I have been thinking a lot about language recently, but did not realize it until yesterday's class. I have found myself speaking in metaphorical language lately. Perhaps we digress to a more primordial form of language in times of crisis (but is it a digression? I think that was the wrong word choice there...). I think demotic language fails me because there are just no words to describe this experience of losing my father. Even the simple statement that "my dad died" fails to convey the experience; there is no context behind those words. They do not convey the depth of loss, of love, and of life that I am currently experiencing. There is nothing there that describes the relationship I had with my father. The phrase feels empty and cold. I tell people my story, and still fail to convey experience. But with the addition of photos, specific stories, metaphors, people can at least begin to imagine my experience. I have found that the best way to describe who my father was and what my relationship with him was is through a photo album I made. I used several of these photos for a slide-show during his service. I decided I wanted to share my dad with my friends and anyone who wants to see them, so I have made an album on, what else, facebook. And here is the link:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2094052&id=43803548&l=2c60013bcd

And even in explaining to myself what has happened and how I will continue, I have found images and metaphors useful. During his service, I spoke. And I ended by saying that my dad had given me the tools to get through this experience, and I used a climbing metaphor. I continue to speak to myself using climbing metaphors: remember to breathe, put one foot in front of the other, focus on the path in front of you, and in this way, just keep going until you reach the top of this mountain too. I'm not sure that there will be any sort of "summit" experience, but focusing on putting one foot in front of the other helps me to get through each day, minute by minute.

Back to metaphor. I think metaphor continues to be a much more powerful way of communicating than demotic language. Metaphor has the ability to convey emotional or to provoke an experience in a way that description simply cannot do as powerfully. I do think that descriptive language can do a fairly good job depending on how eloquent the communicator is. But metaphor, images, music can reach a place that is just not quite tangible with language. Perhaps the authors of the Bible realized this (even if they did not do so consciously).

On to the Bible. I want to start with some general thoughts and musings as I read.

I have thought a lot about language in reading the Bible in other ways as well. I am continually wondering what we have lost through translation--which seems like a very obvious question to ask, yet I find myself asking it over and over again. I wonder how authentic my experience with this text really is after so many years, so many translators--each with differing interpretations. I suppose that that perhaps authentic experience is not necessary, because this text, in the form that it is in NOW, is vastly influential. And yes, the "original" experience may be different, but that does not necessarily make it any better or worse. I do think it affects the way I view this text from a literary point of view, because I am so far removed from the writing styles of the various authors, I am left with only a faint taste.
Some general questions, maybe some of them have obvious answers:
why is circumcision so important? why have some cultures adapted this practice and others have not?

What is the significance of age? I think many of us wonder why the characters live such long lives in these early Biblical stories. I want to know why it was important for the authors to record the ages and what those ages mean. Are they significant? Or is similar to listing the age of someones death in a history book?

What is the role of comedy in the Bible?

To what extent to these stories exist for explanation? (for example Lot's wife turning to salt explains a natural phenomena. and of course the creation stories explain the existence of the earth, plants, animals, and humans). What were the author's intentions? Did they intend to explain their world, or to comment on the human condition as they viewed it, or to teach? Plotz wonders at the vulgarity, the violence, the sexuality, and evil that exists in the Bible. I think that the inclusion of all of this horrifying material makes the Bible more human. It also makes this text more tangible. Humans are not all good, nor are we all bad or evil. We are a complicated blending, existing somewhere between these binaries. And I find it interesting that not only does the Bible portray humanity realistically, rather than ideally, but so too does it portray God as a more Human character in his imperfections. God is at times loving and kind, at times hostile and mean and vengeful. He is not predictable (perhaps this is due to multiple authorship). God is a force to be feared. Possibly part of this explains the fearful, unpredictable aspects of nature. In a world without science, how else does one explain the terrifying earthquake that devastates a city but that it was the wrath of God. I find it interesting that people try to bring this same character, vengeance and all, into our modern world where the character of God is no longer necessary to explain. OK. That was a bit of a tangent. I guess what I am thinking is that the Bible portrays humans as we really are, with all the ugliness of violence and deceit that is deep within our nature. How many years have we "ruled the earth" and we still haven't figured out a way to settle conflict without violence? Instead we build bigger and bigger weapons.

I have noticed the element of repetition again and again. I think we discussed this in class, but I find it an interesting reminder of the age of this text and how it emerges from oral cultures. I also have found it helpful.

Many of the characters are faced with difficult moral dilemmas; Lot is a good example. I wondered if he had not offered his daughters to protect his host, what other options did he have? (Did he have any options allowing him to maintain some sort of honor or dignity?)

Is there any way of morally justifying the rape of Lot by his daughters? Perhaps, if in the context of the time-period, producing offspring was much more important than it is for us today, it can be justified. Carrying on blood-lines seems to be very important to these characters as well. And doing things that, to us (modern humans), seem to break moral codes or are inhumane are therefore justified. I think it is impossible to have an authentic experience of the Bible too because we simply cannot understand the things that were important to these people. We impose our bias of modern convenience and way of life. It is interesting, though, to talk about immorality in the Bible; the text that supposedly established morality to begin with.

I have noticed that in Genesis 18:22-33 Abraham, not God, establishes morality and justice. Abraham is testing God's morality by asking him if he would save the city to save ten innocent people. I found this very interesting, because here God seems to be almost child like, where as Abraham is playing a more fatherly role. I thought God was supposed to be "our teacher" although, I guess really, it is this text that is supposed to teach...