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.
Showing posts with label Jeremiah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeremiah. Show all posts
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Book of Jeremiah 16-35
Narrative interruptions are a marked difference between Book of Isaiah and Book of Jeremiah, among other things. They're far more common in Jeremiah, to the point where it begins to read like a third version of Kings/Chronicles (yay!). Which also has the effect of my having less to talk about.
Although the one interesting part of that, as in the difference between Kings and Chronicles (where Jeremiah grows in prominence in the latter), is that our man becomes that much more central to the story. It also means he gets in trouble for his prophecies of doom. It's the difference between sitting there writing commentaries and being out on the street talking about how bad everyone is compared to what they should be like if they truly consider themselves God's people. In other words, the main distinction (which I believe I'm reiterating) of this book is that it's the guy telling people who don't want to hear about what's going wrong versus preaching to the choir (which is what we imagine similar books to be).
Upper rooms are mentioned. An upper room is central to the story of the Last Supper in the New Testament, you'll remember. Clearly they're an institution of households for some time.
Micah is referenced as a precedent to the kind of work Jeremiah is doing.
Uriah is another. He's murdered for his efforts. Poor Uriah!
The false prophet Hananiah, who speaks of peace (again, that disparity between what religious people today think of peace and war and what religious people back then thought of the same things), is used to illustrate all the false prophets Jeremiah is meant to counterbalance.
Shenaiah is another false prophet. These dueling prophets are almost like what the New Testament would have read like it it had included all the people who claimed to be the messiah at the same time as Jesus (as humorously depicted in Life of Brian)..
Hopefully, Jeremiah speaks of days to come where God will no longer be punishing his people, which Christians would describe as the era Jesus utters, breaking the old cycle, a suggestion already brought up previously in the Old Testament.
Baruch is mentioned. Like Micah, he has his own book later on in the Bible. Right after Lamentations, in fact, in my edition.
Although the one interesting part of that, as in the difference between Kings and Chronicles (where Jeremiah grows in prominence in the latter), is that our man becomes that much more central to the story. It also means he gets in trouble for his prophecies of doom. It's the difference between sitting there writing commentaries and being out on the street talking about how bad everyone is compared to what they should be like if they truly consider themselves God's people. In other words, the main distinction (which I believe I'm reiterating) of this book is that it's the guy telling people who don't want to hear about what's going wrong versus preaching to the choir (which is what we imagine similar books to be).
Upper rooms are mentioned. An upper room is central to the story of the Last Supper in the New Testament, you'll remember. Clearly they're an institution of households for some time.
Micah is referenced as a precedent to the kind of work Jeremiah is doing.
Uriah is another. He's murdered for his efforts. Poor Uriah!
The false prophet Hananiah, who speaks of peace (again, that disparity between what religious people today think of peace and war and what religious people back then thought of the same things), is used to illustrate all the false prophets Jeremiah is meant to counterbalance.
Shenaiah is another false prophet. These dueling prophets are almost like what the New Testament would have read like it it had included all the people who claimed to be the messiah at the same time as Jesus (as humorously depicted in Life of Brian)..
Hopefully, Jeremiah speaks of days to come where God will no longer be punishing his people, which Christians would describe as the era Jesus utters, breaking the old cycle, a suggestion already brought up previously in the Old Testament.
Baruch is mentioned. Like Micah, he has his own book later on in the Bible. Right after Lamentations, in fact, in my edition.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Book of Jeremiah 1-15
Unlike the previous Book of Isaiah, Jeremiah's prophetic nature fits closely with old school Jewish faith, and in fact seems to be a repackaging of it. Just imagine it as the Bible of biblical times, only really unpopular among actual Jews. God is unsurprisingly a lot more interactive here than he's been in a while.
Jeremiah 2: "Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruits of his harvest. All who ate of it became guilty; evil came upon them, says the Lord." Certainly interesting, and perhaps a new perspective on Eden, or perhaps what the faithful originally believed. Or it could be a metaphor concerning anyone who messed with the faith. Which would amount to the same.
Maybe I misread this, but Jeremiah 7 references the "queen of heaven." One way or another, you know I'll just drop in Mary from the New Testament, whom Catholics later dubbed with the same title.
I think the importance of the Exodus era was vastly ramped up in the Babylonian exile era, and this might be a good place to see that develop.
Wailing women appear. They are also prominent in Jesus's Way of the Cross.
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" Perhaps a verse all those crummy assholes who used the Bible to justify American slavery could have used to memorize.
Book of Jeremiah does seem to have some classic apocalyptic imagery in it. New Testament figures were obsessive Bible nerds. You can see it all the time in the constant parallels, which is something the Old Testament itself began, but its Christian successor mastered. Anyway, just as Revelation later introduces the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Jeremiah has the four destroyers, which are pestilence, the sword (war), famine, and captivity (death?), and rephrased slightly a split-second later as sword (again), dog, birds, and beasts (generally). Things like that keep this book interesting.
Jeremiah 2: "Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruits of his harvest. All who ate of it became guilty; evil came upon them, says the Lord." Certainly interesting, and perhaps a new perspective on Eden, or perhaps what the faithful originally believed. Or it could be a metaphor concerning anyone who messed with the faith. Which would amount to the same.
Maybe I misread this, but Jeremiah 7 references the "queen of heaven." One way or another, you know I'll just drop in Mary from the New Testament, whom Catholics later dubbed with the same title.
I think the importance of the Exodus era was vastly ramped up in the Babylonian exile era, and this might be a good place to see that develop.
Wailing women appear. They are also prominent in Jesus's Way of the Cross.
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" Perhaps a verse all those crummy assholes who used the Bible to justify American slavery could have used to memorize.
Book of Jeremiah does seem to have some classic apocalyptic imagery in it. New Testament figures were obsessive Bible nerds. You can see it all the time in the constant parallels, which is something the Old Testament itself began, but its Christian successor mastered. Anyway, just as Revelation later introduces the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Jeremiah has the four destroyers, which are pestilence, the sword (war), famine, and captivity (death?), and rephrased slightly a split-second later as sword (again), dog, birds, and beasts (generally). Things like that keep this book interesting.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Book of Nehemiah 1-13, Book of Tobit 1-14
Apparently it's in Book of Nehemiah where the term "Jews" first appears in the Bible. I would assume, and maybe this is obvious and well-known already, that it's derived from "Jerusalem," much like Salem is from the other end.
This is a first-person account, although it's not Nehemiah's account, which would have been the obvious belief until Nehemiah himself is referenced later a couple of times and clearly not the speaking party. Whoever the speaker is, he was the cupbearer of Artaxerxes.
This is a book that takes another look at the reconstruction efforts in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. Like previous examples, it's not exactly the same version we've seen before.
I was struck with the idea that this version makes it sounds a lot like Jesus in the New Testament when he talks about tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in three days. Christians understand this to reference his later passion, but now I'm thinking it might just as easily have been the idea that a motivated people could make a job like that look easy, which is how the reconstruction efforts look like here, a whole cascade of helpers spontaneously taking up work wherever it's needed. I'm not saying Jesus was definitely talking like that, but after reading this book, it's not an inconceivable suggestion. There are doubters who scoff at these efforts, too.
"Should such a man as I...?" is another classic bit of Jewish phrasing, the second such instance I've come across so far. Since Jews are still talking like this today, clearly it's a long-standing part of the culture, as much as the faith aspects.
Some of the doubters suspect that a revitalized Jerusalem might lead to the same war-like tendencies of Hebrews past. So all that fighting in previous books, stretching across generations, certainly left an impression on the neighbors.
Tobias is referenced. It's not clear if it's the same one from the Book of Tobit, but probably it is. Ezra is referenced, too, and then it becomes almost a complete restating of the Book of Ezra, with more emphasis, ironically, on Ezra himself. Zechariah, Baruch, Joel, Jeremiah, and Iddo are also referenced. This is a good time for names to leave an impression in the Jewish tradition! Most of them (Iddo is the exception) have their own books in the Bible.
It becomes somewhat clear that this book was written outside of direct knowledge of prior books now included in the Bible, especially when it's stated within it that at least one of the books of Moses was read again for the first time. There's a marked difference, too, in the way it's written, more as a record than history, the difference being how God is active in the history books while he's not in a record of this kind.
The Book of Tobit is a little like the Book of Ruth (without something as obvious as the origins of David hidden within it), not vital in establishing a part of Jewish lore so much as illustrating Jewish life, so it's generally considered apocryphal. It's also a favorite of mine dating back to college, when I also read Frederick Buechner's On the Road with the Archangel, which is based on it.
Tobit, basically, is the rare faithful Jew. It's the time of the exile, although Tobit himself is apparently taken captive by the Assyrians in Ninevah. He's the father of Tobias, who will in short order become the main subject of the book.
Pentecost is referenced. I always thought of that as a Christian holiday, but apparently it was originally Jewish.
The prophecy of Amos is referenced. Amos also has a book later in the Bible.
Tobit's main action in the story is his penchant for burying the corpses of fallen comrades who have been martyred by the Assyrians, who don't much want him to be doing that, so he's always close to getting in trouble for it. He does wind up blind, which is fine because later in the book he's cured of that.
"Command that I now be released from my distress to go to the eternal abode," he says, referencing perhaps the first suggestion that the heavens have given way to Heaven in the Jewish faith by the time this was composed.
Tobias's future bride is Sarah, who has already lost seven husbands thanks to the demon Asmodeus. This is okay, because someone named Raphael is soon going to help with that, plus Tobit's blindness. Who's Raphael? The first named angel of the Bible! One of seven holy angels. Another thing referenced for the first time is the concept of saints. There's also a fish that nearly swallows Tobias, much as Jonah is in his own book. But don't think about the size of this one, or if it's a whale, because Tobias and Raphael end up eating it.
The phrase, "eat, drink, and be merry" is uttered. Tobias invokes Adam and Eve when delivering an ode to matrimony. Tobit an ode, too, and says, "Many nations will come from afar to the name of the Lord," once more giving rise to the belief right there in the Old Testament that one day gentiles would be included in the faith (which is known as Christianity).
"Hallelujah" is uttered. Jonah is referenced directly. This one may not be considered essential, but it's certainly a good one to see the workings of everyday Judaism. It's also a fine break into narrative that doesn't have anything to do with bad kings. And that's a mighty fine relief at this point!
This is a first-person account, although it's not Nehemiah's account, which would have been the obvious belief until Nehemiah himself is referenced later a couple of times and clearly not the speaking party. Whoever the speaker is, he was the cupbearer of Artaxerxes.
This is a book that takes another look at the reconstruction efforts in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. Like previous examples, it's not exactly the same version we've seen before.
I was struck with the idea that this version makes it sounds a lot like Jesus in the New Testament when he talks about tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in three days. Christians understand this to reference his later passion, but now I'm thinking it might just as easily have been the idea that a motivated people could make a job like that look easy, which is how the reconstruction efforts look like here, a whole cascade of helpers spontaneously taking up work wherever it's needed. I'm not saying Jesus was definitely talking like that, but after reading this book, it's not an inconceivable suggestion. There are doubters who scoff at these efforts, too.
"Should such a man as I...?" is another classic bit of Jewish phrasing, the second such instance I've come across so far. Since Jews are still talking like this today, clearly it's a long-standing part of the culture, as much as the faith aspects.
Some of the doubters suspect that a revitalized Jerusalem might lead to the same war-like tendencies of Hebrews past. So all that fighting in previous books, stretching across generations, certainly left an impression on the neighbors.
Tobias is referenced. It's not clear if it's the same one from the Book of Tobit, but probably it is. Ezra is referenced, too, and then it becomes almost a complete restating of the Book of Ezra, with more emphasis, ironically, on Ezra himself. Zechariah, Baruch, Joel, Jeremiah, and Iddo are also referenced. This is a good time for names to leave an impression in the Jewish tradition! Most of them (Iddo is the exception) have their own books in the Bible.
It becomes somewhat clear that this book was written outside of direct knowledge of prior books now included in the Bible, especially when it's stated within it that at least one of the books of Moses was read again for the first time. There's a marked difference, too, in the way it's written, more as a record than history, the difference being how God is active in the history books while he's not in a record of this kind.
The Book of Tobit is a little like the Book of Ruth (without something as obvious as the origins of David hidden within it), not vital in establishing a part of Jewish lore so much as illustrating Jewish life, so it's generally considered apocryphal. It's also a favorite of mine dating back to college, when I also read Frederick Buechner's On the Road with the Archangel, which is based on it.
Tobit, basically, is the rare faithful Jew. It's the time of the exile, although Tobit himself is apparently taken captive by the Assyrians in Ninevah. He's the father of Tobias, who will in short order become the main subject of the book.
Pentecost is referenced. I always thought of that as a Christian holiday, but apparently it was originally Jewish.
The prophecy of Amos is referenced. Amos also has a book later in the Bible.
Tobit's main action in the story is his penchant for burying the corpses of fallen comrades who have been martyred by the Assyrians, who don't much want him to be doing that, so he's always close to getting in trouble for it. He does wind up blind, which is fine because later in the book he's cured of that.
"Command that I now be released from my distress to go to the eternal abode," he says, referencing perhaps the first suggestion that the heavens have given way to Heaven in the Jewish faith by the time this was composed.
Tobias's future bride is Sarah, who has already lost seven husbands thanks to the demon Asmodeus. This is okay, because someone named Raphael is soon going to help with that, plus Tobit's blindness. Who's Raphael? The first named angel of the Bible! One of seven holy angels. Another thing referenced for the first time is the concept of saints. There's also a fish that nearly swallows Tobias, much as Jonah is in his own book. But don't think about the size of this one, or if it's a whale, because Tobias and Raphael end up eating it.
The phrase, "eat, drink, and be merry" is uttered. Tobias invokes Adam and Eve when delivering an ode to matrimony. Tobit an ode, too, and says, "Many nations will come from afar to the name of the Lord," once more giving rise to the belief right there in the Old Testament that one day gentiles would be included in the faith (which is known as Christianity).
"Hallelujah" is uttered. Jonah is referenced directly. This one may not be considered essential, but it's certainly a good one to see the workings of everyday Judaism. It's also a fine break into narrative that doesn't have anything to do with bad kings. And that's a mighty fine relief at this point!
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Second Book of Chronicles 11-36, Book of Ezra 1-10
Second Chronicles features plenty of references to what are apparently lost books Hebrews at the time included in their tradition. Rehoboam's story is supposed to continue in the chronicles of Shemaiah and Iddo (who appears to be a fairly significant lost figure, considering this is his second mention in the Chronicles; it's just as if only the Kings references to Jonah and Jeremiah, for instance, were all we knew of them, besides their separate books and Jeremiah's expanded role in Chronicles). Abijah's career is also expanded by the lost Iddo as well as the first mention of the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, which I needed to confirm was not a reference back to First and Second Kings, much as Kings themselves kept referencing Chronicles.
Arabs are referenced as such.
Micaiah appears, a prophet of the apocalyptic persuasion.
The longer Second Chronicles continues, the clearer its portrait of simply uninspired kings becomes. These people are simply not relevant to the Jewish tradition, which may be a way of saying that not every generation or significant figure can actually be significant, considering the previous books in the Bible have all featured almost exclusively names that actively contributed to the tradition.
Jehoshaphat's further exploits can be found in the chronicles of Jehu, which is referenced in tandem with the Book of the Kings of Israel, which is probably the same as the above lost book of similar title.
Elijah appears, in a far less significant role, though he sends a letter, which is a form of communication far more prevalent in the New Testament (most of which is composed of such addresses).
Chronicles seems to feature more work done on the temple than in Kings. There's a restoration effort before Josiah's, for instance. Perhaps I'm misremembering, but the intended earlier effort in Kings was aborted after the money was collected and everyone decided to just hold onto the funds for a while, like a biblical banking operation.
There's apparently another account of this period in the Commentary on the Book of Kings, which again may be another way of phrasing something referenced above. Amaziah's story continues in the Book of Kings of Judah and Israel, at any rate.
I thought it was amusing to see the term "muster" used so frequently in Second Chronicles. To give you another Tolkien reference, the "muster of Rohan" certainly seems like something that could easily have featured in this book of the Bible.
Isaiah wrote the further adventures of Uzziah. I guess I'll find out if it's in Book of Isaiah, or if we're talking about another lost book.
There's one bad king who seems like he was definitely written that way at the end of his reign just to justify another bad turn on the part of Hebrew history. It's incredibly tempting to interpret this whole period that way. It might also explain the disconnect between the reign of Solomon as described in Kings and Chronicles.
Jotham comes off well. He can be found in the lost Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. So can Ahaz.
Another indication of how faith can sometimes form is the phrase, "for the commandment was from the Lord through his prophets." One of the thorny issues of the Bible and faith in general is the belief that if someone says you have to believe someone because God inspired them, you have to assume that's exactly what happened. This appears to be a far harder thing to verify in the modern world than in biblical times. Again, I'm not say faith is invalidated if you question things like this, but it's also maybe a good thing if you question whether or not all the specific details that clearly helped build a culture as much as a religious should still be considered unquestionably valid today.
Hezekiah also gets a good write-up. I realize I may be duplicating observations between Kings and Chronicles on some of these individuals, but there are subtle variations. Sometimes even someone who was spoken of favorably got one of those famous bad ends, to the effect of "he still wasn't absolutely perfect and so God was displeased with him." That happens less frequently in Chronicles than in Kings. The other thing about Hezekiah is that he gets to deliver a speech before some troops that would not at all be out of place in a Hollywood action movie. Mel Gibson was at one point thinking of making a movie out of the adventures of the Maccabees. He could easily do that with any number of earlier books. It would look exactly like Braveheart.
Somehow even though a number of kings have been cycled through (and some eight paragraphs later here), Elijah makes another appearance. There is apparently a vision of Elijah in the lost Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. Manasseh, who was a bad king, can be found in the lost Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.
We finally reach Josiah again! As before, he sets about rebuilding the temple. The book of the law, and Moses, and the ark are all referenced, links not specifically established in Kings. There is a Huldah the prophetess who appears. She's the latest obscure female prophet in the Old Testament, but they do in fact exist! Josiah's arc (as opposed to Moses's ark) is much better in Chronicles. His dedication to rededicating the Hebrews to the practice of the law distinguishes him from other religious revivals, which makes sense because most of what we know about him is that he's the guy who thought to actually read the old rules found in the ark again. Of course, this also makes him to blame for any number of things, if you're interested in looking at it that way. Josiah's subsequent observation of the passover meal is said to be the greatest since the days of Samuel. Jeremiah offers a lament upon the death of Josiah, whose career can also be found in the lost Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. Jehoiakim can be found there, too. Zedekiah "did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet."
Second Chronicles ends confusingly if you expect it to be exact parallel with the end of Second Kings, because when we reach Nebuchadnezzar and the exile, we're soon treated to the Persian Empire. This is of course the fulfillment of a prophecy from Jeremiah, whose importance is roughly proportionate to Isaiah's in Kings, and vice versa. Cyrus, meanwhile, king of Persia, is responsible for the end of the exile. You may be confused about the exile ending so abruptly because it plays such a famous role in Jewish history. This is because there are a number of separate books that return to this era, even though by the time we reach them it has already, in terms of biblical narrative, ended. I would probably tend to argue, then, that the time of the bad kings, or perhaps even the time of the judges, should be greater stressed in the history than this exile, which isn't apparently nearly as dramatic, or traumatic, as the similar period of bondage in Egypt .
The Book of Ezra picks up the story right from the end of Second Chronicles. It explains how Cyrus decides to end the exile so that he can be the latest person to rebuild the temple, although he himself won't be doing it, but rather the previously exiled Hebrews, part of an overall initiative on his part to honor a number of different gods (but it sounds better to just say he did it for the Hebrews, just as it's convenient to say Judaism is a monotheistic religion even though God himself acknowledged the existence of other gods, rather that it is intended as a worship of only him).
Nehemiah, Zechariah (son of Iddo, by the way!), Haggai, and Daniel are all referenced. Each has their own book in the Bible. All that and books from Jeremiah and Isaiah! No wonder the exile period is so famous!
Besides Cyrus, Darius is referenced among the Persians. This is a different Darius than the one Alexander defeated about a century later. To put this period in context as far as culture goes, Alexander was very familiar with Greek myth. He was obsessed with The Iliad. It's no wonder that so much biblical material is comparable. Artaxerxes, meanwhile, is the Persian king who temporarily makes it difficult for Cyrus to get his wish, because he remembers the Hebrews as bent on warfare, or as it's termed here rebellion and sedition (interesting way to describe it). He's the son of the Xerxes who famously battled King Leonidas and the Spartans in the Battle of Thermopylae. Context sure is fun!
Ezra himself appears very late in the Book of Ezra, funny enough. He's a descendant of Aaron, by the way, which makes sense for him to be of priestly flavor. His role in his own book is to revive the study of the law that Josiah has previously rediscovered. This also makes sense.
Arabs are referenced as such.
Micaiah appears, a prophet of the apocalyptic persuasion.
The longer Second Chronicles continues, the clearer its portrait of simply uninspired kings becomes. These people are simply not relevant to the Jewish tradition, which may be a way of saying that not every generation or significant figure can actually be significant, considering the previous books in the Bible have all featured almost exclusively names that actively contributed to the tradition.
Jehoshaphat's further exploits can be found in the chronicles of Jehu, which is referenced in tandem with the Book of the Kings of Israel, which is probably the same as the above lost book of similar title.
Elijah appears, in a far less significant role, though he sends a letter, which is a form of communication far more prevalent in the New Testament (most of which is composed of such addresses).
Chronicles seems to feature more work done on the temple than in Kings. There's a restoration effort before Josiah's, for instance. Perhaps I'm misremembering, but the intended earlier effort in Kings was aborted after the money was collected and everyone decided to just hold onto the funds for a while, like a biblical banking operation.
There's apparently another account of this period in the Commentary on the Book of Kings, which again may be another way of phrasing something referenced above. Amaziah's story continues in the Book of Kings of Judah and Israel, at any rate.
I thought it was amusing to see the term "muster" used so frequently in Second Chronicles. To give you another Tolkien reference, the "muster of Rohan" certainly seems like something that could easily have featured in this book of the Bible.
Isaiah wrote the further adventures of Uzziah. I guess I'll find out if it's in Book of Isaiah, or if we're talking about another lost book.
There's one bad king who seems like he was definitely written that way at the end of his reign just to justify another bad turn on the part of Hebrew history. It's incredibly tempting to interpret this whole period that way. It might also explain the disconnect between the reign of Solomon as described in Kings and Chronicles.
Jotham comes off well. He can be found in the lost Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. So can Ahaz.
Another indication of how faith can sometimes form is the phrase, "for the commandment was from the Lord through his prophets." One of the thorny issues of the Bible and faith in general is the belief that if someone says you have to believe someone because God inspired them, you have to assume that's exactly what happened. This appears to be a far harder thing to verify in the modern world than in biblical times. Again, I'm not say faith is invalidated if you question things like this, but it's also maybe a good thing if you question whether or not all the specific details that clearly helped build a culture as much as a religious should still be considered unquestionably valid today.
Hezekiah also gets a good write-up. I realize I may be duplicating observations between Kings and Chronicles on some of these individuals, but there are subtle variations. Sometimes even someone who was spoken of favorably got one of those famous bad ends, to the effect of "he still wasn't absolutely perfect and so God was displeased with him." That happens less frequently in Chronicles than in Kings. The other thing about Hezekiah is that he gets to deliver a speech before some troops that would not at all be out of place in a Hollywood action movie. Mel Gibson was at one point thinking of making a movie out of the adventures of the Maccabees. He could easily do that with any number of earlier books. It would look exactly like Braveheart.
Somehow even though a number of kings have been cycled through (and some eight paragraphs later here), Elijah makes another appearance. There is apparently a vision of Elijah in the lost Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. Manasseh, who was a bad king, can be found in the lost Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.
We finally reach Josiah again! As before, he sets about rebuilding the temple. The book of the law, and Moses, and the ark are all referenced, links not specifically established in Kings. There is a Huldah the prophetess who appears. She's the latest obscure female prophet in the Old Testament, but they do in fact exist! Josiah's arc (as opposed to Moses's ark) is much better in Chronicles. His dedication to rededicating the Hebrews to the practice of the law distinguishes him from other religious revivals, which makes sense because most of what we know about him is that he's the guy who thought to actually read the old rules found in the ark again. Of course, this also makes him to blame for any number of things, if you're interested in looking at it that way. Josiah's subsequent observation of the passover meal is said to be the greatest since the days of Samuel. Jeremiah offers a lament upon the death of Josiah, whose career can also be found in the lost Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. Jehoiakim can be found there, too. Zedekiah "did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet."
Second Chronicles ends confusingly if you expect it to be exact parallel with the end of Second Kings, because when we reach Nebuchadnezzar and the exile, we're soon treated to the Persian Empire. This is of course the fulfillment of a prophecy from Jeremiah, whose importance is roughly proportionate to Isaiah's in Kings, and vice versa. Cyrus, meanwhile, king of Persia, is responsible for the end of the exile. You may be confused about the exile ending so abruptly because it plays such a famous role in Jewish history. This is because there are a number of separate books that return to this era, even though by the time we reach them it has already, in terms of biblical narrative, ended. I would probably tend to argue, then, that the time of the bad kings, or perhaps even the time of the judges, should be greater stressed in the history than this exile, which isn't apparently nearly as dramatic, or traumatic, as the similar period of bondage in Egypt .
The Book of Ezra picks up the story right from the end of Second Chronicles. It explains how Cyrus decides to end the exile so that he can be the latest person to rebuild the temple, although he himself won't be doing it, but rather the previously exiled Hebrews, part of an overall initiative on his part to honor a number of different gods (but it sounds better to just say he did it for the Hebrews, just as it's convenient to say Judaism is a monotheistic religion even though God himself acknowledged the existence of other gods, rather that it is intended as a worship of only him).
Nehemiah, Zechariah (son of Iddo, by the way!), Haggai, and Daniel are all referenced. Each has their own book in the Bible. All that and books from Jeremiah and Isaiah! No wonder the exile period is so famous!
Besides Cyrus, Darius is referenced among the Persians. This is a different Darius than the one Alexander defeated about a century later. To put this period in context as far as culture goes, Alexander was very familiar with Greek myth. He was obsessed with The Iliad. It's no wonder that so much biblical material is comparable. Artaxerxes, meanwhile, is the Persian king who temporarily makes it difficult for Cyrus to get his wish, because he remembers the Hebrews as bent on warfare, or as it's termed here rebellion and sedition (interesting way to describe it). He's the son of the Xerxes who famously battled King Leonidas and the Spartans in the Battle of Thermopylae. Context sure is fun!
Ezra himself appears very late in the Book of Ezra, funny enough. He's a descendant of Aaron, by the way, which makes sense for him to be of priestly flavor. His role in his own book is to revive the study of the law that Josiah has previously rediscovered. This also makes sense.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Second Book of Kings 11-25, First Book of Chronicles 1-10
We pick right back up with the succession of unfortunate Jewish kings. There's an incidental reference to God sending Israel a savior of some kind. The dying Elisha performs an act out of later Arthurian legend, signaling a destination of some sort with an arrow through a window. His bones are also the first recorded Judeo-Christian relics to serve as the catalyst for a miracle.
Jonah is referenced. Nineveh, separately, is also referenced.
The temple is desecrated. There is a consistency now in the fact that pagans built their altars on high ground. Hebrews generally behaving badly, acting a lot like the ones who came out of Egypt, and even create themselves some molten calves. Second Kings makes it a point to say that they're reverting to former ways. Only Judah remains a bastion of the faith.
Babylon looms heavily.
The phrase "you are now relying on Egypt, that broken reed of a staff," making it clear where that nation now stands. The Aramaic language is specifically referenced.
A lot of this makes me think that this is the period where the Jewish faith began to be reconciled into one tradition, and this is before we Josiah, much less First Chronicles, which I contend may have actually been written first, making both books of Kings another act of prequel, like Genesis and the books of Moses. But we'll get to that.
Isaiah enters the picture! He's extremely instrumental in leading a religious revival under Hezekiah. He also introduces the doctrine of God having a plan rather than humanity goofing up, which supports my predestination theory from earlier, in that Adam and Eve were always meant to fall. No matter how often humanity fails God, he's always leading them in a specific direction, starting with Abraham. You might also say that some of this was shaped in a certain direction by later extrapolation of the historic record.
The angel of the Lord smites the Assyrians.
Hezekiah seems to tempt the Babylonians in much the way Egypt and the Philistines were previously induced to consider the spoils of the Hebrew faith. Isaiah prophesies the exile. Manasseh succeeds Hezekiah, is so bad that God swears holy vengeance against his people no matter what, and "no matter what" happens to mean Josiah, who enacts a greater religious revival than Hezekiah. He reigns in Jerusalem for 31 years. He discovers the book of the law, which is presumably the ark, and by this may have helped solidify Jewish faith to that point. He is given an all but cursory appearance nonetheless. He dies in battle at Megiddo, another reason to associate it with apocalypse.
Jeremiah is referenced!
Then, unfortunately, Nebuchadnezzar, the great king of the Babylonians. He has already taken dominion over the Egyptians, but that only stands to reason at this point. Jerusalem is besieged. The Hebrews become, actually, amicable citizens of Babylon, not like the bondage in Egypt anyway. Second Kings ends.
First Chronicles begins with a real chronicle, all right, a thick tangle of genealogy that does a more thorough job than any biblical precedent before it. Caleb seems to be more significant in this record than Moses, who receives a cursory reference, but at least his descent from Levi is finally completed, unlike in Exodus. This makes it seem like Moses was originally part of a separate tradition, and perhaps indeed he was.
Then the repeats begin. The Philistines start our story here, and Saul's war against them and his suicide. No real distinction is made about where he stands in the tradition except that he was, like most of the kings in the books of Kings, someone who didn't do right by God.
Jonah is referenced. Nineveh, separately, is also referenced.
The temple is desecrated. There is a consistency now in the fact that pagans built their altars on high ground. Hebrews generally behaving badly, acting a lot like the ones who came out of Egypt, and even create themselves some molten calves. Second Kings makes it a point to say that they're reverting to former ways. Only Judah remains a bastion of the faith.
Babylon looms heavily.
The phrase "you are now relying on Egypt, that broken reed of a staff," making it clear where that nation now stands. The Aramaic language is specifically referenced.
A lot of this makes me think that this is the period where the Jewish faith began to be reconciled into one tradition, and this is before we Josiah, much less First Chronicles, which I contend may have actually been written first, making both books of Kings another act of prequel, like Genesis and the books of Moses. But we'll get to that.
Isaiah enters the picture! He's extremely instrumental in leading a religious revival under Hezekiah. He also introduces the doctrine of God having a plan rather than humanity goofing up, which supports my predestination theory from earlier, in that Adam and Eve were always meant to fall. No matter how often humanity fails God, he's always leading them in a specific direction, starting with Abraham. You might also say that some of this was shaped in a certain direction by later extrapolation of the historic record.
The angel of the Lord smites the Assyrians.
Hezekiah seems to tempt the Babylonians in much the way Egypt and the Philistines were previously induced to consider the spoils of the Hebrew faith. Isaiah prophesies the exile. Manasseh succeeds Hezekiah, is so bad that God swears holy vengeance against his people no matter what, and "no matter what" happens to mean Josiah, who enacts a greater religious revival than Hezekiah. He reigns in Jerusalem for 31 years. He discovers the book of the law, which is presumably the ark, and by this may have helped solidify Jewish faith to that point. He is given an all but cursory appearance nonetheless. He dies in battle at Megiddo, another reason to associate it with apocalypse.
Jeremiah is referenced!
Then, unfortunately, Nebuchadnezzar, the great king of the Babylonians. He has already taken dominion over the Egyptians, but that only stands to reason at this point. Jerusalem is besieged. The Hebrews become, actually, amicable citizens of Babylon, not like the bondage in Egypt anyway. Second Kings ends.
First Chronicles begins with a real chronicle, all right, a thick tangle of genealogy that does a more thorough job than any biblical precedent before it. Caleb seems to be more significant in this record than Moses, who receives a cursory reference, but at least his descent from Levi is finally completed, unlike in Exodus. This makes it seem like Moses was originally part of a separate tradition, and perhaps indeed he was.
Then the repeats begin. The Philistines start our story here, and Saul's war against them and his suicide. No real distinction is made about where he stands in the tradition except that he was, like most of the kings in the books of Kings, someone who didn't do right by God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)