"By his power he stilled the sea." Jesus famously performed this act in the gospels.
Job's laments are eventually answered in a mainstream Jewish perspective, and then by God as if in a final test. And then he gets everything he lost right back. And thus ends the Book of Job.
Psalms is a bunch of psalms, a hundred and fifty of them, although thematically they're incredibly similar to Book of Job, which is hugely apparent when you read them back-to-back. Historically they're associated with David, although not all of them date back to him.
Psalm 16 is very reminiscent of the 23rd Psalm.
Psalm 18 is a little like a whole New Testament preview, and even evokes Paul's later "I have run the race" lyrical statement.
Psalm 22 includes the phrase, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Psalm 31 includes, "Into thy hand I commit my spirit." Psalm 22 is rich in Christian theology of the suffering servant variety, evoking the Isaiah prophecies.
Psalm 27 reads like a sequel to the 23rd Psalm.
Psalm 31 also includes the phrase, "Be strong,and let your heart take courage, all you who wait for the Lord." Note Lord and not messiah.
This linking of David with Job also strengthens the link between Job and Jesus, and thus Jesus with David.
And because it's the most famous and best one, here is the 23rd Psalm in its entirety:
The Lord is my shepherd,
I shall not want;
he makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters;
he restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil;
for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff,
they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
thou anointest my head with oil, my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life;
and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord
for ever.
Showing posts with label Book of Job. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book of Job. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Monday, January 6, 2014
Book of Job 6-25
There are references to Greek constellations as the Book of Job continues. It's a fine acknowledgement of the wider world around the Jewish faith, which more ordinarily exists in allusion and nods to historical figures.
"There I say he destroys both the blameless and the wicked." The whole point of this book is a reckoning with the theology that God only punishes those who deserve it, or in other words that God exists in relation to man to affect his life for the better or worse. It's a direct contradiction to every other book in the Bible previous to it, or in other words a further evolution of the faith, one that is commonly misinterpreted or outright overlooked.
There is the term "umpire" referenced. It's the first time I even considered it outside the context of baseball. It only figures.
"If I lift myself up, thou dost hunt me like a lion." This would mean that making a name for yourself only makes you a target.
"If a man dies shall he live again?" It's a suggestion that the idea of resurrection very much exists. It's just one suggestion that Job may after all be a Jesus figure. Chapter 16 in particular sounds a lot like Isaiah's portrait of the suffering servant, which is commonly ascribed to Jesus. The term "Redeemer" is used. It's enough to paint this book in an entirely new light. It is very much, as much a work of philosophy, as one of prophecy. It is not merely allegory, but one of many means to link the Old Testament to the New Testament.
One of the reasons adherents to the Jewish faith would vehemently deny this is because it's even there in the Old Testament that belief in God is as much about religion as forming basic cultural rules. It's the same with Christianity, the same with Islam, and any other faith. In fact, the inseparability of this (otherwise known as the problem of separation of Church and State as understand in the West) is the basic moral entanglement of recorded history. When a culture shucks off its religious beliefs, they still persist, in the realm of mythology. When religious beliefs are tied up both in identity and the form of society itself, this becomes far more difficult. The fundamentalists, who prefer to overlook nuances, are prepared to kill anyone who contradicts them. I say that's a very poor manifestation of anything divine. If you faith tells you to kill people, then you need to reconsider your faith.
It's not faith that ever dictates that, but the fear that the faith can be forgotten if challenged. And it's not the faith that motivates this, but the cultural norms, everything you're familiar with. It's how we get things like the Inquisition and suicide bombers. Both are inherently insane things to do. Neither invalidates the faith that led to them, but rather speaks to cultural and moral fallibility. Faith exists to reflect truth. It is not in itself truth. This is a dangerous statement to make. Those who most vehemently seek to silence opposition claim everything they believe was recorded by divine intervention. The truth is, everything that a human has ever done has been done by a human. A human may be inspired, may even have mystical experiences. But in the end, whatever a human does has been done by a human, fallible being. And someone else after them is free to do whatever another human will do. And so on.
One of the most important theological works of our time was recently released. It's called Zealot and is by a man named Reza Aslan. In it he details how the historic Jesus became the Jesus we know today. It's hugely fascinating, and funny enough is almost exactly like the Monty Python movie Life of Brian with more scholarship. When Aslan discusses what type of man Jesus likely was, and how the earliest days of his resulting new religion unfolded, it illuminates backward as well as forward. Aslan himself does not seem to have read the Old Testament as well as he did the New or other early sources. Here I humbly submit my work in this regard to further explore the ways in which the Jewish faith evolved and led to the most incredible development in human history.
When you pick apart the tenets of faith, you may find yourself with a house of cards. You may doubt everything and thus end up believing none of it. I've been saying this for a while now in these notes. When you no longer unquestionably believe everything your religion tells you, you may either reject it outright or attempt to split off from it, create another schism. Reforms seldom work. Except they were happening all the time right there in the Bible. Reforms, revisions. The Book of Job is a revision right at the heart of the Old Testament, hiding in plain sight.
The Jews were a restless people always looking for a home and seeking to explain why they periodically had such major problems with stability. They frequently had exceptional leaders, and just as frequently didn't. Their whole concept of a messiah is another exceptional leader. Around the time of the greatest such exceptional leader, they began to realize, especially after his time, that this was a pattern that could not be sustained. And so they began to look for alternatives. Their belief in God led them to realize that God as they understood him was capable of fixing his own mistakes. Later they even acknowledged that he always had a plan. Every echo in the Bible, in fact, might be said to be a manifestation of that plan, preparing the way as it were.
When Job discusses faith, he's breaking the mold apart. He's demonstrating a dialogue about the future of the Jewish faith. Christians understand Jesus to be an equally blameless individual who took on the sins of the entire world and thus broke the cycle of constant punishment and possible damnation for all humanity. Jesus was also a failure at ushering the same kind of religious revival that the Old Testament constantly demonstrated, except he provoked the faith that ended up sweeping the entire globe. He ended up being a permanent example for everyone.
Do you have to believe every Christian doctrine to believe in Jesus? Absolutely not. Anyone who says different is interested in preserving an institution, which in itself is not a bad thing. But it does not need to be protected. Maybe that's all that's needed in a new reform. Stop worrying so much. Incidentally, that's also what Pope Francis is saying. Stop being so defensive. By becoming inclusive again, you better follow your own faith.
"There I say he destroys both the blameless and the wicked." The whole point of this book is a reckoning with the theology that God only punishes those who deserve it, or in other words that God exists in relation to man to affect his life for the better or worse. It's a direct contradiction to every other book in the Bible previous to it, or in other words a further evolution of the faith, one that is commonly misinterpreted or outright overlooked.
There is the term "umpire" referenced. It's the first time I even considered it outside the context of baseball. It only figures.
"If I lift myself up, thou dost hunt me like a lion." This would mean that making a name for yourself only makes you a target.
"If a man dies shall he live again?" It's a suggestion that the idea of resurrection very much exists. It's just one suggestion that Job may after all be a Jesus figure. Chapter 16 in particular sounds a lot like Isaiah's portrait of the suffering servant, which is commonly ascribed to Jesus. The term "Redeemer" is used. It's enough to paint this book in an entirely new light. It is very much, as much a work of philosophy, as one of prophecy. It is not merely allegory, but one of many means to link the Old Testament to the New Testament.
One of the reasons adherents to the Jewish faith would vehemently deny this is because it's even there in the Old Testament that belief in God is as much about religion as forming basic cultural rules. It's the same with Christianity, the same with Islam, and any other faith. In fact, the inseparability of this (otherwise known as the problem of separation of Church and State as understand in the West) is the basic moral entanglement of recorded history. When a culture shucks off its religious beliefs, they still persist, in the realm of mythology. When religious beliefs are tied up both in identity and the form of society itself, this becomes far more difficult. The fundamentalists, who prefer to overlook nuances, are prepared to kill anyone who contradicts them. I say that's a very poor manifestation of anything divine. If you faith tells you to kill people, then you need to reconsider your faith.
It's not faith that ever dictates that, but the fear that the faith can be forgotten if challenged. And it's not the faith that motivates this, but the cultural norms, everything you're familiar with. It's how we get things like the Inquisition and suicide bombers. Both are inherently insane things to do. Neither invalidates the faith that led to them, but rather speaks to cultural and moral fallibility. Faith exists to reflect truth. It is not in itself truth. This is a dangerous statement to make. Those who most vehemently seek to silence opposition claim everything they believe was recorded by divine intervention. The truth is, everything that a human has ever done has been done by a human. A human may be inspired, may even have mystical experiences. But in the end, whatever a human does has been done by a human, fallible being. And someone else after them is free to do whatever another human will do. And so on.
One of the most important theological works of our time was recently released. It's called Zealot and is by a man named Reza Aslan. In it he details how the historic Jesus became the Jesus we know today. It's hugely fascinating, and funny enough is almost exactly like the Monty Python movie Life of Brian with more scholarship. When Aslan discusses what type of man Jesus likely was, and how the earliest days of his resulting new religion unfolded, it illuminates backward as well as forward. Aslan himself does not seem to have read the Old Testament as well as he did the New or other early sources. Here I humbly submit my work in this regard to further explore the ways in which the Jewish faith evolved and led to the most incredible development in human history.
When you pick apart the tenets of faith, you may find yourself with a house of cards. You may doubt everything and thus end up believing none of it. I've been saying this for a while now in these notes. When you no longer unquestionably believe everything your religion tells you, you may either reject it outright or attempt to split off from it, create another schism. Reforms seldom work. Except they were happening all the time right there in the Bible. Reforms, revisions. The Book of Job is a revision right at the heart of the Old Testament, hiding in plain sight.
The Jews were a restless people always looking for a home and seeking to explain why they periodically had such major problems with stability. They frequently had exceptional leaders, and just as frequently didn't. Their whole concept of a messiah is another exceptional leader. Around the time of the greatest such exceptional leader, they began to realize, especially after his time, that this was a pattern that could not be sustained. And so they began to look for alternatives. Their belief in God led them to realize that God as they understood him was capable of fixing his own mistakes. Later they even acknowledged that he always had a plan. Every echo in the Bible, in fact, might be said to be a manifestation of that plan, preparing the way as it were.
When Job discusses faith, he's breaking the mold apart. He's demonstrating a dialogue about the future of the Jewish faith. Christians understand Jesus to be an equally blameless individual who took on the sins of the entire world and thus broke the cycle of constant punishment and possible damnation for all humanity. Jesus was also a failure at ushering the same kind of religious revival that the Old Testament constantly demonstrated, except he provoked the faith that ended up sweeping the entire globe. He ended up being a permanent example for everyone.
Do you have to believe every Christian doctrine to believe in Jesus? Absolutely not. Anyone who says different is interested in preserving an institution, which in itself is not a bad thing. But it does not need to be protected. Maybe that's all that's needed in a new reform. Stop worrying so much. Incidentally, that's also what Pope Francis is saying. Stop being so defensive. By becoming inclusive again, you better follow your own faith.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Book of Judith 1-16, Book of Esther 1-11, Book of Job 1-5
Book of Judith may have a few facts wrong about its period setting, or I was simply confused, because it's set during the Nebuchadnezzar era but seems to have his associations all wrong, including references to Assyrians rather than Babylon, and set after the period of exile. Either way, the key figures in the story are Judith, naturally, and Holofernes. I learned this story originally from a painting in college, likely a Caravaggio, but we'll get to the reason why one specific image might be appropriate a little later.
Holofernes is the chief general of the army (whose army exactly we'll leave as a matter for some other time). Nebuchadnezzar (or whoever) has become angry with nation states who refused to help him in his time of need, even though he succeeded perfectly well without them in his military campaign, so he undertakes to teach them all a lesson. The Israelites learn that they're along this warpath, and dawn (for the first time in the Bible), ashes and sackcloth. During the course of this prelude material, the whole history of the Hebrews is recapped, minus any significant figures. Nebuchadnezzar wants to be worshiped as a god (like Egyptian, Roman, and Japanese rulers, for instance), and doesn't take kindly to any peoples who won't play along. The God of the Hebrews is described as the god of iniquity (in polytheistic cultures, it was common for individual gods to be associated with a particular attribute; the Hebrew God is said to have derived from a whole pantheon, and was originally a god of war, which would be hugely appropriate).
The "people of Esau" are referenced, which would once again indicate diverging traditions that once introduced in early books are no longer considered part of the Jewish record. They tell Holofernes how to defeat the Israelites, which namely is to make God angry with them.
Judith finally appears. She's a widow. She's extremely beautiful. She's also extremely faithful. She tells the rest of the Israelites that she has a plan. She takes offense when it's suggested that you can put God to the test. She says he's incomprehensible.
It occurred to me that Tolkien's dwarves in Middle Earth are a lot like the Jews of this period. Probably deliberate on his part.
She invokes God's testing, rather, of Abraham and Jacob. She prays for strength. In a lot of ways, she is a Jesus figure, although I would have to significantly digress to fully explore that assertion. More simply, she might be considered a Mary figure. She's declared "blessed among women," much like Mary, for instance.
Judith sets out to seduce, trick, and assassinate Holofernes. She cuts off his head. This part of the story evokes the Medusa myth. It also makes for a distinctive painting. It makes for an unusually funny line in the Bible, too: "For look, here is Holofernes lying on the ground, and his head is not on him!"
She sings a song, which includes the lines, "the sons of the Titans," making it all the more clear that whoever composed this book definitely knew their Greek myths. Actually, the extant translation is a Greek one, so perhaps some of these things were simply grafted on after the fact.
"Thou didst send forth thy Spirit." Christians will recognize the third member of the Holy Trinity in that line.
Book of Esther features another heroic woman from the general exile era. It's a story featured in the recent movie One Night with the King, and I've also seen high school one-act stage productions of it, so you don't really need to be religious to know it.
This is the era of Artaxerxes. The Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, exile era is stated, so that much is clearer in this book. Our story concerns the faithful Jew Mordecai and his cousin Esther, whom he adopted as a daughter. Both of them end up tangled in the life of a king whose name I won't bother to record, because it isn't nearly as well-known as either of theirs, or the wicked Haman, who is the Iago of this piece.
Basically, Mordecai saves the king's life, and Esther ends up becoming the new queen. The two events are unrelated, but they become fortuitous when Haman seeks to assert his own power as the king's right-hand man by having revenge on Mordecai for showing him disrespect that the Jew could not have avoided and still be faithful to God. Haman eventually decides that all Jews must die. Esther must reveal her previously hidden faith as she moves to spare Mordecai's life, and in turn saves all of her people. It's also a story Jews of the modern era might recognize in the story of Oskar Schindler during the Holocaust.
The book seems a little cobbled together, different from the repetition of a story from oral tradition in that when things are restated it's not really in the sense of emphasis. Like Kings and Chronicles, the repeated statements don't always seem aware that they aren't being completely accurate with one another.
Hades is referenced. Hades is the God of the underworld in Greek mythology. The name has also been used as synonymous with Hell.
Sackcloth and ashes appear again.
The story is also an excellent way to explore a melting pot population and the conflicting results from trying to reconcile cultural differences.
"All-seeing God and Savior," which is an interesting description. God is described as changing the mood of the king, to make him more willing to listen to Esther. Previously in the Bible, whenever God interfered like that, he made the recipient more "hard-hearted."
The changing fortunes of Mordecai might also be interpreted through the lens of Jesus, especially during the Passion. Again, this would cause a considerable digression to more fully explain. Parallels of this kind would have been excellent selling points to intellectuals interested in embracing Christianity as the new state religion, as the Romans did. The poetry and romanticism even in the midst of tragedy would help explain how Jesus could be interpreted as the Greatest Story Ever Told, something far more resonant than the regional faith of a wandering people. It would be naive to assume Constantine at that point in Christian development adopted the emerging religion for anything more than strategic worth. The story of Esther would certainly illuminate the advantages of such a move.
This whole book also establishes the holiday of Purim.
It's interesting that Mordecai begins the book with a vision, and then at the end of it interprets it. The Bible would be easier to read today if all such visions had been explained like that. The very last part of the book also references Ptolemy and Cleopatra, among the last significant remnants of the once-great Egyptian race, following the conquests of Alexander the Great.
Book of Job is famous, too, although the way it's told may be different than most people would expect. "Sons of God," Satan among them, consult with him about the figure of Job, who is good and faithful in the midst of having every earthly advantage. What if they are taken away? Will he curse God?
Leviathan is referenced.
This is the first of the philosophical works in the Bible. It's strong that such things exist and no one really thinks of that, much as they don't think of all the war that happens in it. It also seems to be a theological study.
Holofernes is the chief general of the army (whose army exactly we'll leave as a matter for some other time). Nebuchadnezzar (or whoever) has become angry with nation states who refused to help him in his time of need, even though he succeeded perfectly well without them in his military campaign, so he undertakes to teach them all a lesson. The Israelites learn that they're along this warpath, and dawn (for the first time in the Bible), ashes and sackcloth. During the course of this prelude material, the whole history of the Hebrews is recapped, minus any significant figures. Nebuchadnezzar wants to be worshiped as a god (like Egyptian, Roman, and Japanese rulers, for instance), and doesn't take kindly to any peoples who won't play along. The God of the Hebrews is described as the god of iniquity (in polytheistic cultures, it was common for individual gods to be associated with a particular attribute; the Hebrew God is said to have derived from a whole pantheon, and was originally a god of war, which would be hugely appropriate).
The "people of Esau" are referenced, which would once again indicate diverging traditions that once introduced in early books are no longer considered part of the Jewish record. They tell Holofernes how to defeat the Israelites, which namely is to make God angry with them.
Judith finally appears. She's a widow. She's extremely beautiful. She's also extremely faithful. She tells the rest of the Israelites that she has a plan. She takes offense when it's suggested that you can put God to the test. She says he's incomprehensible.
It occurred to me that Tolkien's dwarves in Middle Earth are a lot like the Jews of this period. Probably deliberate on his part.
She invokes God's testing, rather, of Abraham and Jacob. She prays for strength. In a lot of ways, she is a Jesus figure, although I would have to significantly digress to fully explore that assertion. More simply, she might be considered a Mary figure. She's declared "blessed among women," much like Mary, for instance.
Judith sets out to seduce, trick, and assassinate Holofernes. She cuts off his head. This part of the story evokes the Medusa myth. It also makes for a distinctive painting. It makes for an unusually funny line in the Bible, too: "For look, here is Holofernes lying on the ground, and his head is not on him!"
She sings a song, which includes the lines, "the sons of the Titans," making it all the more clear that whoever composed this book definitely knew their Greek myths. Actually, the extant translation is a Greek one, so perhaps some of these things were simply grafted on after the fact.
"Thou didst send forth thy Spirit." Christians will recognize the third member of the Holy Trinity in that line.
Book of Esther features another heroic woman from the general exile era. It's a story featured in the recent movie One Night with the King, and I've also seen high school one-act stage productions of it, so you don't really need to be religious to know it.
This is the era of Artaxerxes. The Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, exile era is stated, so that much is clearer in this book. Our story concerns the faithful Jew Mordecai and his cousin Esther, whom he adopted as a daughter. Both of them end up tangled in the life of a king whose name I won't bother to record, because it isn't nearly as well-known as either of theirs, or the wicked Haman, who is the Iago of this piece.
Basically, Mordecai saves the king's life, and Esther ends up becoming the new queen. The two events are unrelated, but they become fortuitous when Haman seeks to assert his own power as the king's right-hand man by having revenge on Mordecai for showing him disrespect that the Jew could not have avoided and still be faithful to God. Haman eventually decides that all Jews must die. Esther must reveal her previously hidden faith as she moves to spare Mordecai's life, and in turn saves all of her people. It's also a story Jews of the modern era might recognize in the story of Oskar Schindler during the Holocaust.
The book seems a little cobbled together, different from the repetition of a story from oral tradition in that when things are restated it's not really in the sense of emphasis. Like Kings and Chronicles, the repeated statements don't always seem aware that they aren't being completely accurate with one another.
Hades is referenced. Hades is the God of the underworld in Greek mythology. The name has also been used as synonymous with Hell.
Sackcloth and ashes appear again.
The story is also an excellent way to explore a melting pot population and the conflicting results from trying to reconcile cultural differences.
"All-seeing God and Savior," which is an interesting description. God is described as changing the mood of the king, to make him more willing to listen to Esther. Previously in the Bible, whenever God interfered like that, he made the recipient more "hard-hearted."
The changing fortunes of Mordecai might also be interpreted through the lens of Jesus, especially during the Passion. Again, this would cause a considerable digression to more fully explain. Parallels of this kind would have been excellent selling points to intellectuals interested in embracing Christianity as the new state religion, as the Romans did. The poetry and romanticism even in the midst of tragedy would help explain how Jesus could be interpreted as the Greatest Story Ever Told, something far more resonant than the regional faith of a wandering people. It would be naive to assume Constantine at that point in Christian development adopted the emerging religion for anything more than strategic worth. The story of Esther would certainly illuminate the advantages of such a move.
This whole book also establishes the holiday of Purim.
It's interesting that Mordecai begins the book with a vision, and then at the end of it interprets it. The Bible would be easier to read today if all such visions had been explained like that. The very last part of the book also references Ptolemy and Cleopatra, among the last significant remnants of the once-great Egyptian race, following the conquests of Alexander the Great.
Book of Job is famous, too, although the way it's told may be different than most people would expect. "Sons of God," Satan among them, consult with him about the figure of Job, who is good and faithful in the midst of having every earthly advantage. What if they are taken away? Will he curse God?
Leviathan is referenced.
This is the first of the philosophical works in the Bible. It's strong that such things exist and no one really thinks of that, much as they don't think of all the war that happens in it. It also seems to be a theological study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)