The thing that's striking right away about First Chronicles' approach to David is that it's lacking the heroic journey. He jumps right into being the holy warrior king. Samuel is referenced but apparently nowhere near as important, or perhaps his significance is merely implied, the way a slew of famous prophets are name-checked at the end of Second Kings. It's funny, too, but David is described very specifically as actively working against Saul, going so far as to collaborate with the Philistines. Shocking, to say the least! It's also David who uses the ark as a totem of war. This is literally a different version of the same story, although parallel in most ways, much like the gospels of the New Testament. In fact, it becomes more and more clear that the Old and New Testaments are far more structurally similar than you might sometimes think. This may have been far more obvious in times past, but now, when most Christians don't know the majority of the Old Testament, things like this can be so illuminating. The Old Testament itself is full of echoes, so it's not surprising that the early Christians wanted the New Testament to be nearly exactly like it, even in the ways where it seems to outright contradict its predecessor.
David delivers a psalm which reads like a mission statement of faith, including the phrase, "let the heavens be glad and the earth rejoice," which was later adapted into a modern hymn. The name "Satan" is invoked, though not explicitly explained. This is hardly the first time that sort of thing happens. The Bible is heavy with implied knowledge, and it's always dangerous for later generations to just assume it can all be lifted directly and literally to their own time.
God actually rejects the doctrine of war as the basis for promulgating the future of Israel, even though so much of the Old Testament to this point has been filled with it. It's the reason given here for why Solomon and not David will build the temple (although there's also God's argument that he was perfectly content not to have a permanent home, almost as if he were relenting to David's logic). It's almost as if war was perceived as crucial to the story originally for the simple reason that a certain amount of chaos was considered necessary to establishing order, like our modern notion of revolution.
This account of David's era is far more sober, less crafted, more like a foundation or yes, a chronicle. If you really want to read the Bible without religious preference, this would be a good place to start. David is downright Arthurian here.
The succession of Solomon is depicted as plain and obvious in this account, which is another major deviation from what has been established previously.
David describes Solomon's role after him in much the way Jesus later conferred on his apostles the future of the Church. Another parallel.
First Chronicles ends by referencing some works that are clearly not in the Bible: the Chronicles of Samuel (which I would assume are different from First and Second Samuel), the Chronicles of Nathan, and the Chronicles of Gad. No Chronicles of Narnia, alas.
Second Chronicles begins with the rise of Solomon, and features its own marked deviations, too, starting with how Solomon is given the gift of wisdom from God. Previously he was given a choice of three gifts, and because he chose wisely (literally), he got all three. Here he outright asks for wisdom, and God still gives him everything anyway.
The temple is built in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah. It's a name that evokes Tolkien' Middle Earth, which would not be surprising. Like C.S. Lewis, Tolkien built his fantasy on the back of his Christian faith, though less blatantly. George Lucas likely did the same, though still less obviously, using other sources of what would be considered more obvious inspiration, but the elements are all there anyway.
Here the ark's contents are known, unlike what appears in Second Kings to be a secret Josiah stumbles across in the ruins of the temple. It's very possible that separate traditions, perhaps from among the separate tribes, were gradually brought together. They would have been aware of each other (hence the constant references to Chronicles in Kings), drawing from the same stories, but originally and quite obviously not cohesive. It takes very brave faith for contradictions like this to exist in your holiest text. It also takes very brave faith to completely ignore this and assume you can believe all of it at face value. Both approaches are not necessarily wrong nor are they necessarily right. For the objective believer, these are records that speak to essential truths that must be carefully sifted from the bones of history. It becomes far easier when there are competing traditions right in the Bible itself, actually. Despite ignorance in the face of free knowledge, it means no one was really trying to hide this fact. This is good.
Solomon actually makes a call for universal inclusion in the Jewish faith, another presaging of the later Christian tradition. So much of the Old Testament is geared toward the purity of the Jewish line, which is why there are all those genealogies, but right there and with one of the most famous figures of the Bible, there's one of the greatest contradictions!
You can further tell how God was perceived at the time by the way he was depicted, as a divine being who demanded perfect fealty, and when it wasn't given was ready to administer punishments and bad times at the drop of a hat, interpretations on past events that would have been natural to a people justifying their own history and continued devotion to an apparently capricious subject of faith. That he also claims steadfast love is another contradiction, though Solomon does have God promise to relent if people make apologies.
Like David, Solomon's further adventures are supposed to be able to be found in other books, of course not found in the Bible: in Nathan, perhaps the same earlier-referenced Chronicles of; the prophecy of Ahijah; and the visions of Iddo, and both of these also concern Solomon's successors.
It's funny, but not a hint of Solomon's own wrong-doing is referenced in Second Chronicles. He appears to be fairly perfect. It's those who follow him who are the fallible wretches who ruin the future of Israel, so that the phrase, "so Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day" may be uttered again, and explain how two great men are not enough to have finally settled the fate of the Jewish people even though they were for all intents and purposes the culmination of all previous Old Testament material, a fact that only seems to be emphasized in First and Second Chronicles.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Second Book of Kings 11-25, First Book of Chronicles 1-10
We pick right back up with the succession of unfortunate Jewish kings. There's an incidental reference to God sending Israel a savior of some kind. The dying Elisha performs an act out of later Arthurian legend, signaling a destination of some sort with an arrow through a window. His bones are also the first recorded Judeo-Christian relics to serve as the catalyst for a miracle.
Jonah is referenced. Nineveh, separately, is also referenced.
The temple is desecrated. There is a consistency now in the fact that pagans built their altars on high ground. Hebrews generally behaving badly, acting a lot like the ones who came out of Egypt, and even create themselves some molten calves. Second Kings makes it a point to say that they're reverting to former ways. Only Judah remains a bastion of the faith.
Babylon looms heavily.
The phrase "you are now relying on Egypt, that broken reed of a staff," making it clear where that nation now stands. The Aramaic language is specifically referenced.
A lot of this makes me think that this is the period where the Jewish faith began to be reconciled into one tradition, and this is before we Josiah, much less First Chronicles, which I contend may have actually been written first, making both books of Kings another act of prequel, like Genesis and the books of Moses. But we'll get to that.
Isaiah enters the picture! He's extremely instrumental in leading a religious revival under Hezekiah. He also introduces the doctrine of God having a plan rather than humanity goofing up, which supports my predestination theory from earlier, in that Adam and Eve were always meant to fall. No matter how often humanity fails God, he's always leading them in a specific direction, starting with Abraham. You might also say that some of this was shaped in a certain direction by later extrapolation of the historic record.
The angel of the Lord smites the Assyrians.
Hezekiah seems to tempt the Babylonians in much the way Egypt and the Philistines were previously induced to consider the spoils of the Hebrew faith. Isaiah prophesies the exile. Manasseh succeeds Hezekiah, is so bad that God swears holy vengeance against his people no matter what, and "no matter what" happens to mean Josiah, who enacts a greater religious revival than Hezekiah. He reigns in Jerusalem for 31 years. He discovers the book of the law, which is presumably the ark, and by this may have helped solidify Jewish faith to that point. He is given an all but cursory appearance nonetheless. He dies in battle at Megiddo, another reason to associate it with apocalypse.
Jeremiah is referenced!
Then, unfortunately, Nebuchadnezzar, the great king of the Babylonians. He has already taken dominion over the Egyptians, but that only stands to reason at this point. Jerusalem is besieged. The Hebrews become, actually, amicable citizens of Babylon, not like the bondage in Egypt anyway. Second Kings ends.
First Chronicles begins with a real chronicle, all right, a thick tangle of genealogy that does a more thorough job than any biblical precedent before it. Caleb seems to be more significant in this record than Moses, who receives a cursory reference, but at least his descent from Levi is finally completed, unlike in Exodus. This makes it seem like Moses was originally part of a separate tradition, and perhaps indeed he was.
Then the repeats begin. The Philistines start our story here, and Saul's war against them and his suicide. No real distinction is made about where he stands in the tradition except that he was, like most of the kings in the books of Kings, someone who didn't do right by God.
Jonah is referenced. Nineveh, separately, is also referenced.
The temple is desecrated. There is a consistency now in the fact that pagans built their altars on high ground. Hebrews generally behaving badly, acting a lot like the ones who came out of Egypt, and even create themselves some molten calves. Second Kings makes it a point to say that they're reverting to former ways. Only Judah remains a bastion of the faith.
Babylon looms heavily.
The phrase "you are now relying on Egypt, that broken reed of a staff," making it clear where that nation now stands. The Aramaic language is specifically referenced.
A lot of this makes me think that this is the period where the Jewish faith began to be reconciled into one tradition, and this is before we Josiah, much less First Chronicles, which I contend may have actually been written first, making both books of Kings another act of prequel, like Genesis and the books of Moses. But we'll get to that.
Isaiah enters the picture! He's extremely instrumental in leading a religious revival under Hezekiah. He also introduces the doctrine of God having a plan rather than humanity goofing up, which supports my predestination theory from earlier, in that Adam and Eve were always meant to fall. No matter how often humanity fails God, he's always leading them in a specific direction, starting with Abraham. You might also say that some of this was shaped in a certain direction by later extrapolation of the historic record.
The angel of the Lord smites the Assyrians.
Hezekiah seems to tempt the Babylonians in much the way Egypt and the Philistines were previously induced to consider the spoils of the Hebrew faith. Isaiah prophesies the exile. Manasseh succeeds Hezekiah, is so bad that God swears holy vengeance against his people no matter what, and "no matter what" happens to mean Josiah, who enacts a greater religious revival than Hezekiah. He reigns in Jerusalem for 31 years. He discovers the book of the law, which is presumably the ark, and by this may have helped solidify Jewish faith to that point. He is given an all but cursory appearance nonetheless. He dies in battle at Megiddo, another reason to associate it with apocalypse.
Jeremiah is referenced!
Then, unfortunately, Nebuchadnezzar, the great king of the Babylonians. He has already taken dominion over the Egyptians, but that only stands to reason at this point. Jerusalem is besieged. The Hebrews become, actually, amicable citizens of Babylon, not like the bondage in Egypt anyway. Second Kings ends.
First Chronicles begins with a real chronicle, all right, a thick tangle of genealogy that does a more thorough job than any biblical precedent before it. Caleb seems to be more significant in this record than Moses, who receives a cursory reference, but at least his descent from Levi is finally completed, unlike in Exodus. This makes it seem like Moses was originally part of a separate tradition, and perhaps indeed he was.
Then the repeats begin. The Philistines start our story here, and Saul's war against them and his suicide. No real distinction is made about where he stands in the tradition except that he was, like most of the kings in the books of Kings, someone who didn't do right by God.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
First Book of Kings 12-22, Second Book of Kings 1-10
Solomon's son Rehoboam succeeds him. It's the first of many names you'll have probably never heard of or at least won't remember if you have. There are some big names ahead, but also a lot of incredibly small ones. Mostly the degenerative nature of the Hebrew monarchy on display for the foreseeable future...
The poor dude starts out poorly by forsaking the wisdom of his elders in favor of his frat buddies, basically. People somehow feel betrayed by this attitude. "...Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day," thanks to poor examples like this. Although to be fair, both David and Solomon screwed up pretty good, too, even if they actually did a bunch of positive things as well.
The splintering crown leads way to the reign of Jeroboam. War is averted, momentarily. Jeroboam is crazy enough to drive his people away from God in an effort to divert them from Rehoboam. It makes no sense. But that's also part of God's own doing, the curse he leveled against Israel thanks to once too often straying from the chosen path. Jeroboam also breaks the Mosaic tradition of strictly Levite priests.
On the other hand, Josiah is prophesied, although he doesn't show up as of Second Kings 10. That's someone to look forward to!
And there's Jesus, whom Josiah might be said to evoke. The prophet who sees Josiah in the future returns home from a different way than he came, like the three wise men from the nativity story of the New Testament.
I'd name the prophet, but he isn't named in First Kings, and neither is another prophet who shows up, which doesn't help the narrative at this point be terribly memorable. It might be symbolic, however, of their combined ineffectiveness, a little like my good friend Balaam.
The whole point of Jeroboam seems to be that God didn't forsake David so much as apparently every other member of the chosen people. He's shrunk his commitment back to its origins, but instead of promising many descendants, only one in the future who will fulfill the abortive promise of David's destiny. And, by the way, when someone like David, or Solomon, wins everyone does. And that's kind of what Jesus does, isn't it? It's the whole reason the New Testament seems like an extension and also drastic revision of the Old Testament.
The later books of Chronicles is referenced for the first time. The first time of many. I noted nine more instances between both books of Kings. Clearly they were written in quick succession, or more cleverly edited together than previous books of the Bible.
Jeroboam reigned 22 years. After a while, I stopped keeping a record of reigns and overlaps of reigns. There was just no point. Maybe as a chart it would have looked good, but honestly? You don't know these names because by themselves they just aren't important.
Nadab succeeds him! See what I mean? Who's Nadab? Rehoboam was 41 when he began his reign, which lasted 17 years. People misbehaved. He didn't exactly stop them. Although the Egyptians are big winners. They're suddenly very relevant again, which was something that began under Solomon. They replace the Philistines, and of course you know all about them. They raid Jerusalem. War between the camps of Jeroboam and Rehoboam, and maybe a few citizens lose track of whose side they're on because of the extreme similarity of their names...
Then Rehoboam died. Abijah succeeded him. Reigned 3 years, 18 years into Jeroboam's competing reign. He was morally compromised. They all were. It's great that Christians later had so many wonderful saints, because it was incredibly hard for all these biblical figures to be anything like that pure. War between the camps of Abijah and Jeroboam. Abijah succeeded by Asa, 20th year of Jeroboam's reign. He lasts 41 years. Doesn't leave any real impact. He feuds with Baasha, Jeroboam's successor.. Then comes Jehoshaphat, a name you'll probably know. Nadab was betrayed by Baasha, with Philistine connections (they had to show again). That signals the end of the house of Jeroboam. Honestly, this is like Game of Thrones...
Baasha reigned for 24 years. He thoroughly rejected Jeroboam, but was just as bad. Elah, the son of Baasha, comes next. If the name sounds familiar, it's Philistine in origin, and was previously featured as the valley in which David defeated Goliath. Zimri betrays him, ends the house of Baasha. Israel further splinters. New kings in new kingdoms include Tibni and Omri, although he was worse than anyone else. But, Ahab succeeds him!
No, not the Herman Melville character, the biblical Ahab, as in Ahab and Jezebel. How does Jezebel become an epitaph? By being probably the worst woman in the whole Bible, Iago-like in her manipulations. But who's that to try and save the day? Elijah! He kind of redeems Ahab, and that's just the start of his adventures! He's a Christ figure, which only figures, because apparently thought Jesus was either Moses or Elijah returned to earth.
Classic episode that sees Elijah completely discredit the prophets of Baal follows, sort of like Moses and the Pharaoh's sorcerers. It's also the first time God has been actively demonstrative since Moses, too. Elijah undergoes a trial in the desert, like Jesus, lasts for the same prophetic 40 days. There's also the episode where God is manifested in the most modest way possible, which evokes the way his relationship to mankind has evolved since the early books in the Old Testament. Elisha appears, predating the apostles of the gospels but basically exactly like them.
Syria becomes the new Egypt, which was the new Philistines (who themselves remain mostly a biblical people to this day). Israel prevails under Elijah's guidance. The splintered nations grow less pathetic now that they have a strong figure at the center again. Elijah, however, is the first prime figure who is not himself a prime mover. The Syrians recognize God's strength, and so make peace.
Ahab becomes moody after a series of small sleights. Jezebel is Jezebel. Elijah chastises Ahab for letting Jezebel be Jezebel. Ahab and Jezebel are basically Adam and Eve figures. Jehoshaphat realizes Israel is stronger when united against Syria. Prophets bicker. Ahab dies in the Syrian wars that are somehow continuing (darn Jehoshaphat). Ahaziah succeeds him, is less redeemable than Ahab. Jehoram succeeds Jehoshaphat. First Book of Kings ends.
Second Book of Kings begins much the way the last one ended. Elijah is busy trying to get people not to worship gods before God. Ahaziah presses the issue, tests both God and Elijah, and ends up smited for his effort. Elijah parts waters (like Moses), the famed chariot of fire appears, and then he ascends to heaven, the way Christians find very evocative for the New Testament.
Elisha fixes the water in Jericho, which remains that way "to this day." He was apparently bald, by the way, tormented for it like the "wisp of tow" taunt in The Brothers Karamazov.
Jehoram rejects Baal, but that doesn't mean he's a good king. Elisha performs more wonders. There's more warfare. All this warfare is looking increasingly bleak for the future of Israel. Elisha performs his classic oil miracle. Looks like a Christ figure himself. He even brings a child back to life. If Jesus had had another Jesus after him, Christianity would look a lot different today. He multiplies a little bit of food to feed many people. He cures a leper, Naaman, who at first scoffs at Elisha's proscribed of treatment. Naaman is a great warrior, so he hadn't exactly been treated as roughly as other lepers. Elisha helps the Hebrew army avoids Syrian traps. God helps him foil Syrian assassins.
Things on the whole, otherwise, remain pretty messy. It's worth noting that Samaria is relevant in this era. Jesus later has one of his classic parables concerning the "good Samaritan." Elisha's prophecies, which was earlier indicated in the Bible as the only way to judge the worth of a prophet, always come true. Philistines. Elisha prophesies Hazael's reign in Syria and war with Israel. Joram reigns, is no better than anyone else. Then Ahaziah. Wars. Elisha has Jehu anointed. Jehu immediately begins consolidating power. Ends the house of Ahab. Joram murdered. Ahaziah murdered. Jezebel murdered! He also evokes Samson when he tricks followers of Baal into gathering in one space, and then killing them all. He doesn't spare the earthly smiting one bit. Killing, again, seems to be justifiable if you do it in the name of religion. And so the Inquisition. Jehu, for all this holy crusading, is not hugely more perfect than anyone, just a human purge machine, trying to clear the Hebrew cobwebs. His reign lasts 28 years. Jehoahaz succeeds him. Second Kings continues...
The poor dude starts out poorly by forsaking the wisdom of his elders in favor of his frat buddies, basically. People somehow feel betrayed by this attitude. "...Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day," thanks to poor examples like this. Although to be fair, both David and Solomon screwed up pretty good, too, even if they actually did a bunch of positive things as well.
The splintering crown leads way to the reign of Jeroboam. War is averted, momentarily. Jeroboam is crazy enough to drive his people away from God in an effort to divert them from Rehoboam. It makes no sense. But that's also part of God's own doing, the curse he leveled against Israel thanks to once too often straying from the chosen path. Jeroboam also breaks the Mosaic tradition of strictly Levite priests.
On the other hand, Josiah is prophesied, although he doesn't show up as of Second Kings 10. That's someone to look forward to!
And there's Jesus, whom Josiah might be said to evoke. The prophet who sees Josiah in the future returns home from a different way than he came, like the three wise men from the nativity story of the New Testament.
I'd name the prophet, but he isn't named in First Kings, and neither is another prophet who shows up, which doesn't help the narrative at this point be terribly memorable. It might be symbolic, however, of their combined ineffectiveness, a little like my good friend Balaam.
The whole point of Jeroboam seems to be that God didn't forsake David so much as apparently every other member of the chosen people. He's shrunk his commitment back to its origins, but instead of promising many descendants, only one in the future who will fulfill the abortive promise of David's destiny. And, by the way, when someone like David, or Solomon, wins everyone does. And that's kind of what Jesus does, isn't it? It's the whole reason the New Testament seems like an extension and also drastic revision of the Old Testament.
The later books of Chronicles is referenced for the first time. The first time of many. I noted nine more instances between both books of Kings. Clearly they were written in quick succession, or more cleverly edited together than previous books of the Bible.
Jeroboam reigned 22 years. After a while, I stopped keeping a record of reigns and overlaps of reigns. There was just no point. Maybe as a chart it would have looked good, but honestly? You don't know these names because by themselves they just aren't important.
Nadab succeeds him! See what I mean? Who's Nadab? Rehoboam was 41 when he began his reign, which lasted 17 years. People misbehaved. He didn't exactly stop them. Although the Egyptians are big winners. They're suddenly very relevant again, which was something that began under Solomon. They replace the Philistines, and of course you know all about them. They raid Jerusalem. War between the camps of Jeroboam and Rehoboam, and maybe a few citizens lose track of whose side they're on because of the extreme similarity of their names...
Then Rehoboam died. Abijah succeeded him. Reigned 3 years, 18 years into Jeroboam's competing reign. He was morally compromised. They all were. It's great that Christians later had so many wonderful saints, because it was incredibly hard for all these biblical figures to be anything like that pure. War between the camps of Abijah and Jeroboam. Abijah succeeded by Asa, 20th year of Jeroboam's reign. He lasts 41 years. Doesn't leave any real impact. He feuds with Baasha, Jeroboam's successor.. Then comes Jehoshaphat, a name you'll probably know. Nadab was betrayed by Baasha, with Philistine connections (they had to show again). That signals the end of the house of Jeroboam. Honestly, this is like Game of Thrones...
Baasha reigned for 24 years. He thoroughly rejected Jeroboam, but was just as bad. Elah, the son of Baasha, comes next. If the name sounds familiar, it's Philistine in origin, and was previously featured as the valley in which David defeated Goliath. Zimri betrays him, ends the house of Baasha. Israel further splinters. New kings in new kingdoms include Tibni and Omri, although he was worse than anyone else. But, Ahab succeeds him!
No, not the Herman Melville character, the biblical Ahab, as in Ahab and Jezebel. How does Jezebel become an epitaph? By being probably the worst woman in the whole Bible, Iago-like in her manipulations. But who's that to try and save the day? Elijah! He kind of redeems Ahab, and that's just the start of his adventures! He's a Christ figure, which only figures, because apparently thought Jesus was either Moses or Elijah returned to earth.
Classic episode that sees Elijah completely discredit the prophets of Baal follows, sort of like Moses and the Pharaoh's sorcerers. It's also the first time God has been actively demonstrative since Moses, too. Elijah undergoes a trial in the desert, like Jesus, lasts for the same prophetic 40 days. There's also the episode where God is manifested in the most modest way possible, which evokes the way his relationship to mankind has evolved since the early books in the Old Testament. Elisha appears, predating the apostles of the gospels but basically exactly like them.
Syria becomes the new Egypt, which was the new Philistines (who themselves remain mostly a biblical people to this day). Israel prevails under Elijah's guidance. The splintered nations grow less pathetic now that they have a strong figure at the center again. Elijah, however, is the first prime figure who is not himself a prime mover. The Syrians recognize God's strength, and so make peace.
Ahab becomes moody after a series of small sleights. Jezebel is Jezebel. Elijah chastises Ahab for letting Jezebel be Jezebel. Ahab and Jezebel are basically Adam and Eve figures. Jehoshaphat realizes Israel is stronger when united against Syria. Prophets bicker. Ahab dies in the Syrian wars that are somehow continuing (darn Jehoshaphat). Ahaziah succeeds him, is less redeemable than Ahab. Jehoram succeeds Jehoshaphat. First Book of Kings ends.
Second Book of Kings begins much the way the last one ended. Elijah is busy trying to get people not to worship gods before God. Ahaziah presses the issue, tests both God and Elijah, and ends up smited for his effort. Elijah parts waters (like Moses), the famed chariot of fire appears, and then he ascends to heaven, the way Christians find very evocative for the New Testament.
Elisha fixes the water in Jericho, which remains that way "to this day." He was apparently bald, by the way, tormented for it like the "wisp of tow" taunt in The Brothers Karamazov.
Jehoram rejects Baal, but that doesn't mean he's a good king. Elisha performs more wonders. There's more warfare. All this warfare is looking increasingly bleak for the future of Israel. Elisha performs his classic oil miracle. Looks like a Christ figure himself. He even brings a child back to life. If Jesus had had another Jesus after him, Christianity would look a lot different today. He multiplies a little bit of food to feed many people. He cures a leper, Naaman, who at first scoffs at Elisha's proscribed of treatment. Naaman is a great warrior, so he hadn't exactly been treated as roughly as other lepers. Elisha helps the Hebrew army avoids Syrian traps. God helps him foil Syrian assassins.
Things on the whole, otherwise, remain pretty messy. It's worth noting that Samaria is relevant in this era. Jesus later has one of his classic parables concerning the "good Samaritan." Elisha's prophecies, which was earlier indicated in the Bible as the only way to judge the worth of a prophet, always come true. Philistines. Elisha prophesies Hazael's reign in Syria and war with Israel. Joram reigns, is no better than anyone else. Then Ahaziah. Wars. Elisha has Jehu anointed. Jehu immediately begins consolidating power. Ends the house of Ahab. Joram murdered. Ahaziah murdered. Jezebel murdered! He also evokes Samson when he tricks followers of Baal into gathering in one space, and then killing them all. He doesn't spare the earthly smiting one bit. Killing, again, seems to be justifiable if you do it in the name of religion. And so the Inquisition. Jehu, for all this holy crusading, is not hugely more perfect than anyone, just a human purge machine, trying to clear the Hebrew cobwebs. His reign lasts 28 years. Jehoahaz succeeds him. Second Kings continues...
Friday, December 20, 2013
Second Book of Samuel 21-24, First Book of Kings 1-11
David attempts to solve all Israel's problems forever. It doesn't quite work. The darn Philistines appear again. David grows weary. A second Goliath, representative of a remnant of giants...
Then there's the song of David, which seems to reflect heavily on later Christian theology, not to mention love of that common Books of Samuel theme, warfare. It's very similar language to the psalms, like what they were based on. Although war itself will remain a focus of the narrative for some time, it no longer seems quite the driving force of Israel's future. Although there is, again, much love for it.
God's wrath is kindled again, although David is able to appease him after a selection of three punishments ends with classical biblical plague. No overt smiting. End of Second Book of Samuel.
The beginning of First Book of Kings sees David in old age given a concubine to help keep his increasingly frail body warm. First Kings makes it clear they don't have sex, though, in case you wanted to know. Mutinous behavior continues, this time with another son, who is also described as exceptionally handsome (I guess this is where all our modern literature gets the idea from). Nathan quickly gets Bathsheba to put Solomon under protection, because he's the clear threat to the usurper. David has a signature mule, which Solomon symbolically rides to drive the point home (reminiscent of Jesus on Palm Sunday). He's soon anointed to make it official that he's the one who's king and David successor. Like his father before him, Solomon pursues a policy of forgiveness against his rivals. David implores him to also keep his other traditions alive. Then the old king dies.
Solomon begins consolidating his power, settling old affairs such as finally dealing with Joab (read: executing him). He makes a marriage alliance with Egypt, which is growing in biblical importance again. It only figures, because this is only the start of many allusions to past events. He also begins building up Jerusalem, making it truly fit for a king.
God grants him the choice of three extraordinary favors, and Solomon famously chooses wisdom, so he gets all of them anyway. Then follows another anecdote you'll certainly recognize, the wise act of figuring out who the real mother is when a dispute arises, threatening to split the child in two. It's the example everyone uses, and I guess it's the one the Bible does, too. In short order the later psalms and proverbs are attributed to him. Preparations for the temple are made. Clearly Solomon was thought of in great terms by the later Hebrews, as pretty much everything their is to know about his reign is recorded in minute detail, far greater than even similar work that had been done in the Books of Samuel. These are the most important books after the Moses cycle to the Jewish faith, and they're also the most important ones to Christian faith from the Old Testament.
It's also perhaps significant that the extreme detail that God related to Moses concerning the ark in the first place is more than represented in explaining the temple's many opulent features.
For the record, First Kings records the amount of time since the exile from Egypt to the time of Solomon at 480 years. That's about for us modern readers the whole American continent history from Columbus to our day.
God keeps reiterating that if Solomon remains on the straight and narrow everything will be perfect for Israel. Of course he does!
It took 7 years to complete work on the temple. There's a great ceremony to commemorate the ark's journey to its final resting place in the temple. It's at this point that the reader may realize that the true main character of the Bible to this point has been the ark, which has been present from Moses to Solomon. The promise God made David that it would be Solomon who saw the building of the temple is a little like when Moses was told it would be Joshua who entered the promised land. It wasn't until David had the idea that the temple was even considered a final destination. God had been content to let the ark travel freely through Israel. There are more echoes of Moses, although it's compassion and forgiveness that God prefers these days, rather than his old policy of smiting first and asking questions later (you know, basically). It tends to read like a reflection of later New Testament theology.
I know, I keep saying that. It's there, what else can I say?
It took 20 years in all, including Solomon's own elaborate lodgings, to complete construction work.
The Queen of Sheba shows up to test Solomon, and he passes it. Although, on a related note or not, his many romantic conquests really start to take their toll on him. He starts putting other gods before, or at least alongside, God. This does not please God, who revokes his charter and then agrees to let the Hebrews keep Jerusalem but nothing else.
A new enemy (the first of several) arises, Hadad, who once had occasion to hide out in Egypt. The same is true of Jeroboam (who in his earlier days received a prophecy that he would one day inherit a part of Solomon's kingdom, which led Solomon to try and eliminate him). All this fleeing to Egypt evokes both Joseph in the past and Mary and the other Joseph in the future. A third enemy is Rezon.
There's a strong indication that Solomon, like Adam before him, was always meant to fall. Probably the Jewish people would much have preferred a permanent and considerable kingdom, but that's just not something that happened. A good thing always ends. Call it a proverb.
Solomon reigned for 40 years, and then he died.
Then there's the song of David, which seems to reflect heavily on later Christian theology, not to mention love of that common Books of Samuel theme, warfare. It's very similar language to the psalms, like what they were based on. Although war itself will remain a focus of the narrative for some time, it no longer seems quite the driving force of Israel's future. Although there is, again, much love for it.
God's wrath is kindled again, although David is able to appease him after a selection of three punishments ends with classical biblical plague. No overt smiting. End of Second Book of Samuel.
The beginning of First Book of Kings sees David in old age given a concubine to help keep his increasingly frail body warm. First Kings makes it clear they don't have sex, though, in case you wanted to know. Mutinous behavior continues, this time with another son, who is also described as exceptionally handsome (I guess this is where all our modern literature gets the idea from). Nathan quickly gets Bathsheba to put Solomon under protection, because he's the clear threat to the usurper. David has a signature mule, which Solomon symbolically rides to drive the point home (reminiscent of Jesus on Palm Sunday). He's soon anointed to make it official that he's the one who's king and David successor. Like his father before him, Solomon pursues a policy of forgiveness against his rivals. David implores him to also keep his other traditions alive. Then the old king dies.
Solomon begins consolidating his power, settling old affairs such as finally dealing with Joab (read: executing him). He makes a marriage alliance with Egypt, which is growing in biblical importance again. It only figures, because this is only the start of many allusions to past events. He also begins building up Jerusalem, making it truly fit for a king.
God grants him the choice of three extraordinary favors, and Solomon famously chooses wisdom, so he gets all of them anyway. Then follows another anecdote you'll certainly recognize, the wise act of figuring out who the real mother is when a dispute arises, threatening to split the child in two. It's the example everyone uses, and I guess it's the one the Bible does, too. In short order the later psalms and proverbs are attributed to him. Preparations for the temple are made. Clearly Solomon was thought of in great terms by the later Hebrews, as pretty much everything their is to know about his reign is recorded in minute detail, far greater than even similar work that had been done in the Books of Samuel. These are the most important books after the Moses cycle to the Jewish faith, and they're also the most important ones to Christian faith from the Old Testament.
It's also perhaps significant that the extreme detail that God related to Moses concerning the ark in the first place is more than represented in explaining the temple's many opulent features.
For the record, First Kings records the amount of time since the exile from Egypt to the time of Solomon at 480 years. That's about for us modern readers the whole American continent history from Columbus to our day.
God keeps reiterating that if Solomon remains on the straight and narrow everything will be perfect for Israel. Of course he does!
It took 7 years to complete work on the temple. There's a great ceremony to commemorate the ark's journey to its final resting place in the temple. It's at this point that the reader may realize that the true main character of the Bible to this point has been the ark, which has been present from Moses to Solomon. The promise God made David that it would be Solomon who saw the building of the temple is a little like when Moses was told it would be Joshua who entered the promised land. It wasn't until David had the idea that the temple was even considered a final destination. God had been content to let the ark travel freely through Israel. There are more echoes of Moses, although it's compassion and forgiveness that God prefers these days, rather than his old policy of smiting first and asking questions later (you know, basically). It tends to read like a reflection of later New Testament theology.
I know, I keep saying that. It's there, what else can I say?
It took 20 years in all, including Solomon's own elaborate lodgings, to complete construction work.
The Queen of Sheba shows up to test Solomon, and he passes it. Although, on a related note or not, his many romantic conquests really start to take their toll on him. He starts putting other gods before, or at least alongside, God. This does not please God, who revokes his charter and then agrees to let the Hebrews keep Jerusalem but nothing else.
A new enemy (the first of several) arises, Hadad, who once had occasion to hide out in Egypt. The same is true of Jeroboam (who in his earlier days received a prophecy that he would one day inherit a part of Solomon's kingdom, which led Solomon to try and eliminate him). All this fleeing to Egypt evokes both Joseph in the past and Mary and the other Joseph in the future. A third enemy is Rezon.
There's a strong indication that Solomon, like Adam before him, was always meant to fall. Probably the Jewish people would much have preferred a permanent and considerable kingdom, but that's just not something that happened. A good thing always ends. Call it a proverb.
Solomon reigned for 40 years, and then he died.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Second Book of Samuel 1-20
The second book in the grand history of Hebrew warfare begins with David learning of the deaths of Jonathan and Saul. The bearer of the news claims he killed Saul, which contradicts the ending of First Samuel. Stupid mistake on his part, anyway. David quickly has him put to death. David goes on to produce a lament/poem about his fallen comrades, which includes the refrain, "how are the mighty fallen," which would be interesting if it's the origin of the phrase "how the mighty have fallen," since the two would have very different meanings. David, as Second Samuel quickly makes very apparent, is very fond of both Saul and Jonathan in death. The latter phrase is a common derogatory utterance for people you have not admired.
God is being used as a consultant these days.
The kingdom becomes divided rather than united under David. Weird that this would be the case, since in a lot of ways David was supposed to be the epitome of the Jewish dream. One of Saul's sons rules part of the kingdom, while David's divided reign lasts 7 years. The in-fighting keeps evolving, and fittingly around the house of Saul and the house of David. David's grows stronger. It only figures. It's Abner who flies the banner of Saul. They eventually make peace. And then Abner is assassinated. It's funny, David maintains his tradition of lamenting the death of his enemy. He knows true rivals when he sees them. He respects them, and honors them in death. He insists on the inherent goodness of both Saul and Abner, angry when those beneath him say their deaths were good for Israel.
David was 30 when his reign began, and in total it lasted 40 years, a telling (as in how many years Jesus lived) 33 years under the united crown.
David's city is variously reported as Zion or Jerusalem.
Unlike Jesus, David doesn't much care, usually, for the blind or the lame. He makes an exception in the latter case for Jonathan's son.
He takes the fight back to the Philistines. Cherubim are referenced for the first time. This is theology evolving. Some poor schlub touches the ark and is smited by God, a policy David seems to disagree with. He finally brings the ark to a permanent home. Nathan is soon asking for what amounts to the first temple. Michal, David's wife who is also Saul's daughter, is not pleased to see David return, probably upset at his surviving and her father not their conflict. It's an attitude that's similar to David's brother's earlier, and may confirm my suspicion that dissent from the common opinion may stem from jealousy.
God makes a new covenant with David that's similar to what he made with Abraham, except instead of providing for a whole slew of descendants he speaks of making David's specific line very special. The New Testament interprets this as indicating Jesus. God includes the line, "I will be his father and he shall be my son," which in the Christian perspective is made very literal. If it's meant to refer to Solomon, well...like (that) father like (that) son.
The Philistines are finally eliminated from their perennial threat, as David celebrates. More enemies are eliminated. As David continues to show extreme loyalty to the legacies of Saul and Jonathan, it may be seen as resembling God's devotion to his people, and the loyalty/forgiveness of it to the whole Judeo-Christian tradition from the fall of Adam onward. We screw up and God (no matter how much he really wants to) never truly gives up on us.
So, enter Bathsheba, the famed bathing beauty. David falls hard for her, starts thinking like Samson and Saul before him ways to get her husband out of the picture. He eventually sends the poor guy into the front-lines of battle. God is displeased. Nathan has the occasion to deliver the first parable of the Bible. God isn't upset so much because of the adultery of it (which was one of the big no-nos outlined in the books of Moses) but because David tried to keep it a secret. He and David patch up their differences, and only Bathsheba's resulting child is punished. David grieves while it struggles toward death, and then to the confusion of everyone around the king, stops as soon as the child dies.
How is Bathsheba really important? She's the mother of Solomon!
One of David's son rapes his own sister. This is the start of a whole bloody affair. The son quickly rejects the sister, and another son, Absalom, wreaks terrible vengeance. It marks the first time he plots a conspiracy. Like a regular Shakespeare character, or as Second Samuel increasingly seems, a Greek tragedy.
On the plus side, like his son Solomon later, David is spoken of as possessing great wisdom. Absalom is described as uniquely handsome in the land, like Saul and David before him. He seems to almost be a new Saul, like the predecessor so the successor goes.
David visits the Mount of Olives. The New Testament looms. The conspiracies of Absalom, in fact, start sounding a lot like Judas and Jesus. There is even a betrayal with a kiss at one point.
The phrase, "long live the king!" is uttered.
David goes into hiding, "even now he has hidden himself in one of the pits," which evokes the much later Saddam Hussein and his rat hole. I guess that was a thing a long time ago, too. David in exile is like Moses after guiding the Hebrews out of Egypt. Those with him complain of starving.
Absalom eventually ends up caught in a tree during the decisive battle with David. Some debate (not involving David) follows as to what to do with him. He ends up dead. David, of course, still mourns him, even though he's just tried to usurp the kingdom, after all the weird twists that followed Absalom's murder of his brother. David's men are jealous of this grief. More tumult follows. A place called Abel is referenced, with no reference to the son of Adam, although it certainly evokes the most famous circumstances of his life. This time the troublemaker is Joab, who has replaced Absalom in every sense. He's the guy who killed him, and then took on the rivalry with David, apparently just for the taste of power for finding himself all of a sudden significant.
If you didn't know all this was essential to a lot of people's faith, you could easily read this for no particular religious reason at all...
God is being used as a consultant these days.
The kingdom becomes divided rather than united under David. Weird that this would be the case, since in a lot of ways David was supposed to be the epitome of the Jewish dream. One of Saul's sons rules part of the kingdom, while David's divided reign lasts 7 years. The in-fighting keeps evolving, and fittingly around the house of Saul and the house of David. David's grows stronger. It only figures. It's Abner who flies the banner of Saul. They eventually make peace. And then Abner is assassinated. It's funny, David maintains his tradition of lamenting the death of his enemy. He knows true rivals when he sees them. He respects them, and honors them in death. He insists on the inherent goodness of both Saul and Abner, angry when those beneath him say their deaths were good for Israel.
David was 30 when his reign began, and in total it lasted 40 years, a telling (as in how many years Jesus lived) 33 years under the united crown.
David's city is variously reported as Zion or Jerusalem.
Unlike Jesus, David doesn't much care, usually, for the blind or the lame. He makes an exception in the latter case for Jonathan's son.
He takes the fight back to the Philistines. Cherubim are referenced for the first time. This is theology evolving. Some poor schlub touches the ark and is smited by God, a policy David seems to disagree with. He finally brings the ark to a permanent home. Nathan is soon asking for what amounts to the first temple. Michal, David's wife who is also Saul's daughter, is not pleased to see David return, probably upset at his surviving and her father not their conflict. It's an attitude that's similar to David's brother's earlier, and may confirm my suspicion that dissent from the common opinion may stem from jealousy.
God makes a new covenant with David that's similar to what he made with Abraham, except instead of providing for a whole slew of descendants he speaks of making David's specific line very special. The New Testament interprets this as indicating Jesus. God includes the line, "I will be his father and he shall be my son," which in the Christian perspective is made very literal. If it's meant to refer to Solomon, well...like (that) father like (that) son.
The Philistines are finally eliminated from their perennial threat, as David celebrates. More enemies are eliminated. As David continues to show extreme loyalty to the legacies of Saul and Jonathan, it may be seen as resembling God's devotion to his people, and the loyalty/forgiveness of it to the whole Judeo-Christian tradition from the fall of Adam onward. We screw up and God (no matter how much he really wants to) never truly gives up on us.
So, enter Bathsheba, the famed bathing beauty. David falls hard for her, starts thinking like Samson and Saul before him ways to get her husband out of the picture. He eventually sends the poor guy into the front-lines of battle. God is displeased. Nathan has the occasion to deliver the first parable of the Bible. God isn't upset so much because of the adultery of it (which was one of the big no-nos outlined in the books of Moses) but because David tried to keep it a secret. He and David patch up their differences, and only Bathsheba's resulting child is punished. David grieves while it struggles toward death, and then to the confusion of everyone around the king, stops as soon as the child dies.
How is Bathsheba really important? She's the mother of Solomon!
One of David's son rapes his own sister. This is the start of a whole bloody affair. The son quickly rejects the sister, and another son, Absalom, wreaks terrible vengeance. It marks the first time he plots a conspiracy. Like a regular Shakespeare character, or as Second Samuel increasingly seems, a Greek tragedy.
On the plus side, like his son Solomon later, David is spoken of as possessing great wisdom. Absalom is described as uniquely handsome in the land, like Saul and David before him. He seems to almost be a new Saul, like the predecessor so the successor goes.
David visits the Mount of Olives. The New Testament looms. The conspiracies of Absalom, in fact, start sounding a lot like Judas and Jesus. There is even a betrayal with a kiss at one point.
The phrase, "long live the king!" is uttered.
David goes into hiding, "even now he has hidden himself in one of the pits," which evokes the much later Saddam Hussein and his rat hole. I guess that was a thing a long time ago, too. David in exile is like Moses after guiding the Hebrews out of Egypt. Those with him complain of starving.
Absalom eventually ends up caught in a tree during the decisive battle with David. Some debate (not involving David) follows as to what to do with him. He ends up dead. David, of course, still mourns him, even though he's just tried to usurp the kingdom, after all the weird twists that followed Absalom's murder of his brother. David's men are jealous of this grief. More tumult follows. A place called Abel is referenced, with no reference to the son of Adam, although it certainly evokes the most famous circumstances of his life. This time the troublemaker is Joab, who has replaced Absalom in every sense. He's the guy who killed him, and then took on the rivalry with David, apparently just for the taste of power for finding himself all of a sudden significant.
If you didn't know all this was essential to a lot of people's faith, you could easily read this for no particular religious reason at all...
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
First Book of Samuel 11-31
The First Book of Samuel has more classic biblical warfare. Seriously, I bet you could get a lot more people to read at least the Old Testament if they knew how much fighting goes on in it. Plenty of it could very well read like fantasy fiction (Othniel of Middle Earth the judge!), and you can see where not just many of the names you know came from but also some you wouldn't expect to see here (Endor!) can be found too.
Anyway, Saul is very much a warrior king. Samuel may have a different or perhaps only from a certain point of view version of biblical history, when he states "Jacob went into Egypt," where it was clearly Joseph his son who made the family mark there, as clearly stated in Genesis and the start of Exodus. He goes on with further summarizing, which either I wasn't reading closely enough or doesn't exactly follow the Judges record of the judges era, or at least vastly condenses it (no mention of Samson, for instance, who has come to dominate the modern view of that time).
First Samuel doesn't seem so keen on the need for a Hebrew king, that it's kind of a sign of weakness. May be another foreshadow of how the New Testament develops.
Saul's reign lasts for 2 years. It's festooned with Philistine conflict. Those darn Philistines! Samuel is a little like Moses in interpreting what God thinks of certain circumstances. He's displeased with how Saul conducts himself after a battle, thinks it has something to do with hubris. Saul's son Jonathan, as with the remainder of the book, serves as a counterpoint to Saul himself. When one is presented as generally good, the other is presented as generally bad.
Saul's whole family is laid out, the way genealogies were done in previous books. This may be the difference in how long ago the events being recorded took place. His big offense has something to do with preferring sacrifice over obedience. In the numerous laws of Moses, sacrifice was essential to just about everything. That was only a few books ago. Times change. Please take note, religious observers.
Jesse shows up again. He's not really important. It's his offspring, and specifically David, that we really care about. From here, you will start to know a lot of this. Samuel anoints David, the new more perfect chosen one. It's interesting how Saul and David initially interact. Saul calls for some help dealing with what's described as an evil spirit from God (certainly an interesting twist if it's the same as later and more famous demonic possession) but what I'll call foul moods. David is called upon to soothe his lord, a sacred cord no doubt (alleluia!), playing a lyre whenever Saul needs it. Saul is pleased. He thinks very favorably of young David, at first.
The Philistines return for more trouble! Goliath! The valley of Elah looms!
Jesse's sheep are kept in Bethlehem. New Testament looms!
It's interesting that David's brother describes him as presumptuous and having evil in his heart. Maybe it's jealousy. Maybe it's a peek at David's true personality?
Speaking of New Testament looming, David is a "good shepherd," delivered by God from the clutches of predators. It's impossible that in the midst of all the interpreting of scripture he did, Jesus or his friends wouldn't have noted any of this.
David's weapon isn't so much the slingshot as his faith in God. Goliath falls. Head served on a platter, another odd little echo to be found in the New Testament with John the Baptist.
Jonathan's stock is rising as he becomes fast friends with David. Saul starts thinking more craftily as he begins his pursuit of David. He becomes a lot more like Samson. This is where Saul gives David one of his daughters as his wife (David acquires several others, too!), in the hopes he'll have something to use against his new son-in-law later. Jonathan tells his pal how much trouble he's in. There's a waiting period of three days (like Jesus) while things build to a head. David finds himself with the upper hand, which impresses on Saul the nobility of this youth he has become so jealous of. He quits trying to kill him.
Samuel dies, his role complete. David's second bride is like one of those encounters Jesus has in the New Testament, but in a thoroughly Old Testament manner. Saul uses a medium to contact the dead Samuel. The ban against mediums, wizards, etc. (abominations to God, or so say the books of Moses several times) seems to have been lifted, or the Hebrews simply don't care about that edict anymore. (They're not exactly flawless these days.)
Jonathan falls in battle with the Philistines. Saul opts for suicide rather than meeting a similar fate. End of First Book.
Anyway, Saul is very much a warrior king. Samuel may have a different or perhaps only from a certain point of view version of biblical history, when he states "Jacob went into Egypt," where it was clearly Joseph his son who made the family mark there, as clearly stated in Genesis and the start of Exodus. He goes on with further summarizing, which either I wasn't reading closely enough or doesn't exactly follow the Judges record of the judges era, or at least vastly condenses it (no mention of Samson, for instance, who has come to dominate the modern view of that time).
First Samuel doesn't seem so keen on the need for a Hebrew king, that it's kind of a sign of weakness. May be another foreshadow of how the New Testament develops.
Saul's reign lasts for 2 years. It's festooned with Philistine conflict. Those darn Philistines! Samuel is a little like Moses in interpreting what God thinks of certain circumstances. He's displeased with how Saul conducts himself after a battle, thinks it has something to do with hubris. Saul's son Jonathan, as with the remainder of the book, serves as a counterpoint to Saul himself. When one is presented as generally good, the other is presented as generally bad.
Saul's whole family is laid out, the way genealogies were done in previous books. This may be the difference in how long ago the events being recorded took place. His big offense has something to do with preferring sacrifice over obedience. In the numerous laws of Moses, sacrifice was essential to just about everything. That was only a few books ago. Times change. Please take note, religious observers.
Jesse shows up again. He's not really important. It's his offspring, and specifically David, that we really care about. From here, you will start to know a lot of this. Samuel anoints David, the new more perfect chosen one. It's interesting how Saul and David initially interact. Saul calls for some help dealing with what's described as an evil spirit from God (certainly an interesting twist if it's the same as later and more famous demonic possession) but what I'll call foul moods. David is called upon to soothe his lord, a sacred cord no doubt (alleluia!), playing a lyre whenever Saul needs it. Saul is pleased. He thinks very favorably of young David, at first.
The Philistines return for more trouble! Goliath! The valley of Elah looms!
Jesse's sheep are kept in Bethlehem. New Testament looms!
It's interesting that David's brother describes him as presumptuous and having evil in his heart. Maybe it's jealousy. Maybe it's a peek at David's true personality?
Speaking of New Testament looming, David is a "good shepherd," delivered by God from the clutches of predators. It's impossible that in the midst of all the interpreting of scripture he did, Jesus or his friends wouldn't have noted any of this.
David's weapon isn't so much the slingshot as his faith in God. Goliath falls. Head served on a platter, another odd little echo to be found in the New Testament with John the Baptist.
Jonathan's stock is rising as he becomes fast friends with David. Saul starts thinking more craftily as he begins his pursuit of David. He becomes a lot more like Samson. This is where Saul gives David one of his daughters as his wife (David acquires several others, too!), in the hopes he'll have something to use against his new son-in-law later. Jonathan tells his pal how much trouble he's in. There's a waiting period of three days (like Jesus) while things build to a head. David finds himself with the upper hand, which impresses on Saul the nobility of this youth he has become so jealous of. He quits trying to kill him.
Samuel dies, his role complete. David's second bride is like one of those encounters Jesus has in the New Testament, but in a thoroughly Old Testament manner. Saul uses a medium to contact the dead Samuel. The ban against mediums, wizards, etc. (abominations to God, or so say the books of Moses several times) seems to have been lifted, or the Hebrews simply don't care about that edict anymore. (They're not exactly flawless these days.)
Jonathan falls in battle with the Philistines. Saul opts for suicide rather than meeting a similar fate. End of First Book.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Judges 16-21, Book of Ruth 1-4, First Book of Samuel 1-10
Judges picks up again with the familiar conclusion of the Samson affair, the challenges of Delilah, the lost hair and strength, and the two pillars he still manages to bring down on top of a vast assembly of Philistines.
Wouldn't it be nice if that were the last of the Philistines, or the last heroic judge the Hebrews needed? Except Samson seemed to spend all his time doing very much his own thing. His story is a little bit about hubris and personal redemption more than anything directly concerned with Jewish history or faith.
The next judge is Micah, who leads all of Israel, basically, into idolatry, so he's not a very good one at all. Bethlehem is mentioned. The Hebrews fall into some of their worst habits. There's a terrible story about a concubine who's raped all night and then chopped into bits.
However, it's fun on a purely Jewish cultural note when the phrase "such a thing" at the start of a sentence appears. Apparently it has long roots!
And then they all further degenerate into inter-tribal warfare, and thus ends Judges.
The first incredibly short book of the Bible, the Book of Ruth, comes next, and it's set during the time of the judges. It's very much a story about the Jewish faith being kept alive despite the troubled times, by a widow and her daughter-in-law, Ruth, who is rewarded by winning a husband, which results in the birth of Obid, who becomes the father of Jesse, who becomes the father of David. At this point in the beginnings of the Bible, we have what previously could very easily have been included in a larger book, but clearly the books have already begun to be codified. Ruth's story is intended to fill in a gap that would otherwise have existed, and explain that not all Jews were behaving badly in those times.
The phrase, "the Lord be with you," appears, which later generations of the faithful will certainly recognize.
The First Book of Samuel begins and we find ourselves in familiar echoing material. Hannah's journey to motherhood would certainly have sounded familiar to those familiar with Genesis and how Rebekah and Isaac ended up conceiving their children Jacob and Esau. It also evokes Abraham and Sarah, Jacob himself with Rachel, and the New Testament's Mary and Elizabeth. Hannah is the mother of Samuel, by the way.
Hannah's prayer reads a lot like a revised statement of faith in God, now that the relationship between Israel and the Lord has altered since the time of Moses and other such generations. It's a lot more relaxed, and familiar to our own times, another touchstone in the development of everything we know and believe now. It includes the phrase, "the pillars of the earth," as well as "not by might shall a man prevail," which is rank contradiction to the time of Moses and Joshua, when I saw all that blatant conquering going on. It represents another clear theological shift. One might say that the Jews had begun to distance themselves from the idea that it was God telling them to fight so much.
Eli, who previously appears as Hannah's religious confessor, becomes Samuel's mentor, including the famous moment where Samuel is confused when God begins speaking with him, confusing the Lord for his mentor. Hey, at this point it was increasingly rare to be granted an audience with the Almighty.
It's stated that "the boy Samuel continued to grow both in stature and in favor with the Lord and with men," which the gospels later evoke with Jesus. There's a clear connection between the New Testament and the emerging story of David, and that should come as no surprise.
There's a little summary and a little prophecy, by now standard biblical material. Samuel is the first person in the Bible since Abraham to speak with God so freely.
The Philistines! The Hebrew tribes, in their compromised state, do battle with their perennial foes, and make a curious decision on the battlefield. They elect to use the ark of the covenant as a means of intimidation. The ark has taken on perhaps a different kind of meaning at this point in history, not so much a symbol of faith and the accord with God, but a totem of power. The Philistines are suitably impressed (though they seem to believe it represents not God but many Hebrew gods, which wouldn't be far from the mark, and shows just how far the chosen people had fallen). They end up stealing it!
Eli dies from the shock of learning this. He lasted as a judge for 40 years. The ark causes the Philistines a lot of trouble. They decide it would be a better idea to negotiate it back into the hands of Israel, and so that actually happens, which also has the effect of proving the Philistines aren't always so bad.
Like the later Egyptian pyramids and those who sought to loot them, the returned ark proves a cursed curiosity to some of the happy Hebrews. They open it. God smites them. Raiders of the lost ark.
Twenty years pass. God tells Samuel about the future Hebrew king, and he accurately describes the coming reign of Saul. Saul is then introduced. He's described as the most handsome man in all the land, which funny enough evokes his successor David (and Snow White). All in all, Saul comes off well in his younger years. He's even a prophet. Samuel anoints him, he becomes king. He might even be described as a sort of John the Baptist figure, or maybe he fights for that role with Samuel. Either way, David is coming...
Wouldn't it be nice if that were the last of the Philistines, or the last heroic judge the Hebrews needed? Except Samson seemed to spend all his time doing very much his own thing. His story is a little bit about hubris and personal redemption more than anything directly concerned with Jewish history or faith.
The next judge is Micah, who leads all of Israel, basically, into idolatry, so he's not a very good one at all. Bethlehem is mentioned. The Hebrews fall into some of their worst habits. There's a terrible story about a concubine who's raped all night and then chopped into bits.
However, it's fun on a purely Jewish cultural note when the phrase "such a thing" at the start of a sentence appears. Apparently it has long roots!
And then they all further degenerate into inter-tribal warfare, and thus ends Judges.
The first incredibly short book of the Bible, the Book of Ruth, comes next, and it's set during the time of the judges. It's very much a story about the Jewish faith being kept alive despite the troubled times, by a widow and her daughter-in-law, Ruth, who is rewarded by winning a husband, which results in the birth of Obid, who becomes the father of Jesse, who becomes the father of David. At this point in the beginnings of the Bible, we have what previously could very easily have been included in a larger book, but clearly the books have already begun to be codified. Ruth's story is intended to fill in a gap that would otherwise have existed, and explain that not all Jews were behaving badly in those times.
The phrase, "the Lord be with you," appears, which later generations of the faithful will certainly recognize.
The First Book of Samuel begins and we find ourselves in familiar echoing material. Hannah's journey to motherhood would certainly have sounded familiar to those familiar with Genesis and how Rebekah and Isaac ended up conceiving their children Jacob and Esau. It also evokes Abraham and Sarah, Jacob himself with Rachel, and the New Testament's Mary and Elizabeth. Hannah is the mother of Samuel, by the way.
Hannah's prayer reads a lot like a revised statement of faith in God, now that the relationship between Israel and the Lord has altered since the time of Moses and other such generations. It's a lot more relaxed, and familiar to our own times, another touchstone in the development of everything we know and believe now. It includes the phrase, "the pillars of the earth," as well as "not by might shall a man prevail," which is rank contradiction to the time of Moses and Joshua, when I saw all that blatant conquering going on. It represents another clear theological shift. One might say that the Jews had begun to distance themselves from the idea that it was God telling them to fight so much.
Eli, who previously appears as Hannah's religious confessor, becomes Samuel's mentor, including the famous moment where Samuel is confused when God begins speaking with him, confusing the Lord for his mentor. Hey, at this point it was increasingly rare to be granted an audience with the Almighty.
It's stated that "the boy Samuel continued to grow both in stature and in favor with the Lord and with men," which the gospels later evoke with Jesus. There's a clear connection between the New Testament and the emerging story of David, and that should come as no surprise.
There's a little summary and a little prophecy, by now standard biblical material. Samuel is the first person in the Bible since Abraham to speak with God so freely.
The Philistines! The Hebrew tribes, in their compromised state, do battle with their perennial foes, and make a curious decision on the battlefield. They elect to use the ark of the covenant as a means of intimidation. The ark has taken on perhaps a different kind of meaning at this point in history, not so much a symbol of faith and the accord with God, but a totem of power. The Philistines are suitably impressed (though they seem to believe it represents not God but many Hebrew gods, which wouldn't be far from the mark, and shows just how far the chosen people had fallen). They end up stealing it!
Eli dies from the shock of learning this. He lasted as a judge for 40 years. The ark causes the Philistines a lot of trouble. They decide it would be a better idea to negotiate it back into the hands of Israel, and so that actually happens, which also has the effect of proving the Philistines aren't always so bad.
Like the later Egyptian pyramids and those who sought to loot them, the returned ark proves a cursed curiosity to some of the happy Hebrews. They open it. God smites them. Raiders of the lost ark.
Twenty years pass. God tells Samuel about the future Hebrew king, and he accurately describes the coming reign of Saul. Saul is then introduced. He's described as the most handsome man in all the land, which funny enough evokes his successor David (and Snow White). All in all, Saul comes off well in his younger years. He's even a prophet. Samuel anoints him, he becomes king. He might even be described as a sort of John the Baptist figure, or maybe he fights for that role with Samuel. Either way, David is coming...
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Book of Joshua 16-24, Judges 1-15
The Book of Joshua picks back up with the splitting of territories. Riveting stuff.
I meant to make this reference before, but there's a strong feeling that Book of Joshua inspired a lot of Revelation's imagery, with its emphasis on the number seven and the appearance of Megiddo, which is the source of the word "Armageddon." Megiddo was a real place, where the apocalyptic battle was supposed to take place. And as I've stated before, there is plenty of fighting in the chronicles of Moses and Joshua..
Shiloh appears. I found this remarkable mostly as an extremely amateur American Civil War buff.
"Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land he swore to give their fathers." This line kind of makes the original Abrahamic covenant sound complete, but of course the whole relationship between God and the Hebrews became very much ongoing, as long as those Hebrews quit being so rebellious...Which doesn't happen very soon. Just as I was making a note that they were behaving themselves, they stopped that right away. God gets pretty hot under the collar when they build an altar intended for a purpose other than worshiping him, although Phinehas appears again to explain that it is a communal phenomenon that will help unite them in their common devotion to their Lord. This appeases him. No smiting. Phinehas is the go-to guy when you don't need to know too much about the guy saving the Hebrews' butt.
Joshua in his farewell address summarizes the line of Abraham, skipping just like Exodus to Moses at that point in the history. Apparently there was just no one worth talking about, or their names were completely forgotten. Balaam is described as intending to curse rather than bless Israel, and I still hate reading this kind of stuff. He seems to have come from a separate tradition that was folded into the Moses narrative without anyone realizing it, and only the orthodox view based on his final fate survived full tradition. In the address Joshua utters the phrase, "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord," which you will surely find familiar.
I know I've tried to guess how many generations passed from the time of Joshua to when his story was codified in this chronicle, possibly the first record completed, and I conclude by suggesting that perhaps it was as few as two, as the concluding passages in the book might be interpreted to say.
Judges is very similar to Joshua and may stem from an equally early recording tradition. More summary can be found here, of the conquests the Hebrews were so fond of performing. Caleb is mentioned here. Everything sounds perfectly fine, and then they start making concessions, and that seems to be where things fall apart. As living memory of the founding fathers fades away, the people stray from God. So he gives them a series of periodic champions, or judges, to try and put them back in order.
The first judge is named Othniel, and he is the son of Caleb's brother. The second is Ehud, who has the first of the extended episodes, in which he personally slays the king of an enemy nation. The king is extremely fat, and Ehud has to plunge his sword deep into the king's belly. Shamgar operates against the Philistines, who are quickly approaching their most famous biblical hours. Then there's Deborah, who is described as a prophetess but is clearly a judge. The highlight of her episode is a a pretty good poem.
The first truly big name among the judges appears next, and it's Gideon. He frequently has God, or the angel representing him, prove they are who they say they are, which makes him far more brazen than past figures (any of them). He has to contend with worship of that nasty pagan god Baal, whose followers fully expect him to act in their defense as Gideon threatens smiting. In opposite of Abraham, who had to talk God into accepting smaller numbers of worthy individuals to save, Gideon argues that he needs fewer men to lead in battle. Prophetic dreams return to scripture, but not in the guise of Gideon. He engages in spectacular trumpet warfare, probably something you may remember.
The enemy leaders flee from him much as Darius does from Alexander the Great. Unlike Darius, however, these guys are eventually slain by Gideon himself. As soon as Gideon himself dies, the people return to their wicked ways.
One bit of cultural connections is camels wearing the crescent, which remains an Arabic emblem to this day.
Remember the name Abimelech from earlier? Someone else gives it as spin, as king. He is the son of Gideon. He faces the same kind of turmoil as the successors of Alexander, everyone spoiling for control and no one capable of filling Great shoes. Abimelech is no slouch, but he's no Gideon, either. Even with two of them now, I doubt you remember the name at all. But he does leave an echo behind. Like Samson who is to appear shortly, the most famous of the judges, Abimelech finds himself in the position to wipe out a whole mess of his enemies in the midst of one major structural collapse. He ends up dying in battle, although since he's fatally struck by a woman, the chauvinist asks a male colleague to do him in first, because he doesn't want to go out that way.
Maybe that's why no one knows his (or his predecessor's) name...
Then there was Tola who judged for 23 years, then Jair who judged for 22. Syria is mentioned. Philistines come round again. Another interesting lost figure is Jephthah, who was initially rejected as meaningless in the grand scheme, and so he gathers around him other "worthless fellows," only for the lot of them to be recuited, via begging, to help the Hebrews catch a break. He consents. He later goes so far as to massage their ego by explaining in extremely favorable terms the history of their conquests. Jephthah has a tragic ending, however, when he strikes a bargain with God and the payment he comes to regret is sacrificing the first person he sees when he returns home. That person ends up being his own daughter, which begins a tradition when she's allowed to bemoan never having made a life for herself, and then becomes a burnt offering. Which kind of beggars the question of why earlier God had to make such a point of saying this was an abomination pagans practiced.
Anyway, Jephthah in all judged for 6 years. Elom followed for 10, Abdon for 8. The Philistines come round again! And then a man named Manoah receives a visit from the angel of the Lord, who like Abraham before him and later for two lucky ladies in the New Testament, learns that his barren wife will give birth after all. The resulting child's name is Samson. Samson grows up and is a clever guy, wanting a Philistine bride so he can have something to complain about later. His whole career as a judge is recorded at 20 years. David Maine has one of his several exceptions works of fiction based on biblical episodes I've now reached in my readings centered around Samson, called appropriately enough The Book of Samson. Maine also has The Preservationist (concerning Noah) and Fallen (the best of them; featuring Adam, Eve, Abel, and Cain, told in reverse). He doesn't paint Samson in the best of lights, you should know...
I meant to make this reference before, but there's a strong feeling that Book of Joshua inspired a lot of Revelation's imagery, with its emphasis on the number seven and the appearance of Megiddo, which is the source of the word "Armageddon." Megiddo was a real place, where the apocalyptic battle was supposed to take place. And as I've stated before, there is plenty of fighting in the chronicles of Moses and Joshua..
Shiloh appears. I found this remarkable mostly as an extremely amateur American Civil War buff.
"Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land he swore to give their fathers." This line kind of makes the original Abrahamic covenant sound complete, but of course the whole relationship between God and the Hebrews became very much ongoing, as long as those Hebrews quit being so rebellious...Which doesn't happen very soon. Just as I was making a note that they were behaving themselves, they stopped that right away. God gets pretty hot under the collar when they build an altar intended for a purpose other than worshiping him, although Phinehas appears again to explain that it is a communal phenomenon that will help unite them in their common devotion to their Lord. This appeases him. No smiting. Phinehas is the go-to guy when you don't need to know too much about the guy saving the Hebrews' butt.
Joshua in his farewell address summarizes the line of Abraham, skipping just like Exodus to Moses at that point in the history. Apparently there was just no one worth talking about, or their names were completely forgotten. Balaam is described as intending to curse rather than bless Israel, and I still hate reading this kind of stuff. He seems to have come from a separate tradition that was folded into the Moses narrative without anyone realizing it, and only the orthodox view based on his final fate survived full tradition. In the address Joshua utters the phrase, "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord," which you will surely find familiar.
I know I've tried to guess how many generations passed from the time of Joshua to when his story was codified in this chronicle, possibly the first record completed, and I conclude by suggesting that perhaps it was as few as two, as the concluding passages in the book might be interpreted to say.
Judges is very similar to Joshua and may stem from an equally early recording tradition. More summary can be found here, of the conquests the Hebrews were so fond of performing. Caleb is mentioned here. Everything sounds perfectly fine, and then they start making concessions, and that seems to be where things fall apart. As living memory of the founding fathers fades away, the people stray from God. So he gives them a series of periodic champions, or judges, to try and put them back in order.
The first judge is named Othniel, and he is the son of Caleb's brother. The second is Ehud, who has the first of the extended episodes, in which he personally slays the king of an enemy nation. The king is extremely fat, and Ehud has to plunge his sword deep into the king's belly. Shamgar operates against the Philistines, who are quickly approaching their most famous biblical hours. Then there's Deborah, who is described as a prophetess but is clearly a judge. The highlight of her episode is a a pretty good poem.
The first truly big name among the judges appears next, and it's Gideon. He frequently has God, or the angel representing him, prove they are who they say they are, which makes him far more brazen than past figures (any of them). He has to contend with worship of that nasty pagan god Baal, whose followers fully expect him to act in their defense as Gideon threatens smiting. In opposite of Abraham, who had to talk God into accepting smaller numbers of worthy individuals to save, Gideon argues that he needs fewer men to lead in battle. Prophetic dreams return to scripture, but not in the guise of Gideon. He engages in spectacular trumpet warfare, probably something you may remember.
The enemy leaders flee from him much as Darius does from Alexander the Great. Unlike Darius, however, these guys are eventually slain by Gideon himself. As soon as Gideon himself dies, the people return to their wicked ways.
One bit of cultural connections is camels wearing the crescent, which remains an Arabic emblem to this day.
Remember the name Abimelech from earlier? Someone else gives it as spin, as king. He is the son of Gideon. He faces the same kind of turmoil as the successors of Alexander, everyone spoiling for control and no one capable of filling Great shoes. Abimelech is no slouch, but he's no Gideon, either. Even with two of them now, I doubt you remember the name at all. But he does leave an echo behind. Like Samson who is to appear shortly, the most famous of the judges, Abimelech finds himself in the position to wipe out a whole mess of his enemies in the midst of one major structural collapse. He ends up dying in battle, although since he's fatally struck by a woman, the chauvinist asks a male colleague to do him in first, because he doesn't want to go out that way.
Maybe that's why no one knows his (or his predecessor's) name...
Then there was Tola who judged for 23 years, then Jair who judged for 22. Syria is mentioned. Philistines come round again. Another interesting lost figure is Jephthah, who was initially rejected as meaningless in the grand scheme, and so he gathers around him other "worthless fellows," only for the lot of them to be recuited, via begging, to help the Hebrews catch a break. He consents. He later goes so far as to massage their ego by explaining in extremely favorable terms the history of their conquests. Jephthah has a tragic ending, however, when he strikes a bargain with God and the payment he comes to regret is sacrificing the first person he sees when he returns home. That person ends up being his own daughter, which begins a tradition when she's allowed to bemoan never having made a life for herself, and then becomes a burnt offering. Which kind of beggars the question of why earlier God had to make such a point of saying this was an abomination pagans practiced.
Anyway, Jephthah in all judged for 6 years. Elom followed for 10, Abdon for 8. The Philistines come round again! And then a man named Manoah receives a visit from the angel of the Lord, who like Abraham before him and later for two lucky ladies in the New Testament, learns that his barren wife will give birth after all. The resulting child's name is Samson. Samson grows up and is a clever guy, wanting a Philistine bride so he can have something to complain about later. His whole career as a judge is recorded at 20 years. David Maine has one of his several exceptions works of fiction based on biblical episodes I've now reached in my readings centered around Samson, called appropriately enough The Book of Samson. Maine also has The Preservationist (concerning Noah) and Fallen (the best of them; featuring Adam, Eve, Abel, and Cain, told in reverse). He doesn't paint Samson in the best of lights, you should know...
Friday, December 13, 2013
Deuteronomy 26-34, Book of Joshua 1-15
I was just wondering, because God goes to great lengths to explain that bad things would only happen to his people if they strayed from him,why it is that Exodus begins by explaining that the bondage in Egypt happened because of a regime change after the time of Joseph. Just something to think about.
Deuteronomy continues the the job of summarizing what has come before, and finally gets around to reintroducing the significance of Joshua, making a heavy case for him. I'll have more on that in a moment.
I'd also like to make mention of the fact that God says the ark of the covenant needs to be plastered. I don't think that was mentioned previously, when God was being incredibly specific about all that.
There's another song that reads like a psalm, with an emphasis on the Rock, which is I think the second time the idea is mooted in the books of Moses. In Christianity, Jesus famously rechristens Simon as Peter because it means the Rock, which he intends to build his church on. Peter is a Joshua figure, by the way.
There's mention that the Hebrews void of counsel may be something of a breach of contract, which may explain what happened to them in Egypt, because that was a significant breach in the Genesis lineage. I've been bringing that up regularly. This may have something to do with explaining what befell Balaam, a prophet who failed to sway a people in the direction of God. God doesn't like that sort of thing.
Moses dies, and Deuteronomy ends by noting that there has been no prophet like him since. There are plenty of other prophets that follow in the Old Testament, but at later times, and of course Christians have Jesus as the new Moses.
The Book of Joshua may be a continuation of Deuteronomy just as Acts is a continuation of the Gospel of Luke. Didn't I say something like that previously? At any rate it's a clear distinction from the way other some of the other books chronicling Moses present themselves. God is still active, but he's not the God who spent all his time building a culture with rules. He's more like the God who believes in war and conquest above all else, which to be fair Moses also experienced, but not quite to this heavy extent.
Another difference in perspective is the phrasing of what happened to the Red Sea after the flight from Egypt. Here it's described as melting, several times. Tradition, and earlier narratives, have it as being parted. There's a clear difference. I stated previously that perhaps the later books of Moses were written sooner than the earlier ones. This difference may be a sign of things not being solidified yet. Who looks to the Book of Joshua for information concerning the flight from Egypt anyway?
It may also be worth noting that there's a city called Adam, and it doesn't reference the first man in the passage at all. Possibly indicates where the name came from, or what it inspired, much as the name Eve is described in Genesis itself as having in itself significance beyond being the name of the first woman. So another indication that Book of Joshua, like Deuteronomy, came first, and Genesis was solidified later, like a Hollywood prequel.
One bit of continuity is the ending of God providing manna. However, no mention of quail, which is far less famous, and perhaps for this very reason. He seemed to provide it for the first time twice anyway.
Another lost heroic woman of the Old Testament is the harlot Rabah, who was a citizen of a Jericho who like Lot was the one good person living there, providing shelter for Joshua's scouts and thus securing her and her family's survival in the most famous conquest of the book (she reads like a preview of women in the New Testament). But there are more. Many more. There was certainly war and conquest elsewhere, but here it's so jubilant and almost the whole point entirely, as if it's the template for what is described in earlier instances. God does tell Joshua how to do it, but again, that's a marked difference between the interactions God has with his chosen representative and all the covenants and social outlines he spent his time reiterating in previous books.
There is a link, however, with the God of Genesis, insofar as Joshua making at least one deal with citizens of a land the Hebrews approach, even though it quickly degenerates into even more war. That's what Abraham was famous for, a little like the Solomon of his day, a wise ruler (except for tricking people into thinking his wife was his sister).
Jerusalem is mentioned for the first time. It is one of five kingdoms that attempt to unite against the Hebrew hoard. Gaza is mentioned, too. God points out the Philistines to the aging Joshua. We met them in Genesis, but things didn't end well then, and they will only get worse later.
As if in confirmation of my observations, the Book of Joshua provides another summaries of Moses' conquests. Here Balaam is mentioned again, this time as a soothsayer. It may be entirely possibly that God's previously inexplicable crusade against the magical kind of all variations is a reaction to other relationships he's tried to make that failed, unlike with Abraham and his descendants. You fail, like Balaam, and you become dead to him, an abomination. He demands success above all else. Obedience is about as important to him as human life in general. He tests and tests, and if you fail, he smites you. The end.
Caleb is finally referenced again! At this point he has become another Esau or Lot, someone whose story has branched off from the main record that is the Bible. It is no doubt very likely that people at that time had a lot more stories. I'm beginning to wish I had access to those, too. I like these lost figures like Balaam and Caleb, who begins to sound, in the Book of Joshua, almost like a classic Greek warrior.
The Jebusites, one of several tribes routinely referenced in the books of Moses as antagonistic to God's wishes for his people, are referenced as occupying Jerusalem "to this day," another indication that the memory as of the composing of this book was probably fairly recent. They also read like the predecessors of today's Palestinians.
Deuteronomy continues the the job of summarizing what has come before, and finally gets around to reintroducing the significance of Joshua, making a heavy case for him. I'll have more on that in a moment.
I'd also like to make mention of the fact that God says the ark of the covenant needs to be plastered. I don't think that was mentioned previously, when God was being incredibly specific about all that.
There's another song that reads like a psalm, with an emphasis on the Rock, which is I think the second time the idea is mooted in the books of Moses. In Christianity, Jesus famously rechristens Simon as Peter because it means the Rock, which he intends to build his church on. Peter is a Joshua figure, by the way.
There's mention that the Hebrews void of counsel may be something of a breach of contract, which may explain what happened to them in Egypt, because that was a significant breach in the Genesis lineage. I've been bringing that up regularly. This may have something to do with explaining what befell Balaam, a prophet who failed to sway a people in the direction of God. God doesn't like that sort of thing.
Moses dies, and Deuteronomy ends by noting that there has been no prophet like him since. There are plenty of other prophets that follow in the Old Testament, but at later times, and of course Christians have Jesus as the new Moses.
The Book of Joshua may be a continuation of Deuteronomy just as Acts is a continuation of the Gospel of Luke. Didn't I say something like that previously? At any rate it's a clear distinction from the way other some of the other books chronicling Moses present themselves. God is still active, but he's not the God who spent all his time building a culture with rules. He's more like the God who believes in war and conquest above all else, which to be fair Moses also experienced, but not quite to this heavy extent.
Another difference in perspective is the phrasing of what happened to the Red Sea after the flight from Egypt. Here it's described as melting, several times. Tradition, and earlier narratives, have it as being parted. There's a clear difference. I stated previously that perhaps the later books of Moses were written sooner than the earlier ones. This difference may be a sign of things not being solidified yet. Who looks to the Book of Joshua for information concerning the flight from Egypt anyway?
It may also be worth noting that there's a city called Adam, and it doesn't reference the first man in the passage at all. Possibly indicates where the name came from, or what it inspired, much as the name Eve is described in Genesis itself as having in itself significance beyond being the name of the first woman. So another indication that Book of Joshua, like Deuteronomy, came first, and Genesis was solidified later, like a Hollywood prequel.
One bit of continuity is the ending of God providing manna. However, no mention of quail, which is far less famous, and perhaps for this very reason. He seemed to provide it for the first time twice anyway.
Another lost heroic woman of the Old Testament is the harlot Rabah, who was a citizen of a Jericho who like Lot was the one good person living there, providing shelter for Joshua's scouts and thus securing her and her family's survival in the most famous conquest of the book (she reads like a preview of women in the New Testament). But there are more. Many more. There was certainly war and conquest elsewhere, but here it's so jubilant and almost the whole point entirely, as if it's the template for what is described in earlier instances. God does tell Joshua how to do it, but again, that's a marked difference between the interactions God has with his chosen representative and all the covenants and social outlines he spent his time reiterating in previous books.
There is a link, however, with the God of Genesis, insofar as Joshua making at least one deal with citizens of a land the Hebrews approach, even though it quickly degenerates into even more war. That's what Abraham was famous for, a little like the Solomon of his day, a wise ruler (except for tricking people into thinking his wife was his sister).
Jerusalem is mentioned for the first time. It is one of five kingdoms that attempt to unite against the Hebrew hoard. Gaza is mentioned, too. God points out the Philistines to the aging Joshua. We met them in Genesis, but things didn't end well then, and they will only get worse later.
As if in confirmation of my observations, the Book of Joshua provides another summaries of Moses' conquests. Here Balaam is mentioned again, this time as a soothsayer. It may be entirely possibly that God's previously inexplicable crusade against the magical kind of all variations is a reaction to other relationships he's tried to make that failed, unlike with Abraham and his descendants. You fail, like Balaam, and you become dead to him, an abomination. He demands success above all else. Obedience is about as important to him as human life in general. He tests and tests, and if you fail, he smites you. The end.
Caleb is finally referenced again! At this point he has become another Esau or Lot, someone whose story has branched off from the main record that is the Bible. It is no doubt very likely that people at that time had a lot more stories. I'm beginning to wish I had access to those, too. I like these lost figures like Balaam and Caleb, who begins to sound, in the Book of Joshua, almost like a classic Greek warrior.
The Jebusites, one of several tribes routinely referenced in the books of Moses as antagonistic to God's wishes for his people, are referenced as occupying Jerusalem "to this day," another indication that the memory as of the composing of this book was probably fairly recent. They also read like the predecessors of today's Palestinians.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Deuteronomy 6-25
Sometimes as I'm reading it seems the later books of Moses may have actually been written first. I know I've already suggested that Exodus itself predated Genesis, and keeping in mind I'm not approaching this from a scholar's perspective. These are the impressions I get from reading through the Bible. Another observation is that these books of Moses may be comparable to the gospels of the New Testament, perhaps one or more of them independently composed (there may be a case to be made of a link between Exodus and Leviticus, like Luke and Acts).
Deuteronomy, meanwhile, makes strong Christian waves the further I read into it. "Man does not live on bread alone," which is something Jesus says in Matthew, pops up. Again, Christians seem concerned mostly with the big stories from the Old Testament, and then the later prophets, but there's a ton of material in the early books as well. Deuteronomy is also where love is first referenced in relation to God, and of course that was another of Jesus's favorite edicts.
Another interesting phrase that has nothing to do with Christianity is, "since I am not speaking to your children who have not known or seen it," which is Moses speaking for God, very strongly suggesting the time in which the Moses chronicles began to be solidified out of oral tradition as being very much removed from the Moses experience itself, where there would be far less direct contact with God, when there was clearly plenty of it in the early books. This is the first mark of distinction between the traditions the Moses books are meant to introduce and those who are later living them. A lot of the talk about how God claims several generations (at least; because he proclaims as many as ten sometimes) are not allowed to come back into the faith for various offenses or statuses may also indicate how long from the origin point the stories become codified, because the contemporaries of the record will know exactly how long certain families have been excluded from the community.
And yes, I will go on record suggesting that there was a fair bit of interpreting and not strictly experienced material in these books. The term "divinely inspired" is kicked around a lot by those who want you to believe everything, but even those who make that effort could not possibly translate what are clearly things relevant only to a specific and very much in the past living condition. You should not read the Bible as if you need to take everything as if it really was and always will be that way. Because you will probably not be a believer on the other side of the experience. It's not a surprise that for a long time the actual reading of scripture was kept to a minimum, even considering basic literacy levels. There's only so much interpreting that can be done. You need to be able to think critically. The material that has been included (and there are certain books that aren't in every version although I will be covering some of this apocrypha because it's in mine, and I love me some Tobit) has the greatest amount of religious significance. By the time anyone realized how much duplicated material existed in the books of Moses, it was probably too late, the same way the gospels present similar biographies for Jesus but material that appears in one or two but not all of them. Anyway, there's always the chance I will be smited, and so be considered officially sacrilegious. But even material of this kind can be lost in the boundless sea that is the internet. Even though it's apparently incredibly rare to actually read the whole Bible and notice these things, there's a very small chance someone else will stumble upon these thoughts and actually care.
The concept of a Hebrew king is referenced for the first time.
God seems to have remarked on a lot of cultures where the offspring are burned as part of a sacrificial offering. I find this incredibly frightening.
God also doesn't take kindly to the magical arts. I figure it's because of competition to miracles and such. This comes up every now and then, although this is the first time it's gone into with any depth. Normally it was just "they must be smited. the end." He then codifies the tradition of prophecy, and even warns against false prophets. It seems to be implied that the work of prophets can probably be confirmed in a lifetime, something both Jews and Christians have a hard time considering. Both are institutions that become as much a culture as a faith as time goes on.
The institution of the three path rule is pretty interesting, three cities on the outskirts of every settlement so that those guilty of accidental murder have a place to flee to (so those pursuing them can't guess right away where they went). Although this is one of the ways where justice has a chance to flourish, God still seems to have a lot of reasons people need to be executed, mostly by stoning. God, I ask, or Moses? It's probably easy to assume the one goes hand-in-hand with the other, but that may not be necessarily so. A little later, Moses talks about divorce, which Jesus specifically contradicts, saying Moses gave this rule as an appeasement to the people of his time. There is also a contradiction in Deuteronomy to something said in an earlier book (I'm giving you homework to discover where and/or to confirm that I'm not misremembering) about the ability of a man to marry his brother's widow. I'm pretty sure that it was stated previously that this is wrong, but here Moses says it's okay, that it preserves a family line already begun. Family lines were incredibly important in Genesis, but not as much in the books of Moses, except to discuss the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob, or in other words the twelve tribes. Moses himself is descended from Levi, who was previously not significant in a positive way, and all Levites are made the first priestly class.
Finally, it's made official that usury is okay as long as it's with gentiles. So that ensures Jews never have problems with their neighbors again!
Did I say "finally"? Not really! Because poor Balaam is referenced again, completely ignoring a whole narrative that paints him in incredibly honorable light and condemning him for Moses' misconception that results in an ignominious death. Thus begins the full burial job that Revelation later echoes. This may be another sign that the folks putting the Bible together either just didn't realize the Balaam narrative was there or didn't care to eliminate it. Or perhaps to suggest Moses' imperfection. But that still leaves the rest of us, because no one ever talks about Balaam, and certainly not as a wise prophet who greatly helped the exiled Hebrews. If you want to remember the guy himself, please keep that in mind. A forgotten hero of the faith.
Deuteronomy, meanwhile, makes strong Christian waves the further I read into it. "Man does not live on bread alone," which is something Jesus says in Matthew, pops up. Again, Christians seem concerned mostly with the big stories from the Old Testament, and then the later prophets, but there's a ton of material in the early books as well. Deuteronomy is also where love is first referenced in relation to God, and of course that was another of Jesus's favorite edicts.
Another interesting phrase that has nothing to do with Christianity is, "since I am not speaking to your children who have not known or seen it," which is Moses speaking for God, very strongly suggesting the time in which the Moses chronicles began to be solidified out of oral tradition as being very much removed from the Moses experience itself, where there would be far less direct contact with God, when there was clearly plenty of it in the early books. This is the first mark of distinction between the traditions the Moses books are meant to introduce and those who are later living them. A lot of the talk about how God claims several generations (at least; because he proclaims as many as ten sometimes) are not allowed to come back into the faith for various offenses or statuses may also indicate how long from the origin point the stories become codified, because the contemporaries of the record will know exactly how long certain families have been excluded from the community.
And yes, I will go on record suggesting that there was a fair bit of interpreting and not strictly experienced material in these books. The term "divinely inspired" is kicked around a lot by those who want you to believe everything, but even those who make that effort could not possibly translate what are clearly things relevant only to a specific and very much in the past living condition. You should not read the Bible as if you need to take everything as if it really was and always will be that way. Because you will probably not be a believer on the other side of the experience. It's not a surprise that for a long time the actual reading of scripture was kept to a minimum, even considering basic literacy levels. There's only so much interpreting that can be done. You need to be able to think critically. The material that has been included (and there are certain books that aren't in every version although I will be covering some of this apocrypha because it's in mine, and I love me some Tobit) has the greatest amount of religious significance. By the time anyone realized how much duplicated material existed in the books of Moses, it was probably too late, the same way the gospels present similar biographies for Jesus but material that appears in one or two but not all of them. Anyway, there's always the chance I will be smited, and so be considered officially sacrilegious. But even material of this kind can be lost in the boundless sea that is the internet. Even though it's apparently incredibly rare to actually read the whole Bible and notice these things, there's a very small chance someone else will stumble upon these thoughts and actually care.
The concept of a Hebrew king is referenced for the first time.
God seems to have remarked on a lot of cultures where the offspring are burned as part of a sacrificial offering. I find this incredibly frightening.
God also doesn't take kindly to the magical arts. I figure it's because of competition to miracles and such. This comes up every now and then, although this is the first time it's gone into with any depth. Normally it was just "they must be smited. the end." He then codifies the tradition of prophecy, and even warns against false prophets. It seems to be implied that the work of prophets can probably be confirmed in a lifetime, something both Jews and Christians have a hard time considering. Both are institutions that become as much a culture as a faith as time goes on.
The institution of the three path rule is pretty interesting, three cities on the outskirts of every settlement so that those guilty of accidental murder have a place to flee to (so those pursuing them can't guess right away where they went). Although this is one of the ways where justice has a chance to flourish, God still seems to have a lot of reasons people need to be executed, mostly by stoning. God, I ask, or Moses? It's probably easy to assume the one goes hand-in-hand with the other, but that may not be necessarily so. A little later, Moses talks about divorce, which Jesus specifically contradicts, saying Moses gave this rule as an appeasement to the people of his time. There is also a contradiction in Deuteronomy to something said in an earlier book (I'm giving you homework to discover where and/or to confirm that I'm not misremembering) about the ability of a man to marry his brother's widow. I'm pretty sure that it was stated previously that this is wrong, but here Moses says it's okay, that it preserves a family line already begun. Family lines were incredibly important in Genesis, but not as much in the books of Moses, except to discuss the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob, or in other words the twelve tribes. Moses himself is descended from Levi, who was previously not significant in a positive way, and all Levites are made the first priestly class.
Finally, it's made official that usury is okay as long as it's with gentiles. So that ensures Jews never have problems with their neighbors again!
Did I say "finally"? Not really! Because poor Balaam is referenced again, completely ignoring a whole narrative that paints him in incredibly honorable light and condemning him for Moses' misconception that results in an ignominious death. Thus begins the full burial job that Revelation later echoes. This may be another sign that the folks putting the Bible together either just didn't realize the Balaam narrative was there or didn't care to eliminate it. Or perhaps to suggest Moses' imperfection. But that still leaves the rest of us, because no one ever talks about Balaam, and certainly not as a wise prophet who greatly helped the exiled Hebrews. If you want to remember the guy himself, please keep that in mind. A forgotten hero of the faith.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Numbers 21-36, Deuteronomy 1-5
It strikes me as I'm reading, the deep and perhaps hidden significance of the serpent in Old Testament lore. In Genesis the serpent was always interpreted to be the Devil in disguise, tempting Eve into enacting original sin, cursed by God ever after to wriggle on its belly, and there are other passages about this sorry fate. And yet in Exodus God also has Moses and Aaron turn the staff trick of transforming it into a serpent, and the image returns in Numbers in an equally famous episode that the medical establishment later adopted, of serpents that God had sent against his continually mischievous people and then the one he asks Moses to place upon a staff to cure them.
So which is it? Are serpents representations of evil, or are they perhaps after all agents of God? The Old Testament is littered with God testing his people, who are constantly failing (except Abraham with his near-sacrifice of Isaac, which seems to be the defining point for the foundation of Judaism). Maybe this whole time we've been misinterpreting the serpent in the garden. Maybe God always intended man to become aware of his regular duties, which he'd already been given anyway, to be lord and master of the earth much as God is Lord of everything else (and man). God has a terrible time accounting for all the ways mankind disappoints him, including his own chosen people, and spends a lot of time smiting them in the early books. He could have just as easily done the job the first time, but didn't. Sometimes failure is permanent, but the larger point is that God is constantly testing mankind.
And his agent that first time was a serpent. Put aside the curse he levels against it. He continues using serpents in the books that follow. I'm not trying to upend theology here, but these things keep coming to me. (Don't smite me!)
Anyway, Numbers gets a ton more interesting with the introduction of and narrative that follows Balaam for a while. There's this whole story of this prophet who exists entirely outside of the Hebrew lineage, an independent phenomenon in direct communication with God. His whole story is how he gets out of having to condemn the Hebrews as they continue their journey toward the promised land. It's like the Bible suddenly splits off into an entirely new story filled with its own mythology, right in the middle of the Moses arc. His own lord and master is displeased each time Balaam reports what God has told him, that he keeps evading the prospect of taking out the Hebrews.
Unfortunately, his narrative ends abruptly, we switch back to Moses, and the next and last time he's brought up Balaam is summarily executed as a collaborator with the enemy, even listed as a villainous presence who actively conspired against the Hebrews. There's apparently even something about it in Revelation. The guy's whole reputation is entirely slandered, even though he clearly was working the opposite of how he ends up being perceived, and to make it all the worse, probably no one outside of devoted scholars are even aware today that he ever existed. Not cool. So that's another way my ruminations on the Bible will deviate from the record. Balaam represents an important development in the history of God's interaction with mankind. He's confirmation that God didn't just pal up with Abraham and his descendants. And another way in which Moses kind of ended up doing his own smiting along the way, when God failed to do it himself.
There's an interesting phrase to be found here, "son of man," that is associated with repentance, which is another thing later Christians could probably call their own from the earliest books even though they mostly seem concerned with the prophetic later ones.
The classic pagan god Baal is referenced for the first time, as are Hebrew judges, which becomes important later, notably in the books of Judges.
A man named Phinehas manages to talk God out of another round of smiting, which puts him on a certain kind of level with Moses, who managed the fete earlier (and himself then proceeded to smite in the same righteous manner). This seems significant. His name, however, has since been forgotten. Making a note of it here all the same.
Jericho is referenced for the first time.
A second census is carried out, now that a considerable amount of smiting has occurred.. God is also asked to consider women as capable of inheriting property, which he grants. So that's another positive indication for women in the face of a number of other examples that don't paint them in such favorable light.
Joshua is officially deemed Moses' successor. God outlines the holy days. The Judaic tradition of holy war continues, presaging the Crusades and much of what Islam has become. The exiles start to settle down, which initially causes God discomfit, but he decides to play along. Canaan, the promised land, is identified as such. High priests are referenced for the first time, another thing Christians will definitely recognize.
Deuteronomy, the fourth book of Moses and fifth of the Old Testament, begins with something Numbers had done in a different way, recapping the journey to this point. The Deuteronomy version highly favors the most favorable Judaic interpretation of events. It also comes in the form of a great speech on the part of Moses, who had initially beggared God to ask for someone else (i.e. Aaron) to do the talking because he was a poor public speaker. Here he has no problem at all, and seems to relish the role.
The descendants of Esau and Lot are encountered, who are not part of the Hebrew exiles from Egypt. They are part of separate traditions. Imagine a Bible that includes their stories as well, or even Balaam's.
The most striking element now seems how easily war-like and conquer-happy the Hebrews are at God's behest. They sound like Alexander the Great, or Attila the Hun, that sort of phenomenon. They fight and beat everyone, and assume their territory for their own, a small (relatively speaking) scrappy band of warriors always good for a fight. You could easily make a movie about Moses and do almost nothing but warfare.
The ten commandments are referenced again, specifically as a covenant. My interpretation of them will continue to be in the air. The familiar ones end up being reiterated, in case you'd forgotten, although at that point are not spoken of in relation to a covenant. God, as I will argue for now, seems far more interested in emphasizing the way to worship him than the moral codes that dominate the latter of the traditional ten commandments, some of which he goes to great lengths to interpret given specific circumstances again and again, such as murder.
That is all for now.
So which is it? Are serpents representations of evil, or are they perhaps after all agents of God? The Old Testament is littered with God testing his people, who are constantly failing (except Abraham with his near-sacrifice of Isaac, which seems to be the defining point for the foundation of Judaism). Maybe this whole time we've been misinterpreting the serpent in the garden. Maybe God always intended man to become aware of his regular duties, which he'd already been given anyway, to be lord and master of the earth much as God is Lord of everything else (and man). God has a terrible time accounting for all the ways mankind disappoints him, including his own chosen people, and spends a lot of time smiting them in the early books. He could have just as easily done the job the first time, but didn't. Sometimes failure is permanent, but the larger point is that God is constantly testing mankind.
And his agent that first time was a serpent. Put aside the curse he levels against it. He continues using serpents in the books that follow. I'm not trying to upend theology here, but these things keep coming to me. (Don't smite me!)
Anyway, Numbers gets a ton more interesting with the introduction of and narrative that follows Balaam for a while. There's this whole story of this prophet who exists entirely outside of the Hebrew lineage, an independent phenomenon in direct communication with God. His whole story is how he gets out of having to condemn the Hebrews as they continue their journey toward the promised land. It's like the Bible suddenly splits off into an entirely new story filled with its own mythology, right in the middle of the Moses arc. His own lord and master is displeased each time Balaam reports what God has told him, that he keeps evading the prospect of taking out the Hebrews.
Unfortunately, his narrative ends abruptly, we switch back to Moses, and the next and last time he's brought up Balaam is summarily executed as a collaborator with the enemy, even listed as a villainous presence who actively conspired against the Hebrews. There's apparently even something about it in Revelation. The guy's whole reputation is entirely slandered, even though he clearly was working the opposite of how he ends up being perceived, and to make it all the worse, probably no one outside of devoted scholars are even aware today that he ever existed. Not cool. So that's another way my ruminations on the Bible will deviate from the record. Balaam represents an important development in the history of God's interaction with mankind. He's confirmation that God didn't just pal up with Abraham and his descendants. And another way in which Moses kind of ended up doing his own smiting along the way, when God failed to do it himself.
There's an interesting phrase to be found here, "son of man," that is associated with repentance, which is another thing later Christians could probably call their own from the earliest books even though they mostly seem concerned with the prophetic later ones.
The classic pagan god Baal is referenced for the first time, as are Hebrew judges, which becomes important later, notably in the books of Judges.
A man named Phinehas manages to talk God out of another round of smiting, which puts him on a certain kind of level with Moses, who managed the fete earlier (and himself then proceeded to smite in the same righteous manner). This seems significant. His name, however, has since been forgotten. Making a note of it here all the same.
Jericho is referenced for the first time.
A second census is carried out, now that a considerable amount of smiting has occurred.. God is also asked to consider women as capable of inheriting property, which he grants. So that's another positive indication for women in the face of a number of other examples that don't paint them in such favorable light.
Joshua is officially deemed Moses' successor. God outlines the holy days. The Judaic tradition of holy war continues, presaging the Crusades and much of what Islam has become. The exiles start to settle down, which initially causes God discomfit, but he decides to play along. Canaan, the promised land, is identified as such. High priests are referenced for the first time, another thing Christians will definitely recognize.
Deuteronomy, the fourth book of Moses and fifth of the Old Testament, begins with something Numbers had done in a different way, recapping the journey to this point. The Deuteronomy version highly favors the most favorable Judaic interpretation of events. It also comes in the form of a great speech on the part of Moses, who had initially beggared God to ask for someone else (i.e. Aaron) to do the talking because he was a poor public speaker. Here he has no problem at all, and seems to relish the role.
The descendants of Esau and Lot are encountered, who are not part of the Hebrew exiles from Egypt. They are part of separate traditions. Imagine a Bible that includes their stories as well, or even Balaam's.
The most striking element now seems how easily war-like and conquer-happy the Hebrews are at God's behest. They sound like Alexander the Great, or Attila the Hun, that sort of phenomenon. They fight and beat everyone, and assume their territory for their own, a small (relatively speaking) scrappy band of warriors always good for a fight. You could easily make a movie about Moses and do almost nothing but warfare.
The ten commandments are referenced again, specifically as a covenant. My interpretation of them will continue to be in the air. The familiar ones end up being reiterated, in case you'd forgotten, although at that point are not spoken of in relation to a covenant. God, as I will argue for now, seems far more interested in emphasizing the way to worship him than the moral codes that dominate the latter of the traditional ten commandments, some of which he goes to great lengths to interpret given specific circumstances again and again, such as murder.
That is all for now.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Numbers 1-20
Numbers, the third book of Moses, fourth overall in the New Testament, takes its name from the fact that God asks Moses to conduct an census of all the Hebrews he's led out of Egypt. Each of the twelve tribes of Israel (descendants of Jacob's twelve sons, in other words) are counted. For the record, Judah's family was the most productive in the fruitful-and-multiplying business, with Dan coming in second. Joseph's was a comfortable middle-of-the-pack performer. Levi's brood is not counted, though, since the Levites are quickly tapped as the keepers of the first temple, God's switch in exchange for the strict tithing of all first-borns he'd previously called dibs on.
I'd just like to say it's amazing what a little time will do. Sure, the twelve tribes had a significant role in Jewish history, but in Genesis you'd hardly know that any of the brothers besides Joseph would have had a positive role to play at all. They sold him to Egypt, after all, and tried to convince their father that he was dead.
Then again, the Hebrews after Egypt were not exactly ones to appease God or refrain from grumbling.
Speaking of the temple keepers, they seem to have been presaging Samson in God's edict that they not cut their hair. He'd already requested his people not round their beards or trim their sideburns, but this is going a step further. It didn't give the Levites superpowers, and they were allowed to shorn themselves without consequence eventually, but the idea that those closest to God were also the hairiest clearly was one that had some legs to it.
A lot of Numbers also reiterates things previously experienced in the other books, which can sometimes be a little confusing. Either that or some of the same grumbling and near-smiting occur again. There's a new one with a fire that consumes property until Moses prayed, but there's also the return of quail, or perhaps its debut. There are also many cultural rules outlined.
The best numbers in Numbers, weirdly enough, read like a preview of the later Twelve Days of Christmas, twelve days in which gifts are presented to bless the budding temple.
Some additional early prophesying occurs with the otherwise obscure figures of Eldad and Medad, which leads to more grumbling and eventually the premature death of Miriam, the wife of Aaron, who is exiled for a week by way of penance for her role in this latest round of discontent. Aaron himself does not so long after.
Somewhat related, but God officially declares that Moses and all his generation will not see the promised land for themselves because of their continued wickedness (Moses not so much because of his wickedness, but because he couldn't possibly live long enough to usher the next generation; he remains a humble and awesome dude). God appoints Joshua and the less famous Caleb as the succeeding stewards.
God swallows up a couple of negative nellies into the ground, straight to Sheol (Hell) to prove he still has a few tricks up his sleeve, and fear tactics remain one of his favorite past-times. It doesn't quite stick, however, and so he unleashes a massive plague on his people.
The Nephilim are mentioned again, but are still not actually explained.
Numbers continues.
I'd just like to say it's amazing what a little time will do. Sure, the twelve tribes had a significant role in Jewish history, but in Genesis you'd hardly know that any of the brothers besides Joseph would have had a positive role to play at all. They sold him to Egypt, after all, and tried to convince their father that he was dead.
Then again, the Hebrews after Egypt were not exactly ones to appease God or refrain from grumbling.
Speaking of the temple keepers, they seem to have been presaging Samson in God's edict that they not cut their hair. He'd already requested his people not round their beards or trim their sideburns, but this is going a step further. It didn't give the Levites superpowers, and they were allowed to shorn themselves without consequence eventually, but the idea that those closest to God were also the hairiest clearly was one that had some legs to it.
A lot of Numbers also reiterates things previously experienced in the other books, which can sometimes be a little confusing. Either that or some of the same grumbling and near-smiting occur again. There's a new one with a fire that consumes property until Moses prayed, but there's also the return of quail, or perhaps its debut. There are also many cultural rules outlined.
The best numbers in Numbers, weirdly enough, read like a preview of the later Twelve Days of Christmas, twelve days in which gifts are presented to bless the budding temple.
Some additional early prophesying occurs with the otherwise obscure figures of Eldad and Medad, which leads to more grumbling and eventually the premature death of Miriam, the wife of Aaron, who is exiled for a week by way of penance for her role in this latest round of discontent. Aaron himself does not so long after.
Somewhat related, but God officially declares that Moses and all his generation will not see the promised land for themselves because of their continued wickedness (Moses not so much because of his wickedness, but because he couldn't possibly live long enough to usher the next generation; he remains a humble and awesome dude). God appoints Joshua and the less famous Caleb as the succeeding stewards.
God swallows up a couple of negative nellies into the ground, straight to Sheol (Hell) to prove he still has a few tricks up his sleeve, and fear tactics remain one of his favorite past-times. It doesn't quite stick, however, and so he unleashes a massive plague on his people.
The Nephilim are mentioned again, but are still not actually explained.
Numbers continues.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Exodus 31-40, Leviticus 1-27
Aaron takes on the rebellious sibling mantel as these passages from Exodus begin, helping the Hebrews cast their graven cow while Moses converses with God, only to blame it on everyone else and a huge coincidence (!) when his big brother asks him about it. Not surprisingly, Aaron is not spoken of in such favorable terms from this point onward.
What's really interesting here, however, is the contrast between how God and Moses react to the situation. At first, God is ready to go old school Genesis on his chosen people, to smite them out of existence and keep Moses around as another Noah, or Abraham. Moses talks him out of it. And then does his own smiting. It's interesting on a number of levels. In Genesis, Abraham has to do a fair bit of negotiating with God in order just to save Lot. Here, and as perhaps a running commentary on a remarkable partnership overall, he has no qualms taking Moses' sage advice. Which, again, Moses then personally undoes.
A lot of these trials the Hebrews put God through seem to be a reflection on all the plagues he visited on the Egyptians earlier, a test of faith, and on the whole they manage to pass (somehow). If you want to know the ways in which other peoples just didn't measure up, or why the flood or sacking of Sodom and Gomorrah happened, this might be a good place to look. A little later, as Leviticus outlines a lot of things that are called abominations, it's mighty tempting (and in fact one of the parts of the Bible people seem to have paid actually read) to assume those were the reasons he chose.
But. And perhaps I'm about to commit blasphemy or something, but. I think I have a revision to the ten commandments. I mentioned before that earlier when they were gone over the specific phrase "ten commandments" was nowhere to be found. There were in fact a lot more than ten originally. And when they're reiterated again as God is helping Moses fashion the tables again after he's smote them in his rage, there's further source for confusion, because there's a reference that suggests when this is done only the first of the two tables is redone, but it can just as easily be interpreted as God himself redoing the first one and Moses the second. And there's even the possibility that the ten and most important commandments are not exactly the ones everyone knows.
This is my argument. The phrase "ten commandments" comes after a list that very specifically goes over the terms of worship God has been talking about with considerable emphasis already. In fact, these terms are repeated so often it may be very easily understood if you want to go against millennia of tradition, that these are the rules most important to him. Since they're not as concisely outlined as the first time God explains his rules, I have to guess exactly how they work, but here goes:
What's really interesting here, however, is the contrast between how God and Moses react to the situation. At first, God is ready to go old school Genesis on his chosen people, to smite them out of existence and keep Moses around as another Noah, or Abraham. Moses talks him out of it. And then does his own smiting. It's interesting on a number of levels. In Genesis, Abraham has to do a fair bit of negotiating with God in order just to save Lot. Here, and as perhaps a running commentary on a remarkable partnership overall, he has no qualms taking Moses' sage advice. Which, again, Moses then personally undoes.
A lot of these trials the Hebrews put God through seem to be a reflection on all the plagues he visited on the Egyptians earlier, a test of faith, and on the whole they manage to pass (somehow). If you want to know the ways in which other peoples just didn't measure up, or why the flood or sacking of Sodom and Gomorrah happened, this might be a good place to look. A little later, as Leviticus outlines a lot of things that are called abominations, it's mighty tempting (and in fact one of the parts of the Bible people seem to have paid actually read) to assume those were the reasons he chose.
But. And perhaps I'm about to commit blasphemy or something, but. I think I have a revision to the ten commandments. I mentioned before that earlier when they were gone over the specific phrase "ten commandments" was nowhere to be found. There were in fact a lot more than ten originally. And when they're reiterated again as God is helping Moses fashion the tables again after he's smote them in his rage, there's further source for confusion, because there's a reference that suggests when this is done only the first of the two tables is redone, but it can just as easily be interpreted as God himself redoing the first one and Moses the second. And there's even the possibility that the ten and most important commandments are not exactly the ones everyone knows.
This is my argument. The phrase "ten commandments" comes after a list that very specifically goes over the terms of worship God has been talking about with considerable emphasis already. In fact, these terms are repeated so often it may be very easily understood if you want to go against millennia of tradition, that these are the rules most important to him. Since they're not as concisely outlined as the first time God explains his rules, I have to guess exactly how they work, but here goes:
- This one is more or less the same as the original, having no gods before God.
- Tear down the altars of the gods of others.
- Thou shalt not make graven images.
- Feast of unleavened bread.
- First-borns belong to God (which would make sense given the last plague against Egypt).
- An ass and a lamb first-born together.
- All human first-borns to be redeemed, which may indicate the covenant of circumcision.
- Keep holy the Sabbath.
- Three holy festivals throughout the year.
- Guidelines concerning sacrificial offerings.
I may be smited before I get a chance to read the rest of the Bible. I know this. Carry on.
Then the ark of the covenant is put together as previously outlined, and takes about as much time to accomplish as it took to describe. Repetitions of this nature, such a common aspect of the Bible to this point, bear the mark of oral tradition, and also maintaining awareness for the specific details later generations intended to follow active.
That's how Exodus ends.
Leviticus is a reiteration of the rules for living previously described in Exodus, plus a few additional guidelines and even some more of God smiting people (Aaron's sons). There's some of this that was clearly carried on for many generations after, both by Jews and Christians, although I may further court blasphemy by suggesting it's hard to pick one guideline over another when all of it was clearly geared toward the specific living conditions of that time. The extended look at leprosy, for instance, suggests that Moses very clearly understood the sorry state of medicine in his day. There was nothing else to do but shun the seriously sick, because otherwise there was the risk of contaminating everyone, and that would not be a great way to keep everyone alive. When Jesus later undoes a lot of what Moses set up, such as the way he treated leprosy or some of the basic rules of how to live (not to mention the revision of the most important commandment) he's advancing the cause of civilization past what it had been before his time. He's providing an update. He's the new Moses, among other personifications, as well as the new Adam, born of the new Eve, which is one way Christians have a hugely positive female role model where so many of the early Old Testament women, such as the original Eve, seemed like such sorry examples to follow, and helped justify thousands of year of gender suppression. When you read the Bible, in other words, it's a considerable case of logical fallacy to assume that all the conditions of an earlier time can be directly translated to your own. Do Jews still sacrifice bulls? Maybe I don't know enough about Jews today, but I don't think so. They're very good for tradition, but that doesn't seem to be like one of those traditions they still follow. This is not to say all the rules to be found here are invalidated, but that you can't just assume that because it's there you have to take it for its word. Yet Jews and Christians have been doing that, selectively, for an incredibly long time. There's even the foundation for Christian confession, later echoed, after a kind, by Jesus. The rules against incest, by the way, were probably freshly in the minds of the Hebrews, having escaped Egyptians whose rulers practiced this to such an extent pharaohs up to and including King Tut were physically deformed because of it. It's not just bad morally, but genetically.
That's Leviticus in a nutshell. There is a random reference to someone named Azazel, which may be the first named indication of Satan's existence beyond the serpent in Genesis's Garden of Eden, but as in a lot of the information to be found in the early books it seems like implied knowledge, the way you might reference the Sox winning the Series today. Chances are good most people would know what you're talking about if you say that in conversation. In a thousand years? Sorry, Boston fans, that will probably not be the case anymore.
One further meditation before we move onto another book of Moses. Since I've already been making all these connections between Old and New Testament, a lot of people tend to see a disconnect between the presentation of God between them. Given that Jesus is presented as the son of God and in fact God himself, and that he can display many of the same attributes as the God of Abraham, I don't find this as much of a stretch. When God speaks with Jesus, he never comes right out, but hides, the way he does around Moses, since otherwise would be deadly to anyone else. There's also the transfiguration, which is another event very similar to what we're told about God in his relationship with Moses.
It can challenge your faith to read the Bible, if you reading the Bible. You begin to see holes in the logic. If you must believe everything, you may choose to believe nothing at all, because there's certainly that possibility. As a whole, however, as I'm reading, I'm seeing how the answers you need to overcome these challenges are in there already. The God who smote the earth in a flood was talked down by Moses later. God is never presented as perfect. He believes he's made a giant mistake several times. He knows he has very real rivals. (You may want to read Neil Gaiman's American Gods for a theory as to what happens to a god when people stop believing in them.) And yet he kindles a special relationship, gives mankind every chance to redeem himself. And if you're a Christian, you see that he takes the definitive move a little later to do the redemption himself. Jews and Christians disagree on a lot of points. Maybe as I continue to read I'll better understand how Jews decided to forgo the leap of faith that led to Christianity. In a lot of ways, their promised land exists today in Israel. Do, or did or will, they have the mighty ruler they prophesied as their messiah? Who knows?
The journey continues.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Exodus 16-30
Hey, so did you know Moses was married and had kids? No? Well, that's another of the marked differences between Exodus and its predecessor Genesis. The remarkable thing is that Aaron, although less famous, still has about equal billing, as I've suggested before a lot like an improved Jacob/Esau situation.
Another thing I haven't mentioned yet but keeps coming up is the significance of repeated numbers. Here, besides all the sevens and forties that stretch back to Genesis, is the emphasis on three, which is another thing the New Testament borrows (actually, all three numbers, although the three days bit is easily the most important one).
As the action picks up, the Hebrews have commenced with their bellyaching and Moses discusses this with God, who comes up with the idea of manna, which also supports his seven day pattern. Less famous are the quails that serve as dinner with equal regularity as the appearance of the manna in the early morning hours. Then they grumble about water and God gives them that, too.
And then they go to war, the episode that involves Moses holding his arms up and then having them propped up so his side prevails. This marks the first references to Joshua, who will eventually become his successor. As I was saying, in Genesis, Joshua would have been his son, or at least have been introduced earlier or at any rate less randomly. Then comes a good bit revolving around Jethro, the father of Moses' phantom wife. What follows is basically the institution of the priestly order, at least as Christians would understand it.
Then God scares everyone by appearing as thunder and lightning, and then what is supposed to be the Ten Commandments. Except maybe slightly later in Exodus they're reduced only to the first ten in terms of general importance, because although those are certainly the first and featured, there follow many more. Many more. In fact, some of them appear to be clarifications for some of the first ones you know already, all sorts of rules governing what constitutes acceptable (!) murder and what doesn't, for instance. Actually, the whole thing is like setting up the basic rules of a society, like the pillar inscribed with the code of Hammurabi, which predates Moses by some five hundred years. (The Bible, incidentally, is first codified perhaps a thousand years or so after its initial events take place. So the things we know from roughly the time of the Dark Ages is the kind of memory the Jews would've sustained until making an official account of it.)
And then God gives Moses incredibly (incredibly) detailed instructions for the famed ark of the covenant (or, the title object from Indiana Jones's first adventure, Raiders of the Lost Ark). In a sense, this is an echo from another ark entirely, but again, incredibly detailed. Noah's ark did not come with nearly these many instructions, although to be fair it was only meant to have two of every creature and not God himself within it. This also serves as the foundation of Jewish temples and Christian churches, even down to the necessary vestments to be worn by the priests or rabbis within them.
And, certainly, God bless anyone who has the fortitude to read through all of it. Although again, these passages also clearly allude to other gods besides God Almighty, the Lord as acknowledged even by God himself. When he calls himself a jealous god, now you know why.
Another thing I haven't mentioned yet but keeps coming up is the significance of repeated numbers. Here, besides all the sevens and forties that stretch back to Genesis, is the emphasis on three, which is another thing the New Testament borrows (actually, all three numbers, although the three days bit is easily the most important one).
As the action picks up, the Hebrews have commenced with their bellyaching and Moses discusses this with God, who comes up with the idea of manna, which also supports his seven day pattern. Less famous are the quails that serve as dinner with equal regularity as the appearance of the manna in the early morning hours. Then they grumble about water and God gives them that, too.
And then they go to war, the episode that involves Moses holding his arms up and then having them propped up so his side prevails. This marks the first references to Joshua, who will eventually become his successor. As I was saying, in Genesis, Joshua would have been his son, or at least have been introduced earlier or at any rate less randomly. Then comes a good bit revolving around Jethro, the father of Moses' phantom wife. What follows is basically the institution of the priestly order, at least as Christians would understand it.
Then God scares everyone by appearing as thunder and lightning, and then what is supposed to be the Ten Commandments. Except maybe slightly later in Exodus they're reduced only to the first ten in terms of general importance, because although those are certainly the first and featured, there follow many more. Many more. In fact, some of them appear to be clarifications for some of the first ones you know already, all sorts of rules governing what constitutes acceptable (!) murder and what doesn't, for instance. Actually, the whole thing is like setting up the basic rules of a society, like the pillar inscribed with the code of Hammurabi, which predates Moses by some five hundred years. (The Bible, incidentally, is first codified perhaps a thousand years or so after its initial events take place. So the things we know from roughly the time of the Dark Ages is the kind of memory the Jews would've sustained until making an official account of it.)
And then God gives Moses incredibly (incredibly) detailed instructions for the famed ark of the covenant (or, the title object from Indiana Jones's first adventure, Raiders of the Lost Ark). In a sense, this is an echo from another ark entirely, but again, incredibly detailed. Noah's ark did not come with nearly these many instructions, although to be fair it was only meant to have two of every creature and not God himself within it. This also serves as the foundation of Jewish temples and Christian churches, even down to the necessary vestments to be worn by the priests or rabbis within them.
And, certainly, God bless anyone who has the fortitude to read through all of it. Although again, these passages also clearly allude to other gods besides God Almighty, the Lord as acknowledged even by God himself. When he calls himself a jealous god, now you know why.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Exodus 5-15
Before I go much further, I should note that Exodus is not only where God becomes known as Yahweh, but also the Lord.
Moses and Aaron are now busy at the work of convincing the Pharaoh of Egypt to let the Hebrews, or people of Israel (at this point a person rather than a country) go out into the wilderness to pray. They aren't even asking for freedom, just a chance to pray. It's Pharaoh's stubbornness and pressing the issue that leads to the title event, and further wandering toward the promised land. Since the time of Abraham they have been living in the lands of others, whether it be Philistines or Canaanites, and until the Egyptians at least to the point of Joseph they have only been able to win the good graces rather than full cooperation of their hosts. Always the struggle. I think the point of the Egyptian bondage might actually be to explain why Egypt never really expanded like other empires. Clearly one of the most notable of the ancient civilizations, leaving a clear and lasting legacy, but in the end not quite like the Greeks or Romans. God says several times that he's making Pharaoh "harden his heart" and make the situation worse in order to make a lasting impression on Egypt. Unlike, say, Romans and the emerging Christian faith, it's not exactly that the result of all this is to make Egyptians into a Hebrew nation.
It's very interesting, too, that although described as Hebrews and therefore part of the Abrahamic tradition, the people Moses and Aaron free are not apparently all that aware of the specifics of their faith, especially how much they're supposed to care about God. This may explain all the bellyaching that will follow, not to mention the Golden Calf episode, or perhaps merely denote that once again, the chroniclers of the Moses tradition were fully aware that there were other gods acknowledged even by God himself, who also makes reference to the Egyptian pantheon whose components have survived to this day in a mythology many people still know plenty about.
The genealogy work I was looking for early finally does show up. Although similar in almost every respect, it's still not really as comprehensive as the family lines described in Genesis. Readers of the Bible may have to wait for the even more exhaustive lineage ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament.
Also at this point God does not seem to need an intermediary of any kind to speak with Moses, although this will be necessary again later. They talk just like anyone else did in Genesis.
Then the inducements begin:
And finally, Pharaoh follows the edict to "let my people go," and the title event finally occurs. But that still not being enough, and perhaps not enough to explain the curious lack of forward momentum on the part of Egypt itself, Moses then parts the Red Sea and then allows it to crash down on the pursuing Egyptian military.
And then my favorite part of this section, which is perhaps the first psalm, a poem about everything that has just occurred, the great victory. It's really pretty awesome and deserves more recognition than I'm currently aware it gets.
Moses and Aaron are now busy at the work of convincing the Pharaoh of Egypt to let the Hebrews, or people of Israel (at this point a person rather than a country) go out into the wilderness to pray. They aren't even asking for freedom, just a chance to pray. It's Pharaoh's stubbornness and pressing the issue that leads to the title event, and further wandering toward the promised land. Since the time of Abraham they have been living in the lands of others, whether it be Philistines or Canaanites, and until the Egyptians at least to the point of Joseph they have only been able to win the good graces rather than full cooperation of their hosts. Always the struggle. I think the point of the Egyptian bondage might actually be to explain why Egypt never really expanded like other empires. Clearly one of the most notable of the ancient civilizations, leaving a clear and lasting legacy, but in the end not quite like the Greeks or Romans. God says several times that he's making Pharaoh "harden his heart" and make the situation worse in order to make a lasting impression on Egypt. Unlike, say, Romans and the emerging Christian faith, it's not exactly that the result of all this is to make Egyptians into a Hebrew nation.
It's very interesting, too, that although described as Hebrews and therefore part of the Abrahamic tradition, the people Moses and Aaron free are not apparently all that aware of the specifics of their faith, especially how much they're supposed to care about God. This may explain all the bellyaching that will follow, not to mention the Golden Calf episode, or perhaps merely denote that once again, the chroniclers of the Moses tradition were fully aware that there were other gods acknowledged even by God himself, who also makes reference to the Egyptian pantheon whose components have survived to this day in a mythology many people still know plenty about.
The genealogy work I was looking for early finally does show up. Although similar in almost every respect, it's still not really as comprehensive as the family lines described in Genesis. Readers of the Bible may have to wait for the even more exhaustive lineage ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament.
Also at this point God does not seem to need an intermediary of any kind to speak with Moses, although this will be necessary again later. They talk just like anyone else did in Genesis.
Then the inducements begin:
- rod-into-snake
- Nile-and-other-water-into-blood
- frogs
- gnats (the first one Pharaoh's magicians couldn't duplicate)
- flies
- livestock plague
- boils
- hail
- locusts
- three days of darkness
- death of the first-borns (carried out by God himself)
And finally, Pharaoh follows the edict to "let my people go," and the title event finally occurs. But that still not being enough, and perhaps not enough to explain the curious lack of forward momentum on the part of Egypt itself, Moses then parts the Red Sea and then allows it to crash down on the pursuing Egyptian military.
And then my favorite part of this section, which is perhaps the first psalm, a poem about everything that has just occurred, the great victory. It's really pretty awesome and deserves more recognition than I'm currently aware it gets.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Genesis 41-50, Exodus 1-4
The grand sweep of Genesis concludes in Egypt as Joseph talks his way out of trouble, interpreting the Pharaoh's dreams and attaining a position just below him in importance. Joseph's brothers come to him and he hides his true identity from them, repeating another pattern in the Bible to this point. He pushes it just far enough to have his kid brother Benjamin placed in the position God had Abraham place Isaac. Different circumstances, same general need to play the ultimate test.
The points I really want to stress, however, are how Joseph and his brothers echo Cain/Abel and Jacob/Esau and even the later Moses/Aaron, and just perhaps Jesus, whose single existence comprised the dual nature of God and man. Which of the two sides wins in the struggle? The point is never really the victory, because victory is sometimes not even possible, but rather to strike a contrast between them, and illustrate God's relationship to man and therefore man's relationship to God. More narrowly, Joseph may simply be called a predecessor to Jesus, how he relates to the Pharaoh, how he represents both himself and his people. His people, by the way, who continue to live, by choice, in exile, but always preferring in personal matters their own. By the end of Genesis, Jacob has died and then Joseph dies, but not before, as Jacob has done before him, prophesying about the future, or in other words the fulfillment of the covenant God has been making with Abraham and his descendants for all prosperity and a land to call their own.
Then begins the second book of the Bible, Exodus, and with it a swift contrast in the fortunes of Hebrews in Egypt. The old pharaoh who came to rely so favorably on Joseph has passed away and the new one greatly fears the shear number of Hebrews living within his kingdom, so he subjugates them rather than allow his fear of a revolt or uprising to come to pass. Like Jesus later, all the male offspring become subject to genocide, but the Hebrews prove crafty and avoid the inevitable fate of their kind, saving their little boys, and of course famously in the case of Moses.
He's sent in a basket down the river and ends up in the Pharaoh's palace, and grows up a regular Joseph, until he remarks on the oppression of his own people, and then goes into exile, finds his birth family, and then incidentally runs into a bush lit by an angel and then inhabited by God, who charges him with the salvation of the oppressed Hebrews, who are suddenly keen to begin looking for that promised land. He doesn't feel up to the task of doing the speaking for himself, so he asks if it's okay that his brother Aaron do it for him. God says it's okay.
The way God presents himself is a key difference, by the way, between Exodus and Genesis. God even gives himself a name, which is later translated for simplicity's sake to Yahweh, although the basic statement is that he is God because he's the only being in creation who's always "is."
What's really notable here is how definitive the transition from Genesis to Exodus really is. Although the circumstances around Joseph serve as a bridge, Exodus makes no attempt at the same kind of genealogical comprehensiveness as Genesis. Moses is left pretty much to appear at random. He is descended from Levi, marking the first point this particular son of Jacob is considered significant, much less in a positive light.
It's just as if Exodus originally stood apart from Genesis, or that it was composed first and Genesis second, like a prequel, to explain where the Hebrews came from in the first place and how their faith developed, or a justification for the new emphasis on finding a homeland, which makes Genesis to become the first work of prophecy in more ways than one in the Bible, assuming there's an equal chance it developed first. It seems as if Moses came about independently, certainly within the awareness of the Abrahamic tradition but separate from it, which is why in the early parts of Genesis some knowledge is implied whereas in the later parts it's inferred. Moses is the start of the Jewish traditions still practiced today. That's why the first books of the Bible are dedicated to him so completely, even Genesis, where he doesn't even appear. The way Christians view the Old Testament is how Jews view Genesis in regard to Moses. He's the whole reason anyone should care about it. Pretty shocking, when you consider how significant most of that material is, at least culturally.
The points I really want to stress, however, are how Joseph and his brothers echo Cain/Abel and Jacob/Esau and even the later Moses/Aaron, and just perhaps Jesus, whose single existence comprised the dual nature of God and man. Which of the two sides wins in the struggle? The point is never really the victory, because victory is sometimes not even possible, but rather to strike a contrast between them, and illustrate God's relationship to man and therefore man's relationship to God. More narrowly, Joseph may simply be called a predecessor to Jesus, how he relates to the Pharaoh, how he represents both himself and his people. His people, by the way, who continue to live, by choice, in exile, but always preferring in personal matters their own. By the end of Genesis, Jacob has died and then Joseph dies, but not before, as Jacob has done before him, prophesying about the future, or in other words the fulfillment of the covenant God has been making with Abraham and his descendants for all prosperity and a land to call their own.
Then begins the second book of the Bible, Exodus, and with it a swift contrast in the fortunes of Hebrews in Egypt. The old pharaoh who came to rely so favorably on Joseph has passed away and the new one greatly fears the shear number of Hebrews living within his kingdom, so he subjugates them rather than allow his fear of a revolt or uprising to come to pass. Like Jesus later, all the male offspring become subject to genocide, but the Hebrews prove crafty and avoid the inevitable fate of their kind, saving their little boys, and of course famously in the case of Moses.
He's sent in a basket down the river and ends up in the Pharaoh's palace, and grows up a regular Joseph, until he remarks on the oppression of his own people, and then goes into exile, finds his birth family, and then incidentally runs into a bush lit by an angel and then inhabited by God, who charges him with the salvation of the oppressed Hebrews, who are suddenly keen to begin looking for that promised land. He doesn't feel up to the task of doing the speaking for himself, so he asks if it's okay that his brother Aaron do it for him. God says it's okay.
The way God presents himself is a key difference, by the way, between Exodus and Genesis. God even gives himself a name, which is later translated for simplicity's sake to Yahweh, although the basic statement is that he is God because he's the only being in creation who's always "is."
What's really notable here is how definitive the transition from Genesis to Exodus really is. Although the circumstances around Joseph serve as a bridge, Exodus makes no attempt at the same kind of genealogical comprehensiveness as Genesis. Moses is left pretty much to appear at random. He is descended from Levi, marking the first point this particular son of Jacob is considered significant, much less in a positive light.
It's just as if Exodus originally stood apart from Genesis, or that it was composed first and Genesis second, like a prequel, to explain where the Hebrews came from in the first place and how their faith developed, or a justification for the new emphasis on finding a homeland, which makes Genesis to become the first work of prophecy in more ways than one in the Bible, assuming there's an equal chance it developed first. It seems as if Moses came about independently, certainly within the awareness of the Abrahamic tradition but separate from it, which is why in the early parts of Genesis some knowledge is implied whereas in the later parts it's inferred. Moses is the start of the Jewish traditions still practiced today. That's why the first books of the Bible are dedicated to him so completely, even Genesis, where he doesn't even appear. The way Christians view the Old Testament is how Jews view Genesis in regard to Moses. He's the whole reason anyone should care about it. Pretty shocking, when you consider how significant most of that material is, at least culturally.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Genesis 21-40
The action picks right back up with Abraham and Sarah, those crazy old founders of the whole Jewish faith, and the birth of Isaac. You'll remember that Abraham has previously had a child with the handmaiden Hagar. Ishmael temporarily reaches a bad end after they're both cast out of paradise, run out of water, and Hagar believes they'll both die, but then God shows up and reiterates that all's well in this family line.
The Philistines enter the picture for the first time, however, as Abraham transports the family to live among them. Then follows one of the most famous episodes in the whole Bible, in which God tests Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his own son Isaac, in what Christians would later suggest is the template for Jesus. Then Sarah dies and makes agreements with the Hittites to use their land for her burial. It's the first time we really get to see how respected Abraham is by others. They quickly acquiesce. Next he barters with Mesopotamians through a proxy for Isaac's future bride, who turns out to be Rebekah. Abraham in turn takes another bride, Keturah. You are probably not familiar with her name because she's not really significant otherwise. And anyway, Abraham is dead himself very soon after in the narrative.
Things become interesting again when you realize that Isaac's sons Jacob and Esau are basically a new version of Cain and Abel, and although you may be familiar with certain inheritance shenanigans Jacob and his mother pull, it's perhaps more intriguing that these brothers manage to make peace with each other despite everything.
A name that keeps popping up in these passages is the Philistine Abimelech, who first interacts with Abraham and then later Isaac. He is perhaps a representation of significant individuals outside of the people we're really supposed to care about. Around this time, Isaac pulls the same trick his father did, calling Rebekah his sister rather than wife, thinking it'll make things easier. But Abimelech is no fool. He correctly surmises that if he treated Rebekah as Isaac's sister rather than wife (to be fair, the whole idea was that Rebekah, like Sarah before her, is incredibly beautiful, and therefore would make every man jealous and therefore uncooperative), he would be falling into sin, like a trap. So Isaac agrees that it was a bad idea.
Around this time in Genesis, names that are supposed to mean something start being explained better, perhaps because these are known entities to the first recipients of the stories, so they're more reminders than things they were supposed to have learned, such as in the case of the name Eve from earlier.
Abimelech also begins to represent those people outside the line of Abraham who understand what's going on faith-wise. They're outsiders acknowledging God, in other words.
Jacob is set up for his own bride, but first experiences the first prophetic vision of the Bible, the famous Jacob's Ladder episode. He soon meets and falls for Rachel, although her father makes marrying her incredibly difficult, to the point where he accidentally marries her older sister Leah first, and then has to marry Rachel later. Because Jacob clearly prefers Rachel, Leah is rejected, but God intervenes by making her womb far more fertile, leading to plenty of offspring and in fact most of the twelve sons who helped found the twelve tribes, including Judah. Rachel eventually has Joseph, however, as well as Benjamin. Joseph of course is the most significant of these children.
Laban, Rachel and Leah's troublemaking father, causes Jacob great anxiety, and in fact a full-blown crisis in which he undertakes great preparations for an all-out confrontation, or at least to avoid one. Laban, for the record, manages to find peace with Jacob all the same. Jacob has another apparent crisis concerning his brother Esau, but they make peace, too. During this, he wrestles with God. I believe it's traditionally described as wrestling with an angel, but as I read it Jacob literally wrestles with God himself, perhaps the last of the notable face-to-face interactions (and then some!) with the Creator.
Although it might also be notable that this section seems to indicate that not only were these people aware of other gods, worshiped by others, but found no great struggle in knowing they existed alongside God. The real point is that God is God Almighty, or other words the supreme divine being (read the First Commandment again if you're wondering how accurate this interpretation is).
Rachel's daughter experiences a rape, leading to holy vengeance on the part of some of Jacob's sons, although after Jacob has already made peace with the culprits, who don't intend to convert to the faith of Abraham. It's the first time a clear distinction is made between a community that will and a community that won't.
God renames Jacob Israel. He also personally smites a few people dead.
The Joseph-and-his-special-gift-of-the-coat episode occurs, which angers his brothers, leading to their plans to get rid of him. He winds up in Egypt, but not before his brothers convince Jacob that Joseph is in fact dead. I suppose it only figures, because Jacob was himself previously guilty of trickery. It's also worth noting that in Egypt we hear the term Hebrew for the first time, that being what the Jews were known as at that time, so Abraham's faith was now fully established. Joseph winds up in prison after refusing to give in to the Pharaoh's wife's sexual desires, but this leads to his experiences with the same kind of prophetic abilities as his father and thus one of the defining themes of the Old Testament, which is revisited in the New Testament.
The Philistines enter the picture for the first time, however, as Abraham transports the family to live among them. Then follows one of the most famous episodes in the whole Bible, in which God tests Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his own son Isaac, in what Christians would later suggest is the template for Jesus. Then Sarah dies and makes agreements with the Hittites to use their land for her burial. It's the first time we really get to see how respected Abraham is by others. They quickly acquiesce. Next he barters with Mesopotamians through a proxy for Isaac's future bride, who turns out to be Rebekah. Abraham in turn takes another bride, Keturah. You are probably not familiar with her name because she's not really significant otherwise. And anyway, Abraham is dead himself very soon after in the narrative.
Things become interesting again when you realize that Isaac's sons Jacob and Esau are basically a new version of Cain and Abel, and although you may be familiar with certain inheritance shenanigans Jacob and his mother pull, it's perhaps more intriguing that these brothers manage to make peace with each other despite everything.
A name that keeps popping up in these passages is the Philistine Abimelech, who first interacts with Abraham and then later Isaac. He is perhaps a representation of significant individuals outside of the people we're really supposed to care about. Around this time, Isaac pulls the same trick his father did, calling Rebekah his sister rather than wife, thinking it'll make things easier. But Abimelech is no fool. He correctly surmises that if he treated Rebekah as Isaac's sister rather than wife (to be fair, the whole idea was that Rebekah, like Sarah before her, is incredibly beautiful, and therefore would make every man jealous and therefore uncooperative), he would be falling into sin, like a trap. So Isaac agrees that it was a bad idea.
Around this time in Genesis, names that are supposed to mean something start being explained better, perhaps because these are known entities to the first recipients of the stories, so they're more reminders than things they were supposed to have learned, such as in the case of the name Eve from earlier.
Abimelech also begins to represent those people outside the line of Abraham who understand what's going on faith-wise. They're outsiders acknowledging God, in other words.
Jacob is set up for his own bride, but first experiences the first prophetic vision of the Bible, the famous Jacob's Ladder episode. He soon meets and falls for Rachel, although her father makes marrying her incredibly difficult, to the point where he accidentally marries her older sister Leah first, and then has to marry Rachel later. Because Jacob clearly prefers Rachel, Leah is rejected, but God intervenes by making her womb far more fertile, leading to plenty of offspring and in fact most of the twelve sons who helped found the twelve tribes, including Judah. Rachel eventually has Joseph, however, as well as Benjamin. Joseph of course is the most significant of these children.
Laban, Rachel and Leah's troublemaking father, causes Jacob great anxiety, and in fact a full-blown crisis in which he undertakes great preparations for an all-out confrontation, or at least to avoid one. Laban, for the record, manages to find peace with Jacob all the same. Jacob has another apparent crisis concerning his brother Esau, but they make peace, too. During this, he wrestles with God. I believe it's traditionally described as wrestling with an angel, but as I read it Jacob literally wrestles with God himself, perhaps the last of the notable face-to-face interactions (and then some!) with the Creator.
Although it might also be notable that this section seems to indicate that not only were these people aware of other gods, worshiped by others, but found no great struggle in knowing they existed alongside God. The real point is that God is God Almighty, or other words the supreme divine being (read the First Commandment again if you're wondering how accurate this interpretation is).
Rachel's daughter experiences a rape, leading to holy vengeance on the part of some of Jacob's sons, although after Jacob has already made peace with the culprits, who don't intend to convert to the faith of Abraham. It's the first time a clear distinction is made between a community that will and a community that won't.
God renames Jacob Israel. He also personally smites a few people dead.
The Joseph-and-his-special-gift-of-the-coat episode occurs, which angers his brothers, leading to their plans to get rid of him. He winds up in Egypt, but not before his brothers convince Jacob that Joseph is in fact dead. I suppose it only figures, because Jacob was himself previously guilty of trickery. It's also worth noting that in Egypt we hear the term Hebrew for the first time, that being what the Jews were known as at that time, so Abraham's faith was now fully established. Joseph winds up in prison after refusing to give in to the Pharaoh's wife's sexual desires, but this leads to his experiences with the same kind of prophetic abilities as his father and thus one of the defining themes of the Old Testament, which is revisited in the New Testament.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)