Paper Notes and Blogflooding

First off: I should have published this post last Thursday (12/3).

By and large my blog-activity has slowed down considerably; I never seem to have a "dead week" before finals, but rather a "dead month". Researching and stressing over my 20 page film seminar paper, amongst other projects and studying, has left me intellectually drained. Then again, I think I tend to place these blogs on a pedestal too often. Once I'm writing, everything's fine, getting over the anxiety of what to write is the difficult part. That being said, I have a lot of ideas and unfinished blogs I still want, or compulsively feel a need, to complete and post. If only I had enough time to unleash a biblical blogflood. There's never enough time.

Which brings me to my paper. Despite devoting a considerable amount of time preparing it, giving it a lot of thought, and even presenting it, the paper itself remains incomplete - a jumble of ideas lacking connective tissue. Apologies if the presentation also seemed a bit shaky and disjointed; I can usually manage my stage fright, except when caffeine and sleep deprivation are thrown into the mix. Jittery, to say the least. As a sort of cathartic exercise, and to make up for not previously writing a "paper topic" blog, I've transcribed an elaborated outline from my index cards.

-INTRO: Beginning from the end. How what I've learned has personally affected me.

• Before taking this class, I feared the Bible as an ominous, single volume.
• Now I realize my bible-phobia really stemmed from fundamentalist literal interpretations and misappropriations, not the book itself.
• I've come to no longer view the Bible as a big, bad book full of contradictions, but to love it as a varied library of shifting worldviews and narratives that pervade Western literature and thought. Foundational text(s).
• I think everyone should love the Bible, believers and non-believers alike. While I don't regard it as a revealed text, I nevertheless find comfort in its metaphorical and historical contexts.
• Respect the power of logos, especially in this Age of Chaos.

-TRIBAL EXCLUSIVITY: implications thereof

• How it reinforces and perpetuates the worldviews and subsequent stories of the ancient Israelites. How it manifests in their mythos.

-GENOCIDAL NARRATIVE: an expression of tribal exclusivity

• Within the Hebrew Scriptures exists numerous accounts of genocides commanded or ordained by God
• Conflicts with modern-day notions of a merciful God when viewed through the lens of the present.
• Example: Samuel, on behalf of God, commands Saul to destroy the Amalekites - including women, children, even animals - in First Samuel.
• God/Samuel rebukes Saul for sparing King Agag and the best livestock (ostensibly to be used for burnt offerings).
• God originally promised to blot out the Amalekites in Exodus, after their raids upon the Israelites returning from Egypt.
• Despite being supposedly killed off by Saul, the Amalekites continually reemerge in the narrative - often only briefly. David continues to slaughter them.
• Apply Occam's Razor - the simplest solution: it's a metaphor!
• God loves mythos, God loves conflict.
• No doubt, both the ancient Israelites and Amalekites/Agagites of "actual history" engaged in bloody conflicts, committing what would be viewed today as horrible atrocities against one another, but the biblical or "kerygmatic" portrayal of such events serves primarily as an allegorical proponent of tribal exclusivity, of communal identity, of solidarity.

-EXCLUSIVE MONOTHEISM: more conflict, more mythos

• Tribal exclusivity obviously exists independently of monotheism or polytheism, but not of mythos, through which it is expressed.
• Nevertheless, the exclusive monotheism of the Israelites contributes uniquely to their own brand of tribal exclusivity.
• In much of the Hebrew Scriptures, the prophets/judges/God constantly seem to be dragging the Israelites kicking and screaming into exclusive monotheism. God wouldn't be God without conflict, neither would the Israelites be the Israelites. They attempt to resist the paradigmatic shifts of tribal identity and mythos, failing ultimately and serving to deter the contemporaries of the authors and/or redactors of such books from transgressing against the tribe.
• Example: Women resisting the patriarchy and exclusive monotheism in Jeremiah 7, making offerings to Ishtar, the "Queen of Heaven."

-DEVELOPMENT OF JUDAIC MONARCHY: transformation of tribal exclusivity

• Throughout First Samuel, there exists stories and passages with a prevalent anti-monarchy bias, often referred to as the "Republican source" (as opposed to the pro-kingship "Monarchial source").
• Example: God saying, "...they have rejected me from being king over them." (I Samuel 8:7).
• Conflicts of exclusive monotheism with monarchy and of Hebrew tribal exclusivity with the desire to be like neighboring nations, who have kings to "protect" and represent them.
• Expression of tribal exclusivity on an increasingly nationalistic, larger level. Exit the Twelve Tribes of Israel, enter The Jewish People.

-A NOTE ON QUOTES/SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

• The events of Samuel act only as a spine in my exploration of tribal exclusivity's expression(s) in the Bible.
• Includes several quotes integrated from other books (Genesis, Numbers, Leviticus, etc.) in the Hebrew Scriptures, and a liberal dose of Frye.

-CONCLUSION: in outline form

• Exclusivity is not necessarily an evil or wrong, but a facet of humanity.
• We still engage in it, but on a larger scale: nation states, subcultures, etc.
• Narratives inform us of who we are not literally, but metaphorically.