Term paper

Below is my term paper. I think there are some spelling mistakes but I fixed them in the paper that I turned in. Anyways, I had a hard time getting my point across during my presentation so I hope reading my paper helps a little.
I pretty much wrote on the first thing that came to my mind while I read Ecclesiastes and I think I made some stretches but all in all I think there are some decent points.
Enjoy.

Term Paper

Ecclesiastes and the Vanity of the Poor

“Vanity of Vanities! All is Vanity (Eccles.1:2 New Revised Standard Version). The book of Ecclesiastes is a book of wisdom. Frye states that “to put the essential position of Ecclesiastes into the form of its central paradox, one would say that all things are full of emptiness” (Frye, 177). Qoheleth says that everyone dies so nothing really matters in life (Eccles.9:3) but he also portrays the struggle of the poor against the wealthy upper branch of society. The book of Ecclesiastes shows the struggle between the poor and the wealthy in society and how those with money bring the poor down; it sends the message that all is worthless and that there is little hope for escaping poverty; it is a book written to help keep the poor down through depressing passages. But there are also a few passages in Ecclesiastes that show the poor worker how to escape this vain life through communist principles.

“What gain have the workers from their toil?” (Eccles.3:9). Frye says that, “the word ‘vanity’ has a metaphorical kernel which means ‘fog’ or ‘mist’” (Frye, 177). I took this definition as vanity being something that you can not see or something that blurs everything around you. The workers have no gain from their toil because they have no time to do anything else. Their work is in vain because they do not make enough to do anything else but work and keep themselves alive until the next day of work. Sleep is the only thing they have to look forward too and “Sweet is the sleep of laborers, whether they eat little or much; but the surfeit of the rich will not let them sleep” (Eccles.5:12). The lifestyle of excess that the rich live depends on the constant work of the poor. These passages are written to show the working class that they need not try to move up in life because nothing will come out of it, there place will always be in the fields.
If everything in the world is in fact vanity, then why would anyone do anything after reading Ecclesiastes; why would anyone work after reading “Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had spent doing it, and again, all was vanity and a chasing after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun” (Eccles.2:11). Those with “wisdom” wrote Ecclesiastes and those with “wisdom” in ancient times were educated and wealthy. There is an obvious dichotomy in the wealthy and the poor in Ecclesiastes. While the author writes about the vanity of work and money, he also says, “There is nothing better for mortals than to eat and drink, and find enjoyment in their toil” (Eccles.2:20). For the rich to maintain their life of drinking and merrymaking, they need laborers to do the work for them. Throughout Ecclesiastes there are passages that show the poor that their work is in vain but it must be so. “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it” (Eccles.10:8).
The poor man is taken for granted in Ecclesiastes even though he has proven to be wise. In the story a poor wise man saves his city from being besieged by a powerful king. After the city was saved no one remembered who the man was (Eccles.9:13-18). In most
stories in the Bible when someone does a great deed they are rewarded. Why then was this man forgotten after saving the people around him? “Wisdom is better than might; yet the poor man’s wisdom is despised, and his words are not heeded” (Eccles.9:16). The moral of the story is do not trust the poor: even if they save your life.
If all is vain then some things must be vainer than others. Take money. In Ecclesiastes money is said to be unimportant because of its uncertainty. Ecclesiastes (5:13-14) tells the story of families with much wealth that lose everything in bad business. The author shows them leaving the world exactly as they entered it: naked. To the poor this could help them ease their worries about how little money they have; it could also make them feel closer to the upper class since the upper class is only one bad deal away from working beside the peasant. What it is really doing is showing the poor that money does not matter; that money is so easily lost that they should not even try to earn any. This is wealthy propaganda being taught to the poor. Chasing money is as good as chasing the wind, all is vanity.
Wealth’s uncertainty is foggier when you read passages like, “Likewise all to whom god gives wealth and possessions and whom he enables to enjoy them, and to accept their lot and find enjoyment in their toil-this is the gift of God” (Eccles.5:19). This passage shows that God gives wealth to those that he wants to have wealth. It puts the reader in his place: if you are rich enjoy your possessions but if you are poor, enjoy your toils because they are your gift also.
Some parts in Ecclesiastes seem communistic, passages that could unite the poor workers:
Again I saw vanity under the sun: the case of solitary individuals, without sons or brothers; yet there is no end to all their toil, and their eyes are never satisfied with riches. ‘For whom am I toiling,’ they ask, ‘and depriving myself of pleasure?’ This is also vanity and an unhappy business. Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up the other; but woe to one who is alone and falls and does not have another to help. Again, if two lie together, they keep warm; but how can one keep warm alone? And though one might prevail against another, two will withstand one. A three fold cord is not quickly broken. (Eccles.4:7-12)
Though communism hadn’t been invented yet, this has many communistic principles in it. The workers, seeing the vanity of their work, rise up together as “brothers” (comrades) and join to help lift themselves out of poverty. Their only hope of getting out of poverty is by working together to get the money that they deserve. This is one of the only passages in Ecclesiastes that actually shows some hope for the vanity of the poor.
Throughout the book of Ecclesiastes there is a separation between the wealthy and the poor. The “vanities” that one group has to face are far different from that of the other. With the hierarchy system the poor have no chance for justice and if they read this book they will see why that is: because there is no other way. The only chance they have is sticking together. But in the end does this really matter? For if the story is true, “this is also vanity and a chasing of the wind” (Eccles.4:4).

Samuel according to David

I was out tending my father's, Jesse's, flock when I was called upon to attend a sacrificed. When I arrived a man named Samuel took a horn of oil and put it on me. Since this moment my life has changed greatly. Powers which I never posessed came into me. I killed a Philistine named Goliath with a single blow from a rock; I took charge of Saul's army and was successful wherever I went; I wed the king's daughter in exchange for one hundred foreskins.
Then things changed. I was playing music and Saul tried to kill me. I had to flee and become a fugitive because Saul no longer trusted me though I spared his life many times.
After I learned of Saul's death I mourned greatly and proceded to Hebron where I became king of Judah. After a short war with the house of Saul, I then became king of all Israel. I quickly chose Jerusalem as my capital and brought the Ark of God there. The Lord then made it clear to me that I would always have a house in Israel. This might have made me think less of my actions because I slept with a beautiful women that I saw bathing from the top of my roof. I knew she had a husband but that was easily taken care of because I am David, King of Israel.

To be continued...

The Slave part 1

I know that I have been falling behind on my blog entries but I have many good ideas written down that I intend on writing on in the next few weeks. First of all though I am going to get some stuff down on The Slave.This really was a pretty good book; I won't say it was my favorite but it was probably the best thing I have read for school in awhile and I am a Literature major.
Singer brings together a powerful story of struggle, lust, murder, faith, lies: the story of Jacob the Jew. Why call this book The Slave? Why not The Fugative or The Wonderer? The Jew has always been a slave to his religion and Jacob is just that. In the beginning he is an actual slave but this is not where the title comes from. Jacob's slavery is metaphorical just like the Bible is metaphorical. His slavery is Jewdism and every struggle that has come about in his life is because of this faith. His struggle for faith; his struggle for survival; his struggle for love. One sees how he fights to obay the Torah and torments himself about how he is living while other Jews around him only care about gossip, eating, and screwing. Their unconcern for the main laws of the Torah help them to live an easier, unstressed lifestyle. Jacob, on the other hand, lives his life by the book and when he falls for a gentile, he has to go against the only thing he believes in. When enslaved by Wanda's parents he has nothing: family, friends, food, a home. He is totally at the mercy of God and the peasents. Wanda is his angel. Even though she is not Jewish, she is his only way out of his slavery to her parents; she is his only way back to the Jewish community.
Wanda says that she had visions that always came true. She says that she knew Jacob would come for her and that is why she saved herself. Jacob tells her that she was born a Jew to a gentile family. They needed each other to be rescued and in essence they both free each other.

Exodus

Just a quick post this time, I'll have more on it later.
It seems to me that Moses is inept and kind of a wuss. I mean if I knew that God was behind me I wouldnt be second guessing my self so much.
And the Pharaoh, what a stubborn idiot. What kind of person could be in charge of a country and just sit there and watch while all these bad things happen to his people?(Fill in blank here).
I thought that the 10 plagues in Exodus were pretty ridiculous. This part was very hard to get through because it kind of made me mad. I guess it is God taking everything away from the Egyptions, but come on. God tried to kill Moses, or his son, for stopping on his way to Egypt. Why doesn't he just kill the Pharaoh or just take everything at once?
I know this is an important part of the story but I thought it was pretty dumb.

2, 3, 4: Exodus: movement of Jah people! Oh, yeah!
(Movement of Jah people!) Send us another brother Moses!
(Movement of Jah people!) From across the Red Sea!
(Movement of Jah people!) Send us another brother Moses!
(Movement of Jah people!) From across the Red Sea!
Movement of Jah people!
---Bob Marley---

Saul, Samuel, and God

Since my group is doing Samuel for the class projects I am going to talk a little about this book.
Samuel is pretty much God's right hand man. If God was a mofia boss, Samuel would do his dirty work and bring in new recruits.
Saul is annointed as king of Israel as long as he keeps his word to the Lord. I think it is interesting how quickly one can be annointed and also how fast one can be tossed aside. In the stories of Saul, the "forgiving God" doesnt really show himself often. Instead, God seems more like a jealous lover. If Saul even thinks of straying, Samuel is there to remind him that God can and will leave him if he strays from his love. I don't know if "J" has anything to do with this writing but this relationship sounds like a woman's perspective to me. One has to totally devote himself to God, just as one has to devote themselves to their significant other. And, like any liberated woman will tell you, she can easily find someone else to take your place if you fail to please her. (Trust me on this one).
When Saul defeats the Amalekites, he breaks his oath to God by sparing Agag and the best of sheep and cattle. Saul thinks he is doing the right thing by taking the best of the spoils to be sacraficed to God, but forgets what he promised at first. (I think many men have thought they were doing right, only to be told by their "other" that what they did was totally wrong and they were going to be punished). Saul is confused by this and says he was only trying to please God. And, like the good friend Samuel is to the Lord, Samuel will no longer help Saul since he has betrayed God. Samuel then goes to find the Lord a better king (David).
So is God a jealous woman, maybe. But I think Bod Dylan says it best:

She takes just like a woman, yes, she does
She makes love just like a woman, yes, she does
And she aches just like a woman
But she breaks just like a little girl.

Jacob and God

I think it is interesting how decieving Jacob is and how he is looked so favorably upon by God. Jacob basically lies and bargains his way to being the land of Isreal. To me, Jacob is the ultimate politician (allthough probably conservative). He sees what he wants and he takes it. By decieving his father, Isaac, he recieves his blessing and becomes head of the household. He tricks Laban into all of his possesions and does this all in the favor of God. During Jacob's wrestling match, the "man" that he wrestles blesses him as Isreal so that Jacob will let him go.
I find it funny how easily God bargans. This doesn't seem like something an all-powerful being would half to do. This is obviously J's story due to how well crafted and interesting the story line is, but this story also makes God less divine and more humanlike.

Bible Sex XXX

On page 46 in Frye he says,"if Adam before his fall was metaphorically a tree of life, then after his fall, he would metaphorically be a tree of death, or of moral or sexual knowledge."

Isn't sexual knowledge life? It seems to me Adam was metaphorically a tree of continued existence until his fall, then he was a tree of life. Would Adam and Eve have had children if they knew nothing of sexual knowledge? Maybe and maybe not, but they did have children and they did fall, so this passage seemed contradictry to me.

Also on page 51, Frye states,"Thus, in this relationship were Christ is the bridegroom and the bride is the people of Christ, it follows that Christ is symbollically the only male. He is also symbolically the only individual, the only person with the right to say 'I am'. That means that the souls of the people of God , whether they are souls of men or of women, are all symbolically female and make up a single bride figure."

So if man and women are symbolically female, I wonder if that is why God and Christ are mentioned so much during the act of sex. "Oh Christ, Oh Jesus" etc. Man and women are actually making love with Christ himself, this is great. This could mean the Song of Songs, "a song of the love of Christ for his bride" (Frye,52), could be the sounds that two people make while having sex. A song that if heard on cd would sound terrible, but tell that to the people who recorded that song. They would tell you its a beautiful song.
"The bride of the Song of Songs for example is discribed as 'a garden enclosed' and 'a fountain sealed'... 'a garden enclosed' and 'a fountain sealed' have always been traditionally identified with the Virgin Mary" (Frye 56). This does not sound like a virgin to me. To me, "a garden enclosed" is the demonic counterpart to the Virgin Mary. So if the Song of Songs is the sound of two people having sex and the bride of the Song of Songs isn't a virgin, Mary is either not the bride or not a virgin.
The demonic counterpart to sex with Christ is sex with the Antichrist (Frye,52). So i guess in the end there are, symbolically, just two types of sex: sex with Christ and sex without him.