

When Stephanie (and myself and many others) ask if we should look a text situated in a different value system, I think the answer is: a) Yes, we should, and b) there are still values here that we share. We share values in Genesis of searching, of loss, of pain, of rejection, or struggle against one's brother. These are some things we still share w/ the writers of Genesis. And, I would argue, our society is still sexist, so we (our society, not us as individuals) still value the misogyny in the story. I don't think we'd read this story as sexist if our society wasn't sexist and this story was handed down to us without any history or context. It would be a story. I think...

Of course, we have to say, Yes, this text is misogynist (the Joseph story where Potiphar's wife is painted as the tempting, foreign other). And we can't look past this, either, I don't think, for values play off of other values. But I think we can look at both the particulars and the generalities, kind of another both/and thing. So, not a "yes, this text is sexist, but we can learn about struggle, falling and rising back up," but rather an "yes, this text is sexist, and we can learn about struggle, falling and rising back up." Just like Heart of Darkness: Yes, this text is racist, and we can learn from that and from the anti-racism in it, as well.

I like how Chris points out the good things about gender equality in Genesis. There is an importance to admitting that a text is both sexist and anti-sexist. Of course, there is a danger when privileging one over the other, but admitting that a text is complicated and both reinforces systems of power while struggling against them is important....

8.10

We've talked about power before, but on Tuesday, Profé Chris said something that caught my attention, he said that Joseph himself is an interpreter... "That’s how he gains power." True enough, when the Pharaoh depends on Joseph for the dream interpretation (that we all agreed were rather obvious) it gave Joseph power. So then like Casey mentioned, the brother's didn't really need to guess much when faced with Joseph's dreams - it was crystal clear to them, and they took action immediately... essentially keeping the power in the relationship, yes?

So I sat and pondered. If this is the first time that God has chosen to speak like this in the Genesis - through dreams rather then through "And God Said..." format - then there was no need of an interpreter in the earlier chapters. So who is doing the interpreting? In the earlier chapters we see Noah and Abraham doing what they're told without any real confusion (even with the dimensions of the ark? - he got that the first time?). They didn't have to have someone come tell them what God meant so it was simple for them to just do what they were told in full confidence of their position and relation to God.

Now, I'm thinking about lawyers. I've had a run in with a few, and with a few text books written by some... half of the time I come out of a conversation feeling baffled and inadequate. I assume they know what they're talking about, though.

Maybe this is just me reflecting on what has been said a few times in class - the disgust that people hold for folks who use the bible to oppress... and who bend the text to say one thing or another about any given topic. The person that's capable of spinning the words in the most believable way is the person that dictates the meaning. And I suppose that's why the printing press and the Bible on the bookshelf in common language was a frightening thought for most learned individuals.

With that in mind, I step back and I look at what I have accepted without questioning simply because the answers would be too complex for me to understand. People are always saying to me, "Oh, but the end times are coming! See! Read Daniel - THREE BEASTS!" bla bla bla. And then they whip out some large numbers and how they translate to years and how that means that we probably won’t be around past next Friday. But I can't argue - they've interpreted it all in a "logical" way.

Of course, plenty of people think the meaning is as obvious as Pharaoh’s dreams, but I still have to give that pharaoh credit for searching out a wide variety of explanations...

Guidelines for the Final Inventory

Final Inventory: Summer Genesis as Literature

Print out hardcopy of just your own postings. Include as well your postings from the first half of the term.

Focus on the second half of the term, since the Midterm Inventory, but take the first half of the term into account.

Respond to the questions below. Double-space. Attach the inventory to the front, and staple it all together.

Nonlinear, free flowing option: address the questions below in anyway and in any form you want. Essentially: tell me what you did, what you got, and where you are, in some form or another.

Linear option: answer the questions below in order.


Self-Assessment:

• For the blog: Using the grading criteria on the handout on the Genesis Blog from the beginning of the term, write a paragraph or two in some way assessing your work on the blog and giving yourself a grade for the blog. Be sure to be clear about the number of entries.
o Note: think of the Final Inventory as a way of possibly raising the grade on the blog itself. You all have a B if you meet the minimum requirements. If you want an “A,” the inventory is a way of boosting the B. If you haven’t met the minimum requirements for the blog itself, the inventory can boost the grade back up to a B.

• For the class: now, taking attendance and punctuality into account (again, go back to the syllabus), give yourself a grade for the whole course. That’s the average grade of the midterm and final blog assignment, minus any missed classes above two.
o Note: the quality of the blog assignments and of the inventory can make up for these missed classes, at least a little. And if you have good reasons for missing more than two classes without telling me, now is the time (though not the ideal time) to explain that to me.


Postings of the Group:

• In a paragraph or two, describe the postings of the whole group in general terms, their general movement or direction and the themes that have emerged. For example, do you all bounce back and forth between different questions and ideas; do you stick to the same theme; to you focus in on something and then veer off; is their progress? Think metaphorically. If this were a journey, are you going up and down, steadily up, wandering around, getting somewhere? If this is a landscape, what is it? Forest? Desert? Valley? Etc. Do you tend to be interested more in theological questions than literary ones, political issues than literary ones? Are you unsure about literary ones? When it comes to the literary, are you all more interested in issues of character, for example, than plot or theme? Etc. Just be descriptive here.
• Quote part of what you think is the most interesting posting from another student in the class and write a one paragraph response: what’s interesting here? What does this make you think of?

Your Postings

• In a paragraph or two, describe your own postings in general terms: their general movement or pattern or flow; their emerging or dominant themes; the nature of your own thinking. See above.
• What have changed your mind about? Or: What has surprised you? What have you learned? What wasn’t clear that is? What was clear that isn’t? Write a couple of paragraphs.
Some other things you might think about here:
• Explain what’s most clear to you at this point and what isn’t.
• Consult the list of questions I handed out at the beginning of the term, the 5 versus the 5, and reflect on whether you’ve gotten better at staying on track with the “Bible as Literature” kinds of questions versus the others, or have developed some skill in recognizing the difference between these kinds of questions and other theological or political kinds of questions. Given the overlap.
• Talk about the most important thing you’ve learned so far.
• Talk about the remaining question or questions you have, in light of the course.


• Finally, in a paragraph or two: why might any of this matter? In personal terms? Social and cultural terms?

8.2

Both Michael and Stephanie have mentioned that which struck me most in the William Stafford video. It's interesting to me to see the thought that Stafford put into what details he left out, like in the poem about the child in the woods. I think he said something like he was "not deliberately writing a poem to explain what it feels like to be lost or saved... it's based on curiosity and speculation about what it means to be lost and saved." And more importantly, in my mind, is that Stafford creates "facts" that aren't facts at all, only there for impact, like the ants that pass only on the right.

I'm being obvious. The point being I guess then if we say that Genesis isn't wholly based on "fact" as we come to think of it, then we probably have to accept that the authors were doing the same thing that Stafford was - making choices to give impact.

I suppose what I'm wondering is that if the poem about the child in the woods gives an emotional answer to the question of what it means and feels like to be lost and saved, then what is the question that the authors of Genesis seek to answer in their telling of the story of Abraham and Issac? Having thought that, I ask myself, "Well, what does that story actually make me feel?" (Though I could be missing something due to separation of time and culture.) Foreboding. Fear of a sacrifice I've yet to make. Confidence that God will provide for me? So if that's what I feel... what's the question? (Perhaps I've read too much Douglas Adams...)

To me, I see the answer not as the solution to the question of what will happen to you if you choose to follow this God, but more as a exploration of what it might feel like on any given day, or month, or year. Which is a bit like giving into theological meaning... but anyway...

Untitled

Who I was
Andrés
dark
I am in the middle
white
uninvited,
but welcome terrain

Lend me your ears

So this is how you get hurt in the middle of the night
We stand near the truck
     Three bodies
Friends, Romans, Countrymen,
Lend me your ears
     There you are,
          a tart,
          a tease

Some thoughts

This time I focused more on individual postings. Posted comments on specific ones.

Somehow I thought of this poem of mine. For what it's worth. (Have I shared it before?)

Chris


Get Back Honky Cat

I didn’t know Derrida was dead.

But then I don’t think I actually read
a word of him even in grad school,
when we used to draw our coffee
from urns and argue before classes
at the long tables in the Union
or the Hub or whatever it was called.
I could have been in high school:

I knew that little. I do remember
the warm lights of the cafeteria
and that it was dark outside, morning,
and how alive I felt. Steve Cole
was right that time he stormed out
of the Byron seminar. I didn’t even know
when Byron was born, and I still don’t,

though Derrida, of course, wouldn’t have
minded this a bit. Even as a kid,
when I used to drive my brother
to Mrs. Winky’s for his piano lesson
and I’d sit at the top of the hill, listening
to Elton John on the radio, I didn’t really
understand the words. I didn’t care.

Snow was falling. Lights were coming on
in the quiet houses. I don’t think
I even had snow tires on that Chevy.
We were always slipping and sliding
our way home, down the icy streets.
The idea just never occurred to me
that anything could really happen.

jacob's bargaining

I really enjoyed the conversation we watched today - the dialogue was lively and controversial, yet respectful (for the most part). I particularly am particularly interested in the discussion about whether Jacob is bargaining with God or what he is doing when he makes the conditional "If the Lord.... then I will worship him" vow at the end of Chapter 28.

One of the women in the video notes (I did not get this word for word) that she sees Jacob as asking for sustanance and survival: give me food, clothing, and breath, and I will worship you. Walter Brugeman (sp?) counters that Jacob is asking much more than this and is bargaining with god. The both refer to the text but come up with wildly different texts. The woman sees a simple request for survival and Brugeman sees a duplicitous man attempting to bargain with God, and both are adamant about what the text says.

I wonder if this falls on translation a bit, because the woman, if I remember right, is a Hebrew scholar, and Brugeman is a Christian (and even says that the woman, as he interrupts her, doesn't have his perspective because she is not Christian, though I don't think his view is particuarly Christian, but rather based on a translation of the text). If we look at Alter's translation, Jacob's conditions are fairly humble (in my opinion):

And Jacob rose early in the morning and took the stone he had put at his head, and he set it as a pillar and poured oil over its top. And he called the name of that place Bethel, though the name of the town before had been Luz. And Jacob made a vow, saying, "If the LORD God be with me and guard me on this way that I am going and give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and I return safely to my father's house, then the Lord will be my God. And this stone that I set as a pillar will be a house of God, and everything that You give me I will surely tithe it to You." (28:18-22).

Yes, I agree that Jacob is perhaps being intelligent and doing a little bargaining here: Yes, I'll worship you if you do as you promise. But I don't see him asking for more than God has promised. God promised that his seed will become a nation and that God would be with him and would guard him (28:13-15). Perhaps Jacob is more specific in that he asks specifically for food and clothes and a return home, but to me, and probably to Jacob, that's what to be guarded meant. Jacob is asking for survival from God, and as someone said in the video, (who was it?) who wants to worship a God without survival in mind? (I paraphrased that quite a bit, I think.)

The Rabbi Burton V. said in the video that Jacob tries to assert control by making deals with God. I think this is a limited view of Jacob. He's much more complex than the "coniving genius," I think. Look at verse 17: "And he was afarid and he said, "How fearsome is this place!" And he is not just fearsome of God and this place, but also of his brother Esau who very well might have killed him had he not fled, and whom he is afraid of when he returns 20 years later.

Almost everyone, if not everyone, in the video today rejoiced in how important it was the Jacob was flawed, but then it didn't seem that everyone was as ready to grasp on his motivation. He is not coniving because he is out for power. Perhaps I was too quick when I said that Rabbi Burton's comment about control was too limited. I think he is right: Jacob is trying to wrestle control over a very scary world, and I cannot fault him in that. This is common. Someone learns they have cancer and they bargain with God: "Help me get through this and I will be a better Christian." People constantly bargain when in pain or in trouble or in fear. And I think that Jacob deserves our compassion for his bargaining, especially because he bargains for the very things that people in need ask for: bread, clothing, a safe return home.

The secular artist in the video noted how Jacob's story was one of Survival. I think that is what is universal about this story: the bargaining for survival in a scary time.

Oh, I just looked back over my notes, and one of the women (I do not recall who) did note that Jacob was afraid. She also notes that Jacob changes (directly after Rabbi Burton stated he did not believe that he changes, that his habits remain the same, and that this lack of change is depressing). His change comes in how he views blessings. Originally, he was obsessed with money and then after his interaction with God, he changed, but I can't remember exactly what she said... She was definitely talking about how encounters with God change us, but do not make us perfect...

So, I like Jacob a lot. He's wrought with fear. Yes, sometimes he's selfish or worries about his self more than others (as is the case, I think, with his daughter's rape and his indifference until his sons slaughter many people, and then he is concerned with his own safety [though, it might be read that he means the safety of his people]). Renita Weems (sp?) said in the video, "Aha! We have someone who is human!" and that we have adjectives that describe Jacob. But he definitely feels more human, more flawed, than other characters. And I feel the pain he goes through more than other characters so far.

Not Blockbusters all the Way

The film we watched about William Stafford was pretty interesting (though I admit to not having slept well the night before and so not following it as well as I could have). I appreciate it, and it's really coincidental that just recently Sara Jameson mentioned his book You Must Revise Your Life on her blog (when discussing the need for the constant revision of one's writing and one's life). This coincidence probably wouldn't mean anything to me, except that I don't think I had heard of Stafford before Thursday.

Stafford said a few things in the video that really struck me, and one of those was that his poems weren't (and couldn't be) "Blockbusters all the way," but were rather made up of modulations. This reminds me of the Bible because it seems like our culture focuses on the Blockbusters (Adam and Eve, the Fall, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the Sacrifice of Isaac, and the Selling of Joseph into Slavery), but there are "valleys" in between the "peaks" that often go unnoticed and that I find really interesting. I know I'm reading ahead here, but the story of Judah's children by Tamar is fascinating (chapter 38), and how it echoes the story of Jacob and Esau's birth, yet I don't think it's ever mentioned. These smaller parts that echo "larger parts" make the Bible cohere, instead of a series of "MAJOR STORIES."

I also likened Stafford's desire to keep things simple to the Bible's simplicity. He mentioned that he took "Elie Wiesel" out of the poem that read something like "someone talks about social justice and he gets paid $3000 for it." By making the story more general, Stafford can get at the truth of the situation, rather than having his reader's react to an attack on a revered writer (Wiesel). When I think about how I would read that poem, I know that if it read "Elie Wiesel talks about social justice and he gets paid $3000 for it," I would be angry that he was criticizing someone I think has suffered and should be talking about it. But when he makes it more general, I see his point a bit more clearly. And perhaps that is part of why the Bible is so powerful: it's language is sparce. We don't need many details. In fact, the more details, the less likely that this book will be as universal as it is.