First John 1-5, Second John, Third John, Jude, Revelation 1-22

First Letter of John contains classic John themes on light and darkness.  It warns about the Antichrist (and in that sense, aligns perfectly with both the gospel and Revelation).

Letter of John 4:10, interestingly, is a striking parallel to Gospel of John 3:16: "In this love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation of our sins.

Second Letter of John includes an emphasis on "the truth," a term Pilate uses in Gospel of John.  It also features the Golden Rule.  With three separate letters to it, clearly Jesus said this one and it left as powerful an impression on his followers as his death and resurrection.  It's also the clearest break in theology from the Old to New Testament.

Third Letter of John generally addresses those in the Church who are proving useful as well as those who aren't.  The terms "beloved" and "truth" are used, more links to Gospel of John.  I might be wrong, but it's the shortest book (so-called) of the whole Bible.

Letter of Jude, which may be ascribed to Judas/Thaddeus of the apostles, speaks of biblical lore and bad apples.  Although it spoils the running countdown of the Bible featuring exclusively material ascribed to John, it also serves as an excellent segue to Revelation.

Concerning Revelation of John, I won't go into too much detail about it here.  The basis for the popular turn-of-the-millennium Left Behind series of novels, it's classic apocalyptic literature that has previously noted parallels in the Old Testament, though itself remains the most famous of them (the Four Horsemen, the pale rider called Death among them, as well as God described as the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end).  It may also be a pastiche on John's prediction for the fall of Rome, much as the earlier versions were of Babylon.

Interestingly, however, Revelation begins as a letter, and various congregations are addressed.

And finally, to close out my notes on the Bible, it only seems fitting to point out the final slandering of Balaam.  Seriously, the dude was to my mind a pretty good guy.

But perhaps you ought to read the Bible for yourself to decide.

Hebrews 1-13, James 1-5, First Peter 1-5, Second Peter 1-3

The Letter to the Hebrews is as it suggests an attempt to explain Christianity to the Jews, something Acts of the Apostles featured but the emerging faith started to reject as its mandate over time, so it's good to have a letter dedicated to it in the New Testament.

If you were ever wondering why Melchizedek appears to be so important to Christians despite only a cursory reference in Genesis, it's because of a generous emphasis in Hebrews.  Jesus, meanwhile, is described as the ultimate high priest, among other things.

Hebrews uses as part of its argument a list of Old Testament figures who were known for their exceptional faith, including Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, and words that to the effect mean "etc."  In that sense it rings true with material in the Old Testament itself.

Although at one time ascribed to Paul, this is no longer the case with Hebrews, although the link of Timothy is present.

The Letter of James is probably from the same ambiguous James from Acts of the Apostles who proved to be a hassle for Paul's ministry.  This is an appropriate follow-up to Hebrews, considering this James was very much interested in retaining the Jewish tradition into the emerging Christianity.

It is in fact written to Jewish converts.  It also has an exhortation to endure trials, and an emphasis on good acts but no partiality (except, y'know, the Jews).  James references the Golden Rule, although of course he says to keep the old rules, too.  Interestingly, a fig tree is referenced, the only time outside of the gospels where it is.  It apparently really was an important legacy of Jesus's.

First Letter of Peter is also a letter to converted Jews, this time addressed to those of the Dispersion.  Rome is referenced as Babylon (as it will be in Revelation as well).  Mark is referenced.  It's a letter concerning general rules of conduct.

The Second Letter of Peter assures the recipient that Jesus is not a myth.  It also, unfortunately, continues the biblical tradition of slandering Balaam (as does Revelation).  The second coming is referenced.

First Timothy 1-6, Second Timothy 1-4, Titus 1-3, Philemon

First Letter of Paul to Timothy is, as it suggests, a letter from Paul to his favorite associate.  He's asking Timothy to remain in Ephesus.  He also warns about dissenting ministries, explains his past. Paul also outlines a number of guidelines for the emerging Church, including rules for the selection of bishops of deacons.  It's more or less a set of instructions to keep on keeping on.

Second Letter of Paul to Timothy finds Paul missing Timothy.  He's hit a rough patch.  The ministries in Asia have been less than accommodating.  He tells Timothy not to be ashamed of testifying and to accept suffering, which might just as well be Paul telling these things to himself, which in effect makes this perhaps the most personal of all the letters.  Titus, Luke, and Mark are all referenced.

Letter of Paul to Titus, meanwhile, is obviously another personal address to a notable colleague.  He's explaining why Titus was left in Crete, and how best to deal with the Cretans, which probably explains why we have that term today.  Which means in honor of this letter, if you hadn't been using it before, you should now (but in a loving way).

Letter of Paul to Philemon is the last one directly ascribed to Paul in the New Testament.  He's once again a prisoner as he's composing it.  Timothy is referenced.  He's basically directing matters from prison.  Mark and Luke are also referenced.

Colossians 1-4, First Thessalonians 1-5, Second Thessalonians 1-3

The seventh letter from, the Letter to the Colossians, features a reference to Timothy right from the start.  It explains what exactly Jesus represented, warns about falling for dissenting beliefs.  Perhaps the biggest news out of this letter also explains something from Acts.  Remember how Paul and Barnabas had a falling out over Mark?  According to this letter, Barnabas had a good reason to side with Mark, because the possible gospel writer was in fact his cousin.  Another probably gospel (and Acts) writer, Luke is referenced, as "the beloved physician."  Considering how often Paul is described as getting banged up in Acts, he could certainly use one of those.  The letter concludes with a message to pass it along.  And passed along it has been.

First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians references Timothy right away.  These Thessalonians are also excellent examples of the faith.  Paul references his rough treatment in Philippi, which otherwise didn't deter him there, because that's the other community to get a happy letter from him.

Second Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians also references Timothy immediately (it should be noted that when this happens, it means Paul has included him in the opening address, so these letters can be said to be coming from both of them).  Paul is still very pleased with the Thessalonians.  He likes them so much he uses them as an example to other communities (and thanks to this letter's presence in the New Testament, keeps on doing it).  Both letters speak of the second coming, which is an event preceded by the Antichrist.  You can take that literally or interpret it to indicate the persecution from the Roman Empire, which certainly got pretty nasty.

Galatians 1-6, Ephesians 1-6, Philippians 1-4

The fourth letter from Paul, to the Galatians, opens with an allusion to his unofficial apostolic status, which by now is clearly something that preoccupies him.

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel - not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ."

That's this letter in a nutshell, Paul again worrying about competing Christian ministries.

He references his past again.

He says three years passed before he went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and the other apostles, including "James the Lord's brother."  Take that for what you will, but it's among the reasons some people (certainly not mainstream Christians) argue that Jesus had siblings, and why Reza Aslan argues in Zealot that the James who is prominent in Acts, and probably the one who gives Paul all the problems he references in his letters, is in fact Jesus' brother (keeping in mind that this James is probably also not the other James among the twelve apostles).

After an additional fourteen years he returns to Jerusalem with Barnabas.  Titus is with them.  John has traveled with them as well.

As featured in Acts, the matter of Jewish law and how applicable it is to Gentile converts to Christianity is the main sticking point Paul discusses.  He outright says that the old ways are no longer relevant.

In Letter of Paul to the Ephesians, Paul is imprisoned as he composes it.  It's a letter to Gentiles explaining their inheritance of the faith.  It contains general instructions on how to be good Christians.

Letter of Paul to the Philippians begins with Timothy referenced.  Paul is actually quite pleased with the Philippians (good to see him in a good mood for a change!), which is no surprise given how this ministry is described in Acts.

He still touches on the matter of theological dissension, but not nearly in the heavy tones he previously used.  He hopes to send Timothy to the Philippians soon.  He touches on his origins.  Paul is also pleased that the Philippians were concerned about him!

Romans 1-16, First Corinthians 1-16, Second Corinthians 1-13

The letters begin with the longest and perhaps best of them, Letter of Paul to the Romans.  It's one he wrote before actually going to Rome, whereas most of the others address a community he's already visited.  The term "barbarian" is referenced.  Fun fact!  "Barbarian" is a term the Romans came up with to describe peoples whose languages they considered unintelligible, so that they sounded like they were talking nonsense (in other words, "bar bar bar bar," or what we today would interpret perhaps as "blah blah blah blah," which means that if we have coined the term, it would be "blahblahian" or perhaps "blahblahing" like Viking).

Among Paul's goals for Christianity he sees as giving honor and thanks to God.  He says, "God has no partiality," which is quite a development for a former Jew.  Paul explains Jesus basically as the reverse Adam.  Perhaps earlier when I was discussing how Adam is seen that way it was indeed an argument that traces all the way back to Letter to the Romans.  He also tends to explain faith, in this letters, in philosophical terms, an intellectual argument that happens to include a concept of a divine being.  It's a giant leap forward from the dogma constantly featured in the wisdom literature of the Old Testament.  His talk of living by the spirit rather than the flesh is basically an argument to rise above petty, harmful impulses.  It's no different from, say, Buddhist ideals (before you consider that a sacrilege, keep in mind that although Buddhism came from Hinduism, it is a philosophy rather than religion).  If you want to talk religion based from the Bible to a skeptic, perhaps Romans would be a good place to start.

Paul also affirms Jesus's "love thy neighbor" commandment, the famous Golden Rule, which is a running theme throughout the letters, emphasizing how it truly has become the most important of them all.  One of his dominant themes is the purity of faith, which is something that can sometimes be lost in discussions on religion.  If you think about it, faith is something a sports fan has when they support their favorite team even if they're dreadful.

Romans was written before Paul traveled to Jerusalem as outlined in Acts of the Apostles.  He states that he hopes to stop by on his way to Spain.  A ton of names are referenced throughout the letters, representing a lot of lost early notable Christians, although among them is the famous Timothy.  There's a Lucius who could be Luke, although that name specifically begins to appear in other letters.

The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians begins with the line, "Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus."  A lot of material in these letters finds him in a defensive mode, which is probably weird for modern Christians to consider, given how prominent Paul is in Christian history, arguably the second most important figure of the New Testament after Jesus.  In his own time, Paul was actually a lot like the rejected prophets of the Old Testament, and even Jesus.  I guess it only figures.

The letter is an appeal against dissension, another common theme that was also referenced in Romans.  Although, of course, in the gospels Jesus himself says it's perfectly fine that people aren't completely uniform in how they represent him.  People being people, the first Christians immediately disagree with that stance.  (Although the Jesus argument might have been snuck in by someone to present that very argument.)

Peter, referenced here and in several other mentions initially as Cephas, becomes the first prominent apostle of the gospels and Acts to appear in Paul's letters.

Paul tends to be modest in this letter.  He makes a point of the message itself being wise rather than specifically how it's delivered.  This perspective might also exist because Paul is frustrated with himself.

Continuing with the argument that Paul is surprisingly philosophical, he says understanding thrives best in the spiritual individual, presumably because they're given to reflection rather than gut instinct.

"We have become, and are now, as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things."  Good line.

Paul has sent Timothy ahead of him to try and correct a few matters.

"Shun immorality."  Notice, "shun" rather than condemn it.  Although even that is another point that opposes Jesus's teachings in the gospels, where he openly associates with sinners.

"We know...'there is no God but one'" sounds like a template to the later central pillar of Islam.

"If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you."  This is an example of what he was thinking in the opening line.  The apostles as outlined in Acts were those who witnessed the resurrected Jesus and had followed him his whole ministry.  Paul clearly doesn't fit the latter objective, but it's incredibly hard to argue that he didn't become one of the leading witnesses.

Barnabas is referenced.  Surprisingly, he doesn't turn up too often, despite his prominence in relation to Paul in Acts.

Paul expounds on the idea that a perfect Christian lives in imitation of Christ.  The later Thomas a Kempis writes a famous Christian work based on this concept.

One of the famous lines from Paul's letters: "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man I gave up childish ways."

Paul discusses how Jesus died and came back, and how Peter experienced this, and then James experienced it (unclear as to which one, but probably the ambiguous one from Acts), and then Paul himself.  He circles back to the Adam argument.

Ephesus and Galatia are referenced.

The letter is also an admonishment to bad behavior among the Corinthians.

Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians references Timothy right from the start.  It discusses recent troubles Paul has experienced.  He feels bad about his last visit.  In fact, this whole letter is also a way of him apologizing for the tone of the last letter.

He speaks of Moses and the Old Testament as a veil that Jesus lifted, another clever argument on his part.  He calls Jesus an act of reconciliation (which ties back in with Adam).

Titus is referenced for the first time.

Paul admits that Corinth has been an excellent example for the cause.  He talks his own biographical material (not for the last time).

Acts of the Apostles 1-28

At the beginning of Acts of the Apostles, which tradition links (as Acts does itself) to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is still part of the narrative.  Acts says he was with the apostles for 40 days.  Perhaps inevitably, John the Baptist is referenced.  The ascension occurs, as it did in Luke as well.

The apostles are listed (Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the Lesser, Simon, and Judas), and Mary, Jesus's mother, as well as 120 additional (or perhaps including) followers, among those left behind.  They are described in their new charge as witnesses to the resurrection.  Since the betrayal of Judas Iscariot, the apostles elect a new twelfth member, Matthias, who otherwise is never mentioned again.  The descent of the Holy Spirit (I didn't mention this third member of the Holy Trinity previously, who otherwise is referenced in the gospels, rest assured) occurs, giving the apostles the ability to speak foreign languages without actually having learned them.

Moses, Joel, and David are invoked in the early preaching, where people are called to repent.  Peter and John are most routinely singled out in the early part of Acts.  They cure a cripple.  The religious authorities arrest them, are baffled by the fact that they're representing a man who was executed, and try to stop all this continuing talk of Jesus.

The faithful kind of turn into a hippy commune, sharing the wealth as it were in order to get by.  There's a curious episode where a couple who sells their possessions and is supposed to, like everyone else, give the proceeds to the group instead holds a portion of it back.  When this is discovered, they separately drop dead.

Peter and John are arrested again, and this occasions the first time in Acts where someone is freed by an angel.  They immediately return to preaching.  They're brought right back.  At this point, Acts references incidents that are supposed to be similar, including men named Theudas and Judas the Galilean, whose similar attempts at mass revolutions failed.  Peter and John are released on the chance that their human plans will similarly fail, although if they succeed it possibly really is the will of God.  (Although this is the only time any of them get off that easy.)

Stephen is selected among a small group of evangelists for a special mission.  When he reaches his fateful event, he retells biblical history from Abraham to Solomon.  Most interestingly, he interprets Moses as a blatantly Christian figure, very much in the mold of Jesus, a prophet rejected in his own time.  Nothing he says stretches the truth, actually.  Really a brilliant little sermon.  In this corollary, John the Baptist becomes the Aaron figure.  When he reaches Solomon, Stephen rightly points out that although at this point the temple entered Jewish tradition, God never really wanted a single dwelling place to begin with.  The religious authorities are angry that he pointed out how they always rejected the prophets who spoke of the messiah in the past, even though they came to believe in them, but still ended up rejecting the messiah anyway.  He then becomes the first martyr.  Paul, initially referred to as Saul, is witness to and complicit in the deed.

A Philip who could be the apostle or the one from the group Stephen was a part of preaches among the Samaritans.  This ambiguity is heightened when a Philip is referenced later and specifically linked to the Stephen group.  Either way, the Philip at this point challenges a local charlatan, and is later backed up by the team of Peter and John, who end up staying for a while to preach.  Philip then converts an Ethiopian by helping him understand and interpret Isaiah.

Paul is converted through his famous mystical experience on the road to Damascus.  Here he is blinded in a bright light and speaks with Jesus himself.  He later recounts the incident twice.  He almost immediately becomes a target of the Jews.

Peter cures a paralyzed man.  He resurrects a disciple named Tabitha.  A centurion named Cornelius receives a visit from an angel.  Peter receives a vision that leads him to Cornelius.  It's said to be the incident that convinces Peter to accept ministry to the Gentiles.

Barnabas starts working with Paul.  They preach for a whole year in Antioch.  The disciples become officially known as Christians.

Herod begins a persecution, executing John's brother James.  He also arrests Peter, who escapes thanks to an angel.

Another piece of supposition here in a new disciple referred to as Mark possibly being the author of the Gospel of Mark.  He plays no huge role, however, and actually later becomes a sticking point between Barnabas and Paul.  For the moment, however, all three travel together, and it's this point where Paul is officially referred to only as such.  John travels with them for a time.  Paul explains biblical history from Moses to David in an effort to introduce Jesus.  He also references John the Baptist.  There's no reason to reference John the Baptist in Acts unless his reputation really still was inordinate.  Perhaps for that reason, Acts also has him explain that he is not himself the messiah.  Paul then explains how and why Jesus died and how he came back.  Perhaps because they're not always hugely successful, Paul and Barnabas move around a lot from place to place.

Paul cures a cripple.  This sparks another curious development.  Based on this miracle, the locals get a little carried away.  They declare Barnabas to be Zeus and Paul to be Hermes and attempt to worship them.  Neither is amused, of course, by this development.  (Although it certainly sheds light on how people viewed Zeus and Hermes at the time.  From a modern perspective, it would certainly seem that if either of these two were to perform an act of divine intervention, it would be Zeus.  Acts explains it to be Hermes because Paul is the spokesperson, which would mean that Zeus at this point is expected to be the figure in the background, all-powerful but uninvolved, whereas trusty messenger Hermes is free to do as he likes, which certainly squares with classical mythology, but still.  At least he isn't making any demigod babies.)

Paul ends up getting stoned (in the traditional sense) and presumed dead, but afterward seems fine.  Paul and Barnabas start dealing with contradictory messages from other evangelists.  At an assembly to help streamline matters, Peter agrees with what they're saying, while James has caveats.  It's not clear if this James is James the Lesser, one of the apostles.  Reza Aslan in Zealot posits that it's Jesus's brother.  Which admittedly would not be a hugely favorable interpretation to mainstream Christianity, certainly among Catholics, given that Mary was said to be a virgin and thus Jesus an only child.  To Aslan's interpretation, this brother of Jesus would have become a member of the early Church after the crucifixion, become at that point highly motivated to carry on his brother's legacy.

A letter from Paul and Barnabas is quoted.  Since we know Paul sent plenty of letters, because the remaining New Testament is made up almost exclusively of them, which are in fact the earliest extant material from it, this is definitely appropriate material for Acts.

It's at this point that Paul and Barnabas have a difference of opinion concerning Mark.  Barnabas sides with Mark.  So they pair off.  Paul carries on with Silas, and subsequently meets Timothy, to whom two of the later letters in the New Testament are written.

Interestingly, Philippi (as in the later Letter to the Philippians) is located in Macedonia.  This is notable to me in relation to Alexander the Great, whom you'll remember was referenced in First Book of Maccabees.  Here Paul performs an exorcism.  But it's another acts that spectacularly backfires on him.  He and Silas are beaten as a result.  They're imprisoned but miraculously freed.  Because they're both Roman citizens, Paul and Silas actually receive an apology.  Then they visit the Thessalonians (also recipients of a later New Testament letter).  When they visit Athens, they're interviewed by philosophers from the Epicurean and Stoic traditions.  Epicureans in particular would have had a problem with Christian theology centered on the miraculous event of the resurrection.  Stoics would have had an easier time of it.  Acts in fact says some of them are convinced, and that would probably have been the Stoics.  Paul cleverly uses a local altar dedicated to "an unknown god" in his ministry here.  He then visits the Corinthians (later recipients of a New Testament letter as well).

Roman emperor Claudius is referenced a few times in Acts.  At this point it's because he's expelled the Jews from Rome.

Silas and Timothy meet back up with Paul.  They'd stayed behind in Macedonia.  Paul officially rejects the Jews in favor of the Gentiles.  He stays in Corinth for a little over a year.  He visits the Ephesians next (subjects of another New Testament letter), then Galatians (also subjects of a New Testament letter).  A man in Ephesus speaks about Jesus, but apparently knows more about John the Baptist (which seems about right).  This occasions for Paul to go back and correct him.  He teaches in the hall of Tyrannus for two years.  (In Star Wars lore, Count Dooku was secretly Darth Tyranus, if that interests you.)

A demon rejects some Jewish exorcists who attempt to mockingly invoke Jesus.

The Greek goddess Artemis is referenced, and her worshippers work themselves into a tizzy.

By this point, Luke has entered the scene, although he never references himself directly but rather in "we" statements.

Even though he knows it's dangerous, Paul becomes intent on going to Jerusalem.  Once there, he meets with James (presumably the same ambiguous one as before) and the elders.  He's seized by angry Jews who try and kill him.  He entreats a nameless Egyptian who had led a revolt of thousands to help him.  (As the final reference to Egypt in the Bible, it is appropriately epic.)  He explains his origins to the angry crowd, which doesn't help him at all.  It's only the fact of his Roman citizenship that saves Paul from a scourging.  He speaks before the religious authorities (the usual Sadducees and Pharisees of the gospels, the latter of whom he was previously a member; these two groups are Jews who believe different things, much like, say, Christians and Protestants, or Sunnis and Shiites), who end up divided over him.  A plot arises to assassinate him, which only the fact of his Roman citizenship once again saves him from.

Paul, by the way, calls Christianity the Way.

His standing trial reads very comparably to Jesus's similar experience, except of course for the ending.

The governor Felix is sympathetic to a point, which leads to Paul remaining in prison rather than some other fate.  Felix is succeeded by Festus, at which point Paul is brought before Agrippa, to whom he again explains his faith journey.  Festus calls Paul crazy, and Agrippa jokes that Paul is trying to convert him to Christianity.  He'd set Paul free if he could, but Paul has requested an audience with the Roman emperor.  So Paul is set on a circuitous journey to Rome, at which point Acts begins to read like an adventure story straight out of Melville.  The book ends with Paul having stayed in Rome two years preaching.

Gospel of John 1-21

The final gospel, and believed to be the final written as well, begins with considerably more literary flair than its predecessors.  If you read only one gospel on that basis, Gospel of John is your choice.

One of the many major differences between John and its predecessors is how John the Baptist is presented.  To be frank, he's very much de-emphasized, making it clear exactly where he stands in relation to Jesus.  In fact, he identifies exactly who Jesus is upon seeing him (along with the rest of us) for the first time.

Jesus recruits Andrew, identified as a disciple of John the Baptist.  Andrew in turn recruits his brother Peter.  Jesus then recruits Philip, who in turn recruits Nathaniel (an alternate name for the standard Bartholomew, just as Matthew and Mark use Thaddeus while Luke uses Judas, who is also popularly referred to as Jude, perhaps to further distinguish him from Judas Iscariot).  Jesus remarks that he saw Philip beneath a fig tree, which is better news for fig trees in this gospel, and also the second wildly additional emphasis on Philip, and by no means the last, in John.

The wedding at Cana occurs, which is Jesus's first public miracle (sort of the reverse of the Last Supper), where "his mother" is used to prod him into action.  John then reaches the temple incident every other gospel puts at the end of the ministry.  This is just as well, because the whole character of Jesus by that point is also markedly different.  He foretells his death and resurrection, which in John is simply not a matter of dread.

Nicodemus, the most famous of the secret converts in the gospels, appears, only in John.

Then the famous John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

The apostles are described as baptizing, which is another marked difference in John.  John the Baptist, meanwhile, is still active at this point.  Usually he's safely imprisoned.  He uses the opportunity to reiterate his position in relation to Jesus: "He must increase, but I must decrease."  By the end of the first century, no doubt Christians have really gotten into the flow of this, so John is only affirming this.

The incident with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well occurs.  It's an affirmation as to Jesus's mission to the Gentiles.  He's also, however, already dodging the religious authorities, perhaps because of that very divide between his ministry and its Jewish origins.

He cures a civil servant's son, then the paralyzed man.  In John, it's the Jews in general who persecute Jesus, but again because he performs the latter act on the sabbath.

The diminished role of John the Baptist is once again reiterated, just in case you hadn't gotten the message already.  Remember, according to my theory about Q Gospel, which the three previous gospels drew from, John the Baptist was perhaps equal or possibly even greater in status among the very earliest members of Christianity.

Jesus feeds the multitude, which the people view as the sign that he's the prophesied messiah.  They try and make him king.  If he'd never had such an episode (usually featured only in the Palm Sunday incident), the Jews would really have no cause to take him seriously, because as far as they're concerned (as far as I know), the messiah is supposed to be someone great, like David or Solomon, and by definition a king.  If Jesus had allowed them to make him king in this incident, the whole trajectory of his ministry would have been altered, and perhaps even the necessary death and its manner would not have occurred.  Then again, for skeptics, of course he never became king.  But we'll see what Pilate thinks of this later.

He walks on the water.

"Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph?"  (Finally, both names used deliberately.)

His teaching alienates some of his disciples, but the apostles remain faithful.

Some people remark that Jesus is speaking openly but the religious authorities are doing nothing about it, even though they already want him dead.  Jesus makes a reference to spreading the ministry to the Greeks.  In the last books of the Old Testament, the Greeks were about as bad as anyone ever got to Jews.

He keeps splitting opinions, but some openly declare him to be the messiah.  Among the religious authorities, Nicodemus stands up for Jesus.

The adulterous woman appears, one of the more curious episodes from John, where people still wonder what it was he wrote in the sand while waiting for someone to cast the first stone.

Jesus describes Satan as both a murderer and the father of lies.  In John, a lot of what he says is in a direct dialogue with the people.  However, when he says, "I am" (in the Old Testament, remember, when God gives himself a name, he uses I Am Who Am, which is usually translated as Yahweh), there are people who want to stone him.

He cures the blind man, who is subsequently subjected to heavy questioning from the religious authorities.

Jesus discusses the Good Shepherd.  John the Baptist is once again invoked as a confirmation, but here it's the same as in the other gospels.

Then we reach Lazarus, whom John identifies as the brother of Mary and Martha.  The sisters Mary and Martha previously appeared in Luke, and the name Lazarus as well, but it's in John where the trio takes on its greatest emphasis.  Not the least because Lazarus dies, and then the shortest and most impactful sentence of the Bible: "Jesus wept."  Then, of course, Jesus resurrects Lazarus.

The religious authorities are fearful that if Jesus's followers become too big, they'll provoke the Romans into destroying everything to quell them.  The high priest unwittingly suggests exactly as has been planned for Jesus all along: that one man die to spare everyone else.

Jesus spends time with Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, and this is where John reaches the point where a woman anoints Jesus.  In fact, John identifies Mary as the woman.

Palm Sunday occurs.  This is said to be a direct response to the resurrection of Lazarus.

Philip pops up again.  John also emphasizes Isaiah more than the other gospels.

The Last Supper occurs, and it's a considerably more elaborate affair, including the washing of the feet and an extended discourse that is more or less Jesus's last testament.  Judas Iscariot is identified as the betrayer, but in such a way that the other apostles would not have blatantly noticed.  (Jesus is a nice guy.)  Those who speak up include Peter, Thomas, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).  It's the first time Thomas appears, because remember, John doesn't give the same apostle rundown as the other gospels.

After the betrayal, during Peter's traditional three-times denial (which John later echoes with three times affirming who Jesus is), there's an unnamed apostle with him, probably intended to be the same as the more famously-unnamed apostle a little later.  This apostle is said to be known by the high priest, which is another significant detail.

Jesus stands before the high priest, then Pilate.  Jesus and Pilate engage in considerable back-and-forth.  John has him uttering a few famous phrases: "What is truth?" and "Here is the man!"

He has Jesus scourged, hoping it will satisfy the religious authorities.  Pilate wants to release him.  "Shall I crucify your king?"  When he finally consents, he has the placard above Jesus's head read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews," and when questioned about this, states, "What I have written, I have written."  None of this is to say that, as in Gospel of Matthew, Pilate outright didn't want to execute Jesus.  History records Pilate to be bloodthirsty.  Perhaps he was merely amusing himself.  Perhaps he allowed Jesus to humor him because it allowed him to have the necessary excuse to conclude the deed.  The Jews could hardly have been allowed to have a king like that.  By calling Jesus the Jewish king, he at once validates the argument and also validates Jesus himself.  A paradox.  He remains faithful to Rome either way.  If he endorses Jesus, he's also having him duly executed.  But it's still an endorsement, no matter how it's viewed.  It's a way of validating a theory I had about certain parallels from the Old Testament, considering the true nature of Jesus's relationship with both Rome and the Jews.  At one point he would have had to be fairly friendly with both, perhaps before or even parallel with the ministry.  When the crucifixion occurs, he needs to be betrayed by both, and so all these efforts to pass judgment from one to the other entity is really a way of saying that neither one really wanted to do it.  But there it was.  It had to happen.

Another of my theories.

Mary (his mother), plus another Mary (Mary's sister), and Mary Magdalene (another Mary) are all present at the crucifixion, along with "the disciple whom he loved."  This disciple, perhaps the same as the earlier unnamed one, is routinely identified with John.  You'll notice that Gospel of John has not even mentioned John, much less his brother James.  Another theory: the other gospels go out of their way to describe the sons of Zebedee as the most unrepentant, obnoxious apostles.  Peter misbehaves repeatedly, but is always redeemed.  Should it be any real surprise if the gospel ascribed to John tries to skirt this controversy, but in a way that actually affirms his reputation?  We'll never know the truth, of course, but it certainly makes sense.  John is traditionally described as the youngest of the apostles.  The lateness of the earliest date for the first appearance of this gospel would have put John at approximately 90 years old.  Likely he would have had someone taking dictation, although if he is indeed both the unnamed disciple and "the one whom he loved," that would also make John the friend of the high priest, which would make him fairly learned as well.

Speculation.

Mary Magdalene discovers the resurrection; Peter and the unnamed beloved apostle race (in Luke it was Peter alone who did this) to confirm it.  Jesus reveals himself to Mary Magdalene directly.  Thomas doubts.  You'll recall that previously when there was doubt at all about the resurrection among the apostles, it was all of them.  Perhaps more impish behavior on the part of John, or perhaps merely the difference between first and second-hand (if even that) knowledge.

The sons of Zebedee are finally referenced, in exactly that way.

Jesus helps the apostles catch fish.  The unnamed apostle is identified as the chief witness of this gospel (giving further circumstantial proof to some of our working theories).  At the end, Jesus remains among them.

Gospel of Luke 1-24

This gospel starts out that a lot of people have written biographies of Jesus already.  Perhaps he's counting the Q Gospel among them?  Or perhaps a whole Q Gospel tradition?  Or perhaps only Q Gospel, Gospel of Matthew, and Gospel of Mark?  Or perhaps just Matthew and Mark.  Who knows?

The narrative really kicks off with the mystical conception of John the Baptist, and then the similar mystical conception of Jesus.  It continues with more John the Baptist origin, and then the longest nativity narrative for Jesus in the four gospels.  As far as the mystical nature of events, Luke certainly prefers that version.  There's also the biggest emphasis on Mary of the four gospels, at least in the early going.  There are also strong Old Testament parallels throughout.  Luke also features the episode concerning the young Jesus in the temple.

Pilate also has added emphasis as far as being mentioned a few extra times goes.

The narrative swings back to John the Baptist.  At this end of this sequence, Herod has him imprisoned.  And, funny or not, but the baptism of Jesus is mentioned as an afterthought.  He's said to be 30 at the start of his ministry, which is where Christians generally get the idea that it lasted about three years and so he died at 33.

Luke then reached his version of the genealogy, which goes all the way to Adam, who is said to be the son of God.

Jesus then enters the 40 days of temptation, and then begins teaching in the synagogues.  People ask, "Is this not Joseph's son?"  Each of the four gospels words this question differently.

Although he has a positive reputation, the more Jesus speaks the more he angers people.  In Luke, Jesus angers people a lot, actually..

He performs an exorcism, cures Peter's mother (which also serves as the introduction of Peter).  The demons keep identifying Jesus as the "Son of God," which Jesus is none too happy about, because he's trying to keep as low a profile as possible.

He departs to a "lonely place" (no relation to John the Baptist's status given), perhaps to try and stop that spread of his reputation.  Peter, James, and John are officially recruited.  He cures the leper and then the paralyzed man.  Religious authorities start to take notice.

Matthew, referenced as Levi, is recruited; religious authorities once again grumble about the company Jesus keeps.

The disciples of John the Baptist are referenced as very much a separate entity to those following Jesus.

The religious authorities have a conniption on the sabbath.

The twelve apostles are listed (Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the Lesser, Simon - described as the Zealot -, Judas - alternate name for Thaddeus -, and Judas Iscariot).  Jesus continues with his ministry as usual, rather than sending them out right away after their mass introduction, which was what Matthew and Mark described.

The centurion's son is cured.  Unnamed man brought back to life.  (Possibly Lazarus.)

John the Baptist is informed of Jesus's ministry.  He wants to know if Jesus is the one he himself had been preaching about.  Here it's once again clear that even well after the death of both John the Baptist and Jesus, John the Baptist remained a significant enough figure where his reputation was in a constant state of flux.  Jesus then speaks of John the Baptist (further emphasizing the latent thread of his life running so heavily through this and the gospels of Matthew and Mark).

The anonymous woman anoints Jesus.

Luke seems to suggest that Peter may have actually been a Pharisee.  That would be news to me.  I may simply be misinterpreting that particular passage.

Mary Magdalene is described as traveling with the apostles, plus a few other women.  They are described as funding the ministry, actually.  Jesus once again disassociates with his mother, despite that heavy emphasis on her earlier.

He calms the stormy sea.  The demon Legion appears, as he did in Mark.  The people this time, however, are described as fearful of Jesus after the incident.

Jesus resurrects the little girl.

He finally sends the apostles on their separate ministries.  In a little bit of an irony, John the Baptist's execution is then referenced in an afterthought.

Jesus feeds the multitudes.  Unlike in Matthew or Mark, in Luke (and John) he does it only once.  The apostles realize who he is.  He explains what's going to happen.  The transfiguration occurs.  Luke has God identifying him here rather than in the more-or-less nonexistent baptism.  The apostles themselves decide to remain mum about it in this account.  Seventy more disciples are recruited, and these are the ones who go out two-by-two in Luke.  Jesus, however, is becoming agitated, anxious.

The story of the Good Samaritan, and then the sisters Mary and Martha, and then the Lord's Prayer

I noticed another historical irony.  Abraham Lincoln famously described the United States during the Civil War as a "house divided that cannot stand."  In Luke a very similar statement is made about Jesus concerning the theory that he casts out demons by the power of demons, thereby making the house of Satan divided against itself.  I don't know if Lincoln made the association deliberately.

Jonah is invoked.

Jesus speaks out against hypocrisy.  "Woe to you for you build the tombs of the prophets whom your father killed."

Luke foreshadows Acts of the Apostles, which tradition has him as also writing.

"You must also be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect."  At this point in Luke, Jesus has so successfully suppressed any talk about who he is, aside from among his apostles, that here it's appropriate to believe Jesus said this rather than John the Baptist in a strange twist of narrating.

Pilate is referenced again.

Jesus performs a cure on the sabbath, angering the religious authorities.

Jesus begins speaking of the kingdom of God, which as I've suggested before may be a code to reference himself.

The story of the Good Shepherd, then the Prodigal Son.  A parable including a man named Lazarus.  In Gospel of John, Lazarus is not only the brother of Mary and Martha, but the man Jesus resurrects.  The cure of the ten lepers, with the one who comes back.  Jesus cures the blind man.  Luke seems to repeat things (so does John).

Palm Sunday occurs.  Then the adult temple incident.  (Here's another perfect little bit of biblical symmetry, which is all the more appropriate in Luke.)  Then the Last Supper.  In Luke, Jesus often goes to the Mount of Olives, which he does again after the Last Supper.

He stands before the high priest, and then Pilate, and then Herod, and then Pilate again.  One of the thieves is redeemed at the crucifixion.  The women who witness it are anonymous, until Mary Magdalene is later identified once the resurrection occurs.  Peter runs to confirm it.  The anonymous disciples have a mystical experience with Jesus on the road to Emmaus.  Jesus ascends into Heaven.

I want to conclude my thoughts on Luke by identifying for myself who each of the evangelists to this point were writing to.  Matthew seems to be a former Jew, and perhaps attempting to address the same.  Mark is perhaps a Greek, and addressing the same.  Luke is said to be a disciple of Paul, and so is addressing whoever Paul has been converting.  These are my running theories, at any rate.

Gospel of Mark 1-16

The oldest of the canonical gospels comes second in the New Testament, and as has been noted by scholars seems to form part of the source for both Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke owing to the incredible amount of similar material between them.  If you've ever heard the talk about another source called the Q Gospel, I'll be bringing up my idea for that later on.  For now, the Gospel of Mark:

It begins by invoking Isaiah to introduce John the Baptist.  This is no great surprise.  There's no nativity narrative for Jesus at all, no explanation for where he came from.  He simply appears for the baptism scene as also featured in Matthew.

Needless to say, there's a lot of familiar material, including the sequence of events.

Following the baptism is the 40 days in the wilderness and temptation by Satan.

John the Baptist is arrested, and Jesus proclaims, "The kingdom of God is at hand," which is a subtle shift but certainly supports my belief that the phrase "kingdom of God" is very much like "Son of man" as far as Jesus is concerned.

He recruits Peter, Andrew, James, and John as he does in Matthew.

He teaches in the synagogue, performs exorcisms, cures Peter's mother, cures the leper.  Among the variations is a stronger focus on Jesus attempting to hide who he is, and a general de-emphasis on his growing frustrations.  In a lot of ways, Matthew can be said to be a flourish of Mark (one that also puts a heavy emphasis on the connection to Jewish beliefs, which Mark will shortly demonstrate as certainly no great concern of his).

He cures the paralyzed man.  The religious authorities begin to speak ill of him.  Matthew is identified as Levi.  Religious authorities again question his taste in associations immediately after.

Another considerable mark of distinction between Mark and Matthew is Mark's pointed reference to John the Baptist's disciples actually siding with the religious authorities.  I'll speak more about the significance of this in a little bit.

Jesus begins openly identifying himself, cures a withered hand on the sabbath, which provokes the religious authorities to actively plot against him.

More cures and exorcisms.

The twelve apostles are once again named, and are immediately sent out to perform works similar to what Jesus has been doing,  Jesus's mother is referenced in the same way as she was in Matthew, and in this one hasn't even been named.  In fact, unless you're willing to interpret her in a way that is not at all popular among Catholics, she's never named at all in Mark.

There are parables.  He calms the stormy sea.  Another feature unique to Mark is the demon who identifies itself as Legion, "for we are many."  It may be a symbolic feature for all those who doubt Jesus.  It may also be a case of biblical schizophrenia.

As in Matthew, Jesus is all but described as resurrecting a dead little girl.  People begin to ask, who is this guy and how did he become so wise and stuff?  He's called "the carpenter" (rather than "the carpenter's son, as in Matthew), and also referenced with Mary and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon.  (Catholics prefer the idea of perpetual virginity in Mary, although there is the tradition that Jesus in fact had several brothers; Reza Aslan contends that the James who becomes prominent later in the New Testament, in Acts and Letter of James, is in fact Jesus's brother, although he is not one of the apostles, even though there are two James there.)

The apostles are sent out again, two by two.  Jesus has become such a known commodity at this point, Herod wonders if he's the resurrected John the Baptist.  Mark only mentioned what happened to John the Baptist as an aside.  Unlike in Matthew, then, the immediate transition to Jesus seeking a "lonely place" has nothing to do with learning about John the Baptist's death.

Jesus walks on water.  He rebukes the religious authorities, saying they prefer human tradition rather than the way of God.

He cures the daughter of the Gentile, although in Mark he's identified as Greek.  He cures the deaf man.  He feeds a multitude twice.  He suggests there's a reason why he did it twice.  The first time, there were 12 baskets of food left over, the second time 7 baskets.  I'm just shooting in the dark here, but perhaps this is supposed to mean the first time he was speaking to the Jews (12 tribes of Israel) and the second time to everyone (7 as in every day of the week or, well, everyone).

His apostles realize who he is.  He discusses his impending fate.  The reference to the kingdom of God coming appears again, as in Matthew.  Then the transfiguration.  Then the oath to hide that this happened until after the resurrection.  He does grow publicly frustrated, but the emphasis is not nearly as strong as in Matthew.  Although funny enough for these schismatic Christian times of ours, he insists that, "He that is not against us is for us," meaning that if anyone is promoting Jesus they ought to be accepted, no matter if they're part of "our" circle or not (a problem even Acts reflects at the very beginning).

He rejects Moses doctrine, going so far as to say it wasn't even God who gave that particular command, but rather Moses himself.

He cures the blind man.

Palm Sunday occurs (with its unfortunate echo later after the scourging as well).  He curses the fig tree.  Unlike Matthew, there's a follow-up to this moment.  Then the temple incident.

Christians love the "cornerstone" reference Jesus borrows from the Old Testament, but the greater point he makes is actually far more significant.  The parable itself is known well enough, which reflects a series of individuals sent out to deliver a message and each of them is murdered, including the son of the man sending all these people.  The point of the parable is that God has sent all these messengers, too, including Jesus, who is murdered by his own chosen people, the Jews.  This is the point of departure from Jesus attempting to fulfill Jewish prophecy to starting his own divergent religion, Christianity, because what he's saying here is that the Jews are no longer the chosen people, but rather, basically, everyone else.

(Jews, naturally, would prefer not to believe that.)

This, by the way, is described by Mark as the first time the religious authorities attempt to arrest Jesus.  And no wonder!  They try to make it a Roman issue, then a theological issue.  The people, meanwhile, only love Jesus more.

It's at this point that I'll finally talk about my Q Gospel theory.  Basically, as Gospel of Matthew made perfectly obvious and Mark here as well (remember, this one was written earlier), the early Christians likely had as much faith in the legacy of John the Baptist as Jesus.  I submit that Q Gospel was a joint biography.  In early Christianity, it would have been rash for Jesus to speak out against Rome, and that seems like something that was edited or obscured out of the narrative.  So too the intermingling of John the Baptist and Jesus's ministries.  Christians in the first century would have known all about the Q Gospel.  It's why the three gospels that follow distance themselves from it while still obviously using it as a source.  They realized that John the Baptist at some point had to be downplayed but not completely forgotten.  It's not surprising that the fourth attempt, the Gospel of John, is so different, and the only one claimed to have come from one of Jesus's actual followers, and is filled with unique biographical material.  Or that later, noncanonical gospels are so wildly divergent from the four canonical ones.  As the effort to present a portrait of Jesus himself became more important, he was more and more distanced from John the Baptist.  It would be very interesting to read the Q Gospel.  I would be willing to bet that a lot of the Jesus narrative is in fact derived from John the Baptist's (in Luke, for instance, the unmistakable piggybacking concerning how they are born).  This is not to say we must toss everything out that we believe about one or the other, or that questions of this kind invalidates faith in any way.  But that there are things we will never know for certain about John the Baptist and about Jesus.  When the four gospels were written, it was dangerous to be completely truthful.  The Romans persecuted the Christians enough as it was.  And that's just one way the record was distorted.

Now that I've discussed the the theoretical Q Gospel, back to Gospel of Mark.

The same anonymous woman anoints Jesus, as in Matthew.  Judas decides to betray Jesus.  The Last Supper occurs, as detailed in Matthew.  Jesus suffers in Gethsemane.  He appears before the high priest, then Pilate, although while he struggles as before Pilate this time in no way absolves himself of his ultimate decision.

Mary Magdalene, as in Matthew, is present at the crucifixion, along with, this time, a Mary who is described as the mother of James the Younger, Joses, and Salome.  If you want to entertain thoughts popularized by The Da Vinci Code, you certainly also have in Mary Magdalene, emphasized in Mark as the first person, alone this time, to see Jesus resurrected, the possible wife of Jesus, quite an honor for an apparently random witness of the two climactic events.  Further suggestions for the other Mary now have two gospels with another Mary present at the crucifixion where tradition (and Gospel of John) has Mary the mother of Jesus present.  Not to step on too many toes...

For the record, the only mark of distinction Mark gives Mary Magdalene otherwise is that Jesus "had cast out seven demons" from her.

The eleven remaining apostles are described as not believing in the resurrection until they see Jesus for themselves.  By the end of Mark, Jesus ascends into heaven.

Gospel of Matthew 1-28

This is the perfect lead-in to the New Testament, considering its obsession with the Old Testament, and that's the best way to introduce the Gospel of Matthew.

It begins with the first of two genealogies in the gospels, which is something that both reflects a classic element of the Old Testament as well as prove that Jesus was descended from the house of David, which was one of the many prophesies this gospel seems intent to point out as fulfilled.

It has a nativity sequence, featuring Joseph's doubts, the wise men, the wicked Herod, the flight to Egypt (of course!).

Then a shift to John the Baptist.  We'll talk more about him a little later, but given the emphasis Reza Aslan put on him in Zealot, I can't help but see the Baptist in a different light.  He's always been prominent in Christian lore, but as Aslan depicts him, he was actually a pretty big deal in his day, to the point where he threatened to eclipse Jesus even after his ministry and crucifixion.  It's no wonder, then, that he keeps randomly appearing in this gospel.

He's the first one, by the way, in Matthew, to preach against corrupt religious leaders, a refrain Jesus enthusiastically picks up.

And then Jesus is baptized by him, of course.

Jesus then departs for the wilderness, where he stays for 40 days and is tempted by Satan.  As with many elements of the Bible, this reads like an echo of how his ministry will end, so there's suffering at both ends.

His basic message is, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."  Although "his," I would argue, and I'll get back to this, isn't Jesus, but John the Baptist.

Jesus recruits Peter, Andrew, James, and John, the core and most famous apostles.  He begins his ministry in earnest, curing people and teaching in synagogues.  He delivers the Sermon on the Mount, which includes the Lord's Prayer (and the phrase "pearls before swine," which has since become the title of a delightful comic strip).  He talks so much, it's exactly like all the prophets in the Old Testament.

A leper is cured.  The centurion's servant is cured.  Peter's mother is cured.  There are exorcisms by the boatload.  Jesus uses the phrase "Son of man."  He calms the stormy sea.  He cures the paralyzed man.  He recruits Matthew, which begins the theme of the religious authorities challenging him that runs through the rest of the gospel.  Not coincidentally, after this he cures a blind man and asks him not to talk about it.  He realizes, perhaps, that he's doing everything necessary to provoke his bad end, but the time isn't right yet, so now he has to try and prevent word from continuing to spread.  Except Jesus became human for a trap.  And at least in Matthew he just keeps walking into them.  He can't help himself.

The twelve apostles are named in full: Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, the other James, Thaddeus, Simon, and the notorious Judas Iscariot.  At this point none of them has really done anything.  Jesus sends them out to do the same stuff he's been doing.

John the Baptist is brought up again.  He seems to need reassurance as to who Jesus is.

Jesus becomes increasingly anxious about his ministry.  After he flat-out calls himself the Son of God, the religious authorities actively begin looking for ways to dispose of him.  He keeps trying to keep a low profile.

Jesus alludes to his impending fate, but this talk increases as the danger increases.

Interestingly, the only other time Mary appears in this gospel she isn't even identified by name but rather in her blood relation to Jesus.  And as he's asked his followers to do previously, Jesus distances himself from her.

There are a lot of parables.  This reading is also the first time that I seriously considered the idea that he's really talking about himself in them.  "Kingdom of heaven" is a way of referring to himself, then, like "Son of man."  He's the last royal figure the world will ever truly need, then, which is majestically and then cruelly demonstrated later in the gospel.

But few people really seem to know who he was, in this gospel, before the ministry.  "Is not this the carpenter's son?"  He himself doesn't even have a reputation!  Later, there's even talk that he's dismissed as a glutton and a drunk.  Just what was Jesus doing for his first thirty years, anyway?

John the Baptist is executed.  Like Jesus later he requires special justification and hand-ringing on the part of the figure who condemns him.

Jesus retreats after learning this news.  He then feeds a multitude with a small amount of food for the first time.  Then he walks on water.

He's also, however, growing increasingly frustrated.  Quite remarkably, from this point on in the gospel, actually, Jesus can be described as quite frustrated indeed.  It becomes his defining characteristic.  It's also at this point that he shifts the focus of his ministry to the Gentiles (i.e. Not Jews).  Previously he was quite insistent that he was coming to speak to Jews only, much like everyone in the Old Testament, and that everything that was old was new again.  But in fact he's making that a very literal development.

He feeds a multitude with a small amount of food again.

He keeps invoking Jonah, too, especially the whole "three days" period.  I suppose it's pretty obvious.

He makes it clear to his apostles who he is, and then tells them about what awaits him.  Then Jesus performs the transfiguration, in which it's really obvious that he's more than human.

He keeps trying to explain himself.  The religious authorities begin to test him openly.  It's funny, though, and appropriate, that Jesus has a lot of compassion for his apostles, although he shares the Old Testament virtue of favoring humbleness.  In the Old Testament, compassion was something often suggested but rarely practiced.

Palm Sunday occurs, the one time Jesus gets to enjoy what it's like to be apparently universally loved.  Then he causes a scene in the temple.  He's building the case against himself all by himself.

He becomes angry with a fig tree.  But really he's becoming more nervous about actually experiencing what he's been headed toward all his life.

As if to emphasis the curious link I've been making, he challenges the religious authorities concerning the legacy of John the Baptist.  So they decide to try and make it a Roman issue.

He talks about the end of days.  Although, "he" I think doesn't actually refer to Jesus but John the Baptist.  I know I'm going against classic theology again here, but the words he speaks at this point don't make any sense.  They make much more sense if you suspect the author of this gospel to have also been drawing from the legacy of John the Baptist, remembering his ministry, and having gotten them a little jumbled.  It would make sense.  In the earliest days of the emerging Christianity, they were trying to figure out what it all meant.  That was why they needed the gospel narratives.  Matthew is not the earliest one, but it's clearly the one that concerned itself most with the old faith and the transition to the new one Jesus represented.  John the Baptist is identified as Elijah here, one of the criteria for the coming of the messiah, which some of Jesus's own apostles think he embodies.  All this talk about "within this generation" would certainly have sturdy qualifications if referring not to a second coming but the first appearance, the crucial ministry itself, and thus must necessarily come from the mouth of John the Baptist.  Perhaps I will have further insight reading the other gospels.

Jesus is anointed by an anonymous woman, sometimes interpreted to be Mary Magdalene.  But this is an action that has the same symbolic weight as the visit of the wise men at the start of this gospel.

Judas betrays him for 30 pieces of silver.

The Last Supper occurs with the classic elements for Catholic mass introduced.  Jesus predicts Peter will deny him.  He suffers his worst moment of the gospel in the garden of Gethsemane, his supreme moment of doubt.  He's brought before the high priest.  He's brought before Pilate.  Pilate declares himself innocent.  After the scourging Jesus receives mock royal treatment.  Simon of Cyrene appears to help carry the cross.  The two robbers are referenced (but neither has a redemptive moment in this gospel).  Jesus is distraught on the cross.  After his death, it's a centurion who figures out what just happened.

Those present at the crucifixion are identified as Mary Magdalene, plus a Mary who is described as the mother of James and Joseph (whoever they are), and also the mother of James and John, the apostles frequently referred to as the sons of Zebedee.  Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate for the body of Jesus.  Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" witness the resurrection, are later met by Jesus.  The religious authorities, incredibly, still conspire against him, trying to discredit the resurrection.  Jesus meets the remaining apostles on a mountain, asks them to spread the faith to all nations.  At the end of this gospel, he's still among them.

First Book of Maccabees 6-16, Second Book of Maccabees 1-15

As we pick First Maccabees back up, there's a lawless and ungodly man who wants to be high priest seeking favors from Rome, by speaking against Judas Maccabeus and his cause.

More talk of Rome, in relation to campaigns in Gaul and Spain.  The modern world is emerging!  Rome looks so good, Judas entreats peace from it.  But after many spectacular military campaigns he dies in battle.  "Now the rest of the acts of Judas, and his wars and the brave deeds that he did, and his greatness, have not been recorded, for they were very many."  A statement that sounds a lot like how the Gospel of John ends.

There's a Canaanite wedding that turns into something else entirely.

Two remaining sons of Mattathias, Jonathan and Simon, succeed Judas, one after the other; so, similar success.  Jonathan is so successful he wins peace and becomes a judge, real old school biblical, and then high priest.

Cleopatra is mentioned.  This is one of the ways Egypt remains relevant to the biblical narrative well after Exodus.

Concerning Jonathan: "And when his accusers saw the honor that was paid him, in accordance with the proclamation, and saw him clothed in purple, they all fled."

It's lines like that that make it clear how Jesus in the New Testament was cannily presented in such a way that reflected as much Old Testament as possible, to make it clear the contrast and transition between them.

All the twists and turns of fortune make First Maccabees sound ripe for Shakespearean drama.

Jonathan ends up murdered in a slaughter.  But this is okay, since pyramids are finally referenced in the Bible as a result (any modern individual automatically associates Egyptians with pyramids, so their absence in the Moses narrative will always be peculiar).  "The land had rest all the days of Simon," who became high priest.  But he still ends up killed in treachery.  There are parallels here to Joseph among the Egyptians, the start of the Babylonian era, more of the parallels that exist all over the place.

There was was originally a continuation of this narrative in a chronicle of Simon's son John's time as high priest.

Judas Maccabeus is far less famous a biblical figure than just about anyone else in the Old Testament, and yet he is such a classic figure, comparable to anyone from Joshua to David.  He would clearly have been a candidate for the prophesied messiah.  But he's also a symbol of the futility of the old ways, even though he and his two brothers had such great success.  There's even a line in there about prophets just as if that era was clearly not over, as if to make it clear he was no one's answer to the ultimate prophecy.  Except in so many ways he clearly was, the last of the classical biblical figures.  But if war were no longer the answer...

Second Maccabees is not a continuation but an apparently entirely separate account.  It begins as a letter to Jews in Egypt.  This is fitting in so many ways.  Not the least because the New Testament would later end in a series of letters.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jeremiah, Solomon, and David are all invoked, but Nehemiah receives special emphasis for whatever reason.

Second Maccabees is apparently a condensed version of a five-volume account on the days of Judas Maccabeus by Jason of Cyrene.  It features an elaborate prelude that further evokes the earlier tempting of the Babylonians when a foolish man bungles the presence of treasure in the temple.  It should be noted that Mattathias is never mentioned in this account.

"Olympian" Zeus is referenced by name.  He's described as the "Friend of Strangers."  Doubtless a way to sell him to people outside the Greek tradition.  It should be noted here that the close association between Greeks and Romans in Maccabees is no mistake.  The Romans adapted their whole pantheon of gods from the Greeks.  As the Greeks try to convert everyone to their pantheon, that's what causes all the problems in the Maccabees saga.  From studying Greek mythology itself, I can only say that the actual history of it is rarely brought up, other than the classic myths themselves.  It's funny, because at least in Oliver Stone's Alexander, belief in the gods at the time of Alexander the Great, who is the first person discussed in First Maccabees, is no longer taken literally.  Alexander lived many centuries after the events depicted in The Iliad, which is in some ways the final statement on Greek gods.

Though perhaps it's fitting that the next Greek god referenced is Dionysus.  The wild baccanalias held in his honor were basically the ancient world's frat parties, although they were in relation to secret religious ceremonies that may be relevant in this context.  It would be no wonder that Jews had no interest in such things.

The noble martyrdom of Eleazar is described, which is kind of like the first Christian martyr Stephen's in Acts.  This leads into the more classic sacrifice of the seven brothers, who each die professing their Jewish faith while also discussing the doctrine of resurrection and/or eternal life.  Their mother, meanwhile, "fired her woman's reasoning with a man's courage."

By the end of Second Maccabees, Judas Maccabeus is actually still alive.

I suppose it ought to be noted that Second Maccabees also helps serve as the historic foundation of Hanukkah (Adam Sandler's "Eight Crazy Nights," or "Jewish Christmas").

And thus ends the Old Testament.

Book of Zechariah 1-14, Book of Malachi 1-4, First Book of Maccabees 1-5

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.

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...

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.