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.
Showing posts with label Baruch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baruch. Show all posts
Friday, January 24, 2014
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Book of Jeremiah 36-52, Lamentations 1-5
Baruch shows up again and starts to do actual things. Such as act very much like Aaron to Jeremiah's Moses.
Jeremiah utters, "What wrong have I done to you or your servants, or the people, that you have put me in prison?" Then a little later, it's said of him, "Let this man be put to death, for he is weakening the hands of the soldiers who are left in the city, and the hands of all the people by speaking such words to them. For this man is not seeking the welfare of this people, but their harm." Sounds a lot like Jesus foreshadowing to me.
Jeremiah is then thrown into the pit. It's Ebedmelech the Ethiopian who gets him out.
The further Jesus analogy in this scenario is Nebuchadnezzar in the Pontius Pilate role. In fact, the whole depiction of Pilate could very well have been drawn from Book of Jeremiah. As historians are increasingly quick to note, the real Pilate would never even have thought twice about executing Jesus.
I have a correction to make about the earlier reference to "queen of heaven." Now I'm interpreting to have always been an Egyptian reference, likely to Isis. Egypt is prominent in Jeremiah.
In the litany of terrors against nations that helps comprise Book of Jeremiah (it seems obvious that several separate works were at some point combined), there's the suggestion that the conclusion of the Esau legacy is finally reached. You'll remember that although Jacob's brother did actually get to enjoy prosperity through the generations his adventures disappear from the Bible soon after.
The variations of this book from earlier biblical record continue: the end of the Babylonian exile is far less mutual and more like rats fleeing a sinking ship, with Babylon meeting the same sorry fate as other nations in the litany of doom and woe. I'd suggest that it seems obvious some or all of this was written well after the fact, even there's at least one line ("Thus far are the words of Jeremiah") that would try and suggest otherwise. Most of the books of the Bible probably didn't exist in direct awareness of each other much less reflect a lot of direct record. It's hard enough to authenticate such things in the New Testament.
Sodom and Gomorrah, however, are clearly part of the tradition everyone knows at least by name (some suggestions made here indicate varying reasons never actually given as to why they were so famously smited), as they are referenced several times in Book of Jeremiah.
I imagine one way or another that this is not a favorite book of Iraqis. Although funny enough, and maybe I said this already, but Abraham's ziggurat is in Iraq.
It ends funny, though. Jeremiah abruptly disappears (to say nothing of an earlier and random sequence involving a bloody warrior named Ishmael). It rewinds back to the very start of the Babylonian saga, right after having apparently closed the book of Babylon itself.
Lamentations, traditionally ascribed to Jeremiah but clearly not by him, is a, well, poetic lament about the destruction of Jerusalem, and even a moment of religious doubt (which suggests people generally did believe what they were supposed to believe with or without Jeremiah), some lines of general woe concerning the exile era.
Jeremiah utters, "What wrong have I done to you or your servants, or the people, that you have put me in prison?" Then a little later, it's said of him, "Let this man be put to death, for he is weakening the hands of the soldiers who are left in the city, and the hands of all the people by speaking such words to them. For this man is not seeking the welfare of this people, but their harm." Sounds a lot like Jesus foreshadowing to me.
Jeremiah is then thrown into the pit. It's Ebedmelech the Ethiopian who gets him out.
The further Jesus analogy in this scenario is Nebuchadnezzar in the Pontius Pilate role. In fact, the whole depiction of Pilate could very well have been drawn from Book of Jeremiah. As historians are increasingly quick to note, the real Pilate would never even have thought twice about executing Jesus.
I have a correction to make about the earlier reference to "queen of heaven." Now I'm interpreting to have always been an Egyptian reference, likely to Isis. Egypt is prominent in Jeremiah.
In the litany of terrors against nations that helps comprise Book of Jeremiah (it seems obvious that several separate works were at some point combined), there's the suggestion that the conclusion of the Esau legacy is finally reached. You'll remember that although Jacob's brother did actually get to enjoy prosperity through the generations his adventures disappear from the Bible soon after.
The variations of this book from earlier biblical record continue: the end of the Babylonian exile is far less mutual and more like rats fleeing a sinking ship, with Babylon meeting the same sorry fate as other nations in the litany of doom and woe. I'd suggest that it seems obvious some or all of this was written well after the fact, even there's at least one line ("Thus far are the words of Jeremiah") that would try and suggest otherwise. Most of the books of the Bible probably didn't exist in direct awareness of each other much less reflect a lot of direct record. It's hard enough to authenticate such things in the New Testament.
Sodom and Gomorrah, however, are clearly part of the tradition everyone knows at least by name (some suggestions made here indicate varying reasons never actually given as to why they were so famously smited), as they are referenced several times in Book of Jeremiah.
I imagine one way or another that this is not a favorite book of Iraqis. Although funny enough, and maybe I said this already, but Abraham's ziggurat is in Iraq.
It ends funny, though. Jeremiah abruptly disappears (to say nothing of an earlier and random sequence involving a bloody warrior named Ishmael). It rewinds back to the very start of the Babylonian saga, right after having apparently closed the book of Babylon itself.
Lamentations, traditionally ascribed to Jeremiah but clearly not by him, is a, well, poetic lament about the destruction of Jerusalem, and even a moment of religious doubt (which suggests people generally did believe what they were supposed to believe with or without Jeremiah), some lines of general woe concerning the exile era.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Book of Jeremiah 16-35
Narrative interruptions are a marked difference between Book of Isaiah and Book of Jeremiah, among other things. They're far more common in Jeremiah, to the point where it begins to read like a third version of Kings/Chronicles (yay!). Which also has the effect of my having less to talk about.
Although the one interesting part of that, as in the difference between Kings and Chronicles (where Jeremiah grows in prominence in the latter), is that our man becomes that much more central to the story. It also means he gets in trouble for his prophecies of doom. It's the difference between sitting there writing commentaries and being out on the street talking about how bad everyone is compared to what they should be like if they truly consider themselves God's people. In other words, the main distinction (which I believe I'm reiterating) of this book is that it's the guy telling people who don't want to hear about what's going wrong versus preaching to the choir (which is what we imagine similar books to be).
Upper rooms are mentioned. An upper room is central to the story of the Last Supper in the New Testament, you'll remember. Clearly they're an institution of households for some time.
Micah is referenced as a precedent to the kind of work Jeremiah is doing.
Uriah is another. He's murdered for his efforts. Poor Uriah!
The false prophet Hananiah, who speaks of peace (again, that disparity between what religious people today think of peace and war and what religious people back then thought of the same things), is used to illustrate all the false prophets Jeremiah is meant to counterbalance.
Shenaiah is another false prophet. These dueling prophets are almost like what the New Testament would have read like it it had included all the people who claimed to be the messiah at the same time as Jesus (as humorously depicted in Life of Brian)..
Hopefully, Jeremiah speaks of days to come where God will no longer be punishing his people, which Christians would describe as the era Jesus utters, breaking the old cycle, a suggestion already brought up previously in the Old Testament.
Baruch is mentioned. Like Micah, he has his own book later on in the Bible. Right after Lamentations, in fact, in my edition.
Although the one interesting part of that, as in the difference between Kings and Chronicles (where Jeremiah grows in prominence in the latter), is that our man becomes that much more central to the story. It also means he gets in trouble for his prophecies of doom. It's the difference between sitting there writing commentaries and being out on the street talking about how bad everyone is compared to what they should be like if they truly consider themselves God's people. In other words, the main distinction (which I believe I'm reiterating) of this book is that it's the guy telling people who don't want to hear about what's going wrong versus preaching to the choir (which is what we imagine similar books to be).
Upper rooms are mentioned. An upper room is central to the story of the Last Supper in the New Testament, you'll remember. Clearly they're an institution of households for some time.
Micah is referenced as a precedent to the kind of work Jeremiah is doing.
Uriah is another. He's murdered for his efforts. Poor Uriah!
The false prophet Hananiah, who speaks of peace (again, that disparity between what religious people today think of peace and war and what religious people back then thought of the same things), is used to illustrate all the false prophets Jeremiah is meant to counterbalance.
Shenaiah is another false prophet. These dueling prophets are almost like what the New Testament would have read like it it had included all the people who claimed to be the messiah at the same time as Jesus (as humorously depicted in Life of Brian)..
Hopefully, Jeremiah speaks of days to come where God will no longer be punishing his people, which Christians would describe as the era Jesus utters, breaking the old cycle, a suggestion already brought up previously in the Old Testament.
Baruch is mentioned. Like Micah, he has his own book later on in the Bible. Right after Lamentations, in fact, in my edition.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Book of Nehemiah 1-13, Book of Tobit 1-14
Apparently it's in Book of Nehemiah where the term "Jews" first appears in the Bible. I would assume, and maybe this is obvious and well-known already, that it's derived from "Jerusalem," much like Salem is from the other end.
This is a first-person account, although it's not Nehemiah's account, which would have been the obvious belief until Nehemiah himself is referenced later a couple of times and clearly not the speaking party. Whoever the speaker is, he was the cupbearer of Artaxerxes.
This is a book that takes another look at the reconstruction efforts in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. Like previous examples, it's not exactly the same version we've seen before.
I was struck with the idea that this version makes it sounds a lot like Jesus in the New Testament when he talks about tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in three days. Christians understand this to reference his later passion, but now I'm thinking it might just as easily have been the idea that a motivated people could make a job like that look easy, which is how the reconstruction efforts look like here, a whole cascade of helpers spontaneously taking up work wherever it's needed. I'm not saying Jesus was definitely talking like that, but after reading this book, it's not an inconceivable suggestion. There are doubters who scoff at these efforts, too.
"Should such a man as I...?" is another classic bit of Jewish phrasing, the second such instance I've come across so far. Since Jews are still talking like this today, clearly it's a long-standing part of the culture, as much as the faith aspects.
Some of the doubters suspect that a revitalized Jerusalem might lead to the same war-like tendencies of Hebrews past. So all that fighting in previous books, stretching across generations, certainly left an impression on the neighbors.
Tobias is referenced. It's not clear if it's the same one from the Book of Tobit, but probably it is. Ezra is referenced, too, and then it becomes almost a complete restating of the Book of Ezra, with more emphasis, ironically, on Ezra himself. Zechariah, Baruch, Joel, Jeremiah, and Iddo are also referenced. This is a good time for names to leave an impression in the Jewish tradition! Most of them (Iddo is the exception) have their own books in the Bible.
It becomes somewhat clear that this book was written outside of direct knowledge of prior books now included in the Bible, especially when it's stated within it that at least one of the books of Moses was read again for the first time. There's a marked difference, too, in the way it's written, more as a record than history, the difference being how God is active in the history books while he's not in a record of this kind.
The Book of Tobit is a little like the Book of Ruth (without something as obvious as the origins of David hidden within it), not vital in establishing a part of Jewish lore so much as illustrating Jewish life, so it's generally considered apocryphal. It's also a favorite of mine dating back to college, when I also read Frederick Buechner's On the Road with the Archangel, which is based on it.
Tobit, basically, is the rare faithful Jew. It's the time of the exile, although Tobit himself is apparently taken captive by the Assyrians in Ninevah. He's the father of Tobias, who will in short order become the main subject of the book.
Pentecost is referenced. I always thought of that as a Christian holiday, but apparently it was originally Jewish.
The prophecy of Amos is referenced. Amos also has a book later in the Bible.
Tobit's main action in the story is his penchant for burying the corpses of fallen comrades who have been martyred by the Assyrians, who don't much want him to be doing that, so he's always close to getting in trouble for it. He does wind up blind, which is fine because later in the book he's cured of that.
"Command that I now be released from my distress to go to the eternal abode," he says, referencing perhaps the first suggestion that the heavens have given way to Heaven in the Jewish faith by the time this was composed.
Tobias's future bride is Sarah, who has already lost seven husbands thanks to the demon Asmodeus. This is okay, because someone named Raphael is soon going to help with that, plus Tobit's blindness. Who's Raphael? The first named angel of the Bible! One of seven holy angels. Another thing referenced for the first time is the concept of saints. There's also a fish that nearly swallows Tobias, much as Jonah is in his own book. But don't think about the size of this one, or if it's a whale, because Tobias and Raphael end up eating it.
The phrase, "eat, drink, and be merry" is uttered. Tobias invokes Adam and Eve when delivering an ode to matrimony. Tobit an ode, too, and says, "Many nations will come from afar to the name of the Lord," once more giving rise to the belief right there in the Old Testament that one day gentiles would be included in the faith (which is known as Christianity).
"Hallelujah" is uttered. Jonah is referenced directly. This one may not be considered essential, but it's certainly a good one to see the workings of everyday Judaism. It's also a fine break into narrative that doesn't have anything to do with bad kings. And that's a mighty fine relief at this point!
This is a first-person account, although it's not Nehemiah's account, which would have been the obvious belief until Nehemiah himself is referenced later a couple of times and clearly not the speaking party. Whoever the speaker is, he was the cupbearer of Artaxerxes.
This is a book that takes another look at the reconstruction efforts in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. Like previous examples, it's not exactly the same version we've seen before.
I was struck with the idea that this version makes it sounds a lot like Jesus in the New Testament when he talks about tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in three days. Christians understand this to reference his later passion, but now I'm thinking it might just as easily have been the idea that a motivated people could make a job like that look easy, which is how the reconstruction efforts look like here, a whole cascade of helpers spontaneously taking up work wherever it's needed. I'm not saying Jesus was definitely talking like that, but after reading this book, it's not an inconceivable suggestion. There are doubters who scoff at these efforts, too.
"Should such a man as I...?" is another classic bit of Jewish phrasing, the second such instance I've come across so far. Since Jews are still talking like this today, clearly it's a long-standing part of the culture, as much as the faith aspects.
Some of the doubters suspect that a revitalized Jerusalem might lead to the same war-like tendencies of Hebrews past. So all that fighting in previous books, stretching across generations, certainly left an impression on the neighbors.
Tobias is referenced. It's not clear if it's the same one from the Book of Tobit, but probably it is. Ezra is referenced, too, and then it becomes almost a complete restating of the Book of Ezra, with more emphasis, ironically, on Ezra himself. Zechariah, Baruch, Joel, Jeremiah, and Iddo are also referenced. This is a good time for names to leave an impression in the Jewish tradition! Most of them (Iddo is the exception) have their own books in the Bible.
It becomes somewhat clear that this book was written outside of direct knowledge of prior books now included in the Bible, especially when it's stated within it that at least one of the books of Moses was read again for the first time. There's a marked difference, too, in the way it's written, more as a record than history, the difference being how God is active in the history books while he's not in a record of this kind.
The Book of Tobit is a little like the Book of Ruth (without something as obvious as the origins of David hidden within it), not vital in establishing a part of Jewish lore so much as illustrating Jewish life, so it's generally considered apocryphal. It's also a favorite of mine dating back to college, when I also read Frederick Buechner's On the Road with the Archangel, which is based on it.
Tobit, basically, is the rare faithful Jew. It's the time of the exile, although Tobit himself is apparently taken captive by the Assyrians in Ninevah. He's the father of Tobias, who will in short order become the main subject of the book.
Pentecost is referenced. I always thought of that as a Christian holiday, but apparently it was originally Jewish.
The prophecy of Amos is referenced. Amos also has a book later in the Bible.
Tobit's main action in the story is his penchant for burying the corpses of fallen comrades who have been martyred by the Assyrians, who don't much want him to be doing that, so he's always close to getting in trouble for it. He does wind up blind, which is fine because later in the book he's cured of that.
"Command that I now be released from my distress to go to the eternal abode," he says, referencing perhaps the first suggestion that the heavens have given way to Heaven in the Jewish faith by the time this was composed.
Tobias's future bride is Sarah, who has already lost seven husbands thanks to the demon Asmodeus. This is okay, because someone named Raphael is soon going to help with that, plus Tobit's blindness. Who's Raphael? The first named angel of the Bible! One of seven holy angels. Another thing referenced for the first time is the concept of saints. There's also a fish that nearly swallows Tobias, much as Jonah is in his own book. But don't think about the size of this one, or if it's a whale, because Tobias and Raphael end up eating it.
The phrase, "eat, drink, and be merry" is uttered. Tobias invokes Adam and Eve when delivering an ode to matrimony. Tobit an ode, too, and says, "Many nations will come from afar to the name of the Lord," once more giving rise to the belief right there in the Old Testament that one day gentiles would be included in the faith (which is known as Christianity).
"Hallelujah" is uttered. Jonah is referenced directly. This one may not be considered essential, but it's certainly a good one to see the workings of everyday Judaism. It's also a fine break into narrative that doesn't have anything to do with bad kings. And that's a mighty fine relief at this point!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)