{"id":28,"date":"2018-01-10T09:46:11","date_gmt":"2018-01-10T14:46:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/?post_type=chapter&p=28"},"modified":"2018-01-11T13:51:26","modified_gmt":"2018-01-11T18:51:26","slug":"brothers-tokens-and-types","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/chapter\/brothers-tokens-and-types\/","title":{"raw":"Chapter 3: Brothers, Tokens, and Types","rendered":"Chapter 3: Brothers, Tokens, and Types"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n\r\nThe book of Genesis is a collection of stories woven together by some\u00a0unknown redactor. The work contains legend, poetry, fantasy, genealogy,\u00a0short story, and other literary forms which are blended together to form a\u00a0more or less coherent whole. Genesis is a kind of universal history; like other\u00a0myths, it presents a story about what the beginning of time may have been like.\u00a0It opens with two distinct creation myths: one emphasizing the transcendental\u00a0nature of the creator god and the other emphasizing the human-like properties\u00a0of the same creator god. The first god creates by fiat, by giving verbal\u00a0commands; the second creates by breathing air into a lump of clay. The two\u00a0may be different versions of the story by different poets, or they may be\u00a0contrary projections of the complex human creation called god. The \"third,\" if\u00a0the projection is read as a psychological ground, would be this: the verbal is\u00a0the lump of clay. God speaks and the world begins. God speaks and life begins.\u00a0The creative power of speech is celebrated in the beginning. Language with its\u00a0formal aspects - its rules of syntax and semantics - is the perfect analog for\u00a0creation itself, since language gives us the power to create order and meaning\u00a0out of the chaos of experience.\r\n\r\nThe creation myth can be read as a description of any act of creation:\u00a0first the intention, then the translation from mind to matter, and then the\u00a0evaluation: \"and it was good.\" Professor Douwe Stuurman, who taught The\u00a0Bible as Literature at the University of California in the nineteen sixties,\u00a0pointed out in lectures that the creation myth, when read aloud, will be heard\u00a0to be an accurate description of the completion of any creative act. He told us\u00a0the story of his first wife, a blind poet, who had asked him to read Genesis 1\u00a0and 2 aloud to her and who when he finished said \"that is precisely the feeling\u00a0of creating a poem.\" In writing a poem one starts with an idea and a blank and\u00a0formless page. The creative act of beginning to \"blow\" life into that page and\u00a0after some time (and with some luck) giving form to the stuff of the mind,\u00a0transforming it into a new medium has formed a completed work. Human\u00a0creation, like Eliot's The Wasteland, is often a multi-staged affair with false\u00a0starts, revisions, crumpled failed attempts tossed away, and a complex of\u00a0discovery and creation. The poet does not know the poem until it is finished.\u00a0And when finished the feeling is there to be expressed: \"And it is good.\"\r\n\r\nRead this way `good' is an aesthetic term, as in \"Shane is a good movie\"\u00a0or \"King Lear is Shakespeare's best play.\" Value terms are ambiguous in\u00a0that sense, for we use many of the same words to describe both aesthetic and\u00a0moral judgments, `good' doing service in both categories of judgments. \"And it\u00a0was good\" as used in Genesis is evaluative, but not in the moral sense. The\u00a0story itself is silent on the moral status of the creation and therefore the puzzle\u00a0of how evil can arise in a perfect creation arises only because of the confusion\u00a0between aesthetic and moral uses of the word `good.' `Is the universe and\u00a0everything in it good?' is the wrong question to ask when `good' is used in the\u00a0moral sense. Such a question gets currency only if one presupposes that the\u00a0logically prior assertion `God is good' is true, and that there is a perfect\u00a0transfer from creator to creation. But in the creation myths in Genesis we have\u00a0no argument to establish the truth of that claim, in fact, Genesis actually tells\u00a0us very little about God. \"In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven\u00a0and earth...\" presupposes the existence and nature of God and the reader has\u00a0the task of creating God from the narrative stuff provided. From the first line\u00a0of the book the main character is a given, yet a mystery, a term looking for a\u00a0referent. Here again confusion arises when we fail to see that the particular\u00a0kind of verbal act the writer uses in the story is not one to be evaluated by\u00a0some correspondence theory of truth, but is rather a proclamation or\u00a0statement in the sense that the Canadian Constitution is a proclamation or set\u00a0of statements. If one says of a country's constitution, `It is true' what exactly is\u00a0one saying? Constitutions constitute the rules of the game, and are, as we all\u00a0know, subject to interpretation throughout time. The logical status of many\u00a0statements in the Bible is similar to the logical status of rules of a game: `three\u00a0strikes and you are out' not only regulates the game of baseball, it also\u00a0constitutes the game. \"And it was good\" is thus proclamation and aesthetic\u00a0judgment. The priests who compose the account of the creation presuppose God, as an objective being. God, as a character in a narrative, is yet\u00a0to be discovered.\r\n\r\nAfter the creation stories come a series of \"beginnings\" stories. We are\u00a0given a story that \"explains\" the multiplicity of languages in the world. We are\u00a0told why pain and death enter the world. We are told of the first murder and\u00a0of god's method of dealing with the first murderer. He does not use capital\u00a0punishment but instead marks Cain as a stranger, someone cut off from\u00a0society and from the earth itself. The jealousy that motivates the act of murder\u00a0is the second indication (the first had been the disobedience of Eve and Adam)\u00a0we have of the source of conflict and that conflict comes from the human\u00a0creatures' inner thoughts and feelings. A seed of conflict, of internal disruption\u00a0grows in the psyches of the humans and proves to be the narrative source of\u00a0the evil that enters the story in opposition to the expected goodness\u00a0transferred from creator to created. Cain, unable to accept God's rejection of\u00a0his gift, strikes out against his brother instead of addressing his own psychic\u00a0problems of insensitivity and jealousy, and is punished by complete and awful\u00a0rejection. We are shown in this story of the first murder that the results of\u00a0murder are to make the murderer non-human: God removes Cain from life,\u00a0from human society, and even from the fruits of the garden. Isolated, Cain\u00a0must walk the earth alone and friendless marked so that no one will kill him to\u00a0relieve him from his life sentence. Cain's mark is a visible sign of God's\u00a0absence and punishment as well as a symbol of the burden Cain must carry to\u00a0his grave as a result of the inner turmoil that led him to commit fratricide.\r\n\r\nAs human-like characters enter the narrative, they are presented as\u00a0nomadic mideastern tribesman who wander the semi-arid country of Canaan\u00a0and Egypt and who learn the importance of dreams and of a belief in the\u00a0future. Abraham, who is a hero to three religions, walks onto the stage as the\u00a0father of countries who has, above all, the virtues of loyalty and obedience. In\u00a0the most powerful and disturbing narrative in the collection, Abraham is\u00a0commanded by Yahweh (the Hebrew name for the creator-god) to sacrifice his\u00a0young son. This, Abraham agrees to do, but is stopped at the last moment by\u00a0Yahweh, who it seems, is only testing Abraham's obedience. A ram is\u00a0substituted for the boy and the end of human sacrifice is signalled. This story\u00a0has haunted the twentieth century imagination - Kirkegaard wrote a book\u00a0based on the questions raised by this 300 word story - because it raises so many\u00a0profound questions. If a voice orders you to do something how do you know\u00a0the voice is the voice of god and not of the devil? If god demands complete\u00a0and unthinking obedience is god worthy of worship? Can we worship a being\u00a0willing to murder to make a point? Is an action good because god says so or\u00a0does god say so because it is good?\r\n\r\nThe other key idea in the book of Genesis is nationality. Yahweh and\u00a0his chosen people join in the covenental stories that image the agreement and\u00a0promise between Yahweh and the Patriarchs. If you will follow me, says\u00a0Yahweh, I will provide you and your offspring with land. The narrative that\u00a0follows traces the covenant from generation to generation through a number\u00a0of deceitful, lustful, conflict-ridden, loving, loyal, ordinary people.\r\n\r\nBut the overriding theme developed in this set of stories is this: how can\u00a0human beings learn to resolve conflicts without committing fratricide? The\u00a0first murder, of brother by brother, is a description of the worst failure:\u00a0homicide. The relationship of brotherhood is expanded and developed to meta-\u00a0phorically include our relationship with each other within the human tribal\u00a0family, and in the triumphant meeting of Jacob and Esau hatred and conflict\u00a0melt away into a very human embrace that suggests a way for all of us to\u00a0behave. Esau, who had lost his birthright to Jacob his younger brother, had\u00a0said to himself, \"The time for mourning for my father will soon be here; then I\u00a0will kill my brother Jacob.\" Esau's threat is real; his injury greater than Cain's,\u00a0and the expectation of yet another murder of brother by brother is acute.\u00a0When finally the two brothers are reunited we are prepared for the worst.\r\n
Jacob raised his eyes and saw Esau coming towards him with four\u00a0hundred men; so he divided the children between Leah and Rachel\u00a0 and the two slave girls. He put the slave girls with their children in front, Leah with her children next, and Rachel with Joseph last. He then went on ahead of them, bowing low to the ground seven times as he approached his brother. Esau ran to meet him and embraced him; he threw his arms round him and kissed him, and they wept.\u00a0(Gen. 33 1-5)<\/blockquote>\r\nInstead of arms raised in anger we get arms that embrace. Anticipating\u00a0a weapon we get a kiss. Conflicts between brothers need not end in murder.\u00a0The word \"brother\" is given to us just at the moment of recognition to remind\u00a0us that these two are brothers. Reconciliation occurs in the midst of danger as\u00a0we are reminded by the mention of an army of men and by the prudent way\u00a0that Jacob arranges his people, using the slave girls and their children to\u00a0protect the inner circles of Leah and his favorite Rachel. And who is in the\u00a0centre of the protective shields? Joseph. Joseph of the many coloured coat;\u00a0Joseph the special.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nLITERARY DEVICES<\/strong>\r\n\r\nRobert Alter, in his excellent book The Art of Biblical\u00a0Narrative (upon which I draw heavily in the following), writes:\r\n
The God of Israel, as so often has been observed, is above all the God of history: the working out of His purposes in history is a process that compels the attention of the Hebrew imagination, which is thus led to the most vital interest in the concrete and differential character of historical events. The point is that fiction was the principal means which the biblical authors had at their disposal for\u00a0realizing histor<\/strong>y<\/em>.1 (emphasis mine)<\/blockquote>\r\nFiction is the key to understanding the many biblical stories. \"Fiction\"\u00a0comes from the Latin, \"fictio,\" which means \"a making, counterfeiting.\" It is a\u00a0form of \"fingere\", \"to make, to form, to devise.\" Think of \"fiction\" in the sense\u00a0of making or forming and not in its sense of \"false\". When I say the bible is\u00a0fiction I am not saying that the Bible is false. What I am saying is that the Bible\u00a0is a creation, a making, a story which is formed and molded to certain ends; it\u00a0is a formed and molded story in the same way that The Great Gatsby is a\u00a0novel. Obviously, there are many differences between the stories presented in\u00a0the Bible and the stories presented in twentieth century novels. The techniques\u00a0of narration have evolved and the conventions that stand behind a literary\u00a0work have also changed over the last 2,500 years. But the basic enterprise of\u00a0story telling has not changed significantly. And, what we need to realize is that\u00a0the religious vision of the Bible is given depth and subtlety by being conveyed\u00a0through the sophisticated resources of prose fiction. Like the Greeks, the\u00a0Hebrews learned to tell their story in a unique way, to glorify their God in\u00a0songs, poems, and anthems. Unlike the Greeks, they chose a different genre.\r\n\r\nThe ancient Hebrew writers purposefully nurtured and developed prose narration to take the place of the epic genre, which by its content was intimately bound up with the world of paganism, and appears to have had a special standing in the polytheistic cults. The recitation of the epics was tantamount to an enactment of cosmic events in the manner of sympathetic magic. In the process of total rejection of the polytheistic religions and their ritual expressions in the cult, epic songs and also the epic genre were purged from the repertoire of the Hebrew authors.2\r\n\r\nAny comparison of the Homeric gods with the god of the Old\u00a0Testament reveals the essential difference between the two cultures. Although\u00a0the Homeric poems played the same role in Greece that the Old Testament\u00a0stories did in Palestine, in the subsequent development of the civilization from\u00a0which they grew, the differences are dramatic. The Olympian gods, as\u00a0conceptual representations of the power which governs the universe, are\u00a0totally irreconcilable with the one god of Abraham. The Greek conception of\u00a0the nature of the gods and their relation to humans is so alien to us that it is\u00a0difficult for the modern reader to take it seriously. The Hebrew basis of\u00a0European Christianity has made it almost impossible for us to imagine a god\u00a0who can be feared and laughed at, blamed and admired and still worshipped\u00a0with sincerity--yet these are all proper attitudes toward the gods on Olympus.\r\n\r\nThe Hebrew conception of god is clearly an expression of the emphasis\u00a0on those aspects of the universe that imply a harmonious order. Any\u00a0disorder in the universe is blamed on man and woman, not on God. Thus we\u00a0have a story to explain why there is death and pain in this otherwise perfect\u00a0world. Human errors bring about the advent of pain, sin, and death.\u00a0Interestingly, there can be no sin without God since \"sin\" is a thoroughly\u00a0religious word. Those ancient Hebrews expressed their feelings and awe when\u00a0faced with the wonder and miracle of life; yet, they also had to make sense of\u00a0the world they found themselves a part of - a world with life and joy but also\u00a0death and suffering.\r\n\r\nIn all the stories in the Bible the Hebrew writers struggle to reconcile\u00a0evil with an a priori assumption of one all-powerful, all-knowing and just\u00a0God. Greek poets and philosophers conceived their gods as an expression of\u00a0the disorder of the world they inhabited: the Olympian gods, like the sea and\u00a0the wind, follow their own will even to the extreme of conflict with each other,\u00a0and always with a sublime disregard for the human beings who may be affected\u00a0by the results of their actions. They are not concerned with morality and leave\u00a0it for human beings to talk about. The Old Testament God, on the other hand,\u00a0is presented most of the time3 as one who is intimately involved in morality to\u00a0the extent of providing in the decalogue the covenant between him and his\u00a0people and following (cf. Numbers) with hundred of rules and regulations to\u00a0be followed by the people.4\r\n\r\nThe epic poems of Homer provide a much different conceptual scheme\u00a0than do the prose narratives of the Hebrew writers. The difference between\u00a0the Greek and Hebrew hero, between Achilles and Joseph, for example, is\u00a0remarkable, and has led many to claim that there are no heroes in the Old\u00a0Testament. These Hebrew heroes are all tentative; all flawed in spirit or in\u00a0body and seem too common to be real heroes. Homer's poetry depends\u00a0largely on image and other poetic devices for its marvellous effect while the\u00a0Hebrews use the devices of a newly developed prose narrative to convey an\u00a0equally marvellous subtlety. The subtle interplay of Homeric lines is not often\u00a0found in the Bible, not because the Hebrews were inferior artists but because\u00a0they were writing in a different genre and hence employing different\u00a0techniques.\r\n\r\nAs Alter puts it:5\r\n
The Bible presents a kind of literature in which the primary impulse would often seem to be to provide instruction or at least necessary information, not merely to delight. If, however, we fail to see that the creators of biblical narrative were writers who, like writers elsewhere, took pleasure in exploring the formal and imaginative resources of their fictional medium, perhaps sometimes unexpectedly capturing the fullness of their subject in the very play of exploration, we shall miss much that the biblical stories are meant to convey.<\/blockquote>\r\nIn the next few pages we shall consider some of these \"formal and\u00a0imaginative resources\" in an attempt to see how knowledge of them can help\u00a0us to understand the complex stories we are told in the Bible. While discussing\u00a0these formal attributes of the literary style we will also want to know more\u00a0about the informal attitudes, the conventions, that the writers and readers\u00a0shared and which, as in all literature, provided the soil for the growth of the\u00a0formal structures which we call narratives. To stay with the plant metaphor for\u00a0a moment, one can say that the conventions extant at a given time provide the\u00a0\"root system\" for the literature, which grows above ground as a formal\u00a0production of the human mind. Let us look at a few of the key literary devices\u00a0employed by the Hebrew writers:\r\n\r\n \r\n
1. verbal repetition\r\n\r\n2. thematic key words\r\n\r\n3. delayed exposition\r\n\r\n4. reiteration of motifs\r\n\r\n5. dialogue\r\n\r\n6. narration\r\n\r\n7. type-scene<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n\r\nThe very famous opening passages of the King James Genesis will serve\u00a0to show several of these devices at work.\r\n
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.\r\n\r\n2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was\r\n\r\nupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the\r\n\r\nface of the waters.\r\n\r\n3. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.\r\n\r\n4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the\r\n\r\nlight from the darkness.\r\n\r\n5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called\r\n\r\nNight. And the evening and the morning were the first day.\r\n\r\n6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the\r\n\r\nwaters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.\r\n\r\n7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which\r\n\r\nwere under the firmament from the waters which were above the\r\n\r\nfirmament: and it was so.\r\n\r\n8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and\r\n\r\nthe morning were the second day.\r\n\r\n9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered\r\n\r\ntogether unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.\r\n\r\n10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering\r\n\r\ntogether of the waters called he Seas: And God saw that it was\r\n\r\ngood.\r\n\r\n11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb\r\n\r\nyielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose\r\n\r\nseed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.\r\n\r\n12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed\r\n\r\nafter his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself,\r\n\r\nafter his kind: and God saw that it was good.\r\n\r\n13. And the evening and the morning were the third day.\r\n\r\n14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the\r\n\r\nheaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs,\r\n\r\nand for seasons, and for days, and years:\r\n\r\n15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to\r\n\r\ngive light upon the earth: and it was so.\r\n\r\n16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the\r\n\r\nday, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.\r\n\r\n17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give\r\n\r\nlight upon the earth,\r\n\r\n18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide\r\n\r\nthe light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.\r\n\r\n19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.\r\n\r\n20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the\r\n\r\nmoving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the\r\n\r\nearth in the open firmament of heaven.\r\n\r\n21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that\r\n\r\nmoveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their\r\n\r\nkind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was\r\n\r\ngood.\r\n\r\n22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and\r\n\r\nfill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.\r\n\r\n23. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.\r\n\r\n24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature\r\n\r\nafter his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beast of the earth\r\n\r\nafter his kind: and it was so.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n26. And God said, Let us make man in our image... in the image\r\n\r\nof God created he him; male and female created he them...and He\r\n\r\nrested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.<\/blockquote>\r\nPerhaps the first thing we notice about this creation story is that we are\u00a0confronted with a very talkative God. The writer chooses to present the story\u00a0(and uses the word \"story\" to describe it) in a kind of permanent present tense\u00a0with the commands of God clearly presented as verbal performances. This is a\u00a0God who creates by verbal fiat. And stories are verbal constructs, which also\u00a0create by verbal fiat: there is no character, no action, no place until some words\u00a0are spoken or written; until we name the objects of the world we have no way\u00a0of linguistically referring to them: no words, no world. The repetition of the\u00a0imperative `Let there be...' shows us that we are confronted here with one god,\u00a0with one God for whom language is important: after creating something he\u00a0immediately names it, and then evaluates it. Everything is brought into being\u00a0by the verbal order of God; then named by him (later Adam will be given the\u00a0task of naming the animals) as if the creation of an entity is not complete until\u00a0it is given a name. The repetition of the imperative `Let there be...'is an\u00a0obvious literary device which draws our attention to the verbal power of this\u00a0unique god. A comparison with other creation myths is instructive.6 Nowhere\u00a0else is this verbal quality so dramatically presented.\r\n\r\nA pattern emerges: on the first day light enters the world for the first\u00a0time and then each day's creative work produces more complex components of\u00a0the world and its inventory. By the sixth day mammals and complex fruits and\u00a0trees are present. These created things are not part of a logical progression of\u00a0ever more complex structures; for example, how can there be day and night\u00a0before there is a sun? They are more an expanding circle of consciousness.\u00a0From the instant of conscious awareness (light) the child's world expands until\u00a0it finally includes a sense of the cycles of day and night, a realization of\u00a0something outside the individual ego, and a powerful acquaintance with the\u00a0external world with all of the stuff which it contains. A psychological, not a\u00a0logical pattern develops.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nKEY WORDS IN THE STORIES<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\"And God saw that it was good\" appears after each creative act, after\u00a0each day's work. One way of reading the Hebrew creation story is as a\u00a0description of any creative act. Write a poem, make a pot, or build a bird\u00a0house - if all goes well the feeling of \"and it was good\" comes after completing\u00a0the day's work. Further, the description is accurate in that first comes the idea\u00a0(\"Let there be...) and then that idea is given reality (\"and it was so\"), and then\u00a0the reality is blessed (\"and it was good\"). From concept to concrete being is a\u00a0good description of a creative act - and with the act comes the sense of making\u00a0something out of formlessness by acting on raw material with a consciousness\u00a0that can then see that it has form, and can value the new creation. The voice of\u00a0God in this creation myth is a voice which imparts value to the universe (\"And\u00a0it was good\"), gives form to an earth that was without form (\"Let there be\"),\u00a0and fills up that which was void (\"and it was so\").\r\n\r\nDoes that mean that value is in the universe? That is certainly the\u00a0position presented here in this story, presented in the narrative, but not argued\u00a0for. The value claim is asserted, is given form in the repetition of the evaluative\u00a0utterance of the only character in the story, but it is presupposed, not offered\u00a0as the conclusion to an argument. At this point we are given a god who is\u00a0different from his creation, a god who acts verbally on the stuff of the universe\u00a0to give it form and announces the aesthetic value of the creation. Unlike other\u00a0mid-eastern creation stories where the god-creator is the stuff of the creation\u00a0here we have a distinct verbal character who commands the things of\u00a0experience into being. This god does not make things from parts of his body,\u00a0does not give birth to his creation, but, instead, commands the mental to\u00a0produce the physical.\r\n\r\nThematic key words in this narrative include: \"let\", \"God\", \"and\", \"good\".\u00a0To reiterate: \"let\" serves as an imperative, a command on each of the days of\u00a0the creation and tells us of a god who creates by fiat and who infuses matter\u00a0with concept and name. \"God\" is the name of the author of this creation and\u00a0we are made to feel that he is one, that he is all powerful, and that he is a god\u00a0who speaks in a human tongue. \"And\" functions to introduce each day and\u00a0each part of the total creative effort. It gives each sentence equal weight, hence\u00a0equal importance. Coordinating conjunctions tend to do that, especially \"and\",\u00a0which refuses to attach more weight to one main clause over another leaving\u00a0each conjoined clause separate and equal. There is also the sense of a huge\u00a0enterprise which the series of \"and\" introduced sentences provides: and ...,\u00a0and..., and..., filling up the void with earth and stars, sun and moon, plants and\u00a0animals, oceans and dry lands.\r\n\r\nUsing this passage as a model as one reads the stories can provide a key\u00a0for several of the literary devices used by the Hebrew writers to relate their\u00a0accounts of god, man and woman, and their relationships. Anytime one notices\u00a0verbal repetition it brings about an effect which influences meaning.\u00a0Sometimes repetition changes from verbatim repetition to near repetition with\u00a0slight changes that subtly introduce a new level of meaning. For example, at\u00a0the end of the sixth day, for the first time, an adverb (\"very\") is used in the\u00a0value assessment: \"And god saw every thing that he had made, and , behold, it\u00a0was very good.\" Also, we get \"behold\" for the first time. It is as if we were\u00a0present to review all of the week's work, to look back at the creative activity of\u00a0those first six days with a cumulative feeling of the celebration of creativity\u00a0urged on by \"beholding\" the fruits of the creative spirit which now flourish in\u00a0what was before a formless void. Land, sky, sun, moon, plants and animals are\u00a0all celebrated in this short creation myth. That feeling of celebration, of\u00a0creativity, is what is true about this story. Those who insist that it is a literal\u00a0explanation of the beginnings of species reduce its meaning by failing to\u00a0recognize the literary subtleties of the piece that raise it above mere literal\u00a0prose. What we find in the creation account is not a psuedo-scientific\u00a0description of the origin of the species but a fully conceived and richly\u00a0presented story about creativity.\r\n\r\nCreation as described in this story is a process and not a series of\u00a0events. The question of how there can be days before there is a sun disappears\u00a0when one realizes that the acts of creation are presented as process and are of\u00a0a whole. Critics who argue that these kinds of inconsistencies are evidence that\u00a0the story is not to be taken literally because to do so leads to inconsistency\u00a0have not realized that they too are depending on a literal model as their\u00a0stalking horse. But this is not a newspaper account of the creation of the\u00a0universe, full of brute facts to be checked against what is, nor is it theory to\u00a0base predictions on; it is a poem celebrating creativity and worth.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nDELAYED EXPOSITION<\/strong>\r\n\r\nLater in Genesis we are told of Joseph and his many brothers; brothers\u00a0who are jealous of him and of his special treatment by their father Israel (Jacob). The brothers decide to kill him, are talked out of it by Reuben, and\u00a0then they decide to throw Joseph into a pit:\r\n
When Joseph came up to his brothers, they stripped him of the\r\n\r\nlong, sleeved robe which he was wearing, took him and threw him\r\n\r\ninto the pit. The pit was empty and had no water in it....Meanwhile\r\n\r\nsome Midianite merchants passed by and drew Joseph up out of\r\n\r\nthe pit. They sold him for twenty pieces of silver to the Ishmaelites,\r\n\r\nand they brought Joseph to Egypt. (Gen, 37, 23 ff.)\r\n\r\n <\/blockquote>\r\nWhat is important in this passage is what we are not told. We are not\u00a0told anything about Joseph's feelings or whether he was afraid that he would\u00a0be killed by his brothers (fratricide again) or sold into slavery. The author\u00a0delays telling us anything about Joseph's response to the attack by his brothers\u00a0until much later in the story when the brothers are sent to Egypt to get food.\u00a0There, in a brilliant scene where Joseph knows his brothers but they know him\u00a0not, we are told of the feelings Joseph had when his brothers sold him to the\u00a0Ishmaelites.7 We are told that when his brothers sold him he pleaded with\u00a0them but they turned a deaf ear to his pleas. Now they are in a position where\u00a0they must plead for food from this same brother (although they do not yet\u00a0know it is Joseph, we do) and hope that he will not turn a deaf ear to their\u00a0importuning. Joseph, who had his coat of many colours stolen by his brothers,\u00a0now provides each brother with a new suit of clothes. By delaying this\u00a0information until later in the story the writer is able to create an ironic scene\u00a0where we know more than the characters and can see the relationship between\u00a0the attack on Joseph and the request to Joseph.\r\n\r\n \r\n
Joseph could no longer control his feelings in front of his\r\n\r\nattendants, and he called out, `Let everyone leave my presence.' So\r\n\r\nthere was nobody present when Joseph made himself known to his\r\n\r\nbrothers, but so loudly did he weep that the Egyptians and\r\n\r\nPharaoh's household heard him. Joseph said to his brothers, `I\r\n\r\nam Joseph; can my father be still alive?' (Gen.\r\n\r\n45, 1-3, )<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n\r\nJoseph is alone with his brothers, and he must announce himself in\u00a0Hebrew: `I am Joseph...'! There in a strange land, surrounded by people\u00a0speaking a strange language, the sound of Hebrew would surprise, and the\u00a0announcement `I am Joseph' would be like hearing a person returned from the\u00a0dead. \"His brothers were so dumfounded at finding themselves face to face\u00a0with Joseph that they could not answer.\" We heard nothing from Joseph in the\u00a0pit; now we hear nothing from the surprised brothers responsible, albeit it\u00a0unknowingly, for Joseph's dreams coming true. Delayed exposition plays a key\u00a0part in producing the complex of feelings that we go through in the recognition\u00a0scene.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nMOTIFS<\/strong>\r\n\r\nA motif is a concrete image, sensory quality, action, or object that\u00a0occurs in the narrative and that takes its meaning from the defining context of\u00a0the narrative (water in the Moses cycle, stones in the Jacob story). When a\u00a0motif is reiterated throughout the story, take note, for it may carry a shifting\u00a0meaning from context to context. In the story of Samson we are introduced to\u00a0the motif of flame or fire from the beginning. \"And while Manoah and his wife\u00a0were watching, the flame went up from the altar towards heaven...\" (Judges 13,\u00a020 ff.)...and there are torches and burnt tow, and the destructive force of fire.\u00a0Samson's father makes a burnt offering after hearing that he was to have a\u00a0brave son. As the flame goes up toward heaven from the altar, an angel of the\u00a0lord ascends in the flame. Later Samson catches three hundred foxes, ties\u00a0firebrands between them and turns them loose in the cornfields and vineyards\u00a0of the Philistines. Imagine the foxes running desperately, wildly, and spreading\u00a0destruction wherever they run. Destruction comes in a blind rage of fire, and\u00a0the Philistines answer with fire torture for Samson's wife and her father. Fire\u00a0becomes a defining characteristic of Samson; not a metaphor for him, but a\u00a0metonym for his destructive rage at the end of the story, a rage, which is, like\u00a0fire, blind.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nDIALOGUE<\/strong>\r\n\r\nWhen King David is \"old and stricken in years\" the process of maneuver-\u00a0ing for the crown begins as the various sons of David prepare to make a claim\u00a0for the throne. Adonijah, believing he has a right to his father's position,\u00a0declares himself next in line and gathers a group of loyal followers, priests and\u00a0soldiers. Bath-sheba, the mother of Solomon, has an interest in the outcome of\u00a0this struggle for power, and wants very much for her son to be the one who\u00a0gets David's blessing and David's crown. In the King James translation of the\u00a0First Book of Kings we hear:\r\n\r\n \r\n
11. Wherefore Nathan spake unto Bathsheba the mother of\r\n\r\nSolomon, saying, Hast though not heard that Adonijah the son of\r\n\r\nHaggith doth reign, and David our Lord knoweth it not?\r\n\r\n12. Now therefore come, let me, I pray thee, give thee counsel,\r\n\r\nthat thou mayest save thine own life, and the life of thy son\r\n\r\nSolomon.\r\n\r\n13. Go and get thee in unto king David, and say unto him, Didst\r\n\r\nthou not, my lord, O king, sear unto thine handmaid, saying,\r\n\r\nAssuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit\r\n\r\nupon my throne? why then doth Adonijah reign?\r\n\r\n14. Behold, while thou yet talkest there with the king, I also will\r\n\r\ncome in after thee, and confirm thy words.\r\n\r\n15. And Bathsheba went in unto the king into the chamber: and\r\n\r\nthe king was very old; and Abishag the Shunammite ministered\r\n\r\nunto the king.\r\n\r\n16. And Bathsheba bowed, and did obeisance unto the king.\r\n\r\nAnd the king said, What wouldest thou?\r\n\r\n17. And she said unto him, My lord, thou swarest by the Lord\r\n\r\nthy God unto thine handmaiden, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy\r\n\r\nson shall reign after me and he shall sit upon my throne....\r\n\r\n20. And thou, my lord, O king, the eyes of all Israel are upon\r\n\r\nthee, that thou shouldest tell them who shall sit on the throne of\r\n\r\nmy lord the king after him.<\/blockquote>\r\nWe can be sure what Nathan the prophet will say. Bath-sheba addresses\u00a0her husband with honorifics while remembering all the time to repeat his name\u00a0and to repeat the name of Solomon. David the king must pass on the kingship\u00a0to Solomon. But, an even more magnificent use of dialogue comes when\u00a0Bath-sheba changes the rehearsed script crafted by Nathan to an even more\u00a0effective rhetoric. She reminds the king of his vow to his God. The promise to\u00a0make Solomon king is not just a promise to her but also to God. Bath-sheba,\u00a0by adding the oath to god and the idea that all of Israel is watching David to\u00a0see that he does right by Solomon, is very convincing and we see she knows\u00a0how to talk to her husband. She knows of his need for public ego massage. She\u00a0knows of his susceptibility to clever flattery. The artist here is presenting us\u00a0with a complex and subtle change in dialogue which reveals, in the context of\u00a0the scene, the character of the speaker, as well as the relationship between\u00a0Bath-sheba and King David. Nathan's entrance completes the task as David is\u00a0overwhelmed by the two of them, and of course, Solomon will get the job.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nSPOKEN LANGUAGE<\/strong>\r\n\r\nSpoken language is the substratum of everything that is human and\u00a0divine in the Bible, and the Hebrew tendency to present stories by giving us\u00a0speech is testimony to this belief that the spoken word will lead us to the\u00a0essence of things. Dialogue can also be effective when used in a contrastive\u00a0way. In the Second Book of Samuel Amnon pretends to be sick so that he can\u00a0ask his sister Tamar to come into his tent to nurse him. Amnon lusts after his\u00a0sister and finally after sending all the servants away, rapes her. Their exchange:\r\n\r\n \r\n
...he caught hold of her and said, `Come to bed with me, sister.'\r\n\r\nBut she answered, `No, brother, do not dishonour me, we do not\r\n\r\ndo such things in Israel; do not behave like a beast. Where could I\r\n\r\ngo and hide my disgrace? - and you would sink as low as any beast\r\n\r\nin Israel. Why not speak to the king for me? He will not refuse you\r\n\r\nleave to marry me.' He would not listen, but overpowered her,\r\n\r\ndishonoured her and raped her. (2 Sam. 13.12-15)<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n\r\nTamar's eloquent refusal, couched in a long speech is dismissed by\u00a0Amnon, whose response to her plea is the brutal act of rape followed by his\u00a0only words - the three words, `Arise, be gone,' by which he dismisses her after\u00a0the incestuous rape. The contrast between Tamar and Amnon is heightened by\u00a0this skillful use of dialogue in this scene. It is important to realize that these\u00a0stories are not primitive, but are presented with a set of literary conventions as\u00a0complex and valid as any of our current ones. Dialogue is one of those literary\u00a0conventions which, when we pay attention to its use, can enhance the meaning\u00a0and enjoyment of biblical stories. As Alter says:8\r\n
In any given narrative event, and especially, at the beginning of any<\/em>\r\n\r\nnew story, the point at which the dialogue first emerges will be<\/em>\r\n\r\nworthy of special attention, and in most instances, the initial words<\/em>\r\n\r\nspoken by a personage will be revelatory, perhaps more in manner<\/em>\r\n\r\nthan in matter, constituting an important moment in the exposition<\/em>\r\n\r\nof character.<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nBiblical narration is the subject of many critics9 and in this matter it is\u00a0instructive to compare the Greek with the Hebrew writers. The differences are\u00a0easy to spot. As Auerbach puts it, \"...the basic impulse of the Homeric style: to\u00a0represent phenomena in a fully externalized form, visible and palpable in all\u00a0their parts, and completely fixed in their spatial and temporal relations\"10\u00a0while the Hebrews externalize only so much of the phenomena as is necessary\u00a0for the purpose of the story, leaving in the background time and place, feeling\u00a0and thought unless such expression is crucial to the narrative. As he puts it:11\r\n
It will at once be said that this is to be explained by the particular\r\n\r\nconcept of God which the Jews held and which was wholly different\r\n\r\nfrom that of the Greeks. True enough - but this constitutes no\r\n\r\nobjection. For how is the Jewish concept of God to be explained?\r\n\r\nEven their earlier God of the desert was not fixed in form and\r\n\r\ncontent, and was alone; his lack of form, his lack of local habitation,\r\n\r\nhis singleness, was in the end not only maintained but developed\r\n\r\neven further in competition with the comparatively far more\r\n\r\nmanifest gods of the surrounding Near Eastern World. The\r\n\r\nconcept of God held by the Jews is less a cause than a symptom of\r\n\r\ntheir manner of comprehending and representing things.<\/blockquote>\r\nWhile Homer is celebrated for his precise detail and descriptive power,\u00a0the biblical writers can be celebrated for their superb economy - economy to\u00a0the point of sparseness at times. But, as Auerbach says, \"in Homer, the\u00a0complexity of the psychological life is shown only in the succession and\u00a0alternation of emotions; whereas the Jewish writers are able to express the si-\u00a0multaneous existence of various layers of consciousness and the conflict\u00a0between them.\"12 It is different with biblical stories partly because the aim of\u00a0the Jewish writers is not to bewitch the senses but to provide the\"necessary\"\u00a0narrative that makes up and expresses their claim to absolute\u00a0historico-religious truth.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nIn Homer's famous opening to the Odyssey:\r\n
Sing, Muse, of that versatile man, who wandered far, after sacking\r\n\r\nTroy's holy citadel. He saw the cities of many men, and knew their\r\n\r\nmind; he suffered much on the deep sea, and in his heart,\r\n\r\nstruggling for a prize, to save his life...<\/blockquote>\r\nwe notice the invocation to the muse, the placing of the story in time, and a\u00a0preview of the events, the travels that will be sung about. His story of\u00a0wandering is to follow the Trojan War and the time and place are explicit.\u00a0Compare that opening with the opening of the Book of Ruth:\r\n
Long ago, in the time of the judges, there was a famine in the land,\r\n\r\nand a man from Bethlehem in Judah went to live in the Moabite\r\n\r\ncountry with his wife and his two sons. The man's name was\r\n\r\nElimelech, his wife's name was Naomi, and the names of his two\r\n\r\nsons Mahlon and Chilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem\r\n\r\nin Judah. They arrived in the Moabite country and there they\r\n\r\nstayed.<\/blockquote>\r\n
Elimelech Naomi's husband died, so that she was left with her two\r\n\r\nsons. These sons married Moabite women, one of whom was called\r\n\r\nOrpah and the other Ruth. They had lived there about ten years,\r\n\r\nwhen both Mahlon and Chilion died, so that the woman was be-\r\n\r\nreaved of her two sons as well as of her husband.<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n\r\nThe stacking up of information, sentence atop sentence is typical of the\u00a0Old Testament. Compression of time, economy of narrative, speed of\u00a0narration all are a part of the biblical style. In this compressed narrative we are\u00a0given a tremendous amount of information and absolutely no description, we\u00a0are given motivation for action but no feeling by the characters. Deaths are re-\u00a0corded but reactions to them are not. All of this allows for concentration on\u00a0Ruth alone as this short story unfolds. Her eventual marriage to Boaz will\u00a0make her the great grandmother of King David; hence cleverly suggesting that\u00a0racial intermarriage is to be tolerated since Ruth, as we are told, is a Moabite,\u00a0and is the mother of Ohed: the father of Jesse, the father of David. The theme\u00a0of the story is beautiful and simple: we must show hospitality to strange or new\u00a0ideas or persons. And, the writer presents this bit of didacticism by a simple\u00a0narrative style that gains power from the context of the entire Jewish story -\u00a0from Ruth to David to Jesus with the mention of Bethlehem. Biblical writers\u00a0seem motivated not by a desire to be accurate poets of the senses but rather to\u00a0fit their stories into a predetermined \"Story\". The purpose or intention of this\u00a0official \"story\" is always accessible; from the Christian point of view Ruth is an\u00a0important reminder of the universality and Old Testament authority of the\u00a0Christian story. The human story is the more important one: the love and\u00a0openness to the new, of a loyal and steadfast woman, can give birth to new\u00a0nations.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nForm and content have long been recognized as two distinct aspects of\u00a0literature. Many have argued that the two can not be meaningfully separated -\u00a0that form is content or content is form. Though interesting, those arguments\u00a0are not very useful to the practical critic. For the purposes of discussion here\u00a0let us assume that there is a real difference between form and content in a\u00a0literary work. One of the ongoing dialectical processes in literature comes\u00a0about because of the necessity to use established forms in order to be able to\u00a0communicate coherently while at the same time struggling to break and\u00a0remake these forms because they are arbitrary restrictions and not an\u00a0a-priori part of literary \"knowledge\". Each generation of writers, it seems,\u00a0struggles to break free from the perceived fetters of the past generation. As\u00a0criticism has taught us, it is helpful to know where a particular form came\u00a0from, or what its ancestors were like, in order to understand the new form.\u00a0Romantic poetry can be studied as a rebellion against the Neo-classical poems\u00a0that came before. Wordsworth, striving to break free from Pope's couplets,\u00a0created a new poetic line; and, of course, many of today's poets fight to be free\u00a0from Wordsworthian influence.\r\n\r\nIn any case, the form of a literary piece can be important to\u00a0understanding the piece. It is important to notice that the \"Song of Songs\" is a\u00a0wedding idyl, and that \"The Book of Job\" is a play. \"Ruth\" is the first short\u00a0story. \"Type-scene\" is the name of a literary device worked out for Homeric\u00a0poems by Walter Arend and used by Alter in his analysis of the Old\u00a0Testament.13 The idea is that there are certain fixed situations which the writer\u00a0is expected to include in his\/her narrative and which he\/she is expected to\u00a0perform according to a set order of motifs - situations like the arrival of a\u00a0messenger, the hero's voyage, the oracle, the arming of the hero and several\u00a0others. The type-scene of the visit, for example, should be presented according\u00a0to a conventional blueprint which includes: a guest approaches; someone spots\u00a0him, gets up and hurries to greet him; the guest is taken by the hand, led into a\u00a0room, invited to take the seat of honour; the guest is enjoined to feast; the\u00a0ensuing meal is described. Almost any description of a visit in Homer will\u00a0reproduce more or less this sequence not because of an overlap of sources but\u00a0because that is how the convention requires such a scene to be rendered.\r\n\r\nIn the Bible we find several common type-scenes. As Alter says: \"Some\u00a0of the most commonly repeated biblical type-scenes I have been able to\u00a0identify are the following: the annunciation...of the birth of a hero to his barren\u00a0mother; the encounter with the future betrothed at a well; the epiphany in the\u00a0field; the initiatory trial; the danger in the desert and the discovery of a well or\u00a0other source of sustenance; the testament of a dying hero.\"14\r\n\r\nWhen one looks carefully at the many betrothal scenes in the Old\u00a0Testament a pattern emerges. A young man must find a mate in the outside\u00a0world; hence, he travels to a foreign land. The well or oasis where he meets his\u00a0future mate is an obvious symbol of fertility and life, a clear and powerful\u00a0female symbol. Drawing water from the well establishes a bond between male\u00a0and female, host and guest, benefactor and benefited, and leads to the excited\u00a0announcement and the actual betrothal.\r\n\r\nWhat is interesting is not the recurring form of the type-scene but the\u00a0variations writers use for character development and emphasis. These\u00a0variations of the application of this pattern yield rich interpretive differences, which can be seen by comparing the betrothal of Jacob and Rachel, Moses and\u00a0Zipporah, Boaz and Ruth, and Samson and the woman in Timnath. In each\u00a0case a careful analysis will reveal (as Alter does so well in his book) how slight\u00a0variations of the pattern can light the story with new meaning and subtle\u00a0change. Far from being primitive, the biblical stories are rich in narrative\u00a0complexity and subtlety of character.\r\n\r\nAn intelligent reading of any work of art requires some knowledge of\u00a0the grid of conventions the work is laid out on and against. Though we have\u00a0lost some of the conventions of the biblical writers we can come to see how\u00a0they define the story after coming to appreciate these old and different\u00a0conventions. And remember, the conventions change but the stories remain\u00a0the same.<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"
\n

The book of Genesis is a collection of stories woven together by some\u00a0unknown redactor. The work contains legend, poetry, fantasy, genealogy,\u00a0short story, and other literary forms which are blended together to form a\u00a0more or less coherent whole. Genesis is a kind of universal history; like other\u00a0myths, it presents a story about what the beginning of time may have been like.\u00a0It opens with two distinct creation myths: one emphasizing the transcendental\u00a0nature of the creator god and the other emphasizing the human-like properties\u00a0of the same creator god. The first god creates by fiat, by giving verbal\u00a0commands; the second creates by breathing air into a lump of clay. The two\u00a0may be different versions of the story by different poets, or they may be\u00a0contrary projections of the complex human creation called god. The “third,” if\u00a0the projection is read as a psychological ground, would be this: the verbal is\u00a0the lump of clay. God speaks and the world begins. God speaks and life begins.\u00a0The creative power of speech is celebrated in the beginning. Language with its\u00a0formal aspects – its rules of syntax and semantics – is the perfect analog for\u00a0creation itself, since language gives us the power to create order and meaning\u00a0out of the chaos of experience.<\/p>\n

The creation myth can be read as a description of any act of creation:\u00a0first the intention, then the translation from mind to matter, and then the\u00a0evaluation: “and it was good.” Professor Douwe Stuurman, who taught The\u00a0Bible as Literature at the University of California in the nineteen sixties,\u00a0pointed out in lectures that the creation myth, when read aloud, will be heard\u00a0to be an accurate description of the completion of any creative act. He told us\u00a0the story of his first wife, a blind poet, who had asked him to read Genesis 1\u00a0and 2 aloud to her and who when he finished said “that is precisely the feeling\u00a0of creating a poem.” In writing a poem one starts with an idea and a blank and\u00a0formless page. The creative act of beginning to “blow” life into that page and\u00a0after some time (and with some luck) giving form to the stuff of the mind,\u00a0transforming it into a new medium has formed a completed work. Human\u00a0creation, like Eliot’s The Wasteland, is often a multi-staged affair with false\u00a0starts, revisions, crumpled failed attempts tossed away, and a complex of\u00a0discovery and creation. The poet does not know the poem until it is finished.\u00a0And when finished the feeling is there to be expressed: “And it is good.”<\/p>\n

Read this way `good’ is an aesthetic term, as in “Shane is a good movie”\u00a0or “King Lear is Shakespeare’s best play.” Value terms are ambiguous in\u00a0that sense, for we use many of the same words to describe both aesthetic and\u00a0moral judgments, `good’ doing service in both categories of judgments. “And it\u00a0was good” as used in Genesis is evaluative, but not in the moral sense. The\u00a0story itself is silent on the moral status of the creation and therefore the puzzle\u00a0of how evil can arise in a perfect creation arises only because of the confusion\u00a0between aesthetic and moral uses of the word `good.’ `Is the universe and\u00a0everything in it good?’ is the wrong question to ask when `good’ is used in the\u00a0moral sense. Such a question gets currency only if one presupposes that the\u00a0logically prior assertion `God is good’ is true, and that there is a perfect\u00a0transfer from creator to creation. But in the creation myths in Genesis we have\u00a0no argument to establish the truth of that claim, in fact, Genesis actually tells\u00a0us very little about God. “In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven\u00a0and earth…” presupposes the existence and nature of God and the reader has\u00a0the task of creating God from the narrative stuff provided. From the first line\u00a0of the book the main character is a given, yet a mystery, a term looking for a\u00a0referent. Here again confusion arises when we fail to see that the particular\u00a0kind of verbal act the writer uses in the story is not one to be evaluated by\u00a0some correspondence theory of truth, but is rather a proclamation or\u00a0statement in the sense that the Canadian Constitution is a proclamation or set\u00a0of statements. If one says of a country’s constitution, `It is true’ what exactly is\u00a0one saying? Constitutions constitute the rules of the game, and are, as we all\u00a0know, subject to interpretation throughout time. The logical status of many\u00a0statements in the Bible is similar to the logical status of rules of a game: `three\u00a0strikes and you are out’ not only regulates the game of baseball, it also\u00a0constitutes the game. “And it was good” is thus proclamation and aesthetic\u00a0judgment. The priests who compose the account of the creation presuppose God, as an objective being. God, as a character in a narrative, is yet\u00a0to be discovered.<\/p>\n

After the creation stories come a series of “beginnings” stories. We are\u00a0given a story that “explains” the multiplicity of languages in the world. We are\u00a0told why pain and death enter the world. We are told of the first murder and\u00a0of god’s method of dealing with the first murderer. He does not use capital\u00a0punishment but instead marks Cain as a stranger, someone cut off from\u00a0society and from the earth itself. The jealousy that motivates the act of murder\u00a0is the second indication (the first had been the disobedience of Eve and Adam)\u00a0we have of the source of conflict and that conflict comes from the human\u00a0creatures’ inner thoughts and feelings. A seed of conflict, of internal disruption\u00a0grows in the psyches of the humans and proves to be the narrative source of\u00a0the evil that enters the story in opposition to the expected goodness\u00a0transferred from creator to created. Cain, unable to accept God’s rejection of\u00a0his gift, strikes out against his brother instead of addressing his own psychic\u00a0problems of insensitivity and jealousy, and is punished by complete and awful\u00a0rejection. We are shown in this story of the first murder that the results of\u00a0murder are to make the murderer non-human: God removes Cain from life,\u00a0from human society, and even from the fruits of the garden. Isolated, Cain\u00a0must walk the earth alone and friendless marked so that no one will kill him to\u00a0relieve him from his life sentence. Cain’s mark is a visible sign of God’s\u00a0absence and punishment as well as a symbol of the burden Cain must carry to\u00a0his grave as a result of the inner turmoil that led him to commit fratricide.<\/p>\n

As human-like characters enter the narrative, they are presented as\u00a0nomadic mideastern tribesman who wander the semi-arid country of Canaan\u00a0and Egypt and who learn the importance of dreams and of a belief in the\u00a0future. Abraham, who is a hero to three religions, walks onto the stage as the\u00a0father of countries who has, above all, the virtues of loyalty and obedience. In\u00a0the most powerful and disturbing narrative in the collection, Abraham is\u00a0commanded by Yahweh (the Hebrew name for the creator-god) to sacrifice his\u00a0young son. This, Abraham agrees to do, but is stopped at the last moment by\u00a0Yahweh, who it seems, is only testing Abraham’s obedience. A ram is\u00a0substituted for the boy and the end of human sacrifice is signalled. This story\u00a0has haunted the twentieth century imagination – Kirkegaard wrote a book\u00a0based on the questions raised by this 300 word story – because it raises so many\u00a0profound questions. If a voice orders you to do something how do you know\u00a0the voice is the voice of god and not of the devil? If god demands complete\u00a0and unthinking obedience is god worthy of worship? Can we worship a being\u00a0willing to murder to make a point? Is an action good because god says so or\u00a0does god say so because it is good?<\/p>\n

The other key idea in the book of Genesis is nationality. Yahweh and\u00a0his chosen people join in the covenental stories that image the agreement and\u00a0promise between Yahweh and the Patriarchs. If you will follow me, says\u00a0Yahweh, I will provide you and your offspring with land. The narrative that\u00a0follows traces the covenant from generation to generation through a number\u00a0of deceitful, lustful, conflict-ridden, loving, loyal, ordinary people.<\/p>\n

But the overriding theme developed in this set of stories is this: how can\u00a0human beings learn to resolve conflicts without committing fratricide? The\u00a0first murder, of brother by brother, is a description of the worst failure:\u00a0homicide. The relationship of brotherhood is expanded and developed to meta-\u00a0phorically include our relationship with each other within the human tribal\u00a0family, and in the triumphant meeting of Jacob and Esau hatred and conflict\u00a0melt away into a very human embrace that suggests a way for all of us to\u00a0behave. Esau, who had lost his birthright to Jacob his younger brother, had\u00a0said to himself, “The time for mourning for my father will soon be here; then I\u00a0will kill my brother Jacob.” Esau’s threat is real; his injury greater than Cain’s,\u00a0and the expectation of yet another murder of brother by brother is acute.\u00a0When finally the two brothers are reunited we are prepared for the worst.<\/p>\n

Jacob raised his eyes and saw Esau coming towards him with four\u00a0hundred men; so he divided the children between Leah and Rachel\u00a0 and the two slave girls. He put the slave girls with their children in front, Leah with her children next, and Rachel with Joseph last. He then went on ahead of them, bowing low to the ground seven times as he approached his brother. Esau ran to meet him and embraced him; he threw his arms round him and kissed him, and they wept.\u00a0(Gen. 33 1-5)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Instead of arms raised in anger we get arms that embrace. Anticipating\u00a0a weapon we get a kiss. Conflicts between brothers need not end in murder.\u00a0The word “brother” is given to us just at the moment of recognition to remind\u00a0us that these two are brothers. Reconciliation occurs in the midst of danger as\u00a0we are reminded by the mention of an army of men and by the prudent way\u00a0that Jacob arranges his people, using the slave girls and their children to\u00a0protect the inner circles of Leah and his favorite Rachel. And who is in the\u00a0centre of the protective shields? Joseph. Joseph of the many coloured coat;\u00a0Joseph the special.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

LITERARY DEVICES<\/strong><\/p>\n

Robert Alter, in his excellent book The Art of Biblical\u00a0Narrative (upon which I draw heavily in the following), writes:<\/p>\n

The God of Israel, as so often has been observed, is above all the God of history: the working out of His purposes in history is a process that compels the attention of the Hebrew imagination, which is thus led to the most vital interest in the concrete and differential character of historical events. The point is that fiction was the principal means which the biblical authors had at their disposal for\u00a0realizing histor<\/strong>y<\/em>.1 (emphasis mine)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Fiction is the key to understanding the many biblical stories. “Fiction”\u00a0comes from the Latin, “fictio,” which means “a making, counterfeiting.” It is a\u00a0form of “fingere”, “to make, to form, to devise.” Think of “fiction” in the sense\u00a0of making or forming and not in its sense of “false”. When I say the bible is\u00a0fiction I am not saying that the Bible is false. What I am saying is that the Bible\u00a0is a creation, a making, a story which is formed and molded to certain ends; it\u00a0is a formed and molded story in the same way that The Great Gatsby is a\u00a0novel. Obviously, there are many differences between the stories presented in\u00a0the Bible and the stories presented in twentieth century novels. The techniques\u00a0of narration have evolved and the conventions that stand behind a literary\u00a0work have also changed over the last 2,500 years. But the basic enterprise of\u00a0story telling has not changed significantly. And, what we need to realize is that\u00a0the religious vision of the Bible is given depth and subtlety by being conveyed\u00a0through the sophisticated resources of prose fiction. Like the Greeks, the\u00a0Hebrews learned to tell their story in a unique way, to glorify their God in\u00a0songs, poems, and anthems. Unlike the Greeks, they chose a different genre.<\/p>\n

The ancient Hebrew writers purposefully nurtured and developed prose narration to take the place of the epic genre, which by its content was intimately bound up with the world of paganism, and appears to have had a special standing in the polytheistic cults. The recitation of the epics was tantamount to an enactment of cosmic events in the manner of sympathetic magic. In the process of total rejection of the polytheistic religions and their ritual expressions in the cult, epic songs and also the epic genre were purged from the repertoire of the Hebrew authors.2<\/p>\n

Any comparison of the Homeric gods with the god of the Old\u00a0Testament reveals the essential difference between the two cultures. Although\u00a0the Homeric poems played the same role in Greece that the Old Testament\u00a0stories did in Palestine, in the subsequent development of the civilization from\u00a0which they grew, the differences are dramatic. The Olympian gods, as\u00a0conceptual representations of the power which governs the universe, are\u00a0totally irreconcilable with the one god of Abraham. The Greek conception of\u00a0the nature of the gods and their relation to humans is so alien to us that it is\u00a0difficult for the modern reader to take it seriously. The Hebrew basis of\u00a0European Christianity has made it almost impossible for us to imagine a god\u00a0who can be feared and laughed at, blamed and admired and still worshipped\u00a0with sincerity–yet these are all proper attitudes toward the gods on Olympus.<\/p>\n

The Hebrew conception of god is clearly an expression of the emphasis\u00a0on those aspects of the universe that imply a harmonious order. Any\u00a0disorder in the universe is blamed on man and woman, not on God. Thus we\u00a0have a story to explain why there is death and pain in this otherwise perfect\u00a0world. Human errors bring about the advent of pain, sin, and death.\u00a0Interestingly, there can be no sin without God since “sin” is a thoroughly\u00a0religious word. Those ancient Hebrews expressed their feelings and awe when\u00a0faced with the wonder and miracle of life; yet, they also had to make sense of\u00a0the world they found themselves a part of – a world with life and joy but also\u00a0death and suffering.<\/p>\n

In all the stories in the Bible the Hebrew writers struggle to reconcile\u00a0evil with an a priori assumption of one all-powerful, all-knowing and just\u00a0God. Greek poets and philosophers conceived their gods as an expression of\u00a0the disorder of the world they inhabited: the Olympian gods, like the sea and\u00a0the wind, follow their own will even to the extreme of conflict with each other,\u00a0and always with a sublime disregard for the human beings who may be affected\u00a0by the results of their actions. They are not concerned with morality and leave\u00a0it for human beings to talk about. The Old Testament God, on the other hand,\u00a0is presented most of the time3 as one who is intimately involved in morality to\u00a0the extent of providing in the decalogue the covenant between him and his\u00a0people and following (cf. Numbers) with hundred of rules and regulations to\u00a0be followed by the people.4<\/p>\n

The epic poems of Homer provide a much different conceptual scheme\u00a0than do the prose narratives of the Hebrew writers. The difference between\u00a0the Greek and Hebrew hero, between Achilles and Joseph, for example, is\u00a0remarkable, and has led many to claim that there are no heroes in the Old\u00a0Testament. These Hebrew heroes are all tentative; all flawed in spirit or in\u00a0body and seem too common to be real heroes. Homer’s poetry depends\u00a0largely on image and other poetic devices for its marvellous effect while the\u00a0Hebrews use the devices of a newly developed prose narrative to convey an\u00a0equally marvellous subtlety. The subtle interplay of Homeric lines is not often\u00a0found in the Bible, not because the Hebrews were inferior artists but because\u00a0they were writing in a different genre and hence employing different\u00a0techniques.<\/p>\n

As Alter puts it:5<\/p>\n

The Bible presents a kind of literature in which the primary impulse would often seem to be to provide instruction or at least necessary information, not merely to delight. If, however, we fail to see that the creators of biblical narrative were writers who, like writers elsewhere, took pleasure in exploring the formal and imaginative resources of their fictional medium, perhaps sometimes unexpectedly capturing the fullness of their subject in the very play of exploration, we shall miss much that the biblical stories are meant to convey.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the next few pages we shall consider some of these “formal and\u00a0imaginative resources” in an attempt to see how knowledge of them can help\u00a0us to understand the complex stories we are told in the Bible. While discussing\u00a0these formal attributes of the literary style we will also want to know more\u00a0about the informal attitudes, the conventions, that the writers and readers\u00a0shared and which, as in all literature, provided the soil for the growth of the\u00a0formal structures which we call narratives. To stay with the plant metaphor for\u00a0a moment, one can say that the conventions extant at a given time provide the\u00a0“root system” for the literature, which grows above ground as a formal\u00a0production of the human mind. Let us look at a few of the key literary devices\u00a0employed by the Hebrew writers:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1. verbal repetition<\/p>\n

2. thematic key words<\/p>\n

3. delayed exposition<\/p>\n

4. reiteration of motifs<\/p>\n

5. dialogue<\/p>\n

6. narration<\/p>\n

7. type-scene<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

The very famous opening passages of the King James Genesis will serve\u00a0to show several of these devices at work.<\/p>\n

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.<\/p>\n

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was<\/p>\n

upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the<\/p>\n

face of the waters.<\/p>\n

3. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.<\/p>\n

4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the<\/p>\n

light from the darkness.<\/p>\n

5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called<\/p>\n

Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.<\/p>\n

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the<\/p>\n

waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.<\/p>\n

7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which<\/p>\n

were under the firmament from the waters which were above the<\/p>\n

firmament: and it was so.<\/p>\n

8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and<\/p>\n

the morning were the second day.<\/p>\n

9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered<\/p>\n

together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.<\/p>\n

10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering<\/p>\n

together of the waters called he Seas: And God saw that it was<\/p>\n

good.<\/p>\n

11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb<\/p>\n

yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose<\/p>\n

seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.<\/p>\n

12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed<\/p>\n

after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself,<\/p>\n

after his kind: and God saw that it was good.<\/p>\n

13. And the evening and the morning were the third day.<\/p>\n

14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the<\/p>\n

heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs,<\/p>\n

and for seasons, and for days, and years:<\/p>\n

15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to<\/p>\n

give light upon the earth: and it was so.<\/p>\n

16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the<\/p>\n

day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.<\/p>\n

17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give<\/p>\n

light upon the earth,<\/p>\n

18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide<\/p>\n

the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.<\/p>\n

19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.<\/p>\n

20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the<\/p>\n

moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the<\/p>\n

earth in the open firmament of heaven.<\/p>\n

21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that<\/p>\n

moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their<\/p>\n

kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was<\/p>\n

good.<\/p>\n

22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and<\/p>\n

fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.<\/p>\n

23. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.<\/p>\n

24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature<\/p>\n

after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beast of the earth<\/p>\n

after his kind: and it was so.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

26. And God said, Let us make man in our image… in the image<\/p>\n

of God created he him; male and female created he them…and He<\/p>\n

rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Perhaps the first thing we notice about this creation story is that we are\u00a0confronted with a very talkative God. The writer chooses to present the story\u00a0(and uses the word “story” to describe it) in a kind of permanent present tense\u00a0with the commands of God clearly presented as verbal performances. This is a\u00a0God who creates by verbal fiat. And stories are verbal constructs, which also\u00a0create by verbal fiat: there is no character, no action, no place until some words\u00a0are spoken or written; until we name the objects of the world we have no way\u00a0of linguistically referring to them: no words, no world. The repetition of the\u00a0imperative `Let there be…’ shows us that we are confronted here with one god,\u00a0with one God for whom language is important: after creating something he\u00a0immediately names it, and then evaluates it. Everything is brought into being\u00a0by the verbal order of God; then named by him (later Adam will be given the\u00a0task of naming the animals) as if the creation of an entity is not complete until\u00a0it is given a name. The repetition of the imperative `Let there be…’is an\u00a0obvious literary device which draws our attention to the verbal power of this\u00a0unique god. A comparison with other creation myths is instructive.6 Nowhere\u00a0else is this verbal quality so dramatically presented.<\/p>\n

A pattern emerges: on the first day light enters the world for the first\u00a0time and then each day’s creative work produces more complex components of\u00a0the world and its inventory. By the sixth day mammals and complex fruits and\u00a0trees are present. These created things are not part of a logical progression of\u00a0ever more complex structures; for example, how can there be day and night\u00a0before there is a sun? They are more an expanding circle of consciousness.\u00a0From the instant of conscious awareness (light) the child’s world expands until\u00a0it finally includes a sense of the cycles of day and night, a realization of\u00a0something outside the individual ego, and a powerful acquaintance with the\u00a0external world with all of the stuff which it contains. A psychological, not a\u00a0logical pattern develops.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

KEY WORDS IN THE STORIES<\/strong><\/p>\n

“And God saw that it was good” appears after each creative act, after\u00a0each day’s work. One way of reading the Hebrew creation story is as a\u00a0description of any creative act. Write a poem, make a pot, or build a bird\u00a0house – if all goes well the feeling of “and it was good” comes after completing\u00a0the day’s work. Further, the description is accurate in that first comes the idea\u00a0(“Let there be…) and then that idea is given reality (“and it was so”), and then\u00a0the reality is blessed (“and it was good”). From concept to concrete being is a\u00a0good description of a creative act – and with the act comes the sense of making\u00a0something out of formlessness by acting on raw material with a consciousness\u00a0that can then see that it has form, and can value the new creation. The voice of\u00a0God in this creation myth is a voice which imparts value to the universe (“And\u00a0it was good”), gives form to an earth that was without form (“Let there be”),\u00a0and fills up that which was void (“and it was so”).<\/p>\n

Does that mean that value is in the universe? That is certainly the\u00a0position presented here in this story, presented in the narrative, but not argued\u00a0for. The value claim is asserted, is given form in the repetition of the evaluative\u00a0utterance of the only character in the story, but it is presupposed, not offered\u00a0as the conclusion to an argument. At this point we are given a god who is\u00a0different from his creation, a god who acts verbally on the stuff of the universe\u00a0to give it form and announces the aesthetic value of the creation. Unlike other\u00a0mid-eastern creation stories where the god-creator is the stuff of the creation\u00a0here we have a distinct verbal character who commands the things of\u00a0experience into being. This god does not make things from parts of his body,\u00a0does not give birth to his creation, but, instead, commands the mental to\u00a0produce the physical.<\/p>\n

Thematic key words in this narrative include: “let”, “God”, “and”, “good”.\u00a0To reiterate: “let” serves as an imperative, a command on each of the days of\u00a0the creation and tells us of a god who creates by fiat and who infuses matter\u00a0with concept and name. “God” is the name of the author of this creation and\u00a0we are made to feel that he is one, that he is all powerful, and that he is a god\u00a0who speaks in a human tongue. “And” functions to introduce each day and\u00a0each part of the total creative effort. It gives each sentence equal weight, hence\u00a0equal importance. Coordinating conjunctions tend to do that, especially “and”,\u00a0which refuses to attach more weight to one main clause over another leaving\u00a0each conjoined clause separate and equal. There is also the sense of a huge\u00a0enterprise which the series of “and” introduced sentences provides: and …,\u00a0and…, and…, filling up the void with earth and stars, sun and moon, plants and\u00a0animals, oceans and dry lands.<\/p>\n

Using this passage as a model as one reads the stories can provide a key\u00a0for several of the literary devices used by the Hebrew writers to relate their\u00a0accounts of god, man and woman, and their relationships. Anytime one notices\u00a0verbal repetition it brings about an effect which influences meaning.\u00a0Sometimes repetition changes from verbatim repetition to near repetition with\u00a0slight changes that subtly introduce a new level of meaning. For example, at\u00a0the end of the sixth day, for the first time, an adverb (“very”) is used in the\u00a0value assessment: “And god saw every thing that he had made, and , behold, it\u00a0was very good.” Also, we get “behold” for the first time. It is as if we were\u00a0present to review all of the week’s work, to look back at the creative activity of\u00a0those first six days with a cumulative feeling of the celebration of creativity\u00a0urged on by “beholding” the fruits of the creative spirit which now flourish in\u00a0what was before a formless void. Land, sky, sun, moon, plants and animals are\u00a0all celebrated in this short creation myth. That feeling of celebration, of\u00a0creativity, is what is true about this story. Those who insist that it is a literal\u00a0explanation of the beginnings of species reduce its meaning by failing to\u00a0recognize the literary subtleties of the piece that raise it above mere literal\u00a0prose. What we find in the creation account is not a psuedo-scientific\u00a0description of the origin of the species but a fully conceived and richly\u00a0presented story about creativity.<\/p>\n

Creation as described in this story is a process and not a series of\u00a0events. The question of how there can be days before there is a sun disappears\u00a0when one realizes that the acts of creation are presented as process and are of\u00a0a whole. Critics who argue that these kinds of inconsistencies are evidence that\u00a0the story is not to be taken literally because to do so leads to inconsistency\u00a0have not realized that they too are depending on a literal model as their\u00a0stalking horse. But this is not a newspaper account of the creation of the\u00a0universe, full of brute facts to be checked against what is, nor is it theory to\u00a0base predictions on; it is a poem celebrating creativity and worth.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

DELAYED EXPOSITION<\/strong><\/p>\n

Later in Genesis we are told of Joseph and his many brothers; brothers\u00a0who are jealous of him and of his special treatment by their father Israel (Jacob). The brothers decide to kill him, are talked out of it by Reuben, and\u00a0then they decide to throw Joseph into a pit:<\/p>\n

When Joseph came up to his brothers, they stripped him of the<\/p>\n

long, sleeved robe which he was wearing, took him and threw him<\/p>\n

into the pit. The pit was empty and had no water in it….Meanwhile<\/p>\n

some Midianite merchants passed by and drew Joseph up out of<\/p>\n

the pit. They sold him for twenty pieces of silver to the Ishmaelites,<\/p>\n

and they brought Joseph to Egypt. (Gen, 37, 23 ff.)<\/p>\n

 <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What is important in this passage is what we are not told. We are not\u00a0told anything about Joseph’s feelings or whether he was afraid that he would\u00a0be killed by his brothers (fratricide again) or sold into slavery. The author\u00a0delays telling us anything about Joseph’s response to the attack by his brothers\u00a0until much later in the story when the brothers are sent to Egypt to get food.\u00a0There, in a brilliant scene where Joseph knows his brothers but they know him\u00a0not, we are told of the feelings Joseph had when his brothers sold him to the\u00a0Ishmaelites.7 We are told that when his brothers sold him he pleaded with\u00a0them but they turned a deaf ear to his pleas. Now they are in a position where\u00a0they must plead for food from this same brother (although they do not yet\u00a0know it is Joseph, we do) and hope that he will not turn a deaf ear to their\u00a0importuning. Joseph, who had his coat of many colours stolen by his brothers,\u00a0now provides each brother with a new suit of clothes. By delaying this\u00a0information until later in the story the writer is able to create an ironic scene\u00a0where we know more than the characters and can see the relationship between\u00a0the attack on Joseph and the request to Joseph.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Joseph could no longer control his feelings in front of his<\/p>\n

attendants, and he called out, `Let everyone leave my presence.’ So<\/p>\n

there was nobody present when Joseph made himself known to his<\/p>\n

brothers, but so loudly did he weep that the Egyptians and<\/p>\n

Pharaoh’s household heard him. Joseph said to his brothers, `I<\/p>\n

am Joseph; can my father be still alive?’ (Gen.<\/p>\n

45, 1-3, )<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Joseph is alone with his brothers, and he must announce himself in\u00a0Hebrew: `I am Joseph…’! There in a strange land, surrounded by people\u00a0speaking a strange language, the sound of Hebrew would surprise, and the\u00a0announcement `I am Joseph’ would be like hearing a person returned from the\u00a0dead. “His brothers were so dumfounded at finding themselves face to face\u00a0with Joseph that they could not answer.” We heard nothing from Joseph in the\u00a0pit; now we hear nothing from the surprised brothers responsible, albeit it\u00a0unknowingly, for Joseph’s dreams coming true. Delayed exposition plays a key\u00a0part in producing the complex of feelings that we go through in the recognition\u00a0scene.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

MOTIFS<\/strong><\/p>\n

A motif is a concrete image, sensory quality, action, or object that\u00a0occurs in the narrative and that takes its meaning from the defining context of\u00a0the narrative (water in the Moses cycle, stones in the Jacob story). When a\u00a0motif is reiterated throughout the story, take note, for it may carry a shifting\u00a0meaning from context to context. In the story of Samson we are introduced to\u00a0the motif of flame or fire from the beginning. “And while Manoah and his wife\u00a0were watching, the flame went up from the altar towards heaven…” (Judges 13,\u00a020 ff.)…and there are torches and burnt tow, and the destructive force of fire.\u00a0Samson’s father makes a burnt offering after hearing that he was to have a\u00a0brave son. As the flame goes up toward heaven from the altar, an angel of the\u00a0lord ascends in the flame. Later Samson catches three hundred foxes, ties\u00a0firebrands between them and turns them loose in the cornfields and vineyards\u00a0of the Philistines. Imagine the foxes running desperately, wildly, and spreading\u00a0destruction wherever they run. Destruction comes in a blind rage of fire, and\u00a0the Philistines answer with fire torture for Samson’s wife and her father. Fire\u00a0becomes a defining characteristic of Samson; not a metaphor for him, but a\u00a0metonym for his destructive rage at the end of the story, a rage, which is, like\u00a0fire, blind.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

DIALOGUE<\/strong><\/p>\n

When King David is “old and stricken in years” the process of maneuver-\u00a0ing for the crown begins as the various sons of David prepare to make a claim\u00a0for the throne. Adonijah, believing he has a right to his father’s position,\u00a0declares himself next in line and gathers a group of loyal followers, priests and\u00a0soldiers. Bath-sheba, the mother of Solomon, has an interest in the outcome of\u00a0this struggle for power, and wants very much for her son to be the one who\u00a0gets David’s blessing and David’s crown. In the King James translation of the\u00a0First Book of Kings we hear:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

11. Wherefore Nathan spake unto Bathsheba the mother of<\/p>\n

Solomon, saying, Hast though not heard that Adonijah the son of<\/p>\n

Haggith doth reign, and David our Lord knoweth it not?<\/p>\n

12. Now therefore come, let me, I pray thee, give thee counsel,<\/p>\n

that thou mayest save thine own life, and the life of thy son<\/p>\n

Solomon.<\/p>\n

13. Go and get thee in unto king David, and say unto him, Didst<\/p>\n

thou not, my lord, O king, sear unto thine handmaid, saying,<\/p>\n

Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit<\/p>\n

upon my throne? why then doth Adonijah reign?<\/p>\n

14. Behold, while thou yet talkest there with the king, I also will<\/p>\n

come in after thee, and confirm thy words.<\/p>\n

15. And Bathsheba went in unto the king into the chamber: and<\/p>\n

the king was very old; and Abishag the Shunammite ministered<\/p>\n

unto the king.<\/p>\n

16. And Bathsheba bowed, and did obeisance unto the king.<\/p>\n

And the king said, What wouldest thou?<\/p>\n

17. And she said unto him, My lord, thou swarest by the Lord<\/p>\n

thy God unto thine handmaiden, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy<\/p>\n

son shall reign after me and he shall sit upon my throne….<\/p>\n

20. And thou, my lord, O king, the eyes of all Israel are upon<\/p>\n

thee, that thou shouldest tell them who shall sit on the throne of<\/p>\n

my lord the king after him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We can be sure what Nathan the prophet will say. Bath-sheba addresses\u00a0her husband with honorifics while remembering all the time to repeat his name\u00a0and to repeat the name of Solomon. David the king must pass on the kingship\u00a0to Solomon. But, an even more magnificent use of dialogue comes when\u00a0Bath-sheba changes the rehearsed script crafted by Nathan to an even more\u00a0effective rhetoric. She reminds the king of his vow to his God. The promise to\u00a0make Solomon king is not just a promise to her but also to God. Bath-sheba,\u00a0by adding the oath to god and the idea that all of Israel is watching David to\u00a0see that he does right by Solomon, is very convincing and we see she knows\u00a0how to talk to her husband. She knows of his need for public ego massage. She\u00a0knows of his susceptibility to clever flattery. The artist here is presenting us\u00a0with a complex and subtle change in dialogue which reveals, in the context of\u00a0the scene, the character of the speaker, as well as the relationship between\u00a0Bath-sheba and King David. Nathan’s entrance completes the task as David is\u00a0overwhelmed by the two of them, and of course, Solomon will get the job.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

SPOKEN LANGUAGE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Spoken language is the substratum of everything that is human and\u00a0divine in the Bible, and the Hebrew tendency to present stories by giving us\u00a0speech is testimony to this belief that the spoken word will lead us to the\u00a0essence of things. Dialogue can also be effective when used in a contrastive\u00a0way. In the Second Book of Samuel Amnon pretends to be sick so that he can\u00a0ask his sister Tamar to come into his tent to nurse him. Amnon lusts after his\u00a0sister and finally after sending all the servants away, rapes her. Their exchange:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

…he caught hold of her and said, `Come to bed with me, sister.’<\/p>\n

But she answered, `No, brother, do not dishonour me, we do not<\/p>\n

do such things in Israel; do not behave like a beast. Where could I<\/p>\n

go and hide my disgrace? – and you would sink as low as any beast<\/p>\n

in Israel. Why not speak to the king for me? He will not refuse you<\/p>\n

leave to marry me.’ He would not listen, but overpowered her,<\/p>\n

dishonoured her and raped her. (2 Sam. 13.12-15)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Tamar’s eloquent refusal, couched in a long speech is dismissed by\u00a0Amnon, whose response to her plea is the brutal act of rape followed by his\u00a0only words – the three words, `Arise, be gone,’ by which he dismisses her after\u00a0the incestuous rape. The contrast between Tamar and Amnon is heightened by\u00a0this skillful use of dialogue in this scene. It is important to realize that these\u00a0stories are not primitive, but are presented with a set of literary conventions as\u00a0complex and valid as any of our current ones. Dialogue is one of those literary\u00a0conventions which, when we pay attention to its use, can enhance the meaning\u00a0and enjoyment of biblical stories. As Alter says:8<\/p>\n

In any given narrative event, and especially, at the beginning of any<\/em><\/p>\n

new story, the point at which the dialogue first emerges will be<\/em><\/p>\n

worthy of special attention, and in most instances, the initial words<\/em><\/p>\n

spoken by a personage will be revelatory, perhaps more in manner<\/em><\/p>\n

than in matter, constituting an important moment in the exposition<\/em><\/p>\n

of character.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Biblical narration is the subject of many critics9 and in this matter it is\u00a0instructive to compare the Greek with the Hebrew writers. The differences are\u00a0easy to spot. As Auerbach puts it, “…the basic impulse of the Homeric style: to\u00a0represent phenomena in a fully externalized form, visible and palpable in all\u00a0their parts, and completely fixed in their spatial and temporal relations”10\u00a0while the Hebrews externalize only so much of the phenomena as is necessary\u00a0for the purpose of the story, leaving in the background time and place, feeling\u00a0and thought unless such expression is crucial to the narrative. As he puts it:11<\/p>\n

It will at once be said that this is to be explained by the particular<\/p>\n

concept of God which the Jews held and which was wholly different<\/p>\n

from that of the Greeks. True enough – but this constitutes no<\/p>\n

objection. For how is the Jewish concept of God to be explained?<\/p>\n

Even their earlier God of the desert was not fixed in form and<\/p>\n

content, and was alone; his lack of form, his lack of local habitation,<\/p>\n

his singleness, was in the end not only maintained but developed<\/p>\n

even further in competition with the comparatively far more<\/p>\n

manifest gods of the surrounding Near Eastern World. The<\/p>\n

concept of God held by the Jews is less a cause than a symptom of<\/p>\n

their manner of comprehending and representing things.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While Homer is celebrated for his precise detail and descriptive power,\u00a0the biblical writers can be celebrated for their superb economy – economy to\u00a0the point of sparseness at times. But, as Auerbach says, “in Homer, the\u00a0complexity of the psychological life is shown only in the succession and\u00a0alternation of emotions; whereas the Jewish writers are able to express the si-\u00a0multaneous existence of various layers of consciousness and the conflict\u00a0between them.”12 It is different with biblical stories partly because the aim of\u00a0the Jewish writers is not to bewitch the senses but to provide the”necessary”\u00a0narrative that makes up and expresses their claim to absolute\u00a0historico-religious truth.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In Homer’s famous opening to the Odyssey:<\/p>\n

Sing, Muse, of that versatile man, who wandered far, after sacking<\/p>\n

Troy’s holy citadel. He saw the cities of many men, and knew their<\/p>\n

mind; he suffered much on the deep sea, and in his heart,<\/p>\n

struggling for a prize, to save his life…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

we notice the invocation to the muse, the placing of the story in time, and a\u00a0preview of the events, the travels that will be sung about. His story of\u00a0wandering is to follow the Trojan War and the time and place are explicit.\u00a0Compare that opening with the opening of the Book of Ruth:<\/p>\n

Long ago, in the time of the judges, there was a famine in the land,<\/p>\n

and a man from Bethlehem in Judah went to live in the Moabite<\/p>\n

country with his wife and his two sons. The man’s name was<\/p>\n

Elimelech, his wife’s name was Naomi, and the names of his two<\/p>\n

sons Mahlon and Chilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem<\/p>\n

in Judah. They arrived in the Moabite country and there they<\/p>\n

stayed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Elimelech Naomi’s husband died, so that she was left with her two<\/p>\n

sons. These sons married Moabite women, one of whom was called<\/p>\n

Orpah and the other Ruth. They had lived there about ten years,<\/p>\n

when both Mahlon and Chilion died, so that the woman was be-<\/p>\n

reaved of her two sons as well as of her husband.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

The stacking up of information, sentence atop sentence is typical of the\u00a0Old Testament. Compression of time, economy of narrative, speed of\u00a0narration all are a part of the biblical style. In this compressed narrative we are\u00a0given a tremendous amount of information and absolutely no description, we\u00a0are given motivation for action but no feeling by the characters. Deaths are re-\u00a0corded but reactions to them are not. All of this allows for concentration on\u00a0Ruth alone as this short story unfolds. Her eventual marriage to Boaz will\u00a0make her the great grandmother of King David; hence cleverly suggesting that\u00a0racial intermarriage is to be tolerated since Ruth, as we are told, is a Moabite,\u00a0and is the mother of Ohed: the father of Jesse, the father of David. The theme\u00a0of the story is beautiful and simple: we must show hospitality to strange or new\u00a0ideas or persons. And, the writer presents this bit of didacticism by a simple\u00a0narrative style that gains power from the context of the entire Jewish story –\u00a0from Ruth to David to Jesus with the mention of Bethlehem. Biblical writers\u00a0seem motivated not by a desire to be accurate poets of the senses but rather to\u00a0fit their stories into a predetermined “Story”. The purpose or intention of this\u00a0official “story” is always accessible; from the Christian point of view Ruth is an\u00a0important reminder of the universality and Old Testament authority of the\u00a0Christian story. The human story is the more important one: the love and\u00a0openness to the new, of a loyal and steadfast woman, can give birth to new\u00a0nations.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Form and content have long been recognized as two distinct aspects of\u00a0literature. Many have argued that the two can not be meaningfully separated –\u00a0that form is content or content is form. Though interesting, those arguments\u00a0are not very useful to the practical critic. For the purposes of discussion here\u00a0let us assume that there is a real difference between form and content in a\u00a0literary work. One of the ongoing dialectical processes in literature comes\u00a0about because of the necessity to use established forms in order to be able to\u00a0communicate coherently while at the same time struggling to break and\u00a0remake these forms because they are arbitrary restrictions and not an\u00a0a-priori part of literary “knowledge”. Each generation of writers, it seems,\u00a0struggles to break free from the perceived fetters of the past generation. As\u00a0criticism has taught us, it is helpful to know where a particular form came\u00a0from, or what its ancestors were like, in order to understand the new form.\u00a0Romantic poetry can be studied as a rebellion against the Neo-classical poems\u00a0that came before. Wordsworth, striving to break free from Pope’s couplets,\u00a0created a new poetic line; and, of course, many of today’s poets fight to be free\u00a0from Wordsworthian influence.<\/p>\n

In any case, the form of a literary piece can be important to\u00a0understanding the piece. It is important to notice that the “Song of Songs” is a\u00a0wedding idyl, and that “The Book of Job” is a play. “Ruth” is the first short\u00a0story. “Type-scene” is the name of a literary device worked out for Homeric\u00a0poems by Walter Arend and used by Alter in his analysis of the Old\u00a0Testament.13 The idea is that there are certain fixed situations which the writer\u00a0is expected to include in his\/her narrative and which he\/she is expected to\u00a0perform according to a set order of motifs – situations like the arrival of a\u00a0messenger, the hero’s voyage, the oracle, the arming of the hero and several\u00a0others. The type-scene of the visit, for example, should be presented according\u00a0to a conventional blueprint which includes: a guest approaches; someone spots\u00a0him, gets up and hurries to greet him; the guest is taken by the hand, led into a\u00a0room, invited to take the seat of honour; the guest is enjoined to feast; the\u00a0ensuing meal is described. Almost any description of a visit in Homer will\u00a0reproduce more or less this sequence not because of an overlap of sources but\u00a0because that is how the convention requires such a scene to be rendered.<\/p>\n

In the Bible we find several common type-scenes. As Alter says: “Some\u00a0of the most commonly repeated biblical type-scenes I have been able to\u00a0identify are the following: the annunciation…of the birth of a hero to his barren\u00a0mother; the encounter with the future betrothed at a well; the epiphany in the\u00a0field; the initiatory trial; the danger in the desert and the discovery of a well or\u00a0other source of sustenance; the testament of a dying hero.”14<\/p>\n

When one looks carefully at the many betrothal scenes in the Old\u00a0Testament a pattern emerges. A young man must find a mate in the outside\u00a0world; hence, he travels to a foreign land. The well or oasis where he meets his\u00a0future mate is an obvious symbol of fertility and life, a clear and powerful\u00a0female symbol. Drawing water from the well establishes a bond between male\u00a0and female, host and guest, benefactor and benefited, and leads to the excited\u00a0announcement and the actual betrothal.<\/p>\n

What is interesting is not the recurring form of the type-scene but the\u00a0variations writers use for character development and emphasis. These\u00a0variations of the application of this pattern yield rich interpretive differences, which can be seen by comparing the betrothal of Jacob and Rachel, Moses and\u00a0Zipporah, Boaz and Ruth, and Samson and the woman in Timnath. In each\u00a0case a careful analysis will reveal (as Alter does so well in his book) how slight\u00a0variations of the pattern can light the story with new meaning and subtle\u00a0change. Far from being primitive, the biblical stories are rich in narrative\u00a0complexity and subtlety of character.<\/p>\n

An intelligent reading of any work of art requires some knowledge of\u00a0the grid of conventions the work is laid out on and against. Though we have\u00a0lost some of the conventions of the biblical writers we can come to see how\u00a0they define the story after coming to appreciate these old and different\u00a0conventions. And remember, the conventions change but the stories remain\u00a0the same.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":276,"menu_order":3,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-28","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/28","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/276"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/28\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":69,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/28\/revisions\/69"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/28\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=28"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=28"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=28"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}