Role-Reversal

We talked about how many times in the Bible the younger son 'overtakes' the older in some way and therefore throws off the set line of the first born son inheriting everything (or some other interaction similar to that). Essentially, it's a role reversal. It's funny (perhaps not "ha ha" funny, but ironic funny) when role reversal happens. So many comic movie plots are passed on this same principle; instead of having a male hero and a female in distress, it is 'comical' to put a female hero saving a male in distress. That same 'role-reversal' that I've been talking about is what draws us to these stories of the younger son overtaking the older. Granted, there is much more going on there then just a role reversal, such as an 'underdog' story. But the role reversal comes up many times in other situations.

We've talked a great deal about 'powerful women' in the Bible; and like it or not, that is a role reversal. A woman having power over a man goes against what is 'traditionally' thought of as the natural order; and that's why we find it so interesting and to an extent, funny.

Taboo

So, we talked in class a bit about 'Taboo' and the power it has. Most of the power of taboos comes from the discomfort it causes in people. Taboos tend to be things we either don't understand, or feel is 'wrong' and seeing or talking about these things tends to make us uncomfortable.

One aspect of taboo that I hadn't thought of was that taboos were 'holy'. I'm not sure how much I agree with that. I do agree that lots of things that are 'holy' are taboo, and for some people religion itself is taboo, but that all taboos are taboo because they are holy is too big of a generalization. Personally, I feel that cannibalism is a taboo, but I sure hope that it isn't a 'holy' thing.

But I digress; anywho, it's clear that the Bible contains a lot of taboo topics. And perhaps this is where it gets so much of it's 'power.'

Lastly, please excuse the over-use of the word 'taboo' - there just aren’t a lot of words to replace it with.

Time Gap

This is somewhat of a response to Robin's Blog

So, as I'm sure we all know and/or have heard the time references in the Bible are extremely different from those that we get from science. But, as we talk about in class, you need to take the Bible as myth sometimes. Imagine if the Bible wasn't written in this mythological way for example. And instead of the two really cool creation stories we got : "Billions of years ago there was a huge cosmic disturbance in which the entire universe was created, over millions of years stars formed from the cooler particles and ... " Well, you get the point. Anywho, what I'm driving at is that the Bible isn't and never was designed as a text book for the history of the world. And even if it was written completely historically 'accurate' the people who copied/published/edited the bible would just see that kind of talk as senseless ramblings.

We can go about making excuses about how the Bible was actually true about creation as we see it today by just assuming that things were left out. But that just seems to follow more into the blasphemy genre of people making the Bible say/mean what they want it to mean.

Help Me

So, a few times in class we've very briefly discussed the topic of Eve being created as a "help me" for Adam. And naturally we like to pick that out and say "Oh look! The Bible is being sexist." Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, and we for some reason take that as a sexist thing. Let me pose the question that if Eve was created first and Adam made out of one of her ribs would it still be considered sexist?

Anyway, back to Eve being Adam's "help me." I tend to hear people say that this portrays Eve as subordinate or submissive to Adam. But to me, I find it quite the opposite. For example, remember in grade school when you were having trouble with a math problem or something along those lines? You would raise your hand as a signal of "help me" to your teacher for them to come and help you. In that case, your teacher was your "help me." Did that make your teacher submissive to you? If anything, the helper is above the helped.

Unlike the other animals in the garden that Adam was 'put in charge of,' Eve is created to 'help' Adam. If Eve was created as 'less' then Adam, then Adam would have been put in charge of her like he was the other creatures in the garden.

J

The Book of J seems to be making a big deal about 'J' being a woman. Every page makes me dislike/disagree with the author more. His only real argument for 'J' being a woman is that he wants her to be; or as he puts it "That’s my truth." The fruitless arguments he does use are that 'J' writes in the style of a woman because 'J' gives women powerful roles or portrays some men in a bad light. Because apparently according to Bloom's sexist uneducated mind only a woman is capable of writing a story with a dominant or even powerful woman in it. I've written a story with a powerful woman and a male portrayed in a poor light -- Wait a second! According to Bloom I must be a woman!

Now, I'm not trying to make the argument that 'J' isn't a woman, just that 'J' wasn't necessarily a woman. Could have been a woman, could have been a man, could have been a little of both. We don't know, and will never know. And like I said in my previous post, it doesn't matter. But Bloom, to me at least, is just trying to lift himself up as coming up with the grand spectacular theory that has no more relevance then me saying 'J' was a Unicorn. Perhaps I should write a book and make lots of money?

Multiple Authorship

So, in class a major portion of our discussion has been about the multiple authorship of the first books of the Bible (J.E.D.P.R.). This is the most widely accepted theory, and who am I to argue? The experts who spend lifetimes researching and examining these things probably know a great deal about it more then I do. But rather it was written by five people, or one, or even a mystical unicorn with opposable thumbs, my question is does it really matter?

Knowing who the authors of the different books of the bible were in no way changes what these books say. Would they have less literary significance if they were just written by some random person? I come from the school of thought that the only thing that matters about a piece of literature is what you get out of it, or how it affects you. We all bring our own background and baggage to every piece of text we sit down to read. This is why almost every story has a different meaning for everybody. It could matter less who the author was, or what their intentions were, the only thing that matters is what is taken from it by the reader.

Not to say that I don't find it interesting to know. I quite enjoy learning new ‘tid-bits’ of information. But do such trivial things warrant such a large focus of our attention?