Because he is so original and ignenious, it is hard to know exactly what theories of Frye's to take as fact and which to dismiss as a really really really interesting (if not necessarily accurate) take on what the Bible is doing. To me, one of the most fascinating things that Frye talks about in his book is the idea of the visible and invisible worlds. According to Frye, while some schools of Christian thought insist that the invisible world is (by its very nature) the higher order of reality, the Bible does not see it this way.

Frye uses the analogy of the air as a good example of the existence of the invisible world. If we could see the air, then in effect we could see nothing, as the air is everywhere and we would not be able to see anything but the air. He uses this analogy to explain why God must (by nature) be invisible. He also uses the metaphor of light, which we only see as a reflection. What he is getting at is that something visible must come from something invisible, because of its essence, if it did not, then it would not be created. Frye says that if God were not invisible, then the world could not be visible. While he doesn't expressly say it, from my reading of the text I came to understand another implication of what Frye says. I think that it is logical to say that God must be invisible because, as the Bible says, God is everywhere. So, just like the air, if God were not invisible, we could see nothing, because all we could see is God. As it is, we see evidence of God's hand, but by the very definition of God, we cannot see Him. I don't think that this is a stretch from Frye's original argument, because Frye uses the analogy of air before he explains the relevance of the visible and invisible worlds and Creation, and the Bible tells us that God is omnipresent - thus he is everywhere at the same time - much like air is everywhere.

I also found some interesting evidence that supports Frye's argument. In the first chapter of John, a very famous passage explains how the Word became flesh (Jesus) and how the Word was God and tells of the nature of God. One interesting verse toward the end of the opening passage is verse 5, which states, "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." It seems possible to interpret this verse as supporting Frye's hypothesis. It can be assumed that Jesus is the light, as that is often how Jesus was represented - he is described as a light shining among the darkness and when is transfixed, his face shines like the sun, and his clothes become as white as the light. If Jesus is the light and Jesus is the Word, and if the Word is God, then God must be light. So, in effect, the verse tells us then that God shone through the darkness (or the visible world) and the darkness has not understood it. One can read this passage as telling us, then, that the world that God created has not understood the light, or that the world does not understand God. This is very much a consistent Biblical theme. If that is indeed an accurate reading of the verse, then we see that Frye's theory holds up quite well in the context of the way the book of John describes the nature of God.

I have to say that my favorite chapter in the entire Bible has to be 1 Corinthians 13. Paul's address on love is both a rejection of legalism: "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing" and an expression of the extreme value of love: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails." In my mind, it stands as a very humanistic statement.

In fact, throughout the Old Testament, we find that there is a definite emphasis on faith and following the law. Yet Christ's (and Christian) teachings seems to emphasize the value of humanity over law. This perhaps nowhere more clearly evident than in Jesus's Sermon on the Mount and by his statement in Matthew 12: If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent." In this way, authentic Christian teaching seems very attractive.


It is interesting to note that the Paul who wrote 1 Corinthians 7, which says - "It is good for a man not to marry" in the NIV translation, or in the Harper Collins: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman". Continuing, "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." His stance on marriage as a concession to the weak seems very cold and very anti-humanistic. Yet in 1 Corinthians 13, we see another side of Paul. This is the Paul who tells us of the power of love, not the evils of lust. And while the love that Paul speaks of is different in both cases, his humanity resonates in the second.

As far as today's presentations went, I like how Marlowe and Emily looked at the same subject. I thought that learning about why something happened and well as how is vitally important. From all the presentations that I saw, I thought that Marlowe's stuck in my mind the most because of the startling facts that he had on Nero. Very graphic but very effective.

Also, I thought that both presentations on women in the Bible were interesting, and I particularly found Tara's to be educational. I thought that she had interesting points about the nature of society in Ancient Israel as being quite heavily patriarchical, though we find that in many of the stories attributed to the J writer, the narratives are far more complex than simply portraying women as evil or stupid. As Tara said, there were a number of very capable, intellegent and ultimately effective female characters in the Old Testament - women such as Sarah and Rachael. This is interesting to note, because in ancient Hebrew society, and nearly all ancient societies for that matter, women played a very marginal role. Yet we find that the Old Testament is full of interesting and crafty women, a number of tricksters.

I also liked the presentation on the J writer portraying God as infinitely powerful.

I enjoyed some of the presentations the past couple of days. I thought that Lindsay's presentation was very interesting and I like that she used Hallelujah by Jeff Buckley to emphasize her point. In listening to the song again, it seems to hold more meaning. Also, I like the fact that she took an original viewpoint on the relationship between Wanda and Jacob in The Slave, as it is infinitely more interesting to listen to creative new ideas than to have someone rehash what you've already read in Frye or Bloom. I

I am, however, not certain that I agree fully with the idea that the relationship between Wanda (or Sarah) and Jacob was necessarily not a love relationship, I look at the story as a kind of reconciliation between the pious Jew and the purity of the heart of someone trying to fulfill some very legalistic aims and the power of human affection. In this way, I think that the book exists as a marriage of religion and some of the themes of humanism. One of the reasons that I say this is because of all of the characters in the novel, Sarah is perhaps the most innocent. She only sins when she is trying to help Jacob or express her love for him. In the end, even the faithful villagers conceed that Sarah is "a daughter of Moses" and allow the lovers' bones to buried alongside one another. I think that if Singer would have wanted to emphasize that love expressed by the primary narrative of The Slave was really a fraud, he would have been far more explicit.

As I said though, I thought that Lindsay had a very interesting presentation because of the fact that it was not only original, but it put the Jeff Buckley song into a whole new context for me. (And no, I am not just complementing her presentation so I could disagree with it, I genuinely found it very interesting.)

I also liked Kim's original use of visual aides, very clever.