The end, as it were, is near. As this is the case, I thought I'd say a few things by way of wrapping up. My style for once will be economical as opposed to rambling.

I enjoyed this course immensely. I've now read a larger portion of the Bible then I ever have(up to Ezra in the Old Testament, and Romans in the New Testament), and may even mangage to read it all at some point. I'm glad to haave read The Slave, and I know that I probably ought to read The Brothers Karamazov now, along with a great many things that were mentioned in class. I've been stimulated in many ways, and it has been good for me. I also know that I will never look at Oreo cookies the same way again.

Alright, I failed at not rambling, but it was relatively economical.

Thank you Mr. Sexson, Harold Bloom, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Jesus and everybody.

The Three Test Questions For Group 2(1 and 2 Samuel)

1. Q:Who does the Lord promise an eternal house in Jerusalem(ie. a dynasty)?
A: David

2.Who is the traitorous son of David who met his end by getting his hair caught in a tree?
A: Absalom

3.Q: David succumbed to lust for _____ when he saw her bathing from his roof, and arranged for the death of her husband Uriah the Hittite.
A:Bathsheba


*I shall also take this opportunity to say that I have absolutely no plan or desire to post my paper on my blogsite*

In terms of what I know now that I did not know before, I can say that I know now that Vladimir Nabokov was the first to translate Alice in Wonderland into Russian. I didn't know it before, although this isn't a very suprising fact, given Nabokov's penchant for playing with words and the structure of things. And also the new notion of literality. That is, to take something literally is to take it on it's own terms(how you apply the thing you have taken is a different matter).

And also Yeats' saying about how you can refute Hegel but not the Song of Sixpence(as quoted in the final chapter of Frye) will be on the final exam. Good to know.

Joab's Monologue

I am Joab, chief general to King David. I have served him loyally and with devotion for many years. Naturally, in the course of my duty to him, it has been necessary to go against his wishes, but only in certain instances. Such as with Abner, commander of the army of Saul. David said we were not to harm him, but killing him was for our king's benefit. Besides, the dog killed my brother Asahel-his death was justified! And so was the death of that young traitor Absalom! Much as it pains me, I must say that King David was too lenient with his son. I mean, he rebels against his own father, and what are we told? "You must not harm the young man Absalom." Sorry, but I couldn't just let him get away with treason. Which is why I ran three spears through him when he got caught in a tree by that long *beautiful* hair of his. It was all for David's own good-and that's all I have to say about that. Oh and for the record I was against that amoral census too! That ought to count for something!

We provivded test questions for the next quiz in class today, but before this we touched again on how the book of Revealation is to be looked upon(NOT literally; dear God not literally). It fits into the genre of Apocalyptic literature, and fits certain confines of said genre by being a first person narrative(courtesy of crazy John on Patmos) and in its description of an evil present age and vision of a new age of Blessing. Frye argues that Revelation is steeped through with the notion of kairos, a Greek word for time which doesn't mean time in the sense of the little hands on the clock--that word is cronos(sp?)-- but in the sense of the decisive moment in time that obliterates time. The eschatalogical moment in time is always now, to quote the great theologian mentioned in class who's name I was unable to catch.

We also defined hagiography, which means "holy writing" in literal definition but which over time has come to refer specifically to writings about the life of a saint which only show their subjects' saintly nature. Something which modern biographers consciously try not to do. But then again this deals more with questions of faith and belief then in specific historical meaning. At least it seems so to me.

I also haven't been able to decide what my term paper for the class is going to be on. Simply because I can't make up my mind.

*Just a few thoughts, put down belatedly since I didn't blog yesterday*

So "parable" comes from "parabola", a mathematical concept which is better explained drawn then talked about. Despite my being mathematically dyslexic, this actually helps me understand the idea of the parable better. What you expect to happen does not, and what you don't expect to happen does. Hence the officers of piety(the priest and Levite) walk on by, and the Samaritan(a half-breed heretic)stops and is kind.

And if someone bitches to me about how "people always have to read into things blah blah blah" then I can counter with this: what else can we do but read into things? I do believe what was mentioned yesterday, about how there is no way of communicating truths without stories.

And what the hell IS with that naked man in Mark 51-52? Perhaps it simply falls into the category that Harold Bloom apparently classifies the original ending of Mark, that of genuine enigma. Because there are such things as genuine enigmas.

And now I know that the Doors took their name from a book by Aldous Huxley, who took the name of his book(The Doors of Perception) from William Blake. I did not know that.

Today oddly draining due to full influx of new information. For example, I now know of the mystery religons of Eleusis, dedicated primarily to Demeter and Persephone. They were open to males, females and slaves, and involved some kind of sacred ritual which no one was able to speak of. In all probablity this ritual involved something being said, something being done, and something being shown. Prof. Sexson is of the theory that the thing said may have been "rain concieves." I was immediately reminded of some ancient Chinese saying(can't remember where I heard it) describing how when it is raining the sky is making love to the earth. Anyway.

There is the word kerygma, which means proclamation. According to Frye, this is what the Bible is aimed at.

We also touched on the end of the book of Job, where God speaks to Job out of the whirlwind and says ( in essence) through a poem " Have you any conception of what I have to deal with as Creator of the universe? N0! I am mightier than you are! Be submissive!" I am reminded of Virginia Woolf's comment, upon reading Job, that she didnt' think God came out of it very well. I'm inclined to agree, to a certain extent. I do think that there is something to the idea discussed by Frye that doubt is not harmful to faith, but that it is the dialectical opposite of faith. And therefore, Job is getting at something that his three so-called friends(who say one must NEVER question God) are not.
Incidentally, I do think that the theory that Job(or at least the middle section of Job) was written by a Greek interesting. Highly unlikely but interesting.

Then on to the Gospel of Mark, the earliest of the synoptic Gospels. The writing style employed within it is(to use another word I learned today) parataxis, which means that the most frequently used words are "and" and "immediately".
One thing reading Mark, which stood out to me, was how very often after having performed a healing miracle Jesus tells the person(s) to tell no one. Which of course they do. Why?

I'll also have to ponder a bit on seeing the parable as an attack on the stuctures of one's expectations. Never really thought of that.

PS. Thank you for reassuring me even more in the conclusion I've reached that Dr. Laura sucks. Ignorance and intolerance typically do.

The Book of Ecclesiastes is one of the few instances in the Bible where we encounter epicureanism, which essentially boils down to this:Eat, drink and be merry for tommorrow you die. "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity!" This phrase is the book's motto, but through it we can also see an example of how it was dealt a hard hand in translation. The word in Hebrew, hevel, is exceedingly difficult to translate. It's literal meaning can be given, roughly, as "mist", "vapor" or "fog". So all endeavor is reduced to a fog, because all of us, the good the evil, the industrious and the lazy, the wise and the stupid, all come to the same end. We all die eventually. It's as Charlotte says in Charlotte's Web: "What's a life anyway? We're born, we live a little while, we die."

And I also know how I can properly correct people who use that phrase, "the Patience of Job", particularly when employing it in a way that tries to uphold retributive justice. They, in all probability, concentrated only on the Prolougue and the Epilogue and ignored--or skimmed over--the whole middle section. In this section Job is very vocal in his insistence that he did not deserve all this shit happening to him, and even asks God to come down and explain why good people suffer and bad people don't. God does so, but he of course doesn't answer the question. He tells Job(and this is of course paraphrasing) "I am mightier then you are, and unknowable! Do you except this?!", to which Job(perhaps understandably humbled) says "Oh yes Lord! Forgive my impudent questions." But at least he had the guts to ask. And maybe that's all that ever really can be done is ask. I don't know.