I have finally made it through Numbers, and perhaps I should now retire my humor lense.

Neith

Today's key lecture question for me was:  "Who has seen the face of God?"  I had assumed that Moses had seen the face of God, because he speaks to Him in what I had interpreted as several face to face encounters.  I had attributed the discrepancy found in the short, lovely narrative in which Moses glimpses God's "back parts" to the patching of redactors, but perhaps I did not read the text closely enough.  This made me think of an inscription apparently found on a statue of Isis ( I have read these words before, but never took the time to really think about them until now):  I am all that is, that was, and that shall be, and no mortal has lifted my veil.  I did know these words were associated with Isis, and that Isis was an ancient Egyptian Goddess, so I wondered if there was any more intertextuality to be explored--especially since these two religions presumably existed around the same time, and in close proximity to one another.  While researching the phrase I discovered that Isis was not the first to utter it.  She had a predecessor named Neith.  Neith was a war goddess in Egyptian religion before the epochs of the pharaohs.  It was said that she made weapons, and that she kept a death watch over the bodies of slain warriors.  Apparently her name can also translate to "water" and "weaver."  She is the mother of Ra.  In later times, because of the interpretation of the word "weaver," she was believed to be the creator of all the universe; for she had woven everything into being on her loom.  She is also famous for arbitrating the bitter feud between Horus and Seth.  I am just as ignorant about Egyptian religion as the Bible, so I did a little research into this feud.

Apparently there were once two predominant gods in the land of Egypt; Horus ruled the northern part of the land, and Seth ruled the southern end.  At some point the two lands became one, and this is where the trouble starts.  Seth is brother to Osiris, Isis, and Nephtys.  Nephtys is Seth's wife and Isis is married to Osiris.  Horus is their son.  Seth is very well known for killing his brother, Osiris, and attempting to murder his nephew Horus.  Horus is awarded full reign over all of the now united land, and Seth is banished to wander the desert forever.  This myth sounds hauntingly familiar.  The same themes of fratricide and banishment and incestuous treachery ( Nephtys slept with her other brother and bore him a son, yet Seth never sired any offspring).  However, some interpretations say that Seth was not all bad.  According to Wikipedia, he came to be viewed as a protector who kept the dangers of the desert at bay.  He is quite often pictured alongside Horus bequeathing the power of divine rule upon the infamous pharaohs. 

Seth was also given the Semite goddesses Astarte and Asat in an attempt to soften any hard feelings incurred after the pantheon's ruling.  This stopped me in my tracks; then led me on another line of research.  I always thought the term "Semite" was a synonym for "Jew" or "Hebrew."  This is how Wikipedia defines the word:  "The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites."  It further states that "the word Semitic is an adjective derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah."  It should also be noted that the Semitic family of languages and peoples does not include the Egyptians.  I found a very interesting learning module at wsu.edu/~dee/HEBREWS/WANDER.HTM.  The author admits that virtually nothing is known about the Hebrew occupation in Egypt beyond what is recorded in the Old Testament, but asserts that several educated guesses can be made about the events leading up to migration out of Egypt.  The Hebrews weren't the only Semitic peoples living in ancient Egypt; in fact, for a time, the foreigners were so populous that they ruled over the Egyptians.  Once the Egyptians regained dominance, they either expelled or punished the Semitic peoples residing within their kingdom.  The Egyptians also made several militaristic changes within  their society.  The author believes that "garrisoned" cities cropped up during this time, and taxation in the form of labor was extolled from the Semitic peoples.  This could explain why an Egyptian was beating a Hebrew on that fateful day after Moses was grown, and why Moses, in turn, killed that Egyptian.  That day, generations of bad blood finally came to a boil, and for Moses there was no turning back.  The author even goes so far as to speculate that Moses learned of the religion of Yahweh from the Midianites, and that the Exodus consisted of a mixed band of Semitic people.  I find this very fascinating because this amalgam of beliefs appears to be the rudimentary beginning of Hebrew religion.  "I AM THAT I AM" is not so far removed from "I am all that is, that was, and that shall be...."  Perhaps the pages upon pages of the tedious hashing out of laws and punishments in the book of Leviticus is a testament to the blending of several diverse cultures into one new, complex society.

The Cursed, Cursed Book of Numbers

I am currently bogged down in the Book of Numbers.  My husband's slightly Bible thumping boss(he's a Bible freak, but not one who's over the top), upon learning that I was taking this course, issued a good natured warning about the Book of Numbers.  I pushed the thought to the back of my mind, knowing there would be moments of wading through  doldrums while reading the Bible.  I thought maybe he was referring to another one of those long lists of who begat whom, but with the even more boring task of numbering the masses of Israelites.  Well, I was somewhat correct--there are lists of "begattings" along with a head count, but my husband's boss was actually referring to the pages and pages of redundancy.  Paragraph after paragraph repeating almost the exact same words.  In fact all of the words are identical except for the names and numbers contained therein.  Unfortunately, I have not yet uncovered the "mysterious mental maneuver" that Dr. Sexson urges us to attain.  Surely, this mind trick varies from person to person.  I have tried a few different lenses to avoid auto-pilot reading, all to no avail.  During Genesis I was able to view it as just another creation myth, which made me want to turn the pages and absorb more info to file away for comparison during future readings.  The stories revealing the short-comings of the likes of Abraham and Jacob made me feel better about being human in general.  I always thought that the one thing religious people had over me was the superiority of their scruples, but these stories, which are important, even sacred to many people who keep faith with the three biggest religions, brought the fact that we are all just human, each as imperfect as another, into context for me.  Even God exhibits very human flaws.  He is quick-tempered, and even admittedly jealous.  He regretted drowning the world in the great flood, even though His children had angered Him through their wickedness, and He actually vowed never to do such a thing again.

I was able to use a lens of humor to get through the mind numbing pages of crazily nit-picky laws of Leviticus--case in point, the stoning of murderous oxen in my last blog.  Also, one the most unintentionally hilarious texts I've ever read in my life is located in Leviticus, Chapter 13, verses 40 through 44.  Laws pertaining specifically to bald lepers, need I say more?  But Numbers!  The cursed, cursed Book of Numbers.  This goes beyond boring.  It's not the same as reading receipts.  I actually get the receipt thing because I do pick up pieces of paper and read them, though I always attributed this to just plain nosiness.  Sometimes, when I'm going through my millions of plastic grocery store bags(terrible, I know, but I always forget to throw my reusable shopping bags in the care before I go to the store), I find a receipt still floating around in one.  I always, always fish it out and read the items purchased and look at the date, and try and remember that day.  The strange thing is, I can almost always remember that particular shopping trip.

So I guess the only thing to do is to keep going, and wait patiently for the more juicy parts of the story.  I suppose I could skip ahead to the more exciting parts when my mind is dulled, but I know that I will not return to those sections of text.  This is simply not an option; not only am I taking the endeavor of reading the entire Bible seriously, but my concrete random personality forces me to read texts in chronological order. There exists little to no organization to my life in general, but I must read books from front to back.  Period. 

How's that for redundancy?

I came into this with an open heart.  I really did.  You see, I was completely anti-religion when I was younger.  Though I find flaw in the great majority of Marxist thinking, I always believed he was spot on when he said that "Religion is the opiate of the people."  Now that I'm a bit older (right at thirty--I''m technically not over thirty, yet), and have had more world experience, and learned to have intelligent discussions with people without flying off the handle, I have mellowed out a bit.  People have a right to their beliefs and there is no reason for constant turmoil over minor disagreements.  As I have mentioned before, I have no true religious affiliation.  My family comes from a long line of Lutherans, though none in my memory are actually practicing.  Yet, up until my birth, they have all been baptized in that faith.  My folks figured that I could decide for myself what, if any, religion I wanted to practice.  Consequently, I never read the Bible.  I did think that maybe I would find some comfort and peace within those pages.  Of course I realized that the Bible was not all peaches and cream, but most of it so far I have found either ridiculous or appalling.

Such as the story of Jacob.  This person is really considered to be holy and deserving of a covenant with God?  He is not only sickeningly deceptive, but a coward as well.  After he and his mother trick both Esau and Isaac(one of the few people in Genesis who is actually half-way decent), he runs away because he knows that his brother is not only fully capable of whooping his ass, but also has every right to do so.  He finds himself a new father-in-law to screw over after fourteen years, though I do concede that his father-in-law tricked him into taking Leah over Rachel.  But this little bit of the story tells me two things about Jacob:  1) He can dish it, but he sure can't take it; and 2) He can really hold a grudge.  Of course he eventually returns to his homeland, after he gets one last good one in on his father-in-law, and all is well for slow-witted Esau has forgiven him.  At this point in the story there are still clear examples of his cowardice.  He divides the camps into two regiments so that one half can escape if Esau chose to attack the other half.  Genesis 32:24 says, "And Jacob was left alone: and there he wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day."  So, after dividing the camps, and sending a lavish offering of apology to his brother, Jacob sat somewhere alone.  I interpret this to mean that he was not in either of his two camps, and therefore is not at risk of being slaughtered with his wives and children.  And what is the deal with this random guy with whom he allegedly wrestles all night?  Plotz explains that it is an angel, and upon a second reading I found that both men were evenly matched, and Jacob refused to let the guy go until he received a blessing.  The "angel" obliged.  I put angel in quotes because I'm not convinced Jacob has enough sand to keep even with an angel in a wrestling match--he couldn't even face Esau.  Jacob's quite the blessing whore, is he not?  I think this is perhaps symptomatic of a lack of confidence.  That would also explain why he sucks so much as a human being. So in conclusion, not a big fan of Jacob.

Now on to the end of Exodus where the priestly writer describes in painstaking detail how God wants His people to set up the tabernacle.  In these passages, God's personality is akin to petulant A-list stars who want only green M&Ms in the candy bowls in their hotel rooms.  He's God for godssakes!  What possible use does he have for all that material stuff?  This seems more like a weak, human desire to have more stuff than anybody else, rather than a Godly decree.  And by the way, aren't the people supposed to not covet thy neighbors' stuff?  Now segue into all those crazy commandments.  Exodus 21: 28 states:  "If an ox gore a man or woman, that they die, then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh will not be eaten."  Seriously?  What is the purpose here?  Are all the other oxen made to witness such stonings so as to discourage further bad behavior from them?  And why can't the flesh be eaten?  And is Exodus 22:29 actually commanding parents to sacrifice--as in kill--their firstborn infant sons?!  I truly would like an answer to this if anybody reading this blog would be so kind. Then of course there is the whole golden calf debacle.  Plotz already  expounds upon the shortcomings of Aaron, so I won't go there.  Obviously God's chosen people have thoroughly pissed Him off, but He forgives them once those in the house of Levi massacre 3,000 of their brethren.  That's nice, isn't it?  I must admit, though, that choosing to worship the golden calf was very poor judgement on behalf of the Israelites.  One would think they ought to know how God is by now.  Especially after witnessing what went down with the Egyptians. 

This whole, long rant does have a point.  Exodus 22:20 clearly forbids sacrificing unto any other god, and 22:28 says not to "revile the gods."  Gods, as in plural.  So there are other gods?  I think I'll take my chances with one of them.  What could they possibly do that's worse than the God of the Old Testament?  With friends like that God, who needs enemies?

The tale of Cain and Abel has long been one of the best known stories of the Bible; and one that I looked forward to the most when I first set out on this endeavor.  Does that make me weird and morbid?  Perhaps, but I am willing to wager that I am far from being in the minority of the population which find this story particularly intriguing.  It is, after all, presumably the first recorded murder in the history of man.  But what is the signifigance of that?  I suppose it all depends on if one reads the Bible for literature and/or history, or if one reads it for the purpose of moral sustainibility.  Obviously, I am prevented from discussing it in the latter sense for many reasons.  One being that that is not the purpose of this class, and another being that I am not particularly religious myself.

I will start out by saying that the reletively short length of the text, and the vague language thoroughly vexed me during my first reading.  Why was God more privy to Abel's offering than Cain's?  Based upon what I've read thus far, I am compelled to assume that these histories were recorded in a place and time that were dominantly patriarichal.  Some may decry me for stating the obvious, but I reiterate that I know nothing of the Bible or the world(s) in which it was created.  So, my first reaction was to assume that God looked upon Abel's offering more favorably because it was more "manly."  A blood sacrifice as opposed to a vegetarian one.  Or perhaps God perceived Abel's sacrifice as more generous, as if Abel were willing to give more of himself to God than his brother.  On closer reading this line jumped out at me:  "And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering.  But onto Cain and to his offering he had not respect" (Genesis 4:4-4:5).  It states that the Lord had no respect unto Abel...  This indicates to me that there wasn't necassarily anything wrong with Abel's offereing, but that the fault lay in the way in which it was made.  Perhaps Abel was more lazy, perhaps he only wanted to attempt to appease God rather than actually accept and obey His laws.  Maybe he was just plain bad from birth.  This theory is supported by the lines that follow.  Immediately Cain became "very wroth, and his countenance fell" (Genesis 4:5).  God tries to correct his wayward son by warning him of the dangers of jealousy and excessive anger.  " 'If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?  and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.  And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him' " (Genesis 4:7).  God advises Cain not to give into his impetous emotions, but to master them.  In doing this Cain would be able to master sin, rather than sin being his master; and he would therefore be acceptable to God.  But it is not to be.  Cain seems to let his resentment simmer, for he "talks" with his brother, presumably about the offering incident and God's subsequent advice.  Immediately following their conversation, Cain murders Abel without any apparent provocation.  This leads me to believe that under the guise of reconciliation, Cain lures his brother to the field where there would be no witnesses to his premeditated evil deed.

Cain's seemingly purposeful actions lead me to conclude that he knowingly gave a sub-par offering, and cooked up a vengeful scheme of murder to placate his petty ire.  Contrary to Plotz's interpretation of Cain "getting off scot-free," and being rewarded as "the father of all mankind," I see his banishment as the ultimate punishment.  This is especially true if we look at the reality of banishment in those days.  Life was harsh and brutal in those days, the act of banishment is the ultimate punishment, worse even than death.  Not only does Cain have to live his life outside of the Grace of God and the warmth of family, he has to live with what he has done.  Perhaps he is the true definition of a psychopath, and does not rue the murder of his own brother,  but only regrets the punishment.  It doesn't really matter, for the lesson is clear:  what has been done cannot be undone.  Cain chose not to master sin, and now he has to pay for that choice.  Perhaps we are all still paying since mankind is descended of him.  One bad apple really can spoil the whole bunch.

Intertextuality between Genesis and Native American creation stories

Oranda Davis

Like many others in class, I have never read the Bible.  I have also never kept a blog.  Though I did once read Genesis for high school AP English.  That was about a million years ago, but I remember thinking that the very first verses, the seven days that God spent creating the earth, were some of the most beautiful words I've ever read.  I was not disappointed the second time around.

In Genesis 1:21 God creates "great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind...."  This struck me as similar to many Native American religions which have one Creator, who was responsible for making animal Spirits.  These Spirits would in turn create their own children in their likeness to dwell on Earth.  I found this association intriguing, so I asked my friend, Charles, who is a Crow Indian and an anthropology major, about his people's creation story.  I was actually hoping to draw comparisons between Adam and Eve, and a story containing First Man and First Woman.  The Crow, however, do not spring from a first couple (though Charles assured me that most Native creation stories do in revolve around a first man and woman).  In the beginning there was one supreme being, the Creator, and Old Man Coyote.  The Earth was composed entirely of water, but Old Man Coyote asked several different birds to dive to the bottom and retrieve mud to make dry land.  The duck was the one who succeeded.  Charles noted that Noah also sent birds (a raven and a dove) out after the flood to find dry land.  Once the earth was brought up from beneath the water, Old Man Coyote made clay figures to represent all the different races of people.  To test their bravery (or perhaps faith?), Old Man Coyote set them atop a giant slide and told them to descend into to stakes planted at the bottom.  Each figure leaped off the slide at the last minute for fear of death.  All but the Crow figure, who died and was subsequently resurrected.  And that is how the Crow became Old Man Coyote's favorite people. 

I also found similarities in other tribes' myths.  The Blackfeet's Creator was called Old Man.  He made all the plants, roots, berries, trees, and animals.  When he made people he created a woman and her son, and he covered the clay figures for four days.  On the fourth and final day he bade them to get up and walk.  I found this significant because four is a sacred number to most Native American tribes.  It represents the number of seasons and the four sacred directions of East, West, North, and South.  The first people were also described as "poor and naked," and the myth clearly states that Old Man breathed life into the people and the bison he made to sustain them; just as God breathed life into the people he raised from the dust.  Old Man left his people and travelled west, but vowed always to take care of them.  He also promised to someday return.

I also found a story about a flood on Superstition Mountain in Arizona.  This story comes from the Pima tribe and it is strikingly similar to the story of Noah.  The creator in this story is actually the Great Butterfly, or Earth-Maker, who created man out of his own sweat.  Over time, the people grew to be ungrateful and contentious.  Earth-Maker, being fed up with how the people had become, decided to drown them.  Earth-Maker warned the people to change their wicked ways, but they merely laughed.  Four warnings were sent via the East, West, North, and South Winds, but the only one who listened was a righteous shaman named Suha.  The South Wind instructed Suha and his wife to build a giant ball of spruce gum to weather the impending flood.  After many months, the giant ball settled high atop a mountain.  The people eventually repopulated the earth, but were warned to maintain more pious lives lest Earth-Maker again decided to drown the wickedness from the world.  It was also clearly stated that "only good people would be able to eventually go to live with the Sun God."

The last myth I want to discuss is the Plains Indians' stories of Morning Star, the son of the Sun and Moon.  Morning Star fell in love with a human named Feather Woman.  She went to live with him in the Sky World, where her new father-in-law disapproved of her relationship with his son.  In the Sky World there was a giant turnip which was never to be disturbed.  Feather Woman's curiosity eventually got the best of her.  One day she decided that it wouldn't hurt to just take a peek beneath the root and attempted to dig it out, but her digging stick was too weak.  At that same moment two huge, white cranes came to her aid; unfortunately, the cranes were the "sworn enemies of the Star People."  Through the hole of the uprooted turnip, Feather Woman saw Earth and became homesick.  When she returned to her lodge that night the Sun immediately knew she had done something wrong.  She confessed and was sent back to Earth with her son.  This story bears striking similarities to that of the forbidden fruit of the sacred tree in Eden.  It is interesting that rather than being persuaded by malicious intentions of the cranes, as Eve is by the serpent, Feather Woman makes her own conscious decision.  She is subsequently punished by being cast out of the Sky World and never able to return.

Alas, I had to tear myself away from these stories with the reminder that I am enrolled in a Bible as literature class, and not a mythologies course.  I found these stories and several more at www.indigenouspeople.net/legend.htm.  Of particular interest are the stories of how Indians and white people came to exist (Salish/Flathead), and the great flood of the Yellowstone Valley.