Dane Mclain Biblical Foundations of Literature Mr. Sexson

Social Conformity and the Bible

Individual and social freedoms are powerful ideas that are deeply moving when conveyed properly to the masses. The Bible has two powerful promises that have a certain message of freedom: the promise of social freedom by God to the Israelites which lies in the Promised Land, and the promise of individual freedom by Jesus which lies in ones mind. According to Frye, the Bible as a whole excites the imagination through metaphors and poetry which gives the reader the freedom to make the Bible a mirror of their identity instead of a model of instruction. However, the same gaps(lacuna) that Frye describes in the Bible that create this freedom in ones mind have paved the way for the Bible to become an “instrument of social authority” which encloses the Bible in “an interpretation that provides people with the right way of understanding the Bible”. Despite Frye’s enlightening interpretation of what the Bible is overall, the power of it’s words and it’s symbols have often been used to control the masses. The image of an ideal society(the chosen land) and the image of an ideal man(the son of God) have given people the idea of achieving a sort of ideal perfection that the Bible seems to always strive towards. This metaphysical perfection that is always somehow out of reach has become a powerful tool to creating “true believers” among people, which drains the opportunity for individuality. The Bible seems to convey such a strong mirror of identity that it has created powerful church authorities and leaders that have helped mold a united faith that easily conforms to more of a literal and historical interpretation.

It is easy to find belief in the Bible because of its intangible nature. An individual can believe in it’s words, images and stories because there is something within them that is beyond what the reader is reading that they interpret for themselves. Frye writes on page 250 that “the Bible presents…a body of concrete images which present a world for you to grasp, visualize, and understand.” The Bible has the power to make someone believe that they are the chosen one by giving one a sense of something that is real within ones mind and at the same time out of sight. However, “the true believer” is not formed from reading the bible but by authority figures who interpret the Bible literally. While Frye seems to feel that the Bible helps one appreciate the world more by finding the poetry and meaning in everyday life, the authority figure depreciates the present by giving an individual faith that they will get to Zion, they will destroy the icon worshipers, or they will be free from slavery. The powerful interpreter acknowledges that the “ ‘Things which are not’ are indeed mightier than ‘things that are’”(Hoffer, pg.77), thus there is always a sense that there can be something better for the individual which makes him more susceptible to give himself and his individual thoughts up to a greater mass.

It is natural for many people to want to express their individual thoughts to a large majority of people if they truly believe in what they are saying. The Bible has had such a strong influence on individual illumination that it is only natural for people to want to share. Frye writes about Paul’s “private illumination he had.” and how “he was extremely apologetic about it”. “What he (was) thinking”, Frye thinks, “is that a religion which is aimed purely at private illumination is something of a cop-out.” This is a powerful statement about not only the nature of organized religion but also the nature of individual responsibility. There is a strong force behind the Bible, the force of God. This God could be viewed as the ultimate individual with ultimate freedom. This God can be destructive ruthless and irrational at times in order to get what he wants. This individual seems to have complete control over his chosen people and has the power to create the “true believer” simply with the sound of his voice, and a miracle. God seems to be the ultimate protector of people; the all powerful force that people rely on. I believe that the God in the Old Testament represents a power hungry leader who, despite recognizing individuality, diminishes individual freedom. God wants the people to have a holy duty towards him like they are attaching their drowning selves to a passing raft. The process of getting rid of the individual in a society is one of the major ways of creating a “true believer”. The true believer submits to someone or some common belief or promise of the future that has complete control over him, and his freedom. In the novel The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky the character Ivan introduces the Grand Inquisitor who has interpreted Jesus’ teachings in order for people to be free from one of the things that Jesus had taught; freedom. Although The Grand Inquisitor recognizes his own individual freedom he controls the masses for the sake of giving the people the childish satisfaction of not having to deal with such a “burden”. He uses his own beliefs to deceive them in the mask of a higher cause. Unlike Frye, the Grand Inquisitor has taken the Bible and made it into a religion that people need to cling on to. Frye sees the Bible as more of a raft to jump on to find a new place. When one is done with the raft, they can go about their way without having to carry it around with them as any kind of “burden”. Like Jesus, Frye seems to believe that the kingdom of heaven can be achieved in any individual mind. Jesus didn’t seem to attach himself to any teaching out side the Bible and himself. Frye writes, “the Bible must be given an authority independent of the church, so that the Church does not interpret the Bible”. I believe an individual who recognizes his freedom through knowledge and rises up above the masses with his illumination has a responsibility to share his ideas with the notion that they are open to interpretation. Those who have not opened up to the opportunity for change have taken the role of God which seems to end in a chaotic mess and a lot of conflict. But there is always the opportunity for creating “true believers” who follow one interpretation no matter what the case; this stems from their blind faith.

There are a couple of important figures in the Bible who are archetypes of those having blind faith. Abraham is a dominant figure in this practice. God tells him to kill his son and he carries out his order without question. He feels he must make a sacrifice for a holy cause. This is religious, social, and political fanaticism at it’s finest. The blind obedience that Abraham has is the blindness of an ideal true believer. This story has had major consequences in the history of man, leading to irrational and ruthless sacrifice among those who have taken the story so literally that they have given up their own individual consciousness and morals for a higher authority or an imaginary eternal self. Moses is another figure who seems to act blindly in the face of an authority. Frye writes that Moses acts according to God’s orders despite not even knowing “where the hell he is or how he got there or where he’s going or why he’s there in the first place” (Frye, pg 164). Leaders such as Stalin and Hitler recognized the virtue of blind obedience when creating the “true believer”. They knew that obedience is not only the first law of God, but also the first doctrine to engrave in the people to create unity and depreciate a sense of individuality. Oliver Cromwell wrote, “A man never goes so far as when he does not know whither he is going” (Hoffer, pg 157).

In the Bible there seems to be a dualistic idea of pitting friend versus foe and good versus evil. Although there are not direct boundaries drawn on what is good and what is evil there seems to be an underlying idea in the Bible that give one a sense of whatever is not for us is against us, thus eliminating all the middle ground. This idea is a repeated theme that has been used for centuries in creating mass movement and “true believers”. The Bible also has an undeniable rebellious spirit that is not only exciting, beautiful and free, but also destructive, chaotic, and deadly. Frye writes that “the separation of Israel from Egypt is one of the major tonalities” in the Bible, “a theme which comes back again and again.” The rebellious spirit seems to start by targeting an enemy or a sinner. For example, there are those who go to heaven and those who are going to hell. The doctrines of heaven and hell have been adopted “primarily because they are powerful political levers (Frye, pg 218).” Heaven and hell are not necessarily main ideas in the Bible that categorize what is good and what is bad but have more so been shared through the church. Authoritative leaders have used the idea of evil beings to unite groups of individuals to rise up against them. For example the Pope made the Muslims the enemy during the early crusades, Hitler made the Jews the enemy during WWII, and today the terrorists are the enemy in Iraq. There is a theme of having God on the side of the one on the offensive as if it was their right to be righteous and aggressive.

Although Northrop Frye finds a way to read the Bible as a creative tool for the mind and a piece of poetic material instead a book of laws and a model of instruction, it is hard to ignore the Bibles impact on the conflict that has followed this powerful piece of literature. The Bible seems to combine social freedom and the individual freedom to create a raft that one floats on and learns from. Unfortunately, it has been misused as a tool of power and social authority to become something that one has to carry as a burden, where people are forced to speak one language, be apart of one mass, and ride the waves of one ship. I believe ones faith that spurs from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam should not be a defiant faith that tries to build the highest tower “whose top may reach unto heaven.” in which there is united action of only one faith. Instead they should be scattered and at the same time united by their own separate individual beliefs and their own separate interpretation of the “heavenly bread” we know as the Bible.

I was in group number 2, the books of Sam. I found that one of the main points of this book was the responsibility of the king to his god. Saul disobeyed his God by not sacrificing certain animals, and sacrificing other animals when he shouldn't have. This made God upset and change his mind on his decision for Sauls kingship. David ,on the other hand, commited adultery but was forgivin. This brings up the question of why God stayed with David and not Saul? I believe this was because Saul had started to become power hungry and started to create his own rules over God, such as prohibiting his soldiers to eat before war. David obeyed God most of the time except for when he felt the desire and lust to sleep with another. God, like any other man, could relate with Davids situation. While Saul seemed to defy God on a more direct level.

Sauls Monologue

"So, there might be some gossip around my kingdom of Isreal that an evil spirit from God has somehow possesed me. People think I'm acting irrational trying to kill David, the one who played some nice music to make me feel better to sooth the "evil" spirit that has tormented me. Well, maybe my people forget that our God Yahweh annointed me the King of Isreal. ME!People forget that I defeated the Ammonites, I defeated the Amalkites. Sure, Samuel said I didn't obey the Lord s Commandements. How did I disobey him you ask? ..over some measily sacrifices that are to say the least debatable. Okay so I spared the King of the Amalekites, some sheep, some cattle, and some expensive jewelry from Kays , Im sorry I just couldn't see all that going to waste. Was I sopposed to destroy the whole town without saving anything for my people? First, God gets upset at me for making a sacrifice, then he gets even more upset for me not making a sacrifice. I'm confused Lord. And it seems that you are too. Annointing me, Saul The King of Israel, then changing your mind suddenly and annointing David. I thought only mortals changed their mind, not the all knowing all powerful all mighty. how dare anyone claim David the annointed King of Isreal. He is a fraud! And an adulterous violent war monger who has turned my family against me! So I'm here to state my claim that it is my right to kill David, and anyone who follows him, including all those preists at Nob. Then my God will finally realize who the real king is.

Chapter 16 Frye
I am going to outline what I thought was interesting in this chapter in Frye:
"In nearly all societies, the laws are accompanied by myths explaining that they are of divine origin."

creation myths naturally go to the myth of the origin of law: establishing order out of an original chaos.

"In the Bible, however, law follows immediately upon a revolutionary phase."

"A successful revolution...Frequently becomes very strongly repressive about any further revolutions."

The Story of Achan in the Book of Joshua: A Canaanite stronghold is taken. Everything taken is supposed to be sacrificed to God, but Achan keeps something. Thus the Israelites are "taken to the cleaners." Thus the Israelites destroy Achan and his family.
Frye writes "There you get a glimpse of the terrorism of an incorruptible society, and the fact that a society set up in such a way is something that humankind can endure for only a very short time. Corruption is an essential aspect to social living, because the people who take advantage of corruption are not invariably the criminals, but also those who find this kind of omniscient purity a trifle exacting to live under."

the next stage from the law is the stage of wisdom.

root of wisdom= the individual absorption of the law...Transferring from the community to the individual the laws sense of logical consistency, wisdom in a practical sense

The Proverb:
two general kinds of proverbs, depending on their social context:

"proverbs addressed to people who do not have great advantages in birth or wealth. These proverbs are counsels of prudence." steps to getting along with ones superiors, don't step on your inferiors cause they could be your superior someday.

other type of proverb:
series of maxims handed down by a king to his son, father to son proverbs: "to emphasize the continuity of the principles of order in society.

Another aspect of wisdom= "wisdom traditionally is something that depends on the accumulated experience of a community, and therefore is especially the property of the elders and seniors."

the virtue of wisdom: respect for the authority of elders

wisdom: the prudent trusting of experience

the difference between knowledge and wisdom:
"knowledge is of the actual"
"wisdom is rather a sense of potential..A sense of the kind of thing that one should know."

The Slave
So I read this book about a week ago. I must say it was a tuff read for me. Sure, so this guy is a slave throughout his life to physical and metaphysical forces, and then when he finally dies his temporary suffering to a slavish life as an outcast is rewarded and he is allowed to be buried next to Sarah. This story is tragic and depressing. Jacob suffers all through this book. He is literally a slave in the starting of the book, then becomes a slave to his passion for Wanda which "held him like a dog to a leash" , and all through the book he is a slave to jewish cultural and religious norms that have been engraved in him. A slave to his religious morals, a slave to his passions, a slave in his own body, Jacob finally dies where he leaves "his dark cabin with its rags and refuse" and arrives at a sandy beach with all the milk and honey he can stomach. Singer writes about Jacobs death in the last chapter of the book, there are times of awakening, but it seems most of this book is filled with suffering. So why does Jacob become a slave to his passion towards Wanda? Why does he go against the cultural tradition of the Jews and run off with a gentile? Why does Jacob do what he does? Of course these are questions that cannot be answered simply. I believe Jacob is in a constant struggle with his own free will. he feels the need to be controlled by outward forces such as god or Wanda to direct his fate, thus making him more suceptible to becoming a salve to the world. I mean who really wants to face their mind without being a slave to something outside to distract them? " He had outwitted the powerful, broken the chain of slavery, but despite his escape, he felt no elation". Jocab seemed to believe he was a slave to his own fate. And I suppose this is a good way to get over traumatic periods in ones life. Thus after Jacobs wife dies Singer describes Jacob meditating on his situation: "What happened was no accident. Everything was preordained. True, the will was free, but heaven also made it's ordinances. He had been driven, he knew, by powers stronger than himself." Jacob is trying to free himself from the experiences of his life throughout the
book. To move forward, and become stronger than the ways of the world. Yet it seems that as he experiences more and more he becomes a slave to his past, this is evident when he come into his new town with Sarah. Jacob is forced to hide who he is and what he is capable in order to hide his past. He seems to always find salvation in focusing on God and the Bible. Repeating songs and psalms to himself in order to grasp something that is beyond himself and the world of suffering. But God it seems is always the ultimate slave master, who tells him his freedom is right around the corner. What is this freedom? Death. Also a force to be reconned with, and what a depressing force at that. And if Jacob plays his cards right and obeys the laws of God he will be rewarded when he dies with eternal bliss, thus the suffering, the slavery, the persecution means nothing.
So what is Singers message in this book? Is he making a stand against a strict religious life? Or is he solidifying the salvish existence that everyone has to face untill they die? Or is he simply objectively looking into a persons life who is trying to live morally? Personally i wouldn't have minded if he made more of a stand.

I have been reading a book called Literature and Existentialism by Jean Paul Sartre and he brings up archetypes in his first chapter, so I thought I might as well share the goodness on a subject we have gone over quite a bit. He presents archetypes by asking the question "to speak of archetypes and "human nature"- is that speaking in order to say nothing?" I think this is a very interesting question. And I believe it touches on something Michael said last class period about the more stories one knows the more power one has over changing the direction of his or her individual story. When Sartre asks this question he is directing it towards the critics of his time, who seem to say every new author creates a new language in literature. I believe he is making this statement in order to say something to the likes of "nothing is new under the sun". When building a story off of an archetype I believe that one is trying to get to the basis of human nature. That is what draws one to archetypes in the first place. Something clicks inside of us to make us recognize how the human brain works. The archetypes in the Bible have made a huge impact on story telling because of the moral values involved. There is some kind of message with in the stories that help us wake up and recognize that this so called human nature we have that is supposed to guide us doesn't always lead us in the right direction. Thus, we look to higher powers for help. I believe when the bible was written it had a specific message for its people at the time but also has a lasting message for humanity. This is what I call good writing.
well just thought that I would think out loud for a while.

Frye- Chapter 14
#earth-mother vs. sky-father creation myths

earth mother myth- is the cycle of nature and the seasons extended- since a sexual creation myth- has no problem with the conception of death because it concerns living things all of which die. death is built in.

sky-father myth- used in Bible- involves a belief in a historical process, a sense of time going somewhere and meaning something- revolting against all cyclical conceptions of reality. This myth involves sky metaphors that are not living things in the same way- suggest a sense of planning and of intelligence

Thus from the sky father creation myth "God could have created only a perfect and model world in which there is" no death, sin, mistery or pain.

two different worlds- the world God made and the world Adam fell into.

but there is no direct account about the fall of nature in the Bible- "god cursed the ground, but he removed the curse after the flood"

Why was the fall of man myth created?
for Christians and Jews to make sense of an imperfect world created by a perfect being.

Exodus-
the start of a recurring theme- the ruler is not considered an evil man, but simply one who rules of the kind of world in which sooner or later a successor of his will be evil.

The story of the Bible would have been simpler if it would have started at the story of Israel where Moses encounters the burning bush. ----if the story started here there would be no problem with the theory of a theodicy.
instead----
never mind how the Israelites got into a bad situation in the eyes of a perfect god: how you get out of it is the important thing.

Some interesting things I found-
what is distinctive in the Biblical tradition- gives a historical process in which says that in spite of all the chaos and confusion in human events, nevertheless those events are going somewhere and meaning something, and eventually something will happen which will indicate what their meaning is.

Exodus- the start of a revolutionary tradition- a dialectical habit of the mind, in which everything that is not for us is against us. all middle ground is eliminated.

The Hebrews made the most impact on cultural traditions through their least amiable characteristics: not the belief that their God was true that made the effect, but the belief that all the other Gods were false.


---imperial monotheism vs revolutionary monotheism---
imperial monotheism- sees smaller cultish gods as being absorbed into their god when they are in power
rev. Monotheistic- god has a specific name, history in which every other deity can not simply be absorbed.

cannon and the Bible- unique with the Israelite tradition.
cannonized around the book of Dueteronomy

another revolutionary characteristic- tendency to regard your neighbor as much deadlier and more detestable enemy than the agreed upon common enemy.