Book of Zechariah is another one that's set during the time of Darius. Zechariah himself is the grandson of Iddo, one of the last figures of the Bible. His is another book filled with prophecy. Notably, it takes the foreshadowing of Revelation's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse more literally than the last time we saw such a thing, by including actual horsemen.
"Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for lo, I come and I will dwell in the midst of you, says the Lord!" Hmm, perhaps as Jesus?
Satan is referenced directly. But it amounts to a more or less throwaway reference.
Greece is referenced directly for the first time, even though there have been constant allusions to close Jewish contact with its various nation states.
There's a payment of 30 pieces of silver, which is not as well-received as it first seems.
"When they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn."
Book of Malachi, meanwhile, is another book concerned with the doings of the house of Esau. It's a little odd that so many later books in the Bible do this while so many of the former ones completely ignore Jacob's brother. It's a book mostly in the form of a screed against bad priests. It also includes a prophecy concerning Elijah's return.
First Book of Maccabees begins somewhat curiously with a warped portrait of Alexander the Great. I happen to know a bit about the famed Macedonian conqueror, so the summary provided here runs afoul quite notably in a few places, not the least in how it presents his final days. He most certainly did not appoint successors. That's how his empire crumbled so spectacularly. But here, he's said to have done exactly that. In fact, that's common for the Bible. Basic human fallibility is routinely reduced to character judgments, both on individuals and nations, usually predicated on their religious observance. But then, the Bible is a book primarily concerned with religious observance...Still long story short, and maybe this is simply a matter of how historic views change or don't always line up together, but don't take Alexander the Great's legacy strictly from what can be found in First Maccabees.
Anyway, after Alexander departs this mortal realm, things don't go so well for his successors, who are none of them half the man he was. One of the men who was definitely not half the man was Antiochus, the main villain of this piece, the instigator and religious persecutor who riles up Mattahias and his five sons, including Judas Maccabeus. Mattahias begins a full-scale revolt of Jews against tyranny, bringing back the fervor and battle success of the holy warriors of old, until he dies and Judas succeeds him. Judas has among his allies a group known as the Hasideans.
A couple notes worth including:
Antiochus, as part of his rampage sacks Egypt (whose fortunes were never again quite at Exodus levels). He plunders the temple. (I'm not clear on this because of the wording, but I think Judas later repairs it.) The temple at this time features "the bread of the Presence," which certainly sounds like a precursor to Catholicism's Holy Communion (which is quite literally the bread of the Presence). Jerusalem becomes occupied.
Oh, and Rome is referenced for the first time in the Bible...
Phinehas is fairly important in the theology here. Also invoked: Abraham, Joseph, Caleb, Joshua, David, Elijah, and Daniel.
The descendants of Esau are once again prominent, naturally, fighting against Judas and his warriors. And to think, way back in Genesis, Esau sounded like he was going to have such a good legacy.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Book of Obadiah 1, Book of Jonah 1-4, Book of Micah 1-7, Book of Nahum 1-3, Book of Habakkuk 1-3, Book of Zephaniah 1-3, Book of Haggai 1-2
More tales of Incredibly Short Books!
We begin our adventures with Book of Obadiah. The most important and perhaps only real notable thing about this one is that it's another source of information on just whatever became of the house of Esau. It ended, basically.
Book of Jonah, easily the most famous of this collection, is exactly as you probably know. The interesting thing, however, is that I somehow managed to construe even this one as one of the Old Testament's many foreshadowings of Jesus. This time, the parallel is with Gethsemane. I never even considered that before. Has anyone else?
Book of Micah is set during the days of the Bad Kings. But there are some choice quotes to share: "If a man should go about and utter wind and lies, saying 'I will preach to you of wine and strong drink,' he would be the preacher for this people!' That's a biblical insult for you!
The other one, predictably for this particular commentary, ties in with Jesus: "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days."
Later, Micah seems to elevate Miriam to the same level as Moses and Aaron. Balaam is referenced, too. And positively! Just as I've been saying all along! Unless I misinterpreted Micah. In which he is still, nonetheless, referenced. And not outright dismissed. For a change.
One more quote: "He has showed you, O men, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
Needless to say, but Book of Micah quickly became a standout for me.
Book of Nahum is also about Nineveh, much like Book of Jonah. Except otherwise it's nothing at all like Jonah.
Book of Habakkuk's most notable feature is its call to keep the faith.
Book of Zephaniah is set in the times of Josiah, which as we know (or should know) is one of the few times in the era of the Bad Kings where there was actually a good king (Josiah, to be clear). Still, it's a classic book of doomsaying.
Book of Haggai is from the days of Darius. It's a rare narrative in this section, basically Haggai presenting himself as the man God calls upon to rebuild the temple. If there's anything peculiar about that, it's that earlier God was not very keen on the idea of a temple in the first place...
We begin our adventures with Book of Obadiah. The most important and perhaps only real notable thing about this one is that it's another source of information on just whatever became of the house of Esau. It ended, basically.
Book of Jonah, easily the most famous of this collection, is exactly as you probably know. The interesting thing, however, is that I somehow managed to construe even this one as one of the Old Testament's many foreshadowings of Jesus. This time, the parallel is with Gethsemane. I never even considered that before. Has anyone else?
Book of Micah is set during the days of the Bad Kings. But there are some choice quotes to share: "If a man should go about and utter wind and lies, saying 'I will preach to you of wine and strong drink,' he would be the preacher for this people!' That's a biblical insult for you!
The other one, predictably for this particular commentary, ties in with Jesus: "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days."
Later, Micah seems to elevate Miriam to the same level as Moses and Aaron. Balaam is referenced, too. And positively! Just as I've been saying all along! Unless I misinterpreted Micah. In which he is still, nonetheless, referenced. And not outright dismissed. For a change.
One more quote: "He has showed you, O men, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
Needless to say, but Book of Micah quickly became a standout for me.
Book of Nahum is also about Nineveh, much like Book of Jonah. Except otherwise it's nothing at all like Jonah.
Book of Habakkuk's most notable feature is its call to keep the faith.
Book of Zephaniah is set in the times of Josiah, which as we know (or should know) is one of the few times in the era of the Bad Kings where there was actually a good king (Josiah, to be clear). Still, it's a classic book of doomsaying.
Book of Haggai is from the days of Darius. It's a rare narrative in this section, basically Haggai presenting himself as the man God calls upon to rebuild the temple. If there's anything peculiar about that, it's that earlier God was not very keen on the idea of a temple in the first place...
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Book of Hosea 1-14, Book of Joel 1-3, Book of Amos 1-9
Now we're reaching Incredibly Short Book territory, in which most of the books we'll be coming across are, well, incredibly short. And there's not really much to talk about, either.
Book of Hosea...set during the era of Bad Kings. Interestingly, this book actually blames Israel itself for the Bad Kings, as if it deserved ill-rule. In the chronicles of Bad Kings, it was pretty clearly explained that these guys were Bad Kings all on their own. Such goes the need to justify Bad Times...
Book of Joel is pretty generalized, warnings and promises and sort of apocalyptic/judgment day suggestions.
Book of Amos is also set in the era of Bad Kings. Interestingly, as far as something to talk about goes (because very little new is being said in any of these), Amos appears for a brief moment in a narrative sequence detailing his humble origins and general lack of acceptance for his prophecies. It doesn't pay to buck the mainstream. Even though you sometimes end up in the Bible as a hero because of it.
Book of Hosea...set during the era of Bad Kings. Interestingly, this book actually blames Israel itself for the Bad Kings, as if it deserved ill-rule. In the chronicles of Bad Kings, it was pretty clearly explained that these guys were Bad Kings all on their own. Such goes the need to justify Bad Times...
Book of Joel is pretty generalized, warnings and promises and sort of apocalyptic/judgment day suggestions.
Book of Amos is also set in the era of Bad Kings. Interestingly, as far as something to talk about goes (because very little new is being said in any of these), Amos appears for a brief moment in a narrative sequence detailing his humble origins and general lack of acceptance for his prophecies. It doesn't pay to buck the mainstream. Even though you sometimes end up in the Bible as a hero because of it.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Book of Daniel 1-14
There's an alternate account of how the Babylonian exile came about to start off Book of Daniel. Later, Daniel himself is introduced as a select group of exceptional, handsome youths (such a biblical trend!) who are to be trained and educated to serve Nebuchadnezzar. He opts to remain religiously pure, overcoming the first of many such challenges. He's the only one to who can interpret Nebuchadnezzar's dream, which creates a parallel with Joseph. There are tons of parallels in this book, as in virtually every other narrative book of the Bible.
This just in: apparently the Babylonians had bagpipes.
There's the famous Daniel's-companions-in-the-fiery-furnace episode. Then the writing-on-the-wall episode. This one features Nebuchadnezzar's successor and son, Belshazzar. Then Darius of the Persians takes over.
It's under Darius that perhaps the most compelling parallel can be found. See if you can't tell me what it reads like: "Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other presidents and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel with regard to the kingdom; but they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him. Then these men said, 'We shall not not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God.'"
Daniel is subsequently sent into the lion's den, another classic episode from the book.
Then the book shifts (there's clear signs that several different works even before this point have been soldered together) into some outright prophetic talk. "There came one like a son of man." Yes, Daniel is another book that features this phrase. There's one sequence that sounds like it could have come from the much later prophecies of Nostradamus.
And then there's a flashback to Daniel saving Susanna from some lecherous old men who attempt to damn her with false witness. Then Daniel exposing the mischief of the priests of Bel. Then Daniel defeating a dragon. (As far as I know, even if I try to say otherwise in some of my fiction, dragons are completely fictional, for the record.)
And then it ends with an alternate version of the lion's den story, featuring Habakkuk.
This just in: apparently the Babylonians had bagpipes.
There's the famous Daniel's-companions-in-the-fiery-furnace episode. Then the writing-on-the-wall episode. This one features Nebuchadnezzar's successor and son, Belshazzar. Then Darius of the Persians takes over.
It's under Darius that perhaps the most compelling parallel can be found. See if you can't tell me what it reads like: "Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other presidents and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel with regard to the kingdom; but they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him. Then these men said, 'We shall not not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God.'"
Daniel is subsequently sent into the lion's den, another classic episode from the book.
Then the book shifts (there's clear signs that several different works even before this point have been soldered together) into some outright prophetic talk. "There came one like a son of man." Yes, Daniel is another book that features this phrase. There's one sequence that sounds like it could have come from the much later prophecies of Nostradamus.
And then there's a flashback to Daniel saving Susanna from some lecherous old men who attempt to damn her with false witness. Then Daniel exposing the mischief of the priests of Bel. Then Daniel defeating a dragon. (As far as I know, even if I try to say otherwise in some of my fiction, dragons are completely fictional, for the record.)
And then it ends with an alternate version of the lion's den story, featuring Habakkuk.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Book of Ezekiel 16-48
In a certain sort of way, Ezekiel 16 kicks off with a funny and highly irreverent version of Jewish origins. But there is other material later in the book that presents equally unique and not always easily-to-be-interpreted-as-funny versions of previous biblical lore. I will have more to say about that a little later on.
Jews are compared to a brazen harlot, in an extended sequence. The phrase, "like mother, like daughter" is used. I'm sure you're more familiar with, "like father, like son."
There's an account of why Sodom was smited. Ezekiel suggests a number of things, including that God had attempted to plant his faith in a number of other places (that may also be the point of Balaam, the prophet of little luck I obsessed over previously, at least according to this interpretation) but was rebuffed, and so he smited them. Such the fate of Sodom, then, as Israel/Judah is smited in the exile era, which is what all these recent prophetic books have been obsessing over.
And so we reach Ezekiel 25.17, which is what Jules (that is, Samuel L. Jackson) draws from for some of his famous words he favors before a hit in Pulp Fiction. In the movie he says, "And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you." Obviously there will be differences of interpretation between different translations of the Bible. But in this instance, perhaps there's a little more of Quentin Tarantino than strict translating here. The version in my RSV Bible reads as follows: "I will execute great vengeance upon them with wrathful chastisements. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon them."
It's worth noting that the latter phrase is used repeatedly in Ezekiel, almost as often as "son of man."
It may be worth noting further, for the purposes of one of the things I've been using as a biblical refrain in these commentaries, that the passage refers in part to the Philistines. I guess it only figures.
38 and 39 reference Gog and Magog, which are classic names in biblical apocalyptic lore, although I have no idea why having read about them in Ezekiel. Both names can be found in a number of DC comics, starting in 1996's Kingdom Come and in later iterations of the same story, such as "Thy Kingdom Come" from Justice Society of America. Magog is specifically referenced in Ezekiel as being a place, but in these comics he's basically the anti-Superman. Perhaps related to the concept of Antichrist from Revelation? The Magog, meanwhile, are apocalyptic aliens in Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda.
Ezekiel ends with an elaborate plan for the new temple. The whole book might almost be interpreted as a version of the Bible for those who didn't really have the Bible, an exile translation as it were, all its apocalyptic talk concerning the Babylonian era.
Jews are compared to a brazen harlot, in an extended sequence. The phrase, "like mother, like daughter" is used. I'm sure you're more familiar with, "like father, like son."
There's an account of why Sodom was smited. Ezekiel suggests a number of things, including that God had attempted to plant his faith in a number of other places (that may also be the point of Balaam, the prophet of little luck I obsessed over previously, at least according to this interpretation) but was rebuffed, and so he smited them. Such the fate of Sodom, then, as Israel/Judah is smited in the exile era, which is what all these recent prophetic books have been obsessing over.
And so we reach Ezekiel 25.17, which is what Jules (that is, Samuel L. Jackson) draws from for some of his famous words he favors before a hit in Pulp Fiction. In the movie he says, "And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you." Obviously there will be differences of interpretation between different translations of the Bible. But in this instance, perhaps there's a little more of Quentin Tarantino than strict translating here. The version in my RSV Bible reads as follows: "I will execute great vengeance upon them with wrathful chastisements. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon them."
It's worth noting that the latter phrase is used repeatedly in Ezekiel, almost as often as "son of man."
It may be worth noting further, for the purposes of one of the things I've been using as a biblical refrain in these commentaries, that the passage refers in part to the Philistines. I guess it only figures.
38 and 39 reference Gog and Magog, which are classic names in biblical apocalyptic lore, although I have no idea why having read about them in Ezekiel. Both names can be found in a number of DC comics, starting in 1996's Kingdom Come and in later iterations of the same story, such as "Thy Kingdom Come" from Justice Society of America. Magog is specifically referenced in Ezekiel as being a place, but in these comics he's basically the anti-Superman. Perhaps related to the concept of Antichrist from Revelation? The Magog, meanwhile, are apocalyptic aliens in Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda.
Ezekiel ends with an elaborate plan for the new temple. The whole book might almost be interpreted as a version of the Bible for those who didn't really have the Bible, an exile translation as it were, all its apocalyptic talk concerning the Babylonian era.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Book of Baruch 1-6, Book of Ezekiel 1-15
Baruch, who played a supporting role in Book of Jeremiah, returns in his own book. Again, these are two books that don't seem to have been written in awareness of each other. For instance, Baruch is basically a televangelist in this version. Read it in your favorite televangelist's voice. You'll see what I mean. He describes himself as basically hugely successful in selling the word of God (and by implication Jeremiah), which is not exactly how (read: at all) it is in Jeremiah. He stresses the importance of serving Babylon faithfully. In fact, that sounds like rendering to Caesar what's Caesar's (something Jesus later says), or in effect the way the actual Evangelists interpreted the events of the New Testament so that they would not be smited (as much?) by their Roman contemporaries.
Jeremiah isn't referenced until the final chapter, which takes the form of one of his letters, which doesn't sound incredibly like Book of Jeremiah.
On to Big E. Fans of Pulp Fiction may or may not know this particular book of the Bible (I'll reach the relevant passage by the next entry of these commentaries if you have no idea what I'm talking about). We're still in the thick of the exile era. It's no wonder that it was so popular a subject, given that by the time of Jesus, the Jews were back in exile, and they wouldn't really emerge for two thousand years. (Which, again, begs the question of why no one has publicly proclaimed the return to Israel last century as a fulfillment of the Jewish messianic prophecies; Golda Meir too female?)
Anyway, Book of Ezekiel begins like classic apocalyptic biblical material, which like the later Revelation of the New Testament is filled with Babylonian messages, although this one really is about Babylon. Apparently the fancy winged figures who precede God were not so much Ezekiel's inventions, but figures anyone at the time would have been able to identify. (Again, we seem to take for granted everything we think now about the stuff we read in the Bible was exactly how they thought about it then, but we're talking the difference of several thousand years. Tons can change and in fact has. I'm just saying. Maybe it's time we all take a more nuanced look at the Good Book. Could do wonders for everyone, believers and otherwise.)
Ezekiel's vision, of course, also includes God, which is the first direct look at him, with no proxy or representation or generalization needed. Which might explain why we have a humanized look of him today, even though he still features the same glowy appearance featured elsewhere in the Bible, both testaments.
The phrase "son of man" is used repeatedly in this book, as God's term for Ezekiel. This is relevant as another thing Reza Aslan could have used to keep in mind when researching and writing the otherwise stellar Zealot.
The Spirit is also once again present. Those who attempt to simplify Jewish faith claim that one of Christianity's big errors is that it attempts to make a mystery out of monotheism by presenting not only God, but the Spirit and the Son as well. But all three are present in the Old Testament, repeatedly, the Son admittedly most obliquely. But it's not a question at all as to the presence of the Spirit.
There are a number of theological flip-floppings in Ezekiel, suggesting that it's another book that underwent consolidating and spotty editing over time. Or perhaps it's merely me being confused, as happens now and again as I read through the Bible. I have no problem admitting that. I'm referencing this again because at one point God seems to be shifting toward the direction of what Christians believe Jesus represented, the whole point he appeared as a human, to act as the last sacrifice God ever needed. Ezekiel is called to symbolically take on the sins of his fellow man. It's less of a question that the shift between you and several generations after you being blighted by your sins as opposed to being able to be outright forgiven also happens to be featured here. This occurs in the middle of a reprise of God giving detailed instructions to someone, which previously happened in the Noah and Moses narratives.
But then God enters righteous fury mode.
Jeremiah isn't referenced until the final chapter, which takes the form of one of his letters, which doesn't sound incredibly like Book of Jeremiah.
On to Big E. Fans of Pulp Fiction may or may not know this particular book of the Bible (I'll reach the relevant passage by the next entry of these commentaries if you have no idea what I'm talking about). We're still in the thick of the exile era. It's no wonder that it was so popular a subject, given that by the time of Jesus, the Jews were back in exile, and they wouldn't really emerge for two thousand years. (Which, again, begs the question of why no one has publicly proclaimed the return to Israel last century as a fulfillment of the Jewish messianic prophecies; Golda Meir too female?)
Anyway, Book of Ezekiel begins like classic apocalyptic biblical material, which like the later Revelation of the New Testament is filled with Babylonian messages, although this one really is about Babylon. Apparently the fancy winged figures who precede God were not so much Ezekiel's inventions, but figures anyone at the time would have been able to identify. (Again, we seem to take for granted everything we think now about the stuff we read in the Bible was exactly how they thought about it then, but we're talking the difference of several thousand years. Tons can change and in fact has. I'm just saying. Maybe it's time we all take a more nuanced look at the Good Book. Could do wonders for everyone, believers and otherwise.)
Ezekiel's vision, of course, also includes God, which is the first direct look at him, with no proxy or representation or generalization needed. Which might explain why we have a humanized look of him today, even though he still features the same glowy appearance featured elsewhere in the Bible, both testaments.
The phrase "son of man" is used repeatedly in this book, as God's term for Ezekiel. This is relevant as another thing Reza Aslan could have used to keep in mind when researching and writing the otherwise stellar Zealot.
The Spirit is also once again present. Those who attempt to simplify Jewish faith claim that one of Christianity's big errors is that it attempts to make a mystery out of monotheism by presenting not only God, but the Spirit and the Son as well. But all three are present in the Old Testament, repeatedly, the Son admittedly most obliquely. But it's not a question at all as to the presence of the Spirit.
There are a number of theological flip-floppings in Ezekiel, suggesting that it's another book that underwent consolidating and spotty editing over time. Or perhaps it's merely me being confused, as happens now and again as I read through the Bible. I have no problem admitting that. I'm referencing this again because at one point God seems to be shifting toward the direction of what Christians believe Jesus represented, the whole point he appeared as a human, to act as the last sacrifice God ever needed. Ezekiel is called to symbolically take on the sins of his fellow man. It's less of a question that the shift between you and several generations after you being blighted by your sins as opposed to being able to be outright forgiven also happens to be featured here. This occurs in the middle of a reprise of God giving detailed instructions to someone, which previously happened in the Noah and Moses narratives.
But then God enters righteous fury mode.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Book of Jeremiah 36-52, Lamentations 1-5
Baruch shows up again and starts to do actual things. Such as act very much like Aaron to Jeremiah's Moses.
Jeremiah utters, "What wrong have I done to you or your servants, or the people, that you have put me in prison?" Then a little later, it's said of him, "Let this man be put to death, for he is weakening the hands of the soldiers who are left in the city, and the hands of all the people by speaking such words to them. For this man is not seeking the welfare of this people, but their harm." Sounds a lot like Jesus foreshadowing to me.
Jeremiah is then thrown into the pit. It's Ebedmelech the Ethiopian who gets him out.
The further Jesus analogy in this scenario is Nebuchadnezzar in the Pontius Pilate role. In fact, the whole depiction of Pilate could very well have been drawn from Book of Jeremiah. As historians are increasingly quick to note, the real Pilate would never even have thought twice about executing Jesus.
I have a correction to make about the earlier reference to "queen of heaven." Now I'm interpreting to have always been an Egyptian reference, likely to Isis. Egypt is prominent in Jeremiah.
In the litany of terrors against nations that helps comprise Book of Jeremiah (it seems obvious that several separate works were at some point combined), there's the suggestion that the conclusion of the Esau legacy is finally reached. You'll remember that although Jacob's brother did actually get to enjoy prosperity through the generations his adventures disappear from the Bible soon after.
The variations of this book from earlier biblical record continue: the end of the Babylonian exile is far less mutual and more like rats fleeing a sinking ship, with Babylon meeting the same sorry fate as other nations in the litany of doom and woe. I'd suggest that it seems obvious some or all of this was written well after the fact, even there's at least one line ("Thus far are the words of Jeremiah") that would try and suggest otherwise. Most of the books of the Bible probably didn't exist in direct awareness of each other much less reflect a lot of direct record. It's hard enough to authenticate such things in the New Testament.
Sodom and Gomorrah, however, are clearly part of the tradition everyone knows at least by name (some suggestions made here indicate varying reasons never actually given as to why they were so famously smited), as they are referenced several times in Book of Jeremiah.
I imagine one way or another that this is not a favorite book of Iraqis. Although funny enough, and maybe I said this already, but Abraham's ziggurat is in Iraq.
It ends funny, though. Jeremiah abruptly disappears (to say nothing of an earlier and random sequence involving a bloody warrior named Ishmael). It rewinds back to the very start of the Babylonian saga, right after having apparently closed the book of Babylon itself.
Lamentations, traditionally ascribed to Jeremiah but clearly not by him, is a, well, poetic lament about the destruction of Jerusalem, and even a moment of religious doubt (which suggests people generally did believe what they were supposed to believe with or without Jeremiah), some lines of general woe concerning the exile era.
Jeremiah utters, "What wrong have I done to you or your servants, or the people, that you have put me in prison?" Then a little later, it's said of him, "Let this man be put to death, for he is weakening the hands of the soldiers who are left in the city, and the hands of all the people by speaking such words to them. For this man is not seeking the welfare of this people, but their harm." Sounds a lot like Jesus foreshadowing to me.
Jeremiah is then thrown into the pit. It's Ebedmelech the Ethiopian who gets him out.
The further Jesus analogy in this scenario is Nebuchadnezzar in the Pontius Pilate role. In fact, the whole depiction of Pilate could very well have been drawn from Book of Jeremiah. As historians are increasingly quick to note, the real Pilate would never even have thought twice about executing Jesus.
I have a correction to make about the earlier reference to "queen of heaven." Now I'm interpreting to have always been an Egyptian reference, likely to Isis. Egypt is prominent in Jeremiah.
In the litany of terrors against nations that helps comprise Book of Jeremiah (it seems obvious that several separate works were at some point combined), there's the suggestion that the conclusion of the Esau legacy is finally reached. You'll remember that although Jacob's brother did actually get to enjoy prosperity through the generations his adventures disappear from the Bible soon after.
The variations of this book from earlier biblical record continue: the end of the Babylonian exile is far less mutual and more like rats fleeing a sinking ship, with Babylon meeting the same sorry fate as other nations in the litany of doom and woe. I'd suggest that it seems obvious some or all of this was written well after the fact, even there's at least one line ("Thus far are the words of Jeremiah") that would try and suggest otherwise. Most of the books of the Bible probably didn't exist in direct awareness of each other much less reflect a lot of direct record. It's hard enough to authenticate such things in the New Testament.
Sodom and Gomorrah, however, are clearly part of the tradition everyone knows at least by name (some suggestions made here indicate varying reasons never actually given as to why they were so famously smited), as they are referenced several times in Book of Jeremiah.
I imagine one way or another that this is not a favorite book of Iraqis. Although funny enough, and maybe I said this already, but Abraham's ziggurat is in Iraq.
It ends funny, though. Jeremiah abruptly disappears (to say nothing of an earlier and random sequence involving a bloody warrior named Ishmael). It rewinds back to the very start of the Babylonian saga, right after having apparently closed the book of Babylon itself.
Lamentations, traditionally ascribed to Jeremiah but clearly not by him, is a, well, poetic lament about the destruction of Jerusalem, and even a moment of religious doubt (which suggests people generally did believe what they were supposed to believe with or without Jeremiah), some lines of general woe concerning the exile era.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Book of Jeremiah 16-35
Narrative interruptions are a marked difference between Book of Isaiah and Book of Jeremiah, among other things. They're far more common in Jeremiah, to the point where it begins to read like a third version of Kings/Chronicles (yay!). Which also has the effect of my having less to talk about.
Although the one interesting part of that, as in the difference between Kings and Chronicles (where Jeremiah grows in prominence in the latter), is that our man becomes that much more central to the story. It also means he gets in trouble for his prophecies of doom. It's the difference between sitting there writing commentaries and being out on the street talking about how bad everyone is compared to what they should be like if they truly consider themselves God's people. In other words, the main distinction (which I believe I'm reiterating) of this book is that it's the guy telling people who don't want to hear about what's going wrong versus preaching to the choir (which is what we imagine similar books to be).
Upper rooms are mentioned. An upper room is central to the story of the Last Supper in the New Testament, you'll remember. Clearly they're an institution of households for some time.
Micah is referenced as a precedent to the kind of work Jeremiah is doing.
Uriah is another. He's murdered for his efforts. Poor Uriah!
The false prophet Hananiah, who speaks of peace (again, that disparity between what religious people today think of peace and war and what religious people back then thought of the same things), is used to illustrate all the false prophets Jeremiah is meant to counterbalance.
Shenaiah is another false prophet. These dueling prophets are almost like what the New Testament would have read like it it had included all the people who claimed to be the messiah at the same time as Jesus (as humorously depicted in Life of Brian)..
Hopefully, Jeremiah speaks of days to come where God will no longer be punishing his people, which Christians would describe as the era Jesus utters, breaking the old cycle, a suggestion already brought up previously in the Old Testament.
Baruch is mentioned. Like Micah, he has his own book later on in the Bible. Right after Lamentations, in fact, in my edition.
Although the one interesting part of that, as in the difference between Kings and Chronicles (where Jeremiah grows in prominence in the latter), is that our man becomes that much more central to the story. It also means he gets in trouble for his prophecies of doom. It's the difference between sitting there writing commentaries and being out on the street talking about how bad everyone is compared to what they should be like if they truly consider themselves God's people. In other words, the main distinction (which I believe I'm reiterating) of this book is that it's the guy telling people who don't want to hear about what's going wrong versus preaching to the choir (which is what we imagine similar books to be).
Upper rooms are mentioned. An upper room is central to the story of the Last Supper in the New Testament, you'll remember. Clearly they're an institution of households for some time.
Micah is referenced as a precedent to the kind of work Jeremiah is doing.
Uriah is another. He's murdered for his efforts. Poor Uriah!
The false prophet Hananiah, who speaks of peace (again, that disparity between what religious people today think of peace and war and what religious people back then thought of the same things), is used to illustrate all the false prophets Jeremiah is meant to counterbalance.
Shenaiah is another false prophet. These dueling prophets are almost like what the New Testament would have read like it it had included all the people who claimed to be the messiah at the same time as Jesus (as humorously depicted in Life of Brian)..
Hopefully, Jeremiah speaks of days to come where God will no longer be punishing his people, which Christians would describe as the era Jesus utters, breaking the old cycle, a suggestion already brought up previously in the Old Testament.
Baruch is mentioned. Like Micah, he has his own book later on in the Bible. Right after Lamentations, in fact, in my edition.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Book of Jeremiah 1-15
Unlike the previous Book of Isaiah, Jeremiah's prophetic nature fits closely with old school Jewish faith, and in fact seems to be a repackaging of it. Just imagine it as the Bible of biblical times, only really unpopular among actual Jews. God is unsurprisingly a lot more interactive here than he's been in a while.
Jeremiah 2: "Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruits of his harvest. All who ate of it became guilty; evil came upon them, says the Lord." Certainly interesting, and perhaps a new perspective on Eden, or perhaps what the faithful originally believed. Or it could be a metaphor concerning anyone who messed with the faith. Which would amount to the same.
Maybe I misread this, but Jeremiah 7 references the "queen of heaven." One way or another, you know I'll just drop in Mary from the New Testament, whom Catholics later dubbed with the same title.
I think the importance of the Exodus era was vastly ramped up in the Babylonian exile era, and this might be a good place to see that develop.
Wailing women appear. They are also prominent in Jesus's Way of the Cross.
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" Perhaps a verse all those crummy assholes who used the Bible to justify American slavery could have used to memorize.
Book of Jeremiah does seem to have some classic apocalyptic imagery in it. New Testament figures were obsessive Bible nerds. You can see it all the time in the constant parallels, which is something the Old Testament itself began, but its Christian successor mastered. Anyway, just as Revelation later introduces the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Jeremiah has the four destroyers, which are pestilence, the sword (war), famine, and captivity (death?), and rephrased slightly a split-second later as sword (again), dog, birds, and beasts (generally). Things like that keep this book interesting.
Jeremiah 2: "Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruits of his harvest. All who ate of it became guilty; evil came upon them, says the Lord." Certainly interesting, and perhaps a new perspective on Eden, or perhaps what the faithful originally believed. Or it could be a metaphor concerning anyone who messed with the faith. Which would amount to the same.
Maybe I misread this, but Jeremiah 7 references the "queen of heaven." One way or another, you know I'll just drop in Mary from the New Testament, whom Catholics later dubbed with the same title.
I think the importance of the Exodus era was vastly ramped up in the Babylonian exile era, and this might be a good place to see that develop.
Wailing women appear. They are also prominent in Jesus's Way of the Cross.
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" Perhaps a verse all those crummy assholes who used the Bible to justify American slavery could have used to memorize.
Book of Jeremiah does seem to have some classic apocalyptic imagery in it. New Testament figures were obsessive Bible nerds. You can see it all the time in the constant parallels, which is something the Old Testament itself began, but its Christian successor mastered. Anyway, just as Revelation later introduces the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Jeremiah has the four destroyers, which are pestilence, the sword (war), famine, and captivity (death?), and rephrased slightly a split-second later as sword (again), dog, birds, and beasts (generally). Things like that keep this book interesting.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Book of Isaiah 31-66
Isaiah 34 includes the phrase "day of vengeance" (the first of two such instances). This comment has nothing particularly biblical to say, unless the comic book people were inspired biblically, but there was a min-series called Day of Vengeance about six years back. It features the so-called Spirit of Vengeance otherwise known as the Spectre, who is said to be God's agent of wrath. When tethered to a human, he can be fairly rational. However, in such instances as Day of Vengeance, he can get a little smite-happy. Spectre was used very overtly in a religious sense in another comic, Kingdom Come. Comics have more of a religious connection than you might think. As reflected in the popular and critically acclaimed Michael Chabon book The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, Superman's creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were a pair of Jewish boys (Superman, it may be said, is often seen as an allegory for Moses).
This chapter also includes the phrase, "none shall pass," which is also a line uttered by Sheldon Cooper in an episode of The Big Bang Theory. Sheldon's use might be said to be an homage to Gandalf uttering, "You shall not pass!" in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Gandalf, it might be said, is a Jesus figure, although a little less blatantly than Aslan).
36 and 37 recap Hezekiah versus the threat of the Assyrians. Surprisingly that happens. Most of Isaiah is extrapolations of bad things coming to the Jews, and also some hopeful messages, and of course as far as Christians are concerned prophetic talk about the upcoming messiah that turns out to be Jesus, as well as some apocalyptic language that is later echoed in other such writings, including Revelation. But there's also some straight narrative in there.
37 also includes "the people of Eden, who were in Telassar," though not apparently a reference in anyway to the Eden of Genesis. It's just interesting to see Eden pop up as a name again.
39 makes it explicit, as I'd interpreted previously, that Hezekiah showing the Babylonians Judah's goods was all but an invitation to begin the latest and most famous (because of all the prophets) captivity era. Book of Isaiah, by the way, is not nearly as keen on Hezekiah as Sirach apparently is.
40: "A voice cries: 'In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord.'" This is something John the Baptist later evokes.
53 is the last of the classic prophetic passages concerning Isaiah's suffering servant, such as the line, "He was despised and rejected by men," which evokes Jesus's execution and the events surrounding it.
This chapter also includes the phrase, "none shall pass," which is also a line uttered by Sheldon Cooper in an episode of The Big Bang Theory. Sheldon's use might be said to be an homage to Gandalf uttering, "You shall not pass!" in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Gandalf, it might be said, is a Jesus figure, although a little less blatantly than Aslan).
36 and 37 recap Hezekiah versus the threat of the Assyrians. Surprisingly that happens. Most of Isaiah is extrapolations of bad things coming to the Jews, and also some hopeful messages, and of course as far as Christians are concerned prophetic talk about the upcoming messiah that turns out to be Jesus, as well as some apocalyptic language that is later echoed in other such writings, including Revelation. But there's also some straight narrative in there.
37 also includes "the people of Eden, who were in Telassar," though not apparently a reference in anyway to the Eden of Genesis. It's just interesting to see Eden pop up as a name again.
39 makes it explicit, as I'd interpreted previously, that Hezekiah showing the Babylonians Judah's goods was all but an invitation to begin the latest and most famous (because of all the prophets) captivity era. Book of Isaiah, by the way, is not nearly as keen on Hezekiah as Sirach apparently is.
40: "A voice cries: 'In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord.'" This is something John the Baptist later evokes.
53 is the last of the classic prophetic passages concerning Isaiah's suffering servant, such as the line, "He was despised and rejected by men," which evokes Jesus's execution and the events surrounding it.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Book of Isaiah 6-30
Book of Isaiah begins to really pick up with the sixth chapter. He becomes the latest biblical personality to say "Here I am!" to God, whom he meets here. God says Israel must be reduced to a stump. Back into smiting mode!
7 is the the Immanuel ("God is with us") prophecy.
9 contains famous prophetic words such as, "and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 11 contains more of that, such as, "There will come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse." If you take the two instances of "stump" very literally, you add up Jesus as the last of the true Jews, which gave birth to Christianity. Some more extrapolating I'll do here is that according to the Bible, the Jews were necessarily bad every time bad things happened to them. If they were in a bad position, it necessarily follows that they were being bad. I'm not saying these are actual correlations, but that this is what the Bible says, repeatedly. Going so far as the time of Jesus, when Jews were under the yoke of Romans, would it not follow that they were being bad, or that it would not be a bad thing to say Jews at that time were being bad, and that whatever the New Testament has to say about their involvement in the Crucifixion does not condemn all Jews but rather specifically Jews that by definition were being bad? Of course, by the same logic, you'd have to assume Jews were very bad indeed at the time of the Holocaust. And by that logic we can perhaps put aside the direct correlations of bad times and bad behavior. To be clear, I'm saying that the Holocaust is the most direct contradiction of biblical logic. I'm saying if you need a reason to not take everything in the Bible literally and not look like a very bad person yourself, that would be a good place to start, and most of us in the 21st century are hopefully willing to agree with that.
Good, so we'll move on.
14 includes the classic tale of the fall of Lucifer, "Day Star, son of Dawn." However, the rest of what Isaiah has to say about him certainly doesn't correlate with everything else we say about Satan now. So that's more of how things develop.
22: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." This just happens to remind me of the movie 300, one of the many things Gerard Butler's Leonidas bellows: "Spartans! Ready your breakfast and eat hearty. For tonight, we dine in hell!"
In 27 Leviathan is described as a serpent. I think I'm not alone in always assuming the name referred to whales. Either way, hardly the first time something in the Bible is mistaken for one of those..."And he will slay the dragon that is in the sea." Dragon that's in the sea? I had no idea about that either!
In 30 both fire and brimstone are referenced in relation to punishment. And they both become staples of old-timey (and scary!) preachers from the 19th century...
7 is the the Immanuel ("God is with us") prophecy.
9 contains famous prophetic words such as, "and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 11 contains more of that, such as, "There will come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse." If you take the two instances of "stump" very literally, you add up Jesus as the last of the true Jews, which gave birth to Christianity. Some more extrapolating I'll do here is that according to the Bible, the Jews were necessarily bad every time bad things happened to them. If they were in a bad position, it necessarily follows that they were being bad. I'm not saying these are actual correlations, but that this is what the Bible says, repeatedly. Going so far as the time of Jesus, when Jews were under the yoke of Romans, would it not follow that they were being bad, or that it would not be a bad thing to say Jews at that time were being bad, and that whatever the New Testament has to say about their involvement in the Crucifixion does not condemn all Jews but rather specifically Jews that by definition were being bad? Of course, by the same logic, you'd have to assume Jews were very bad indeed at the time of the Holocaust. And by that logic we can perhaps put aside the direct correlations of bad times and bad behavior. To be clear, I'm saying that the Holocaust is the most direct contradiction of biblical logic. I'm saying if you need a reason to not take everything in the Bible literally and not look like a very bad person yourself, that would be a good place to start, and most of us in the 21st century are hopefully willing to agree with that.
Good, so we'll move on.
14 includes the classic tale of the fall of Lucifer, "Day Star, son of Dawn." However, the rest of what Isaiah has to say about him certainly doesn't correlate with everything else we say about Satan now. So that's more of how things develop.
22: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." This just happens to remind me of the movie 300, one of the many things Gerard Butler's Leonidas bellows: "Spartans! Ready your breakfast and eat hearty. For tonight, we dine in hell!"
In 27 Leviathan is described as a serpent. I think I'm not alone in always assuming the name referred to whales. Either way, hardly the first time something in the Bible is mistaken for one of those..."And he will slay the dragon that is in the sea." Dragon that's in the sea? I had no idea about that either!
In 30 both fire and brimstone are referenced in relation to punishment. And they both become staples of old-timey (and scary!) preachers from the 19th century...
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Book of Sirach 21-51, Book of Isaiah 1-5
Sirach 25: "I would rather dwell with a lion and a dragon than dwell with an evil wife." As much as I would love to spin this around the thoughts on dragons at the time, I'll soon be talking about Sirach and women again..."From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die," for instance.
At some point, and perhaps it's owing to material that wasn't part of the original composition but not the fault of the original translator, Sirach's material really slips into the usual wisdom literature perspective and quality, losing its original spark, perhaps owing to someone expanding it to its current status as one of the longer Old Testament works.
31 and 32 speak better of wine than elsewhere is spoken of women. At this point, it's just clear that Old Testament folk were deep in the heart of the kind of marriage practice that was more about arrangements than love. The latter is said to be a relatively new invention. The former produced so much grief that I'd say it colored man's whole interpretation of woman. When you were marrying someone you didn't choose, there were no doubt going to be a lot (a lot) of bad matches. I don't suppose either party would be happy about it, but it would probably be the girl being sold, essentially, by her father who would be more resentful of the arrangement. And her unhappiness, or according to the bias of the man, unwillingness to just shut up and be happy, would paint her in a uniformly unflattering light. And thus, all women are bad. They are the "other." And must be warned about and considered the source, well, of all evil. Like Eve. And the reason a great man like Solomon was brought down. And such.
36: "...that there is no God but thee..." Apparently Sirach is not familiar with the oodles of biblical material that clearly states God is preeminent among...other gods. This may be the start of that particular whitewash...Although again, it's not like anyone attempted to delete the previous references. It just seems to be assumed, perhaps, that they refer to false idols of pagan neighbors.
38 and 39 go out of their way to explain why different classes should remain separate, because they will just never be able to understand each other.
43 is a summary of God, and includes the phrase, "He is the all." A sort of variation on "I Am Who Am," or omnipotence in so many words.
44 begins a litany of great biblical men, with some interesting selections:
At some point, and perhaps it's owing to material that wasn't part of the original composition but not the fault of the original translator, Sirach's material really slips into the usual wisdom literature perspective and quality, losing its original spark, perhaps owing to someone expanding it to its current status as one of the longer Old Testament works.
31 and 32 speak better of wine than elsewhere is spoken of women. At this point, it's just clear that Old Testament folk were deep in the heart of the kind of marriage practice that was more about arrangements than love. The latter is said to be a relatively new invention. The former produced so much grief that I'd say it colored man's whole interpretation of woman. When you were marrying someone you didn't choose, there were no doubt going to be a lot (a lot) of bad matches. I don't suppose either party would be happy about it, but it would probably be the girl being sold, essentially, by her father who would be more resentful of the arrangement. And her unhappiness, or according to the bias of the man, unwillingness to just shut up and be happy, would paint her in a uniformly unflattering light. And thus, all women are bad. They are the "other." And must be warned about and considered the source, well, of all evil. Like Eve. And the reason a great man like Solomon was brought down. And such.
36: "...that there is no God but thee..." Apparently Sirach is not familiar with the oodles of biblical material that clearly states God is preeminent among...other gods. This may be the start of that particular whitewash...Although again, it's not like anyone attempted to delete the previous references. It just seems to be assumed, perhaps, that they refer to false idols of pagan neighbors.
38 and 39 go out of their way to explain why different classes should remain separate, because they will just never be able to understand each other.
43 is a summary of God, and includes the phrase, "He is the all." A sort of variation on "I Am Who Am," or omnipotence in so many words.
44 begins a litany of great biblical men, with some interesting selections:
- Enoch ("example of repentance," otherwise not especially biblicly important)
- Noah ("taken in exchange," which certainly seems to make that story different)
- Abraham ("kept the law," which is also interesting, considering "the law" didn't really exist for another few generations, under Moses)
- Isaac
- Jacob
- Moses ("a man of mercy," except when he was smiting people even after God decided not to!)
- Aaron (gets an incredibly lengthy write-up, almost as if he's far more important than anyone else)
- Phinehas ("zealot in the fear of God")
- Joshua ("mighty in war")
- Samuel
- David
- Solomon
- Elijah
- Josiah
And a few other names referenced, although it's not always clear to what extent Sirach is actually endorsing them to the level comparable with the above list, Hezekiah for example. "No one like Enoch has been created on earth, for he was taken up from the earth. And no man like Joseph has been born, and his bones are cared for. Shem and Seth were honored among men, and Adam above every living being in the creation."
50 adds Simon to the list, perhaps on the same basis as Enoch.
Anyway, Sirach really seems to be a final summation of orthodox Jewish thought, perhaps the basis for its modern practice (you know, besides Moses) after a few notable deviations such as Book of Job and Ecclesiastes.
In the same way, Book of Isaiah might arguably called the beginning of a marked transition between the Old and New Testaments. I know, his prophecies are important to the times he lived in, but he also serves as one of the classic biblical voices pointing, according to Christian thought, toward Jesus. He seems to be saying in the early going that not only are the people corrupted, but God is actually tired of the old ways, which is to say preparing something new (which, by the way, even Christians don't understand). The fifth chapter even features a parable that reads very similar to the ones Jesus would later give, concerning a vineyard as a metaphor.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Book of Sirach 6-20
Sirach 6 has great advice concerning friends, including the "a faithful friend is a sturdy shelter" passage.
8: "Do not slight the discourse of the sages, but busy yourself with their maxims; because from them you will gain instruction and learn how to serve great men." It's interesting, that at least from this perspective, smart people are not themselves fit to be rulers, or great men, apparently. I suppose it makes sense.
10: Pride was not created for me, no fierce anger for those born of women." Another interesting perspective.
12 preaches to distance yourself from sinners, which is the opposite of how Jesus would later live his life.
13 is extremely cynical about the motives of rich people. It's true that we as a society today are skeptical of the rich, and we have plenty of reasons to be, but now I'm wondering how much of that is because we were always told to distrust them. If we're told to keep our distance, and they keep their distance, that certainly won't help matters, either, is what I'm saying.
All the personification of wisdom both here in Sirach and elsewhere starts to feel very similar to Jesus calling himself the "bread of life."
17 seems to suggest that God showed Adam the difference between good and evil. I may be reading it wrong, because the chapter is yet another where biblical history is repeated but more in allusion than in specifics. But it would certainly be an interesting variation. Everyone just kind of accepts that Genesis explains the Judeo-Christian position on how that happened (and handily blames it on a woman). Maybe that's not what the faith always said, at least uniformly.
18: "He rebukes and trains and teaches them, and turns them back, as a shepherd his flock." The same shepherd analogy Jesus would later use himself, done differently (Jesus was the good shepherd, you'll recall), in a more direct fashion. The same relationship God has been illustrated as having with his people all along, but worded just differently enough...That seems to be the theme of Sirach. When they say something like "the inspired word of God," I think this would be the stuff they're talking about. I'm not saying you need to believe all of it, because it's still the fallible work of fallible man, inspired or not, suited to the needs and understanding of the time it was written, but it's helpful. That's what the whole Bible should be, right? A guidebook of sorts.
19: "Wine and women lead intelligent men astray." Although even Sirach is beholden to the idea that women in general are the "other" of society, not necessarily included in any of these thoughts, and must constantly be warned about. Of wine and women, there are many more concerns about women than wine in the Bible. Maybe at the time women really were always trying to lead men astray. Or perhaps more likely, being the "other" they were simply considered the primary source of sexual thoughts. If the perspective is male, of course they would be. In a female-oriented culture, that line would read "wine and men lead intelligent men astray," with all the same implications. It would be nice if we could just get past that already. Women are people too. And so let's move along.
8: "Do not slight the discourse of the sages, but busy yourself with their maxims; because from them you will gain instruction and learn how to serve great men." It's interesting, that at least from this perspective, smart people are not themselves fit to be rulers, or great men, apparently. I suppose it makes sense.
10: Pride was not created for me, no fierce anger for those born of women." Another interesting perspective.
12 preaches to distance yourself from sinners, which is the opposite of how Jesus would later live his life.
13 is extremely cynical about the motives of rich people. It's true that we as a society today are skeptical of the rich, and we have plenty of reasons to be, but now I'm wondering how much of that is because we were always told to distrust them. If we're told to keep our distance, and they keep their distance, that certainly won't help matters, either, is what I'm saying.
All the personification of wisdom both here in Sirach and elsewhere starts to feel very similar to Jesus calling himself the "bread of life."
17 seems to suggest that God showed Adam the difference between good and evil. I may be reading it wrong, because the chapter is yet another where biblical history is repeated but more in allusion than in specifics. But it would certainly be an interesting variation. Everyone just kind of accepts that Genesis explains the Judeo-Christian position on how that happened (and handily blames it on a woman). Maybe that's not what the faith always said, at least uniformly.
18: "He rebukes and trains and teaches them, and turns them back, as a shepherd his flock." The same shepherd analogy Jesus would later use himself, done differently (Jesus was the good shepherd, you'll recall), in a more direct fashion. The same relationship God has been illustrated as having with his people all along, but worded just differently enough...That seems to be the theme of Sirach. When they say something like "the inspired word of God," I think this would be the stuff they're talking about. I'm not saying you need to believe all of it, because it's still the fallible work of fallible man, inspired or not, suited to the needs and understanding of the time it was written, but it's helpful. That's what the whole Bible should be, right? A guidebook of sorts.
19: "Wine and women lead intelligent men astray." Although even Sirach is beholden to the idea that women in general are the "other" of society, not necessarily included in any of these thoughts, and must constantly be warned about. Of wine and women, there are many more concerns about women than wine in the Bible. Maybe at the time women really were always trying to lead men astray. Or perhaps more likely, being the "other" they were simply considered the primary source of sexual thoughts. If the perspective is male, of course they would be. In a female-oriented culture, that line would read "wine and men lead intelligent men astray," with all the same implications. It would be nice if we could just get past that already. Women are people too. And so let's move along.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Song of Solomon 1-8, Wisdom of Solomon 1-19, Book of Sirach 1-5
The short and sweet ode to love (to what end beyond love is up for debate) includes henna in its first chapter, whether the tree or the art (up to debate?). The second chapter includes the phrase, "I am a rose of Sharon," which a type of flower and also a character in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. The third chapter references frankincense and myrrh in a romantic sense. Song of Solomon amounts to a wonderful look at the culture of the Old Testament, and after Ecclesiastes is another fine book to read if you're skeptical that there's some truly great literature in the Bible.
Wisdom of Solomon is kind of the opposite. It's another plodding wisdom literature effort. (Neither one is actually by Solomon, by the way.)
The first chapter references "that which holds all things together," a phrase that calls to mind Yoda's description of the Force in Star Wars. Hades is also referenced again. The second chapter covers this book's vision of how atheists happen. It also evokes Jesus at the moment of his death. It further proposes the doctrine of eternal life for the faithful. The fifth chapter calls Jesus to mind, too. The tenth and eleventh chapters recap Genesis and Exodus without any names mentioned. They're pretty interesting. The thirteenth chapter is the book's version of how pagans come to worship their idols. The rest of it becomes a little tiresome.
The Book of Sirach (so I'll call it for simplicity's sake) is another piece of wisdom literature, and so far it's far better than Wisdom of Solomon. It's got a prologue from the translator, who studied, of course, in Egypt.
Wisdom of Solomon is kind of the opposite. It's another plodding wisdom literature effort. (Neither one is actually by Solomon, by the way.)
The first chapter references "that which holds all things together," a phrase that calls to mind Yoda's description of the Force in Star Wars. Hades is also referenced again. The second chapter covers this book's vision of how atheists happen. It also evokes Jesus at the moment of his death. It further proposes the doctrine of eternal life for the faithful. The fifth chapter calls Jesus to mind, too. The tenth and eleventh chapters recap Genesis and Exodus without any names mentioned. They're pretty interesting. The thirteenth chapter is the book's version of how pagans come to worship their idols. The rest of it becomes a little tiresome.
The Book of Sirach (so I'll call it for simplicity's sake) is another piece of wisdom literature, and so far it's far better than Wisdom of Solomon. It's got a prologue from the translator, who studied, of course, in Egypt.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Proverbs 16-31, Ecclesiastes 1-12
Proverb 6 includes the "pride goes before the fall" concept.
17: "the Lord tries hearts"
19: "It is not fitting for a slave to rule over princes." (Besides Joseph, right? Or Moses, for that matter?)
I have a rant about the "spare the rod spoil the child" advice that is reiterated repeatedly, based on a suggestion that children are apparently inherently evil. I'll suffice to say that only a really bad parent would have a child like that. A child is only as bad as you allow them to be. If you have to discipline them severely, chances are you ought to be severely disciplined yourself.
24: "A wise man is mightier than a strong man" (or in other words, the pen is mightier than the sword).
26: "I'm only joking!"
The later proverbs are a little more proverbial, as it were. They also uniformly prefer poor people to rich people.
29: "Where there is no prophecy the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law." This may indicate what the Old Testament thought prophets were really doing, which is to say they were like judges in the time of kings, which is to say they weren't predicting the future so much as interpreting the present by way of bringing the focus back to the faith.
30 is "of Agur" while 31 is "of Lemuel" (the latter name, for those literary types keeping score, is also Gulliver's first name from the famous Jonathan Swift novel). The former includes the line, "What is his name, and what is his son's name?" in relation to speaking about God.
Ecclesiastes is officially my favorite book of the Bible so far, just so you know. It's a work of true wisdom reflected in weary experience. It's more like Book of Job than Proverbs.
"For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
Chapter 3 is the famous "for everything there is a season...a time to etc." passage. "He has made everything beautiful in its time; also he has put eternity into man's mind, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."
If you want to actually read only one book of the Bible, I highly recommend Ecclesiastes.
17: "the Lord tries hearts"
19: "It is not fitting for a slave to rule over princes." (Besides Joseph, right? Or Moses, for that matter?)
I have a rant about the "spare the rod spoil the child" advice that is reiterated repeatedly, based on a suggestion that children are apparently inherently evil. I'll suffice to say that only a really bad parent would have a child like that. A child is only as bad as you allow them to be. If you have to discipline them severely, chances are you ought to be severely disciplined yourself.
24: "A wise man is mightier than a strong man" (or in other words, the pen is mightier than the sword).
26: "I'm only joking!"
The later proverbs are a little more proverbial, as it were. They also uniformly prefer poor people to rich people.
29: "Where there is no prophecy the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law." This may indicate what the Old Testament thought prophets were really doing, which is to say they were like judges in the time of kings, which is to say they weren't predicting the future so much as interpreting the present by way of bringing the focus back to the faith.
30 is "of Agur" while 31 is "of Lemuel" (the latter name, for those literary types keeping score, is also Gulliver's first name from the famous Jonathan Swift novel). The former includes the line, "What is his name, and what is his son's name?" in relation to speaking about God.
Ecclesiastes is officially my favorite book of the Bible so far, just so you know. It's a work of true wisdom reflected in weary experience. It's more like Book of Job than Proverbs.
"For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
Chapter 3 is the famous "for everything there is a season...a time to etc." passage. "He has made everything beautiful in its time; also he has put eternity into man's mind, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."
If you want to actually read only one book of the Bible, I highly recommend Ecclesiastes.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Psalms 106-150, Proverbs 1-15
Psalm 106 is a recap of Jews acting badly under Moses.
It's kind of unfortunate, after a while, that Psalms is after the Book of Job. All the theological revisions in Job are undone in Psalms, which sticks to the more orthodox beliefs. We'll see the same shortly in Proverbs, naturally.
110 has a reference to the phrase, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," which is something from the Old Testament that left a lasting legacy even though Melchizedek otherwise is meaningless as an entity in it.
118 features the word "hark."
120 is another psalm that mistakes the apparent Jewish mandate for war with a mandate for peace, or perhaps not of the budding transition between the two.
It's also worth noting that the psalms are really all over the place theologically. They were definitely not written by the same hand at the same time.
Psalms tagged with "of Ascents," heavily stacked in the back of the book, are generally more hopeful and positive, however.
136: "For his steadfast love endures for ever" in a lovely and constant refrain.
137 is very poetic and evocative of life in the exile era.
139 is a fairly comprehensive encapsulation of God.
Proverbs, popularly attributed to Solomon, is not exactly, so far, what I would've expected from it.
1 features the lines:
"How long, O simple one, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?"
9: "Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you."
Really, though, it's just a lot of fatherly advice and orthodox belief statements concerning God, with lots and lots of repetition, and an apparently classic Solomonian fear of "loose women." Not very proverbial, so far anyway...
It's kind of unfortunate, after a while, that Psalms is after the Book of Job. All the theological revisions in Job are undone in Psalms, which sticks to the more orthodox beliefs. We'll see the same shortly in Proverbs, naturally.
110 has a reference to the phrase, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," which is something from the Old Testament that left a lasting legacy even though Melchizedek otherwise is meaningless as an entity in it.
118 features the word "hark."
120 is another psalm that mistakes the apparent Jewish mandate for war with a mandate for peace, or perhaps not of the budding transition between the two.
It's also worth noting that the psalms are really all over the place theologically. They were definitely not written by the same hand at the same time.
Psalms tagged with "of Ascents," heavily stacked in the back of the book, are generally more hopeful and positive, however.
136: "For his steadfast love endures for ever" in a lovely and constant refrain.
137 is very poetic and evocative of life in the exile era.
139 is a fairly comprehensive encapsulation of God.
Proverbs, popularly attributed to Solomon, is not exactly, so far, what I would've expected from it.
1 features the lines:
"How long, O simple one, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?"
9: "Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you."
Really, though, it's just a lot of fatherly advice and orthodox belief statements concerning God, with lots and lots of repetition, and an apparently classic Solomonian fear of "loose women." Not very proverbial, so far anyway...
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Psalms 71-105
Psalm 74: "We do not see our signs; there is no longer any prophet, and there is none among us who knows how long. How long, O God, is the foe to scoff?"
78 references the concept of the parable, something Jesus frequently uses, although it's really just a reiteration of Exodus. Although maybe there's a point to that for the Davidic era. David is specifically referenced as part of God's revised plan.
The phrase "son of man," which Reza Aslan in Zealot interprets as something Jesus seems to have coined for himself, at least as a title, appears repeatedly, I should note, although not nearly as often as it will in the Book of Jeremiah a little later. Is this taken by Christians to be another foreshadowing?
89: "Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord, a God feared in the council of the holy ones?" Just like to regularly point out the constant acknowledgment of other divine beings in the Bible, which otherwise promotes God on the strength of his services to his chosen people. Monotheism by choice rather than options, you might call Judeo-Christians (although by the time of Christians all the other ones, who are never really addressed directly in the Bible except the pagan gods whose representatives always look so pathetic, seem to have been completely forgotten). This psalm also reiterates the permanent covenant with David, which Christians would interpret as finally fulfilled in Jesus.
A lot of the psalms from this part of the book have been adapted into modern hymns, possibly only among Christians. I don't know about Jewish practices. The psalms were originally conceived to be incorporated into services, and perhaps they remain so.
A key to unlocking authorship of these psalms might be found in 99, which is "of" Moses but still references him in the third person. Other claims of apparent authorship include David, of course, as well as Asaph, the Sons of Korah, and Ethan.
105 is a summary of biblical history from Abraham to Moses. It occurred to me while reading this time that perhaps the Bible from Genesis on might simply be a chronicle of orthodox Jewish genealogy, which was known to start with a man named Adam. Since it wasn't until Abraham that the faith truly began, it would have been natural to assume that the first name didn't represent fidelity with God very well. Anyway, a thought. That might explain why Cain would be able to wander off and find other people, because even as biblical scholars will tell you the account of creation mustn't be taken literally. Insofar as the part God played, sure, but as far as how man came into the world...Anyway, again, take this for what you will.
78 references the concept of the parable, something Jesus frequently uses, although it's really just a reiteration of Exodus. Although maybe there's a point to that for the Davidic era. David is specifically referenced as part of God's revised plan.
The phrase "son of man," which Reza Aslan in Zealot interprets as something Jesus seems to have coined for himself, at least as a title, appears repeatedly, I should note, although not nearly as often as it will in the Book of Jeremiah a little later. Is this taken by Christians to be another foreshadowing?
89: "Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord, a God feared in the council of the holy ones?" Just like to regularly point out the constant acknowledgment of other divine beings in the Bible, which otherwise promotes God on the strength of his services to his chosen people. Monotheism by choice rather than options, you might call Judeo-Christians (although by the time of Christians all the other ones, who are never really addressed directly in the Bible except the pagan gods whose representatives always look so pathetic, seem to have been completely forgotten). This psalm also reiterates the permanent covenant with David, which Christians would interpret as finally fulfilled in Jesus.
A lot of the psalms from this part of the book have been adapted into modern hymns, possibly only among Christians. I don't know about Jewish practices. The psalms were originally conceived to be incorporated into services, and perhaps they remain so.
A key to unlocking authorship of these psalms might be found in 99, which is "of" Moses but still references him in the third person. Other claims of apparent authorship include David, of course, as well as Asaph, the Sons of Korah, and Ethan.
105 is a summary of biblical history from Abraham to Moses. It occurred to me while reading this time that perhaps the Bible from Genesis on might simply be a chronicle of orthodox Jewish genealogy, which was known to start with a man named Adam. Since it wasn't until Abraham that the faith truly began, it would have been natural to assume that the first name didn't represent fidelity with God very well. Anyway, a thought. That might explain why Cain would be able to wander off and find other people, because even as biblical scholars will tell you the account of creation mustn't be taken literally. Insofar as the part God played, sure, but as far as how man came into the world...Anyway, again, take this for what you will.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Psalms 36-70
Psalm 46 includes the phrase, "He makes wars cease," which would certainly be news to a lot of biblical history, but would certainly sound perfectly fine to modern ears..
Psalm 56, "In God I trust without a fear," which could be the source of "In God We Trust," which can be found on US currency.
Psalm 69, "and the drunkards songs about me." The context is less merry than my extrapolation of the statement: biblical drinking songs! This one also includes the far more sober, "and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," which is associated with Christian prophecy concerning Jesus and the moment of his crucifixion.
Psalm 70 ends on this note, which I think would make a pretty good prayer:
But I am poor and needy;
hasten to me, O God!
Thou art my help and my deliverer;
O Lord, do not tarry!
Psalm 56, "In God I trust without a fear," which could be the source of "In God We Trust," which can be found on US currency.
Psalm 69, "and the drunkards songs about me." The context is less merry than my extrapolation of the statement: biblical drinking songs! This one also includes the far more sober, "and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," which is associated with Christian prophecy concerning Jesus and the moment of his crucifixion.
Psalm 70 ends on this note, which I think would make a pretty good prayer:
But I am poor and needy;
hasten to me, O God!
Thou art my help and my deliverer;
O Lord, do not tarry!
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Book of Job 26-42, Psalms 1-35
"By his power he stilled the sea." Jesus famously performed this act in the gospels.
Job's laments are eventually answered in a mainstream Jewish perspective, and then by God as if in a final test. And then he gets everything he lost right back. And thus ends the Book of Job.
Psalms is a bunch of psalms, a hundred and fifty of them, although thematically they're incredibly similar to Book of Job, which is hugely apparent when you read them back-to-back. Historically they're associated with David, although not all of them date back to him.
Psalm 16 is very reminiscent of the 23rd Psalm.
Psalm 18 is a little like a whole New Testament preview, and even evokes Paul's later "I have run the race" lyrical statement.
Psalm 22 includes the phrase, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Psalm 31 includes, "Into thy hand I commit my spirit." Psalm 22 is rich in Christian theology of the suffering servant variety, evoking the Isaiah prophecies.
Psalm 27 reads like a sequel to the 23rd Psalm.
Psalm 31 also includes the phrase, "Be strong,and let your heart take courage, all you who wait for the Lord." Note Lord and not messiah.
This linking of David with Job also strengthens the link between Job and Jesus, and thus Jesus with David.
And because it's the most famous and best one, here is the 23rd Psalm in its entirety:
The Lord is my shepherd,
I shall not want;
he makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters;
he restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil;
for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff,
they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
thou anointest my head with oil, my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life;
and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord
for ever.
Job's laments are eventually answered in a mainstream Jewish perspective, and then by God as if in a final test. And then he gets everything he lost right back. And thus ends the Book of Job.
Psalms is a bunch of psalms, a hundred and fifty of them, although thematically they're incredibly similar to Book of Job, which is hugely apparent when you read them back-to-back. Historically they're associated with David, although not all of them date back to him.
Psalm 16 is very reminiscent of the 23rd Psalm.
Psalm 18 is a little like a whole New Testament preview, and even evokes Paul's later "I have run the race" lyrical statement.
Psalm 22 includes the phrase, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Psalm 31 includes, "Into thy hand I commit my spirit." Psalm 22 is rich in Christian theology of the suffering servant variety, evoking the Isaiah prophecies.
Psalm 27 reads like a sequel to the 23rd Psalm.
Psalm 31 also includes the phrase, "Be strong,and let your heart take courage, all you who wait for the Lord." Note Lord and not messiah.
This linking of David with Job also strengthens the link between Job and Jesus, and thus Jesus with David.
And because it's the most famous and best one, here is the 23rd Psalm in its entirety:
The Lord is my shepherd,
I shall not want;
he makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters;
he restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil;
for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff,
they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
thou anointest my head with oil, my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life;
and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord
for ever.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Book of Job 6-25
There are references to Greek constellations as the Book of Job continues. It's a fine acknowledgement of the wider world around the Jewish faith, which more ordinarily exists in allusion and nods to historical figures.
"There I say he destroys both the blameless and the wicked." The whole point of this book is a reckoning with the theology that God only punishes those who deserve it, or in other words that God exists in relation to man to affect his life for the better or worse. It's a direct contradiction to every other book in the Bible previous to it, or in other words a further evolution of the faith, one that is commonly misinterpreted or outright overlooked.
There is the term "umpire" referenced. It's the first time I even considered it outside the context of baseball. It only figures.
"If I lift myself up, thou dost hunt me like a lion." This would mean that making a name for yourself only makes you a target.
"If a man dies shall he live again?" It's a suggestion that the idea of resurrection very much exists. It's just one suggestion that Job may after all be a Jesus figure. Chapter 16 in particular sounds a lot like Isaiah's portrait of the suffering servant, which is commonly ascribed to Jesus. The term "Redeemer" is used. It's enough to paint this book in an entirely new light. It is very much, as much a work of philosophy, as one of prophecy. It is not merely allegory, but one of many means to link the Old Testament to the New Testament.
One of the reasons adherents to the Jewish faith would vehemently deny this is because it's even there in the Old Testament that belief in God is as much about religion as forming basic cultural rules. It's the same with Christianity, the same with Islam, and any other faith. In fact, the inseparability of this (otherwise known as the problem of separation of Church and State as understand in the West) is the basic moral entanglement of recorded history. When a culture shucks off its religious beliefs, they still persist, in the realm of mythology. When religious beliefs are tied up both in identity and the form of society itself, this becomes far more difficult. The fundamentalists, who prefer to overlook nuances, are prepared to kill anyone who contradicts them. I say that's a very poor manifestation of anything divine. If you faith tells you to kill people, then you need to reconsider your faith.
It's not faith that ever dictates that, but the fear that the faith can be forgotten if challenged. And it's not the faith that motivates this, but the cultural norms, everything you're familiar with. It's how we get things like the Inquisition and suicide bombers. Both are inherently insane things to do. Neither invalidates the faith that led to them, but rather speaks to cultural and moral fallibility. Faith exists to reflect truth. It is not in itself truth. This is a dangerous statement to make. Those who most vehemently seek to silence opposition claim everything they believe was recorded by divine intervention. The truth is, everything that a human has ever done has been done by a human. A human may be inspired, may even have mystical experiences. But in the end, whatever a human does has been done by a human, fallible being. And someone else after them is free to do whatever another human will do. And so on.
One of the most important theological works of our time was recently released. It's called Zealot and is by a man named Reza Aslan. In it he details how the historic Jesus became the Jesus we know today. It's hugely fascinating, and funny enough is almost exactly like the Monty Python movie Life of Brian with more scholarship. When Aslan discusses what type of man Jesus likely was, and how the earliest days of his resulting new religion unfolded, it illuminates backward as well as forward. Aslan himself does not seem to have read the Old Testament as well as he did the New or other early sources. Here I humbly submit my work in this regard to further explore the ways in which the Jewish faith evolved and led to the most incredible development in human history.
When you pick apart the tenets of faith, you may find yourself with a house of cards. You may doubt everything and thus end up believing none of it. I've been saying this for a while now in these notes. When you no longer unquestionably believe everything your religion tells you, you may either reject it outright or attempt to split off from it, create another schism. Reforms seldom work. Except they were happening all the time right there in the Bible. Reforms, revisions. The Book of Job is a revision right at the heart of the Old Testament, hiding in plain sight.
The Jews were a restless people always looking for a home and seeking to explain why they periodically had such major problems with stability. They frequently had exceptional leaders, and just as frequently didn't. Their whole concept of a messiah is another exceptional leader. Around the time of the greatest such exceptional leader, they began to realize, especially after his time, that this was a pattern that could not be sustained. And so they began to look for alternatives. Their belief in God led them to realize that God as they understood him was capable of fixing his own mistakes. Later they even acknowledged that he always had a plan. Every echo in the Bible, in fact, might be said to be a manifestation of that plan, preparing the way as it were.
When Job discusses faith, he's breaking the mold apart. He's demonstrating a dialogue about the future of the Jewish faith. Christians understand Jesus to be an equally blameless individual who took on the sins of the entire world and thus broke the cycle of constant punishment and possible damnation for all humanity. Jesus was also a failure at ushering the same kind of religious revival that the Old Testament constantly demonstrated, except he provoked the faith that ended up sweeping the entire globe. He ended up being a permanent example for everyone.
Do you have to believe every Christian doctrine to believe in Jesus? Absolutely not. Anyone who says different is interested in preserving an institution, which in itself is not a bad thing. But it does not need to be protected. Maybe that's all that's needed in a new reform. Stop worrying so much. Incidentally, that's also what Pope Francis is saying. Stop being so defensive. By becoming inclusive again, you better follow your own faith.
"There I say he destroys both the blameless and the wicked." The whole point of this book is a reckoning with the theology that God only punishes those who deserve it, or in other words that God exists in relation to man to affect his life for the better or worse. It's a direct contradiction to every other book in the Bible previous to it, or in other words a further evolution of the faith, one that is commonly misinterpreted or outright overlooked.
There is the term "umpire" referenced. It's the first time I even considered it outside the context of baseball. It only figures.
"If I lift myself up, thou dost hunt me like a lion." This would mean that making a name for yourself only makes you a target.
"If a man dies shall he live again?" It's a suggestion that the idea of resurrection very much exists. It's just one suggestion that Job may after all be a Jesus figure. Chapter 16 in particular sounds a lot like Isaiah's portrait of the suffering servant, which is commonly ascribed to Jesus. The term "Redeemer" is used. It's enough to paint this book in an entirely new light. It is very much, as much a work of philosophy, as one of prophecy. It is not merely allegory, but one of many means to link the Old Testament to the New Testament.
One of the reasons adherents to the Jewish faith would vehemently deny this is because it's even there in the Old Testament that belief in God is as much about religion as forming basic cultural rules. It's the same with Christianity, the same with Islam, and any other faith. In fact, the inseparability of this (otherwise known as the problem of separation of Church and State as understand in the West) is the basic moral entanglement of recorded history. When a culture shucks off its religious beliefs, they still persist, in the realm of mythology. When religious beliefs are tied up both in identity and the form of society itself, this becomes far more difficult. The fundamentalists, who prefer to overlook nuances, are prepared to kill anyone who contradicts them. I say that's a very poor manifestation of anything divine. If you faith tells you to kill people, then you need to reconsider your faith.
It's not faith that ever dictates that, but the fear that the faith can be forgotten if challenged. And it's not the faith that motivates this, but the cultural norms, everything you're familiar with. It's how we get things like the Inquisition and suicide bombers. Both are inherently insane things to do. Neither invalidates the faith that led to them, but rather speaks to cultural and moral fallibility. Faith exists to reflect truth. It is not in itself truth. This is a dangerous statement to make. Those who most vehemently seek to silence opposition claim everything they believe was recorded by divine intervention. The truth is, everything that a human has ever done has been done by a human. A human may be inspired, may even have mystical experiences. But in the end, whatever a human does has been done by a human, fallible being. And someone else after them is free to do whatever another human will do. And so on.
One of the most important theological works of our time was recently released. It's called Zealot and is by a man named Reza Aslan. In it he details how the historic Jesus became the Jesus we know today. It's hugely fascinating, and funny enough is almost exactly like the Monty Python movie Life of Brian with more scholarship. When Aslan discusses what type of man Jesus likely was, and how the earliest days of his resulting new religion unfolded, it illuminates backward as well as forward. Aslan himself does not seem to have read the Old Testament as well as he did the New or other early sources. Here I humbly submit my work in this regard to further explore the ways in which the Jewish faith evolved and led to the most incredible development in human history.
When you pick apart the tenets of faith, you may find yourself with a house of cards. You may doubt everything and thus end up believing none of it. I've been saying this for a while now in these notes. When you no longer unquestionably believe everything your religion tells you, you may either reject it outright or attempt to split off from it, create another schism. Reforms seldom work. Except they were happening all the time right there in the Bible. Reforms, revisions. The Book of Job is a revision right at the heart of the Old Testament, hiding in plain sight.
The Jews were a restless people always looking for a home and seeking to explain why they periodically had such major problems with stability. They frequently had exceptional leaders, and just as frequently didn't. Their whole concept of a messiah is another exceptional leader. Around the time of the greatest such exceptional leader, they began to realize, especially after his time, that this was a pattern that could not be sustained. And so they began to look for alternatives. Their belief in God led them to realize that God as they understood him was capable of fixing his own mistakes. Later they even acknowledged that he always had a plan. Every echo in the Bible, in fact, might be said to be a manifestation of that plan, preparing the way as it were.
When Job discusses faith, he's breaking the mold apart. He's demonstrating a dialogue about the future of the Jewish faith. Christians understand Jesus to be an equally blameless individual who took on the sins of the entire world and thus broke the cycle of constant punishment and possible damnation for all humanity. Jesus was also a failure at ushering the same kind of religious revival that the Old Testament constantly demonstrated, except he provoked the faith that ended up sweeping the entire globe. He ended up being a permanent example for everyone.
Do you have to believe every Christian doctrine to believe in Jesus? Absolutely not. Anyone who says different is interested in preserving an institution, which in itself is not a bad thing. But it does not need to be protected. Maybe that's all that's needed in a new reform. Stop worrying so much. Incidentally, that's also what Pope Francis is saying. Stop being so defensive. By becoming inclusive again, you better follow your own faith.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Book of Judith 1-16, Book of Esther 1-11, Book of Job 1-5
Book of Judith may have a few facts wrong about its period setting, or I was simply confused, because it's set during the Nebuchadnezzar era but seems to have his associations all wrong, including references to Assyrians rather than Babylon, and set after the period of exile. Either way, the key figures in the story are Judith, naturally, and Holofernes. I learned this story originally from a painting in college, likely a Caravaggio, but we'll get to the reason why one specific image might be appropriate a little later.
Holofernes is the chief general of the army (whose army exactly we'll leave as a matter for some other time). Nebuchadnezzar (or whoever) has become angry with nation states who refused to help him in his time of need, even though he succeeded perfectly well without them in his military campaign, so he undertakes to teach them all a lesson. The Israelites learn that they're along this warpath, and dawn (for the first time in the Bible), ashes and sackcloth. During the course of this prelude material, the whole history of the Hebrews is recapped, minus any significant figures. Nebuchadnezzar wants to be worshiped as a god (like Egyptian, Roman, and Japanese rulers, for instance), and doesn't take kindly to any peoples who won't play along. The God of the Hebrews is described as the god of iniquity (in polytheistic cultures, it was common for individual gods to be associated with a particular attribute; the Hebrew God is said to have derived from a whole pantheon, and was originally a god of war, which would be hugely appropriate).
The "people of Esau" are referenced, which would once again indicate diverging traditions that once introduced in early books are no longer considered part of the Jewish record. They tell Holofernes how to defeat the Israelites, which namely is to make God angry with them.
Judith finally appears. She's a widow. She's extremely beautiful. She's also extremely faithful. She tells the rest of the Israelites that she has a plan. She takes offense when it's suggested that you can put God to the test. She says he's incomprehensible.
It occurred to me that Tolkien's dwarves in Middle Earth are a lot like the Jews of this period. Probably deliberate on his part.
She invokes God's testing, rather, of Abraham and Jacob. She prays for strength. In a lot of ways, she is a Jesus figure, although I would have to significantly digress to fully explore that assertion. More simply, she might be considered a Mary figure. She's declared "blessed among women," much like Mary, for instance.
Judith sets out to seduce, trick, and assassinate Holofernes. She cuts off his head. This part of the story evokes the Medusa myth. It also makes for a distinctive painting. It makes for an unusually funny line in the Bible, too: "For look, here is Holofernes lying on the ground, and his head is not on him!"
She sings a song, which includes the lines, "the sons of the Titans," making it all the more clear that whoever composed this book definitely knew their Greek myths. Actually, the extant translation is a Greek one, so perhaps some of these things were simply grafted on after the fact.
"Thou didst send forth thy Spirit." Christians will recognize the third member of the Holy Trinity in that line.
Book of Esther features another heroic woman from the general exile era. It's a story featured in the recent movie One Night with the King, and I've also seen high school one-act stage productions of it, so you don't really need to be religious to know it.
This is the era of Artaxerxes. The Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, exile era is stated, so that much is clearer in this book. Our story concerns the faithful Jew Mordecai and his cousin Esther, whom he adopted as a daughter. Both of them end up tangled in the life of a king whose name I won't bother to record, because it isn't nearly as well-known as either of theirs, or the wicked Haman, who is the Iago of this piece.
Basically, Mordecai saves the king's life, and Esther ends up becoming the new queen. The two events are unrelated, but they become fortuitous when Haman seeks to assert his own power as the king's right-hand man by having revenge on Mordecai for showing him disrespect that the Jew could not have avoided and still be faithful to God. Haman eventually decides that all Jews must die. Esther must reveal her previously hidden faith as she moves to spare Mordecai's life, and in turn saves all of her people. It's also a story Jews of the modern era might recognize in the story of Oskar Schindler during the Holocaust.
The book seems a little cobbled together, different from the repetition of a story from oral tradition in that when things are restated it's not really in the sense of emphasis. Like Kings and Chronicles, the repeated statements don't always seem aware that they aren't being completely accurate with one another.
Hades is referenced. Hades is the God of the underworld in Greek mythology. The name has also been used as synonymous with Hell.
Sackcloth and ashes appear again.
The story is also an excellent way to explore a melting pot population and the conflicting results from trying to reconcile cultural differences.
"All-seeing God and Savior," which is an interesting description. God is described as changing the mood of the king, to make him more willing to listen to Esther. Previously in the Bible, whenever God interfered like that, he made the recipient more "hard-hearted."
The changing fortunes of Mordecai might also be interpreted through the lens of Jesus, especially during the Passion. Again, this would cause a considerable digression to more fully explain. Parallels of this kind would have been excellent selling points to intellectuals interested in embracing Christianity as the new state religion, as the Romans did. The poetry and romanticism even in the midst of tragedy would help explain how Jesus could be interpreted as the Greatest Story Ever Told, something far more resonant than the regional faith of a wandering people. It would be naive to assume Constantine at that point in Christian development adopted the emerging religion for anything more than strategic worth. The story of Esther would certainly illuminate the advantages of such a move.
This whole book also establishes the holiday of Purim.
It's interesting that Mordecai begins the book with a vision, and then at the end of it interprets it. The Bible would be easier to read today if all such visions had been explained like that. The very last part of the book also references Ptolemy and Cleopatra, among the last significant remnants of the once-great Egyptian race, following the conquests of Alexander the Great.
Book of Job is famous, too, although the way it's told may be different than most people would expect. "Sons of God," Satan among them, consult with him about the figure of Job, who is good and faithful in the midst of having every earthly advantage. What if they are taken away? Will he curse God?
Leviathan is referenced.
This is the first of the philosophical works in the Bible. It's strong that such things exist and no one really thinks of that, much as they don't think of all the war that happens in it. It also seems to be a theological study.
Holofernes is the chief general of the army (whose army exactly we'll leave as a matter for some other time). Nebuchadnezzar (or whoever) has become angry with nation states who refused to help him in his time of need, even though he succeeded perfectly well without them in his military campaign, so he undertakes to teach them all a lesson. The Israelites learn that they're along this warpath, and dawn (for the first time in the Bible), ashes and sackcloth. During the course of this prelude material, the whole history of the Hebrews is recapped, minus any significant figures. Nebuchadnezzar wants to be worshiped as a god (like Egyptian, Roman, and Japanese rulers, for instance), and doesn't take kindly to any peoples who won't play along. The God of the Hebrews is described as the god of iniquity (in polytheistic cultures, it was common for individual gods to be associated with a particular attribute; the Hebrew God is said to have derived from a whole pantheon, and was originally a god of war, which would be hugely appropriate).
The "people of Esau" are referenced, which would once again indicate diverging traditions that once introduced in early books are no longer considered part of the Jewish record. They tell Holofernes how to defeat the Israelites, which namely is to make God angry with them.
Judith finally appears. She's a widow. She's extremely beautiful. She's also extremely faithful. She tells the rest of the Israelites that she has a plan. She takes offense when it's suggested that you can put God to the test. She says he's incomprehensible.
It occurred to me that Tolkien's dwarves in Middle Earth are a lot like the Jews of this period. Probably deliberate on his part.
She invokes God's testing, rather, of Abraham and Jacob. She prays for strength. In a lot of ways, she is a Jesus figure, although I would have to significantly digress to fully explore that assertion. More simply, she might be considered a Mary figure. She's declared "blessed among women," much like Mary, for instance.
Judith sets out to seduce, trick, and assassinate Holofernes. She cuts off his head. This part of the story evokes the Medusa myth. It also makes for a distinctive painting. It makes for an unusually funny line in the Bible, too: "For look, here is Holofernes lying on the ground, and his head is not on him!"
She sings a song, which includes the lines, "the sons of the Titans," making it all the more clear that whoever composed this book definitely knew their Greek myths. Actually, the extant translation is a Greek one, so perhaps some of these things were simply grafted on after the fact.
"Thou didst send forth thy Spirit." Christians will recognize the third member of the Holy Trinity in that line.
Book of Esther features another heroic woman from the general exile era. It's a story featured in the recent movie One Night with the King, and I've also seen high school one-act stage productions of it, so you don't really need to be religious to know it.
This is the era of Artaxerxes. The Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, exile era is stated, so that much is clearer in this book. Our story concerns the faithful Jew Mordecai and his cousin Esther, whom he adopted as a daughter. Both of them end up tangled in the life of a king whose name I won't bother to record, because it isn't nearly as well-known as either of theirs, or the wicked Haman, who is the Iago of this piece.
Basically, Mordecai saves the king's life, and Esther ends up becoming the new queen. The two events are unrelated, but they become fortuitous when Haman seeks to assert his own power as the king's right-hand man by having revenge on Mordecai for showing him disrespect that the Jew could not have avoided and still be faithful to God. Haman eventually decides that all Jews must die. Esther must reveal her previously hidden faith as she moves to spare Mordecai's life, and in turn saves all of her people. It's also a story Jews of the modern era might recognize in the story of Oskar Schindler during the Holocaust.
The book seems a little cobbled together, different from the repetition of a story from oral tradition in that when things are restated it's not really in the sense of emphasis. Like Kings and Chronicles, the repeated statements don't always seem aware that they aren't being completely accurate with one another.
Hades is referenced. Hades is the God of the underworld in Greek mythology. The name has also been used as synonymous with Hell.
Sackcloth and ashes appear again.
The story is also an excellent way to explore a melting pot population and the conflicting results from trying to reconcile cultural differences.
"All-seeing God and Savior," which is an interesting description. God is described as changing the mood of the king, to make him more willing to listen to Esther. Previously in the Bible, whenever God interfered like that, he made the recipient more "hard-hearted."
The changing fortunes of Mordecai might also be interpreted through the lens of Jesus, especially during the Passion. Again, this would cause a considerable digression to more fully explain. Parallels of this kind would have been excellent selling points to intellectuals interested in embracing Christianity as the new state religion, as the Romans did. The poetry and romanticism even in the midst of tragedy would help explain how Jesus could be interpreted as the Greatest Story Ever Told, something far more resonant than the regional faith of a wandering people. It would be naive to assume Constantine at that point in Christian development adopted the emerging religion for anything more than strategic worth. The story of Esther would certainly illuminate the advantages of such a move.
This whole book also establishes the holiday of Purim.
It's interesting that Mordecai begins the book with a vision, and then at the end of it interprets it. The Bible would be easier to read today if all such visions had been explained like that. The very last part of the book also references Ptolemy and Cleopatra, among the last significant remnants of the once-great Egyptian race, following the conquests of Alexander the Great.
Book of Job is famous, too, although the way it's told may be different than most people would expect. "Sons of God," Satan among them, consult with him about the figure of Job, who is good and faithful in the midst of having every earthly advantage. What if they are taken away? Will he curse God?
Leviathan is referenced.
This is the first of the philosophical works in the Bible. It's strong that such things exist and no one really thinks of that, much as they don't think of all the war that happens in it. It also seems to be a theological study.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Book of Nehemiah 1-13, Book of Tobit 1-14
Apparently it's in Book of Nehemiah where the term "Jews" first appears in the Bible. I would assume, and maybe this is obvious and well-known already, that it's derived from "Jerusalem," much like Salem is from the other end.
This is a first-person account, although it's not Nehemiah's account, which would have been the obvious belief until Nehemiah himself is referenced later a couple of times and clearly not the speaking party. Whoever the speaker is, he was the cupbearer of Artaxerxes.
This is a book that takes another look at the reconstruction efforts in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. Like previous examples, it's not exactly the same version we've seen before.
I was struck with the idea that this version makes it sounds a lot like Jesus in the New Testament when he talks about tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in three days. Christians understand this to reference his later passion, but now I'm thinking it might just as easily have been the idea that a motivated people could make a job like that look easy, which is how the reconstruction efforts look like here, a whole cascade of helpers spontaneously taking up work wherever it's needed. I'm not saying Jesus was definitely talking like that, but after reading this book, it's not an inconceivable suggestion. There are doubters who scoff at these efforts, too.
"Should such a man as I...?" is another classic bit of Jewish phrasing, the second such instance I've come across so far. Since Jews are still talking like this today, clearly it's a long-standing part of the culture, as much as the faith aspects.
Some of the doubters suspect that a revitalized Jerusalem might lead to the same war-like tendencies of Hebrews past. So all that fighting in previous books, stretching across generations, certainly left an impression on the neighbors.
Tobias is referenced. It's not clear if it's the same one from the Book of Tobit, but probably it is. Ezra is referenced, too, and then it becomes almost a complete restating of the Book of Ezra, with more emphasis, ironically, on Ezra himself. Zechariah, Baruch, Joel, Jeremiah, and Iddo are also referenced. This is a good time for names to leave an impression in the Jewish tradition! Most of them (Iddo is the exception) have their own books in the Bible.
It becomes somewhat clear that this book was written outside of direct knowledge of prior books now included in the Bible, especially when it's stated within it that at least one of the books of Moses was read again for the first time. There's a marked difference, too, in the way it's written, more as a record than history, the difference being how God is active in the history books while he's not in a record of this kind.
The Book of Tobit is a little like the Book of Ruth (without something as obvious as the origins of David hidden within it), not vital in establishing a part of Jewish lore so much as illustrating Jewish life, so it's generally considered apocryphal. It's also a favorite of mine dating back to college, when I also read Frederick Buechner's On the Road with the Archangel, which is based on it.
Tobit, basically, is the rare faithful Jew. It's the time of the exile, although Tobit himself is apparently taken captive by the Assyrians in Ninevah. He's the father of Tobias, who will in short order become the main subject of the book.
Pentecost is referenced. I always thought of that as a Christian holiday, but apparently it was originally Jewish.
The prophecy of Amos is referenced. Amos also has a book later in the Bible.
Tobit's main action in the story is his penchant for burying the corpses of fallen comrades who have been martyred by the Assyrians, who don't much want him to be doing that, so he's always close to getting in trouble for it. He does wind up blind, which is fine because later in the book he's cured of that.
"Command that I now be released from my distress to go to the eternal abode," he says, referencing perhaps the first suggestion that the heavens have given way to Heaven in the Jewish faith by the time this was composed.
Tobias's future bride is Sarah, who has already lost seven husbands thanks to the demon Asmodeus. This is okay, because someone named Raphael is soon going to help with that, plus Tobit's blindness. Who's Raphael? The first named angel of the Bible! One of seven holy angels. Another thing referenced for the first time is the concept of saints. There's also a fish that nearly swallows Tobias, much as Jonah is in his own book. But don't think about the size of this one, or if it's a whale, because Tobias and Raphael end up eating it.
The phrase, "eat, drink, and be merry" is uttered. Tobias invokes Adam and Eve when delivering an ode to matrimony. Tobit an ode, too, and says, "Many nations will come from afar to the name of the Lord," once more giving rise to the belief right there in the Old Testament that one day gentiles would be included in the faith (which is known as Christianity).
"Hallelujah" is uttered. Jonah is referenced directly. This one may not be considered essential, but it's certainly a good one to see the workings of everyday Judaism. It's also a fine break into narrative that doesn't have anything to do with bad kings. And that's a mighty fine relief at this point!
This is a first-person account, although it's not Nehemiah's account, which would have been the obvious belief until Nehemiah himself is referenced later a couple of times and clearly not the speaking party. Whoever the speaker is, he was the cupbearer of Artaxerxes.
This is a book that takes another look at the reconstruction efforts in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. Like previous examples, it's not exactly the same version we've seen before.
I was struck with the idea that this version makes it sounds a lot like Jesus in the New Testament when he talks about tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in three days. Christians understand this to reference his later passion, but now I'm thinking it might just as easily have been the idea that a motivated people could make a job like that look easy, which is how the reconstruction efforts look like here, a whole cascade of helpers spontaneously taking up work wherever it's needed. I'm not saying Jesus was definitely talking like that, but after reading this book, it's not an inconceivable suggestion. There are doubters who scoff at these efforts, too.
"Should such a man as I...?" is another classic bit of Jewish phrasing, the second such instance I've come across so far. Since Jews are still talking like this today, clearly it's a long-standing part of the culture, as much as the faith aspects.
Some of the doubters suspect that a revitalized Jerusalem might lead to the same war-like tendencies of Hebrews past. So all that fighting in previous books, stretching across generations, certainly left an impression on the neighbors.
Tobias is referenced. It's not clear if it's the same one from the Book of Tobit, but probably it is. Ezra is referenced, too, and then it becomes almost a complete restating of the Book of Ezra, with more emphasis, ironically, on Ezra himself. Zechariah, Baruch, Joel, Jeremiah, and Iddo are also referenced. This is a good time for names to leave an impression in the Jewish tradition! Most of them (Iddo is the exception) have their own books in the Bible.
It becomes somewhat clear that this book was written outside of direct knowledge of prior books now included in the Bible, especially when it's stated within it that at least one of the books of Moses was read again for the first time. There's a marked difference, too, in the way it's written, more as a record than history, the difference being how God is active in the history books while he's not in a record of this kind.
The Book of Tobit is a little like the Book of Ruth (without something as obvious as the origins of David hidden within it), not vital in establishing a part of Jewish lore so much as illustrating Jewish life, so it's generally considered apocryphal. It's also a favorite of mine dating back to college, when I also read Frederick Buechner's On the Road with the Archangel, which is based on it.
Tobit, basically, is the rare faithful Jew. It's the time of the exile, although Tobit himself is apparently taken captive by the Assyrians in Ninevah. He's the father of Tobias, who will in short order become the main subject of the book.
Pentecost is referenced. I always thought of that as a Christian holiday, but apparently it was originally Jewish.
The prophecy of Amos is referenced. Amos also has a book later in the Bible.
Tobit's main action in the story is his penchant for burying the corpses of fallen comrades who have been martyred by the Assyrians, who don't much want him to be doing that, so he's always close to getting in trouble for it. He does wind up blind, which is fine because later in the book he's cured of that.
"Command that I now be released from my distress to go to the eternal abode," he says, referencing perhaps the first suggestion that the heavens have given way to Heaven in the Jewish faith by the time this was composed.
Tobias's future bride is Sarah, who has already lost seven husbands thanks to the demon Asmodeus. This is okay, because someone named Raphael is soon going to help with that, plus Tobit's blindness. Who's Raphael? The first named angel of the Bible! One of seven holy angels. Another thing referenced for the first time is the concept of saints. There's also a fish that nearly swallows Tobias, much as Jonah is in his own book. But don't think about the size of this one, or if it's a whale, because Tobias and Raphael end up eating it.
The phrase, "eat, drink, and be merry" is uttered. Tobias invokes Adam and Eve when delivering an ode to matrimony. Tobit an ode, too, and says, "Many nations will come from afar to the name of the Lord," once more giving rise to the belief right there in the Old Testament that one day gentiles would be included in the faith (which is known as Christianity).
"Hallelujah" is uttered. Jonah is referenced directly. This one may not be considered essential, but it's certainly a good one to see the workings of everyday Judaism. It's also a fine break into narrative that doesn't have anything to do with bad kings. And that's a mighty fine relief at this point!
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Second Book of Chronicles 11-36, Book of Ezra 1-10
Second Chronicles features plenty of references to what are apparently lost books Hebrews at the time included in their tradition. Rehoboam's story is supposed to continue in the chronicles of Shemaiah and Iddo (who appears to be a fairly significant lost figure, considering this is his second mention in the Chronicles; it's just as if only the Kings references to Jonah and Jeremiah, for instance, were all we knew of them, besides their separate books and Jeremiah's expanded role in Chronicles). Abijah's career is also expanded by the lost Iddo as well as the first mention of the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, which I needed to confirm was not a reference back to First and Second Kings, much as Kings themselves kept referencing Chronicles.
Arabs are referenced as such.
Micaiah appears, a prophet of the apocalyptic persuasion.
The longer Second Chronicles continues, the clearer its portrait of simply uninspired kings becomes. These people are simply not relevant to the Jewish tradition, which may be a way of saying that not every generation or significant figure can actually be significant, considering the previous books in the Bible have all featured almost exclusively names that actively contributed to the tradition.
Jehoshaphat's further exploits can be found in the chronicles of Jehu, which is referenced in tandem with the Book of the Kings of Israel, which is probably the same as the above lost book of similar title.
Elijah appears, in a far less significant role, though he sends a letter, which is a form of communication far more prevalent in the New Testament (most of which is composed of such addresses).
Chronicles seems to feature more work done on the temple than in Kings. There's a restoration effort before Josiah's, for instance. Perhaps I'm misremembering, but the intended earlier effort in Kings was aborted after the money was collected and everyone decided to just hold onto the funds for a while, like a biblical banking operation.
There's apparently another account of this period in the Commentary on the Book of Kings, which again may be another way of phrasing something referenced above. Amaziah's story continues in the Book of Kings of Judah and Israel, at any rate.
I thought it was amusing to see the term "muster" used so frequently in Second Chronicles. To give you another Tolkien reference, the "muster of Rohan" certainly seems like something that could easily have featured in this book of the Bible.
Isaiah wrote the further adventures of Uzziah. I guess I'll find out if it's in Book of Isaiah, or if we're talking about another lost book.
There's one bad king who seems like he was definitely written that way at the end of his reign just to justify another bad turn on the part of Hebrew history. It's incredibly tempting to interpret this whole period that way. It might also explain the disconnect between the reign of Solomon as described in Kings and Chronicles.
Jotham comes off well. He can be found in the lost Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. So can Ahaz.
Another indication of how faith can sometimes form is the phrase, "for the commandment was from the Lord through his prophets." One of the thorny issues of the Bible and faith in general is the belief that if someone says you have to believe someone because God inspired them, you have to assume that's exactly what happened. This appears to be a far harder thing to verify in the modern world than in biblical times. Again, I'm not say faith is invalidated if you question things like this, but it's also maybe a good thing if you question whether or not all the specific details that clearly helped build a culture as much as a religious should still be considered unquestionably valid today.
Hezekiah also gets a good write-up. I realize I may be duplicating observations between Kings and Chronicles on some of these individuals, but there are subtle variations. Sometimes even someone who was spoken of favorably got one of those famous bad ends, to the effect of "he still wasn't absolutely perfect and so God was displeased with him." That happens less frequently in Chronicles than in Kings. The other thing about Hezekiah is that he gets to deliver a speech before some troops that would not at all be out of place in a Hollywood action movie. Mel Gibson was at one point thinking of making a movie out of the adventures of the Maccabees. He could easily do that with any number of earlier books. It would look exactly like Braveheart.
Somehow even though a number of kings have been cycled through (and some eight paragraphs later here), Elijah makes another appearance. There is apparently a vision of Elijah in the lost Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. Manasseh, who was a bad king, can be found in the lost Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.
We finally reach Josiah again! As before, he sets about rebuilding the temple. The book of the law, and Moses, and the ark are all referenced, links not specifically established in Kings. There is a Huldah the prophetess who appears. She's the latest obscure female prophet in the Old Testament, but they do in fact exist! Josiah's arc (as opposed to Moses's ark) is much better in Chronicles. His dedication to rededicating the Hebrews to the practice of the law distinguishes him from other religious revivals, which makes sense because most of what we know about him is that he's the guy who thought to actually read the old rules found in the ark again. Of course, this also makes him to blame for any number of things, if you're interested in looking at it that way. Josiah's subsequent observation of the passover meal is said to be the greatest since the days of Samuel. Jeremiah offers a lament upon the death of Josiah, whose career can also be found in the lost Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. Jehoiakim can be found there, too. Zedekiah "did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet."
Second Chronicles ends confusingly if you expect it to be exact parallel with the end of Second Kings, because when we reach Nebuchadnezzar and the exile, we're soon treated to the Persian Empire. This is of course the fulfillment of a prophecy from Jeremiah, whose importance is roughly proportionate to Isaiah's in Kings, and vice versa. Cyrus, meanwhile, king of Persia, is responsible for the end of the exile. You may be confused about the exile ending so abruptly because it plays such a famous role in Jewish history. This is because there are a number of separate books that return to this era, even though by the time we reach them it has already, in terms of biblical narrative, ended. I would probably tend to argue, then, that the time of the bad kings, or perhaps even the time of the judges, should be greater stressed in the history than this exile, which isn't apparently nearly as dramatic, or traumatic, as the similar period of bondage in Egypt .
The Book of Ezra picks up the story right from the end of Second Chronicles. It explains how Cyrus decides to end the exile so that he can be the latest person to rebuild the temple, although he himself won't be doing it, but rather the previously exiled Hebrews, part of an overall initiative on his part to honor a number of different gods (but it sounds better to just say he did it for the Hebrews, just as it's convenient to say Judaism is a monotheistic religion even though God himself acknowledged the existence of other gods, rather that it is intended as a worship of only him).
Nehemiah, Zechariah (son of Iddo, by the way!), Haggai, and Daniel are all referenced. Each has their own book in the Bible. All that and books from Jeremiah and Isaiah! No wonder the exile period is so famous!
Besides Cyrus, Darius is referenced among the Persians. This is a different Darius than the one Alexander defeated about a century later. To put this period in context as far as culture goes, Alexander was very familiar with Greek myth. He was obsessed with The Iliad. It's no wonder that so much biblical material is comparable. Artaxerxes, meanwhile, is the Persian king who temporarily makes it difficult for Cyrus to get his wish, because he remembers the Hebrews as bent on warfare, or as it's termed here rebellion and sedition (interesting way to describe it). He's the son of the Xerxes who famously battled King Leonidas and the Spartans in the Battle of Thermopylae. Context sure is fun!
Ezra himself appears very late in the Book of Ezra, funny enough. He's a descendant of Aaron, by the way, which makes sense for him to be of priestly flavor. His role in his own book is to revive the study of the law that Josiah has previously rediscovered. This also makes sense.
Arabs are referenced as such.
Micaiah appears, a prophet of the apocalyptic persuasion.
The longer Second Chronicles continues, the clearer its portrait of simply uninspired kings becomes. These people are simply not relevant to the Jewish tradition, which may be a way of saying that not every generation or significant figure can actually be significant, considering the previous books in the Bible have all featured almost exclusively names that actively contributed to the tradition.
Jehoshaphat's further exploits can be found in the chronicles of Jehu, which is referenced in tandem with the Book of the Kings of Israel, which is probably the same as the above lost book of similar title.
Elijah appears, in a far less significant role, though he sends a letter, which is a form of communication far more prevalent in the New Testament (most of which is composed of such addresses).
Chronicles seems to feature more work done on the temple than in Kings. There's a restoration effort before Josiah's, for instance. Perhaps I'm misremembering, but the intended earlier effort in Kings was aborted after the money was collected and everyone decided to just hold onto the funds for a while, like a biblical banking operation.
There's apparently another account of this period in the Commentary on the Book of Kings, which again may be another way of phrasing something referenced above. Amaziah's story continues in the Book of Kings of Judah and Israel, at any rate.
I thought it was amusing to see the term "muster" used so frequently in Second Chronicles. To give you another Tolkien reference, the "muster of Rohan" certainly seems like something that could easily have featured in this book of the Bible.
Isaiah wrote the further adventures of Uzziah. I guess I'll find out if it's in Book of Isaiah, or if we're talking about another lost book.
There's one bad king who seems like he was definitely written that way at the end of his reign just to justify another bad turn on the part of Hebrew history. It's incredibly tempting to interpret this whole period that way. It might also explain the disconnect between the reign of Solomon as described in Kings and Chronicles.
Jotham comes off well. He can be found in the lost Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. So can Ahaz.
Another indication of how faith can sometimes form is the phrase, "for the commandment was from the Lord through his prophets." One of the thorny issues of the Bible and faith in general is the belief that if someone says you have to believe someone because God inspired them, you have to assume that's exactly what happened. This appears to be a far harder thing to verify in the modern world than in biblical times. Again, I'm not say faith is invalidated if you question things like this, but it's also maybe a good thing if you question whether or not all the specific details that clearly helped build a culture as much as a religious should still be considered unquestionably valid today.
Hezekiah also gets a good write-up. I realize I may be duplicating observations between Kings and Chronicles on some of these individuals, but there are subtle variations. Sometimes even someone who was spoken of favorably got one of those famous bad ends, to the effect of "he still wasn't absolutely perfect and so God was displeased with him." That happens less frequently in Chronicles than in Kings. The other thing about Hezekiah is that he gets to deliver a speech before some troops that would not at all be out of place in a Hollywood action movie. Mel Gibson was at one point thinking of making a movie out of the adventures of the Maccabees. He could easily do that with any number of earlier books. It would look exactly like Braveheart.
Somehow even though a number of kings have been cycled through (and some eight paragraphs later here), Elijah makes another appearance. There is apparently a vision of Elijah in the lost Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. Manasseh, who was a bad king, can be found in the lost Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.
We finally reach Josiah again! As before, he sets about rebuilding the temple. The book of the law, and Moses, and the ark are all referenced, links not specifically established in Kings. There is a Huldah the prophetess who appears. She's the latest obscure female prophet in the Old Testament, but they do in fact exist! Josiah's arc (as opposed to Moses's ark) is much better in Chronicles. His dedication to rededicating the Hebrews to the practice of the law distinguishes him from other religious revivals, which makes sense because most of what we know about him is that he's the guy who thought to actually read the old rules found in the ark again. Of course, this also makes him to blame for any number of things, if you're interested in looking at it that way. Josiah's subsequent observation of the passover meal is said to be the greatest since the days of Samuel. Jeremiah offers a lament upon the death of Josiah, whose career can also be found in the lost Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. Jehoiakim can be found there, too. Zedekiah "did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet."
Second Chronicles ends confusingly if you expect it to be exact parallel with the end of Second Kings, because when we reach Nebuchadnezzar and the exile, we're soon treated to the Persian Empire. This is of course the fulfillment of a prophecy from Jeremiah, whose importance is roughly proportionate to Isaiah's in Kings, and vice versa. Cyrus, meanwhile, king of Persia, is responsible for the end of the exile. You may be confused about the exile ending so abruptly because it plays such a famous role in Jewish history. This is because there are a number of separate books that return to this era, even though by the time we reach them it has already, in terms of biblical narrative, ended. I would probably tend to argue, then, that the time of the bad kings, or perhaps even the time of the judges, should be greater stressed in the history than this exile, which isn't apparently nearly as dramatic, or traumatic, as the similar period of bondage in Egypt .
The Book of Ezra picks up the story right from the end of Second Chronicles. It explains how Cyrus decides to end the exile so that he can be the latest person to rebuild the temple, although he himself won't be doing it, but rather the previously exiled Hebrews, part of an overall initiative on his part to honor a number of different gods (but it sounds better to just say he did it for the Hebrews, just as it's convenient to say Judaism is a monotheistic religion even though God himself acknowledged the existence of other gods, rather that it is intended as a worship of only him).
Nehemiah, Zechariah (son of Iddo, by the way!), Haggai, and Daniel are all referenced. Each has their own book in the Bible. All that and books from Jeremiah and Isaiah! No wonder the exile period is so famous!
Besides Cyrus, Darius is referenced among the Persians. This is a different Darius than the one Alexander defeated about a century later. To put this period in context as far as culture goes, Alexander was very familiar with Greek myth. He was obsessed with The Iliad. It's no wonder that so much biblical material is comparable. Artaxerxes, meanwhile, is the Persian king who temporarily makes it difficult for Cyrus to get his wish, because he remembers the Hebrews as bent on warfare, or as it's termed here rebellion and sedition (interesting way to describe it). He's the son of the Xerxes who famously battled King Leonidas and the Spartans in the Battle of Thermopylae. Context sure is fun!
Ezra himself appears very late in the Book of Ezra, funny enough. He's a descendant of Aaron, by the way, which makes sense for him to be of priestly flavor. His role in his own book is to revive the study of the law that Josiah has previously rediscovered. This also makes sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)