As we pick First Maccabees back up, there's a lawless and ungodly man who wants to be high priest seeking favors from Rome, by speaking against Judas Maccabeus and his cause.
More talk of Rome, in relation to campaigns in Gaul and Spain. The modern world is emerging! Rome looks so good, Judas entreats peace from it. But after many spectacular military campaigns he dies in battle. "Now the rest of the acts of Judas, and his wars and the brave deeds that he did, and his greatness, have not been recorded, for they were very many." A statement that sounds a lot like how the Gospel of John ends.
There's a Canaanite wedding that turns into something else entirely.
Two remaining sons of Mattathias, Jonathan and Simon, succeed Judas, one after the other; so, similar success. Jonathan is so successful he wins peace and becomes a judge, real old school biblical, and then high priest.
Cleopatra is mentioned. This is one of the ways Egypt remains relevant to the biblical narrative well after Exodus.
Concerning Jonathan: "And when his accusers saw the honor that was paid him, in accordance with the proclamation, and saw him clothed in purple, they all fled."
It's lines like that that make it clear how Jesus in the New Testament was cannily presented in such a way that reflected as much Old Testament as possible, to make it clear the contrast and transition between them.
All the twists and turns of fortune make First Maccabees sound ripe for Shakespearean drama.
Jonathan ends up murdered in a slaughter. But this is okay, since pyramids are finally referenced in the Bible as a result (any modern individual automatically associates Egyptians with pyramids, so their absence in the Moses narrative will always be peculiar). "The land had rest all the days of Simon," who became high priest. But he still ends up killed in treachery. There are parallels here to Joseph among the Egyptians, the start of the Babylonian era, more of the parallels that exist all over the place.
There was was originally a continuation of this narrative in a chronicle of Simon's son John's time as high priest.
Judas Maccabeus is far less famous a biblical figure than just about anyone else in the Old Testament, and yet he is such a classic figure, comparable to anyone from Joshua to David. He would clearly have been a candidate for the prophesied messiah. But he's also a symbol of the futility of the old ways, even though he and his two brothers had such great success. There's even a line in there about prophets just as if that era was clearly not over, as if to make it clear he was no one's answer to the ultimate prophecy. Except in so many ways he clearly was, the last of the classical biblical figures. But if war were no longer the answer...
Second Maccabees is not a continuation but an apparently entirely separate account. It begins as a letter to Jews in Egypt. This is fitting in so many ways. Not the least because the New Testament would later end in a series of letters.
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jeremiah, Solomon, and David are all invoked, but Nehemiah receives special emphasis for whatever reason.
Second Maccabees is apparently a condensed version of a five-volume account on the days of Judas Maccabeus by Jason of Cyrene. It features an elaborate prelude that further evokes the earlier tempting of the Babylonians when a foolish man bungles the presence of treasure in the temple. It should be noted that Mattathias is never mentioned in this account.
"Olympian" Zeus is referenced by name. He's described as the "Friend of Strangers." Doubtless a way to sell him to people outside the Greek tradition. It should be noted here that the close association between Greeks and Romans in Maccabees is no mistake. The Romans adapted their whole pantheon of gods from the Greeks. As the Greeks try to convert everyone to their pantheon, that's what causes all the problems in the Maccabees saga. From studying Greek mythology itself, I can only say that the actual history of it is rarely brought up, other than the classic myths themselves. It's funny, because at least in Oliver Stone's Alexander, belief in the gods at the time of Alexander the Great, who is the first person discussed in First Maccabees, is no longer taken literally. Alexander lived many centuries after the events depicted in The Iliad, which is in some ways the final statement on Greek gods.
Though perhaps it's fitting that the next Greek god referenced is Dionysus. The wild baccanalias held in his honor were basically the ancient world's frat parties, although they were in relation to secret religious ceremonies that may be relevant in this context. It would be no wonder that Jews had no interest in such things.
The noble martyrdom of Eleazar is described, which is kind of like the first Christian martyr Stephen's in Acts. This leads into the more classic sacrifice of the seven brothers, who each die professing their Jewish faith while also discussing the doctrine of resurrection and/or eternal life. Their mother, meanwhile, "fired her woman's reasoning with a man's courage."
By the end of Second Maccabees, Judas Maccabeus is actually still alive.
I suppose it ought to be noted that Second Maccabees also helps serve as the historic foundation of Hanukkah (Adam Sandler's "Eight Crazy Nights," or "Jewish Christmas").
And thus ends the Old Testament.
Showing posts with label Old Testament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Old Testament. Show all posts
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Friday, January 31, 2014
Book of Zechariah 1-14, Book of Malachi 1-4, First Book of Maccabees 1-5
Book of Zechariah is another one that's set during the time of Darius. Zechariah himself is the grandson of Iddo, one of the last figures of the Bible. His is another book filled with prophecy. Notably, it takes the foreshadowing of Revelation's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse more literally than the last time we saw such a thing, by including actual horsemen.
"Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for lo, I come and I will dwell in the midst of you, says the Lord!" Hmm, perhaps as Jesus?
Satan is referenced directly. But it amounts to a more or less throwaway reference.
Greece is referenced directly for the first time, even though there have been constant allusions to close Jewish contact with its various nation states.
There's a payment of 30 pieces of silver, which is not as well-received as it first seems.
"When they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn."
Book of Malachi, meanwhile, is another book concerned with the doings of the house of Esau. It's a little odd that so many later books in the Bible do this while so many of the former ones completely ignore Jacob's brother. It's a book mostly in the form of a screed against bad priests. It also includes a prophecy concerning Elijah's return.
First Book of Maccabees begins somewhat curiously with a warped portrait of Alexander the Great. I happen to know a bit about the famed Macedonian conqueror, so the summary provided here runs afoul quite notably in a few places, not the least in how it presents his final days. He most certainly did not appoint successors. That's how his empire crumbled so spectacularly. But here, he's said to have done exactly that. In fact, that's common for the Bible. Basic human fallibility is routinely reduced to character judgments, both on individuals and nations, usually predicated on their religious observance. But then, the Bible is a book primarily concerned with religious observance...Still long story short, and maybe this is simply a matter of how historic views change or don't always line up together, but don't take Alexander the Great's legacy strictly from what can be found in First Maccabees.
Anyway, after Alexander departs this mortal realm, things don't go so well for his successors, who are none of them half the man he was. One of the men who was definitely not half the man was Antiochus, the main villain of this piece, the instigator and religious persecutor who riles up Mattahias and his five sons, including Judas Maccabeus. Mattahias begins a full-scale revolt of Jews against tyranny, bringing back the fervor and battle success of the holy warriors of old, until he dies and Judas succeeds him. Judas has among his allies a group known as the Hasideans.
A couple notes worth including:
Antiochus, as part of his rampage sacks Egypt (whose fortunes were never again quite at Exodus levels). He plunders the temple. (I'm not clear on this because of the wording, but I think Judas later repairs it.) The temple at this time features "the bread of the Presence," which certainly sounds like a precursor to Catholicism's Holy Communion (which is quite literally the bread of the Presence). Jerusalem becomes occupied.
Oh, and Rome is referenced for the first time in the Bible...
Phinehas is fairly important in the theology here. Also invoked: Abraham, Joseph, Caleb, Joshua, David, Elijah, and Daniel.
The descendants of Esau are once again prominent, naturally, fighting against Judas and his warriors. And to think, way back in Genesis, Esau sounded like he was going to have such a good legacy.
"Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for lo, I come and I will dwell in the midst of you, says the Lord!" Hmm, perhaps as Jesus?
Satan is referenced directly. But it amounts to a more or less throwaway reference.
Greece is referenced directly for the first time, even though there have been constant allusions to close Jewish contact with its various nation states.
There's a payment of 30 pieces of silver, which is not as well-received as it first seems.
"When they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn."
Book of Malachi, meanwhile, is another book concerned with the doings of the house of Esau. It's a little odd that so many later books in the Bible do this while so many of the former ones completely ignore Jacob's brother. It's a book mostly in the form of a screed against bad priests. It also includes a prophecy concerning Elijah's return.
First Book of Maccabees begins somewhat curiously with a warped portrait of Alexander the Great. I happen to know a bit about the famed Macedonian conqueror, so the summary provided here runs afoul quite notably in a few places, not the least in how it presents his final days. He most certainly did not appoint successors. That's how his empire crumbled so spectacularly. But here, he's said to have done exactly that. In fact, that's common for the Bible. Basic human fallibility is routinely reduced to character judgments, both on individuals and nations, usually predicated on their religious observance. But then, the Bible is a book primarily concerned with religious observance...Still long story short, and maybe this is simply a matter of how historic views change or don't always line up together, but don't take Alexander the Great's legacy strictly from what can be found in First Maccabees.
Anyway, after Alexander departs this mortal realm, things don't go so well for his successors, who are none of them half the man he was. One of the men who was definitely not half the man was Antiochus, the main villain of this piece, the instigator and religious persecutor who riles up Mattahias and his five sons, including Judas Maccabeus. Mattahias begins a full-scale revolt of Jews against tyranny, bringing back the fervor and battle success of the holy warriors of old, until he dies and Judas succeeds him. Judas has among his allies a group known as the Hasideans.
A couple notes worth including:
Antiochus, as part of his rampage sacks Egypt (whose fortunes were never again quite at Exodus levels). He plunders the temple. (I'm not clear on this because of the wording, but I think Judas later repairs it.) The temple at this time features "the bread of the Presence," which certainly sounds like a precursor to Catholicism's Holy Communion (which is quite literally the bread of the Presence). Jerusalem becomes occupied.
Oh, and Rome is referenced for the first time in the Bible...
Phinehas is fairly important in the theology here. Also invoked: Abraham, Joseph, Caleb, Joshua, David, Elijah, and Daniel.
The descendants of Esau are once again prominent, naturally, fighting against Judas and his warriors. And to think, way back in Genesis, Esau sounded like he was going to have such a good legacy.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Book of Obadiah 1, Book of Jonah 1-4, Book of Micah 1-7, Book of Nahum 1-3, Book of Habakkuk 1-3, Book of Zephaniah 1-3, Book of Haggai 1-2
More tales of Incredibly Short Books!
We begin our adventures with Book of Obadiah. The most important and perhaps only real notable thing about this one is that it's another source of information on just whatever became of the house of Esau. It ended, basically.
Book of Jonah, easily the most famous of this collection, is exactly as you probably know. The interesting thing, however, is that I somehow managed to construe even this one as one of the Old Testament's many foreshadowings of Jesus. This time, the parallel is with Gethsemane. I never even considered that before. Has anyone else?
Book of Micah is set during the days of the Bad Kings. But there are some choice quotes to share: "If a man should go about and utter wind and lies, saying 'I will preach to you of wine and strong drink,' he would be the preacher for this people!' That's a biblical insult for you!
The other one, predictably for this particular commentary, ties in with Jesus: "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days."
Later, Micah seems to elevate Miriam to the same level as Moses and Aaron. Balaam is referenced, too. And positively! Just as I've been saying all along! Unless I misinterpreted Micah. In which he is still, nonetheless, referenced. And not outright dismissed. For a change.
One more quote: "He has showed you, O men, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
Needless to say, but Book of Micah quickly became a standout for me.
Book of Nahum is also about Nineveh, much like Book of Jonah. Except otherwise it's nothing at all like Jonah.
Book of Habakkuk's most notable feature is its call to keep the faith.
Book of Zephaniah is set in the times of Josiah, which as we know (or should know) is one of the few times in the era of the Bad Kings where there was actually a good king (Josiah, to be clear). Still, it's a classic book of doomsaying.
Book of Haggai is from the days of Darius. It's a rare narrative in this section, basically Haggai presenting himself as the man God calls upon to rebuild the temple. If there's anything peculiar about that, it's that earlier God was not very keen on the idea of a temple in the first place...
We begin our adventures with Book of Obadiah. The most important and perhaps only real notable thing about this one is that it's another source of information on just whatever became of the house of Esau. It ended, basically.
Book of Jonah, easily the most famous of this collection, is exactly as you probably know. The interesting thing, however, is that I somehow managed to construe even this one as one of the Old Testament's many foreshadowings of Jesus. This time, the parallel is with Gethsemane. I never even considered that before. Has anyone else?
Book of Micah is set during the days of the Bad Kings. But there are some choice quotes to share: "If a man should go about and utter wind and lies, saying 'I will preach to you of wine and strong drink,' he would be the preacher for this people!' That's a biblical insult for you!
The other one, predictably for this particular commentary, ties in with Jesus: "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days."
Later, Micah seems to elevate Miriam to the same level as Moses and Aaron. Balaam is referenced, too. And positively! Just as I've been saying all along! Unless I misinterpreted Micah. In which he is still, nonetheless, referenced. And not outright dismissed. For a change.
One more quote: "He has showed you, O men, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
Needless to say, but Book of Micah quickly became a standout for me.
Book of Nahum is also about Nineveh, much like Book of Jonah. Except otherwise it's nothing at all like Jonah.
Book of Habakkuk's most notable feature is its call to keep the faith.
Book of Zephaniah is set in the times of Josiah, which as we know (or should know) is one of the few times in the era of the Bad Kings where there was actually a good king (Josiah, to be clear). Still, it's a classic book of doomsaying.
Book of Haggai is from the days of Darius. It's a rare narrative in this section, basically Haggai presenting himself as the man God calls upon to rebuild the temple. If there's anything peculiar about that, it's that earlier God was not very keen on the idea of a temple in the first place...
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Book of Hosea 1-14, Book of Joel 1-3, Book of Amos 1-9
Now we're reaching Incredibly Short Book territory, in which most of the books we'll be coming across are, well, incredibly short. And there's not really much to talk about, either.
Book of Hosea...set during the era of Bad Kings. Interestingly, this book actually blames Israel itself for the Bad Kings, as if it deserved ill-rule. In the chronicles of Bad Kings, it was pretty clearly explained that these guys were Bad Kings all on their own. Such goes the need to justify Bad Times...
Book of Joel is pretty generalized, warnings and promises and sort of apocalyptic/judgment day suggestions.
Book of Amos is also set in the era of Bad Kings. Interestingly, as far as something to talk about goes (because very little new is being said in any of these), Amos appears for a brief moment in a narrative sequence detailing his humble origins and general lack of acceptance for his prophecies. It doesn't pay to buck the mainstream. Even though you sometimes end up in the Bible as a hero because of it.
Book of Hosea...set during the era of Bad Kings. Interestingly, this book actually blames Israel itself for the Bad Kings, as if it deserved ill-rule. In the chronicles of Bad Kings, it was pretty clearly explained that these guys were Bad Kings all on their own. Such goes the need to justify Bad Times...
Book of Joel is pretty generalized, warnings and promises and sort of apocalyptic/judgment day suggestions.
Book of Amos is also set in the era of Bad Kings. Interestingly, as far as something to talk about goes (because very little new is being said in any of these), Amos appears for a brief moment in a narrative sequence detailing his humble origins and general lack of acceptance for his prophecies. It doesn't pay to buck the mainstream. Even though you sometimes end up in the Bible as a hero because of it.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Book of Daniel 1-14
There's an alternate account of how the Babylonian exile came about to start off Book of Daniel. Later, Daniel himself is introduced as a select group of exceptional, handsome youths (such a biblical trend!) who are to be trained and educated to serve Nebuchadnezzar. He opts to remain religiously pure, overcoming the first of many such challenges. He's the only one to who can interpret Nebuchadnezzar's dream, which creates a parallel with Joseph. There are tons of parallels in this book, as in virtually every other narrative book of the Bible.
This just in: apparently the Babylonians had bagpipes.
There's the famous Daniel's-companions-in-the-fiery-furnace episode. Then the writing-on-the-wall episode. This one features Nebuchadnezzar's successor and son, Belshazzar. Then Darius of the Persians takes over.
It's under Darius that perhaps the most compelling parallel can be found. See if you can't tell me what it reads like: "Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other presidents and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel with regard to the kingdom; but they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him. Then these men said, 'We shall not not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God.'"
Daniel is subsequently sent into the lion's den, another classic episode from the book.
Then the book shifts (there's clear signs that several different works even before this point have been soldered together) into some outright prophetic talk. "There came one like a son of man." Yes, Daniel is another book that features this phrase. There's one sequence that sounds like it could have come from the much later prophecies of Nostradamus.
And then there's a flashback to Daniel saving Susanna from some lecherous old men who attempt to damn her with false witness. Then Daniel exposing the mischief of the priests of Bel. Then Daniel defeating a dragon. (As far as I know, even if I try to say otherwise in some of my fiction, dragons are completely fictional, for the record.)
And then it ends with an alternate version of the lion's den story, featuring Habakkuk.
This just in: apparently the Babylonians had bagpipes.
There's the famous Daniel's-companions-in-the-fiery-furnace episode. Then the writing-on-the-wall episode. This one features Nebuchadnezzar's successor and son, Belshazzar. Then Darius of the Persians takes over.
It's under Darius that perhaps the most compelling parallel can be found. See if you can't tell me what it reads like: "Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other presidents and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel with regard to the kingdom; but they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him. Then these men said, 'We shall not not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God.'"
Daniel is subsequently sent into the lion's den, another classic episode from the book.
Then the book shifts (there's clear signs that several different works even before this point have been soldered together) into some outright prophetic talk. "There came one like a son of man." Yes, Daniel is another book that features this phrase. There's one sequence that sounds like it could have come from the much later prophecies of Nostradamus.
And then there's a flashback to Daniel saving Susanna from some lecherous old men who attempt to damn her with false witness. Then Daniel exposing the mischief of the priests of Bel. Then Daniel defeating a dragon. (As far as I know, even if I try to say otherwise in some of my fiction, dragons are completely fictional, for the record.)
And then it ends with an alternate version of the lion's den story, featuring Habakkuk.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Book of Ezekiel 16-48
In a certain sort of way, Ezekiel 16 kicks off with a funny and highly irreverent version of Jewish origins. But there is other material later in the book that presents equally unique and not always easily-to-be-interpreted-as-funny versions of previous biblical lore. I will have more to say about that a little later on.
Jews are compared to a brazen harlot, in an extended sequence. The phrase, "like mother, like daughter" is used. I'm sure you're more familiar with, "like father, like son."
There's an account of why Sodom was smited. Ezekiel suggests a number of things, including that God had attempted to plant his faith in a number of other places (that may also be the point of Balaam, the prophet of little luck I obsessed over previously, at least according to this interpretation) but was rebuffed, and so he smited them. Such the fate of Sodom, then, as Israel/Judah is smited in the exile era, which is what all these recent prophetic books have been obsessing over.
And so we reach Ezekiel 25.17, which is what Jules (that is, Samuel L. Jackson) draws from for some of his famous words he favors before a hit in Pulp Fiction. In the movie he says, "And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you." Obviously there will be differences of interpretation between different translations of the Bible. But in this instance, perhaps there's a little more of Quentin Tarantino than strict translating here. The version in my RSV Bible reads as follows: "I will execute great vengeance upon them with wrathful chastisements. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon them."
It's worth noting that the latter phrase is used repeatedly in Ezekiel, almost as often as "son of man."
It may be worth noting further, for the purposes of one of the things I've been using as a biblical refrain in these commentaries, that the passage refers in part to the Philistines. I guess it only figures.
38 and 39 reference Gog and Magog, which are classic names in biblical apocalyptic lore, although I have no idea why having read about them in Ezekiel. Both names can be found in a number of DC comics, starting in 1996's Kingdom Come and in later iterations of the same story, such as "Thy Kingdom Come" from Justice Society of America. Magog is specifically referenced in Ezekiel as being a place, but in these comics he's basically the anti-Superman. Perhaps related to the concept of Antichrist from Revelation? The Magog, meanwhile, are apocalyptic aliens in Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda.
Ezekiel ends with an elaborate plan for the new temple. The whole book might almost be interpreted as a version of the Bible for those who didn't really have the Bible, an exile translation as it were, all its apocalyptic talk concerning the Babylonian era.
Jews are compared to a brazen harlot, in an extended sequence. The phrase, "like mother, like daughter" is used. I'm sure you're more familiar with, "like father, like son."
There's an account of why Sodom was smited. Ezekiel suggests a number of things, including that God had attempted to plant his faith in a number of other places (that may also be the point of Balaam, the prophet of little luck I obsessed over previously, at least according to this interpretation) but was rebuffed, and so he smited them. Such the fate of Sodom, then, as Israel/Judah is smited in the exile era, which is what all these recent prophetic books have been obsessing over.
And so we reach Ezekiel 25.17, which is what Jules (that is, Samuel L. Jackson) draws from for some of his famous words he favors before a hit in Pulp Fiction. In the movie he says, "And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you." Obviously there will be differences of interpretation between different translations of the Bible. But in this instance, perhaps there's a little more of Quentin Tarantino than strict translating here. The version in my RSV Bible reads as follows: "I will execute great vengeance upon them with wrathful chastisements. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon them."
It's worth noting that the latter phrase is used repeatedly in Ezekiel, almost as often as "son of man."
It may be worth noting further, for the purposes of one of the things I've been using as a biblical refrain in these commentaries, that the passage refers in part to the Philistines. I guess it only figures.
38 and 39 reference Gog and Magog, which are classic names in biblical apocalyptic lore, although I have no idea why having read about them in Ezekiel. Both names can be found in a number of DC comics, starting in 1996's Kingdom Come and in later iterations of the same story, such as "Thy Kingdom Come" from Justice Society of America. Magog is specifically referenced in Ezekiel as being a place, but in these comics he's basically the anti-Superman. Perhaps related to the concept of Antichrist from Revelation? The Magog, meanwhile, are apocalyptic aliens in Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda.
Ezekiel ends with an elaborate plan for the new temple. The whole book might almost be interpreted as a version of the Bible for those who didn't really have the Bible, an exile translation as it were, all its apocalyptic talk concerning the Babylonian era.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Book of Baruch 1-6, Book of Ezekiel 1-15
Baruch, who played a supporting role in Book of Jeremiah, returns in his own book. Again, these are two books that don't seem to have been written in awareness of each other. For instance, Baruch is basically a televangelist in this version. Read it in your favorite televangelist's voice. You'll see what I mean. He describes himself as basically hugely successful in selling the word of God (and by implication Jeremiah), which is not exactly how (read: at all) it is in Jeremiah. He stresses the importance of serving Babylon faithfully. In fact, that sounds like rendering to Caesar what's Caesar's (something Jesus later says), or in effect the way the actual Evangelists interpreted the events of the New Testament so that they would not be smited (as much?) by their Roman contemporaries.
Jeremiah isn't referenced until the final chapter, which takes the form of one of his letters, which doesn't sound incredibly like Book of Jeremiah.
On to Big E. Fans of Pulp Fiction may or may not know this particular book of the Bible (I'll reach the relevant passage by the next entry of these commentaries if you have no idea what I'm talking about). We're still in the thick of the exile era. It's no wonder that it was so popular a subject, given that by the time of Jesus, the Jews were back in exile, and they wouldn't really emerge for two thousand years. (Which, again, begs the question of why no one has publicly proclaimed the return to Israel last century as a fulfillment of the Jewish messianic prophecies; Golda Meir too female?)
Anyway, Book of Ezekiel begins like classic apocalyptic biblical material, which like the later Revelation of the New Testament is filled with Babylonian messages, although this one really is about Babylon. Apparently the fancy winged figures who precede God were not so much Ezekiel's inventions, but figures anyone at the time would have been able to identify. (Again, we seem to take for granted everything we think now about the stuff we read in the Bible was exactly how they thought about it then, but we're talking the difference of several thousand years. Tons can change and in fact has. I'm just saying. Maybe it's time we all take a more nuanced look at the Good Book. Could do wonders for everyone, believers and otherwise.)
Ezekiel's vision, of course, also includes God, which is the first direct look at him, with no proxy or representation or generalization needed. Which might explain why we have a humanized look of him today, even though he still features the same glowy appearance featured elsewhere in the Bible, both testaments.
The phrase "son of man" is used repeatedly in this book, as God's term for Ezekiel. This is relevant as another thing Reza Aslan could have used to keep in mind when researching and writing the otherwise stellar Zealot.
The Spirit is also once again present. Those who attempt to simplify Jewish faith claim that one of Christianity's big errors is that it attempts to make a mystery out of monotheism by presenting not only God, but the Spirit and the Son as well. But all three are present in the Old Testament, repeatedly, the Son admittedly most obliquely. But it's not a question at all as to the presence of the Spirit.
There are a number of theological flip-floppings in Ezekiel, suggesting that it's another book that underwent consolidating and spotty editing over time. Or perhaps it's merely me being confused, as happens now and again as I read through the Bible. I have no problem admitting that. I'm referencing this again because at one point God seems to be shifting toward the direction of what Christians believe Jesus represented, the whole point he appeared as a human, to act as the last sacrifice God ever needed. Ezekiel is called to symbolically take on the sins of his fellow man. It's less of a question that the shift between you and several generations after you being blighted by your sins as opposed to being able to be outright forgiven also happens to be featured here. This occurs in the middle of a reprise of God giving detailed instructions to someone, which previously happened in the Noah and Moses narratives.
But then God enters righteous fury mode.
Jeremiah isn't referenced until the final chapter, which takes the form of one of his letters, which doesn't sound incredibly like Book of Jeremiah.
On to Big E. Fans of Pulp Fiction may or may not know this particular book of the Bible (I'll reach the relevant passage by the next entry of these commentaries if you have no idea what I'm talking about). We're still in the thick of the exile era. It's no wonder that it was so popular a subject, given that by the time of Jesus, the Jews were back in exile, and they wouldn't really emerge for two thousand years. (Which, again, begs the question of why no one has publicly proclaimed the return to Israel last century as a fulfillment of the Jewish messianic prophecies; Golda Meir too female?)
Anyway, Book of Ezekiel begins like classic apocalyptic biblical material, which like the later Revelation of the New Testament is filled with Babylonian messages, although this one really is about Babylon. Apparently the fancy winged figures who precede God were not so much Ezekiel's inventions, but figures anyone at the time would have been able to identify. (Again, we seem to take for granted everything we think now about the stuff we read in the Bible was exactly how they thought about it then, but we're talking the difference of several thousand years. Tons can change and in fact has. I'm just saying. Maybe it's time we all take a more nuanced look at the Good Book. Could do wonders for everyone, believers and otherwise.)
Ezekiel's vision, of course, also includes God, which is the first direct look at him, with no proxy or representation or generalization needed. Which might explain why we have a humanized look of him today, even though he still features the same glowy appearance featured elsewhere in the Bible, both testaments.
The phrase "son of man" is used repeatedly in this book, as God's term for Ezekiel. This is relevant as another thing Reza Aslan could have used to keep in mind when researching and writing the otherwise stellar Zealot.
The Spirit is also once again present. Those who attempt to simplify Jewish faith claim that one of Christianity's big errors is that it attempts to make a mystery out of monotheism by presenting not only God, but the Spirit and the Son as well. But all three are present in the Old Testament, repeatedly, the Son admittedly most obliquely. But it's not a question at all as to the presence of the Spirit.
There are a number of theological flip-floppings in Ezekiel, suggesting that it's another book that underwent consolidating and spotty editing over time. Or perhaps it's merely me being confused, as happens now and again as I read through the Bible. I have no problem admitting that. I'm referencing this again because at one point God seems to be shifting toward the direction of what Christians believe Jesus represented, the whole point he appeared as a human, to act as the last sacrifice God ever needed. Ezekiel is called to symbolically take on the sins of his fellow man. It's less of a question that the shift between you and several generations after you being blighted by your sins as opposed to being able to be outright forgiven also happens to be featured here. This occurs in the middle of a reprise of God giving detailed instructions to someone, which previously happened in the Noah and Moses narratives.
But then God enters righteous fury mode.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Book of Jeremiah 36-52, Lamentations 1-5
Baruch shows up again and starts to do actual things. Such as act very much like Aaron to Jeremiah's Moses.
Jeremiah utters, "What wrong have I done to you or your servants, or the people, that you have put me in prison?" Then a little later, it's said of him, "Let this man be put to death, for he is weakening the hands of the soldiers who are left in the city, and the hands of all the people by speaking such words to them. For this man is not seeking the welfare of this people, but their harm." Sounds a lot like Jesus foreshadowing to me.
Jeremiah is then thrown into the pit. It's Ebedmelech the Ethiopian who gets him out.
The further Jesus analogy in this scenario is Nebuchadnezzar in the Pontius Pilate role. In fact, the whole depiction of Pilate could very well have been drawn from Book of Jeremiah. As historians are increasingly quick to note, the real Pilate would never even have thought twice about executing Jesus.
I have a correction to make about the earlier reference to "queen of heaven." Now I'm interpreting to have always been an Egyptian reference, likely to Isis. Egypt is prominent in Jeremiah.
In the litany of terrors against nations that helps comprise Book of Jeremiah (it seems obvious that several separate works were at some point combined), there's the suggestion that the conclusion of the Esau legacy is finally reached. You'll remember that although Jacob's brother did actually get to enjoy prosperity through the generations his adventures disappear from the Bible soon after.
The variations of this book from earlier biblical record continue: the end of the Babylonian exile is far less mutual and more like rats fleeing a sinking ship, with Babylon meeting the same sorry fate as other nations in the litany of doom and woe. I'd suggest that it seems obvious some or all of this was written well after the fact, even there's at least one line ("Thus far are the words of Jeremiah") that would try and suggest otherwise. Most of the books of the Bible probably didn't exist in direct awareness of each other much less reflect a lot of direct record. It's hard enough to authenticate such things in the New Testament.
Sodom and Gomorrah, however, are clearly part of the tradition everyone knows at least by name (some suggestions made here indicate varying reasons never actually given as to why they were so famously smited), as they are referenced several times in Book of Jeremiah.
I imagine one way or another that this is not a favorite book of Iraqis. Although funny enough, and maybe I said this already, but Abraham's ziggurat is in Iraq.
It ends funny, though. Jeremiah abruptly disappears (to say nothing of an earlier and random sequence involving a bloody warrior named Ishmael). It rewinds back to the very start of the Babylonian saga, right after having apparently closed the book of Babylon itself.
Lamentations, traditionally ascribed to Jeremiah but clearly not by him, is a, well, poetic lament about the destruction of Jerusalem, and even a moment of religious doubt (which suggests people generally did believe what they were supposed to believe with or without Jeremiah), some lines of general woe concerning the exile era.
Jeremiah utters, "What wrong have I done to you or your servants, or the people, that you have put me in prison?" Then a little later, it's said of him, "Let this man be put to death, for he is weakening the hands of the soldiers who are left in the city, and the hands of all the people by speaking such words to them. For this man is not seeking the welfare of this people, but their harm." Sounds a lot like Jesus foreshadowing to me.
Jeremiah is then thrown into the pit. It's Ebedmelech the Ethiopian who gets him out.
The further Jesus analogy in this scenario is Nebuchadnezzar in the Pontius Pilate role. In fact, the whole depiction of Pilate could very well have been drawn from Book of Jeremiah. As historians are increasingly quick to note, the real Pilate would never even have thought twice about executing Jesus.
I have a correction to make about the earlier reference to "queen of heaven." Now I'm interpreting to have always been an Egyptian reference, likely to Isis. Egypt is prominent in Jeremiah.
In the litany of terrors against nations that helps comprise Book of Jeremiah (it seems obvious that several separate works were at some point combined), there's the suggestion that the conclusion of the Esau legacy is finally reached. You'll remember that although Jacob's brother did actually get to enjoy prosperity through the generations his adventures disappear from the Bible soon after.
The variations of this book from earlier biblical record continue: the end of the Babylonian exile is far less mutual and more like rats fleeing a sinking ship, with Babylon meeting the same sorry fate as other nations in the litany of doom and woe. I'd suggest that it seems obvious some or all of this was written well after the fact, even there's at least one line ("Thus far are the words of Jeremiah") that would try and suggest otherwise. Most of the books of the Bible probably didn't exist in direct awareness of each other much less reflect a lot of direct record. It's hard enough to authenticate such things in the New Testament.
Sodom and Gomorrah, however, are clearly part of the tradition everyone knows at least by name (some suggestions made here indicate varying reasons never actually given as to why they were so famously smited), as they are referenced several times in Book of Jeremiah.
I imagine one way or another that this is not a favorite book of Iraqis. Although funny enough, and maybe I said this already, but Abraham's ziggurat is in Iraq.
It ends funny, though. Jeremiah abruptly disappears (to say nothing of an earlier and random sequence involving a bloody warrior named Ishmael). It rewinds back to the very start of the Babylonian saga, right after having apparently closed the book of Babylon itself.
Lamentations, traditionally ascribed to Jeremiah but clearly not by him, is a, well, poetic lament about the destruction of Jerusalem, and even a moment of religious doubt (which suggests people generally did believe what they were supposed to believe with or without Jeremiah), some lines of general woe concerning the exile era.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Book of Jeremiah 16-35
Narrative interruptions are a marked difference between Book of Isaiah and Book of Jeremiah, among other things. They're far more common in Jeremiah, to the point where it begins to read like a third version of Kings/Chronicles (yay!). Which also has the effect of my having less to talk about.
Although the one interesting part of that, as in the difference between Kings and Chronicles (where Jeremiah grows in prominence in the latter), is that our man becomes that much more central to the story. It also means he gets in trouble for his prophecies of doom. It's the difference between sitting there writing commentaries and being out on the street talking about how bad everyone is compared to what they should be like if they truly consider themselves God's people. In other words, the main distinction (which I believe I'm reiterating) of this book is that it's the guy telling people who don't want to hear about what's going wrong versus preaching to the choir (which is what we imagine similar books to be).
Upper rooms are mentioned. An upper room is central to the story of the Last Supper in the New Testament, you'll remember. Clearly they're an institution of households for some time.
Micah is referenced as a precedent to the kind of work Jeremiah is doing.
Uriah is another. He's murdered for his efforts. Poor Uriah!
The false prophet Hananiah, who speaks of peace (again, that disparity between what religious people today think of peace and war and what religious people back then thought of the same things), is used to illustrate all the false prophets Jeremiah is meant to counterbalance.
Shenaiah is another false prophet. These dueling prophets are almost like what the New Testament would have read like it it had included all the people who claimed to be the messiah at the same time as Jesus (as humorously depicted in Life of Brian)..
Hopefully, Jeremiah speaks of days to come where God will no longer be punishing his people, which Christians would describe as the era Jesus utters, breaking the old cycle, a suggestion already brought up previously in the Old Testament.
Baruch is mentioned. Like Micah, he has his own book later on in the Bible. Right after Lamentations, in fact, in my edition.
Although the one interesting part of that, as in the difference between Kings and Chronicles (where Jeremiah grows in prominence in the latter), is that our man becomes that much more central to the story. It also means he gets in trouble for his prophecies of doom. It's the difference between sitting there writing commentaries and being out on the street talking about how bad everyone is compared to what they should be like if they truly consider themselves God's people. In other words, the main distinction (which I believe I'm reiterating) of this book is that it's the guy telling people who don't want to hear about what's going wrong versus preaching to the choir (which is what we imagine similar books to be).
Upper rooms are mentioned. An upper room is central to the story of the Last Supper in the New Testament, you'll remember. Clearly they're an institution of households for some time.
Micah is referenced as a precedent to the kind of work Jeremiah is doing.
Uriah is another. He's murdered for his efforts. Poor Uriah!
The false prophet Hananiah, who speaks of peace (again, that disparity between what religious people today think of peace and war and what religious people back then thought of the same things), is used to illustrate all the false prophets Jeremiah is meant to counterbalance.
Shenaiah is another false prophet. These dueling prophets are almost like what the New Testament would have read like it it had included all the people who claimed to be the messiah at the same time as Jesus (as humorously depicted in Life of Brian)..
Hopefully, Jeremiah speaks of days to come where God will no longer be punishing his people, which Christians would describe as the era Jesus utters, breaking the old cycle, a suggestion already brought up previously in the Old Testament.
Baruch is mentioned. Like Micah, he has his own book later on in the Bible. Right after Lamentations, in fact, in my edition.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Book of Jeremiah 1-15
Unlike the previous Book of Isaiah, Jeremiah's prophetic nature fits closely with old school Jewish faith, and in fact seems to be a repackaging of it. Just imagine it as the Bible of biblical times, only really unpopular among actual Jews. God is unsurprisingly a lot more interactive here than he's been in a while.
Jeremiah 2: "Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruits of his harvest. All who ate of it became guilty; evil came upon them, says the Lord." Certainly interesting, and perhaps a new perspective on Eden, or perhaps what the faithful originally believed. Or it could be a metaphor concerning anyone who messed with the faith. Which would amount to the same.
Maybe I misread this, but Jeremiah 7 references the "queen of heaven." One way or another, you know I'll just drop in Mary from the New Testament, whom Catholics later dubbed with the same title.
I think the importance of the Exodus era was vastly ramped up in the Babylonian exile era, and this might be a good place to see that develop.
Wailing women appear. They are also prominent in Jesus's Way of the Cross.
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" Perhaps a verse all those crummy assholes who used the Bible to justify American slavery could have used to memorize.
Book of Jeremiah does seem to have some classic apocalyptic imagery in it. New Testament figures were obsessive Bible nerds. You can see it all the time in the constant parallels, which is something the Old Testament itself began, but its Christian successor mastered. Anyway, just as Revelation later introduces the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Jeremiah has the four destroyers, which are pestilence, the sword (war), famine, and captivity (death?), and rephrased slightly a split-second later as sword (again), dog, birds, and beasts (generally). Things like that keep this book interesting.
Jeremiah 2: "Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruits of his harvest. All who ate of it became guilty; evil came upon them, says the Lord." Certainly interesting, and perhaps a new perspective on Eden, or perhaps what the faithful originally believed. Or it could be a metaphor concerning anyone who messed with the faith. Which would amount to the same.
Maybe I misread this, but Jeremiah 7 references the "queen of heaven." One way or another, you know I'll just drop in Mary from the New Testament, whom Catholics later dubbed with the same title.
I think the importance of the Exodus era was vastly ramped up in the Babylonian exile era, and this might be a good place to see that develop.
Wailing women appear. They are also prominent in Jesus's Way of the Cross.
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" Perhaps a verse all those crummy assholes who used the Bible to justify American slavery could have used to memorize.
Book of Jeremiah does seem to have some classic apocalyptic imagery in it. New Testament figures were obsessive Bible nerds. You can see it all the time in the constant parallels, which is something the Old Testament itself began, but its Christian successor mastered. Anyway, just as Revelation later introduces the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Jeremiah has the four destroyers, which are pestilence, the sword (war), famine, and captivity (death?), and rephrased slightly a split-second later as sword (again), dog, birds, and beasts (generally). Things like that keep this book interesting.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Book of Isaiah 31-66
Isaiah 34 includes the phrase "day of vengeance" (the first of two such instances). This comment has nothing particularly biblical to say, unless the comic book people were inspired biblically, but there was a min-series called Day of Vengeance about six years back. It features the so-called Spirit of Vengeance otherwise known as the Spectre, who is said to be God's agent of wrath. When tethered to a human, he can be fairly rational. However, in such instances as Day of Vengeance, he can get a little smite-happy. Spectre was used very overtly in a religious sense in another comic, Kingdom Come. Comics have more of a religious connection than you might think. As reflected in the popular and critically acclaimed Michael Chabon book The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, Superman's creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were a pair of Jewish boys (Superman, it may be said, is often seen as an allegory for Moses).
This chapter also includes the phrase, "none shall pass," which is also a line uttered by Sheldon Cooper in an episode of The Big Bang Theory. Sheldon's use might be said to be an homage to Gandalf uttering, "You shall not pass!" in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Gandalf, it might be said, is a Jesus figure, although a little less blatantly than Aslan).
36 and 37 recap Hezekiah versus the threat of the Assyrians. Surprisingly that happens. Most of Isaiah is extrapolations of bad things coming to the Jews, and also some hopeful messages, and of course as far as Christians are concerned prophetic talk about the upcoming messiah that turns out to be Jesus, as well as some apocalyptic language that is later echoed in other such writings, including Revelation. But there's also some straight narrative in there.
37 also includes "the people of Eden, who were in Telassar," though not apparently a reference in anyway to the Eden of Genesis. It's just interesting to see Eden pop up as a name again.
39 makes it explicit, as I'd interpreted previously, that Hezekiah showing the Babylonians Judah's goods was all but an invitation to begin the latest and most famous (because of all the prophets) captivity era. Book of Isaiah, by the way, is not nearly as keen on Hezekiah as Sirach apparently is.
40: "A voice cries: 'In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord.'" This is something John the Baptist later evokes.
53 is the last of the classic prophetic passages concerning Isaiah's suffering servant, such as the line, "He was despised and rejected by men," which evokes Jesus's execution and the events surrounding it.
This chapter also includes the phrase, "none shall pass," which is also a line uttered by Sheldon Cooper in an episode of The Big Bang Theory. Sheldon's use might be said to be an homage to Gandalf uttering, "You shall not pass!" in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Gandalf, it might be said, is a Jesus figure, although a little less blatantly than Aslan).
36 and 37 recap Hezekiah versus the threat of the Assyrians. Surprisingly that happens. Most of Isaiah is extrapolations of bad things coming to the Jews, and also some hopeful messages, and of course as far as Christians are concerned prophetic talk about the upcoming messiah that turns out to be Jesus, as well as some apocalyptic language that is later echoed in other such writings, including Revelation. But there's also some straight narrative in there.
37 also includes "the people of Eden, who were in Telassar," though not apparently a reference in anyway to the Eden of Genesis. It's just interesting to see Eden pop up as a name again.
39 makes it explicit, as I'd interpreted previously, that Hezekiah showing the Babylonians Judah's goods was all but an invitation to begin the latest and most famous (because of all the prophets) captivity era. Book of Isaiah, by the way, is not nearly as keen on Hezekiah as Sirach apparently is.
40: "A voice cries: 'In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord.'" This is something John the Baptist later evokes.
53 is the last of the classic prophetic passages concerning Isaiah's suffering servant, such as the line, "He was despised and rejected by men," which evokes Jesus's execution and the events surrounding it.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Book of Isaiah 6-30
Book of Isaiah begins to really pick up with the sixth chapter. He becomes the latest biblical personality to say "Here I am!" to God, whom he meets here. God says Israel must be reduced to a stump. Back into smiting mode!
7 is the the Immanuel ("God is with us") prophecy.
9 contains famous prophetic words such as, "and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 11 contains more of that, such as, "There will come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse." If you take the two instances of "stump" very literally, you add up Jesus as the last of the true Jews, which gave birth to Christianity. Some more extrapolating I'll do here is that according to the Bible, the Jews were necessarily bad every time bad things happened to them. If they were in a bad position, it necessarily follows that they were being bad. I'm not saying these are actual correlations, but that this is what the Bible says, repeatedly. Going so far as the time of Jesus, when Jews were under the yoke of Romans, would it not follow that they were being bad, or that it would not be a bad thing to say Jews at that time were being bad, and that whatever the New Testament has to say about their involvement in the Crucifixion does not condemn all Jews but rather specifically Jews that by definition were being bad? Of course, by the same logic, you'd have to assume Jews were very bad indeed at the time of the Holocaust. And by that logic we can perhaps put aside the direct correlations of bad times and bad behavior. To be clear, I'm saying that the Holocaust is the most direct contradiction of biblical logic. I'm saying if you need a reason to not take everything in the Bible literally and not look like a very bad person yourself, that would be a good place to start, and most of us in the 21st century are hopefully willing to agree with that.
Good, so we'll move on.
14 includes the classic tale of the fall of Lucifer, "Day Star, son of Dawn." However, the rest of what Isaiah has to say about him certainly doesn't correlate with everything else we say about Satan now. So that's more of how things develop.
22: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." This just happens to remind me of the movie 300, one of the many things Gerard Butler's Leonidas bellows: "Spartans! Ready your breakfast and eat hearty. For tonight, we dine in hell!"
In 27 Leviathan is described as a serpent. I think I'm not alone in always assuming the name referred to whales. Either way, hardly the first time something in the Bible is mistaken for one of those..."And he will slay the dragon that is in the sea." Dragon that's in the sea? I had no idea about that either!
In 30 both fire and brimstone are referenced in relation to punishment. And they both become staples of old-timey (and scary!) preachers from the 19th century...
7 is the the Immanuel ("God is with us") prophecy.
9 contains famous prophetic words such as, "and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 11 contains more of that, such as, "There will come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse." If you take the two instances of "stump" very literally, you add up Jesus as the last of the true Jews, which gave birth to Christianity. Some more extrapolating I'll do here is that according to the Bible, the Jews were necessarily bad every time bad things happened to them. If they were in a bad position, it necessarily follows that they were being bad. I'm not saying these are actual correlations, but that this is what the Bible says, repeatedly. Going so far as the time of Jesus, when Jews were under the yoke of Romans, would it not follow that they were being bad, or that it would not be a bad thing to say Jews at that time were being bad, and that whatever the New Testament has to say about their involvement in the Crucifixion does not condemn all Jews but rather specifically Jews that by definition were being bad? Of course, by the same logic, you'd have to assume Jews were very bad indeed at the time of the Holocaust. And by that logic we can perhaps put aside the direct correlations of bad times and bad behavior. To be clear, I'm saying that the Holocaust is the most direct contradiction of biblical logic. I'm saying if you need a reason to not take everything in the Bible literally and not look like a very bad person yourself, that would be a good place to start, and most of us in the 21st century are hopefully willing to agree with that.
Good, so we'll move on.
14 includes the classic tale of the fall of Lucifer, "Day Star, son of Dawn." However, the rest of what Isaiah has to say about him certainly doesn't correlate with everything else we say about Satan now. So that's more of how things develop.
22: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." This just happens to remind me of the movie 300, one of the many things Gerard Butler's Leonidas bellows: "Spartans! Ready your breakfast and eat hearty. For tonight, we dine in hell!"
In 27 Leviathan is described as a serpent. I think I'm not alone in always assuming the name referred to whales. Either way, hardly the first time something in the Bible is mistaken for one of those..."And he will slay the dragon that is in the sea." Dragon that's in the sea? I had no idea about that either!
In 30 both fire and brimstone are referenced in relation to punishment. And they both become staples of old-timey (and scary!) preachers from the 19th century...
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Book of Sirach 21-51, Book of Isaiah 1-5
Sirach 25: "I would rather dwell with a lion and a dragon than dwell with an evil wife." As much as I would love to spin this around the thoughts on dragons at the time, I'll soon be talking about Sirach and women again..."From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die," for instance.
At some point, and perhaps it's owing to material that wasn't part of the original composition but not the fault of the original translator, Sirach's material really slips into the usual wisdom literature perspective and quality, losing its original spark, perhaps owing to someone expanding it to its current status as one of the longer Old Testament works.
31 and 32 speak better of wine than elsewhere is spoken of women. At this point, it's just clear that Old Testament folk were deep in the heart of the kind of marriage practice that was more about arrangements than love. The latter is said to be a relatively new invention. The former produced so much grief that I'd say it colored man's whole interpretation of woman. When you were marrying someone you didn't choose, there were no doubt going to be a lot (a lot) of bad matches. I don't suppose either party would be happy about it, but it would probably be the girl being sold, essentially, by her father who would be more resentful of the arrangement. And her unhappiness, or according to the bias of the man, unwillingness to just shut up and be happy, would paint her in a uniformly unflattering light. And thus, all women are bad. They are the "other." And must be warned about and considered the source, well, of all evil. Like Eve. And the reason a great man like Solomon was brought down. And such.
36: "...that there is no God but thee..." Apparently Sirach is not familiar with the oodles of biblical material that clearly states God is preeminent among...other gods. This may be the start of that particular whitewash...Although again, it's not like anyone attempted to delete the previous references. It just seems to be assumed, perhaps, that they refer to false idols of pagan neighbors.
38 and 39 go out of their way to explain why different classes should remain separate, because they will just never be able to understand each other.
43 is a summary of God, and includes the phrase, "He is the all." A sort of variation on "I Am Who Am," or omnipotence in so many words.
44 begins a litany of great biblical men, with some interesting selections:
At some point, and perhaps it's owing to material that wasn't part of the original composition but not the fault of the original translator, Sirach's material really slips into the usual wisdom literature perspective and quality, losing its original spark, perhaps owing to someone expanding it to its current status as one of the longer Old Testament works.
31 and 32 speak better of wine than elsewhere is spoken of women. At this point, it's just clear that Old Testament folk were deep in the heart of the kind of marriage practice that was more about arrangements than love. The latter is said to be a relatively new invention. The former produced so much grief that I'd say it colored man's whole interpretation of woman. When you were marrying someone you didn't choose, there were no doubt going to be a lot (a lot) of bad matches. I don't suppose either party would be happy about it, but it would probably be the girl being sold, essentially, by her father who would be more resentful of the arrangement. And her unhappiness, or according to the bias of the man, unwillingness to just shut up and be happy, would paint her in a uniformly unflattering light. And thus, all women are bad. They are the "other." And must be warned about and considered the source, well, of all evil. Like Eve. And the reason a great man like Solomon was brought down. And such.
36: "...that there is no God but thee..." Apparently Sirach is not familiar with the oodles of biblical material that clearly states God is preeminent among...other gods. This may be the start of that particular whitewash...Although again, it's not like anyone attempted to delete the previous references. It just seems to be assumed, perhaps, that they refer to false idols of pagan neighbors.
38 and 39 go out of their way to explain why different classes should remain separate, because they will just never be able to understand each other.
43 is a summary of God, and includes the phrase, "He is the all." A sort of variation on "I Am Who Am," or omnipotence in so many words.
44 begins a litany of great biblical men, with some interesting selections:
- Enoch ("example of repentance," otherwise not especially biblicly important)
- Noah ("taken in exchange," which certainly seems to make that story different)
- Abraham ("kept the law," which is also interesting, considering "the law" didn't really exist for another few generations, under Moses)
- Isaac
- Jacob
- Moses ("a man of mercy," except when he was smiting people even after God decided not to!)
- Aaron (gets an incredibly lengthy write-up, almost as if he's far more important than anyone else)
- Phinehas ("zealot in the fear of God")
- Joshua ("mighty in war")
- Samuel
- David
- Solomon
- Elijah
- Josiah
And a few other names referenced, although it's not always clear to what extent Sirach is actually endorsing them to the level comparable with the above list, Hezekiah for example. "No one like Enoch has been created on earth, for he was taken up from the earth. And no man like Joseph has been born, and his bones are cared for. Shem and Seth were honored among men, and Adam above every living being in the creation."
50 adds Simon to the list, perhaps on the same basis as Enoch.
Anyway, Sirach really seems to be a final summation of orthodox Jewish thought, perhaps the basis for its modern practice (you know, besides Moses) after a few notable deviations such as Book of Job and Ecclesiastes.
In the same way, Book of Isaiah might arguably called the beginning of a marked transition between the Old and New Testaments. I know, his prophecies are important to the times he lived in, but he also serves as one of the classic biblical voices pointing, according to Christian thought, toward Jesus. He seems to be saying in the early going that not only are the people corrupted, but God is actually tired of the old ways, which is to say preparing something new (which, by the way, even Christians don't understand). The fifth chapter even features a parable that reads very similar to the ones Jesus would later give, concerning a vineyard as a metaphor.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Book of Sirach 6-20
Sirach 6 has great advice concerning friends, including the "a faithful friend is a sturdy shelter" passage.
8: "Do not slight the discourse of the sages, but busy yourself with their maxims; because from them you will gain instruction and learn how to serve great men." It's interesting, that at least from this perspective, smart people are not themselves fit to be rulers, or great men, apparently. I suppose it makes sense.
10: Pride was not created for me, no fierce anger for those born of women." Another interesting perspective.
12 preaches to distance yourself from sinners, which is the opposite of how Jesus would later live his life.
13 is extremely cynical about the motives of rich people. It's true that we as a society today are skeptical of the rich, and we have plenty of reasons to be, but now I'm wondering how much of that is because we were always told to distrust them. If we're told to keep our distance, and they keep their distance, that certainly won't help matters, either, is what I'm saying.
All the personification of wisdom both here in Sirach and elsewhere starts to feel very similar to Jesus calling himself the "bread of life."
17 seems to suggest that God showed Adam the difference between good and evil. I may be reading it wrong, because the chapter is yet another where biblical history is repeated but more in allusion than in specifics. But it would certainly be an interesting variation. Everyone just kind of accepts that Genesis explains the Judeo-Christian position on how that happened (and handily blames it on a woman). Maybe that's not what the faith always said, at least uniformly.
18: "He rebukes and trains and teaches them, and turns them back, as a shepherd his flock." The same shepherd analogy Jesus would later use himself, done differently (Jesus was the good shepherd, you'll recall), in a more direct fashion. The same relationship God has been illustrated as having with his people all along, but worded just differently enough...That seems to be the theme of Sirach. When they say something like "the inspired word of God," I think this would be the stuff they're talking about. I'm not saying you need to believe all of it, because it's still the fallible work of fallible man, inspired or not, suited to the needs and understanding of the time it was written, but it's helpful. That's what the whole Bible should be, right? A guidebook of sorts.
19: "Wine and women lead intelligent men astray." Although even Sirach is beholden to the idea that women in general are the "other" of society, not necessarily included in any of these thoughts, and must constantly be warned about. Of wine and women, there are many more concerns about women than wine in the Bible. Maybe at the time women really were always trying to lead men astray. Or perhaps more likely, being the "other" they were simply considered the primary source of sexual thoughts. If the perspective is male, of course they would be. In a female-oriented culture, that line would read "wine and men lead intelligent men astray," with all the same implications. It would be nice if we could just get past that already. Women are people too. And so let's move along.
8: "Do not slight the discourse of the sages, but busy yourself with their maxims; because from them you will gain instruction and learn how to serve great men." It's interesting, that at least from this perspective, smart people are not themselves fit to be rulers, or great men, apparently. I suppose it makes sense.
10: Pride was not created for me, no fierce anger for those born of women." Another interesting perspective.
12 preaches to distance yourself from sinners, which is the opposite of how Jesus would later live his life.
13 is extremely cynical about the motives of rich people. It's true that we as a society today are skeptical of the rich, and we have plenty of reasons to be, but now I'm wondering how much of that is because we were always told to distrust them. If we're told to keep our distance, and they keep their distance, that certainly won't help matters, either, is what I'm saying.
All the personification of wisdom both here in Sirach and elsewhere starts to feel very similar to Jesus calling himself the "bread of life."
17 seems to suggest that God showed Adam the difference between good and evil. I may be reading it wrong, because the chapter is yet another where biblical history is repeated but more in allusion than in specifics. But it would certainly be an interesting variation. Everyone just kind of accepts that Genesis explains the Judeo-Christian position on how that happened (and handily blames it on a woman). Maybe that's not what the faith always said, at least uniformly.
18: "He rebukes and trains and teaches them, and turns them back, as a shepherd his flock." The same shepherd analogy Jesus would later use himself, done differently (Jesus was the good shepherd, you'll recall), in a more direct fashion. The same relationship God has been illustrated as having with his people all along, but worded just differently enough...That seems to be the theme of Sirach. When they say something like "the inspired word of God," I think this would be the stuff they're talking about. I'm not saying you need to believe all of it, because it's still the fallible work of fallible man, inspired or not, suited to the needs and understanding of the time it was written, but it's helpful. That's what the whole Bible should be, right? A guidebook of sorts.
19: "Wine and women lead intelligent men astray." Although even Sirach is beholden to the idea that women in general are the "other" of society, not necessarily included in any of these thoughts, and must constantly be warned about. Of wine and women, there are many more concerns about women than wine in the Bible. Maybe at the time women really were always trying to lead men astray. Or perhaps more likely, being the "other" they were simply considered the primary source of sexual thoughts. If the perspective is male, of course they would be. In a female-oriented culture, that line would read "wine and men lead intelligent men astray," with all the same implications. It would be nice if we could just get past that already. Women are people too. And so let's move along.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Song of Solomon 1-8, Wisdom of Solomon 1-19, Book of Sirach 1-5
The short and sweet ode to love (to what end beyond love is up for debate) includes henna in its first chapter, whether the tree or the art (up to debate?). The second chapter includes the phrase, "I am a rose of Sharon," which a type of flower and also a character in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. The third chapter references frankincense and myrrh in a romantic sense. Song of Solomon amounts to a wonderful look at the culture of the Old Testament, and after Ecclesiastes is another fine book to read if you're skeptical that there's some truly great literature in the Bible.
Wisdom of Solomon is kind of the opposite. It's another plodding wisdom literature effort. (Neither one is actually by Solomon, by the way.)
The first chapter references "that which holds all things together," a phrase that calls to mind Yoda's description of the Force in Star Wars. Hades is also referenced again. The second chapter covers this book's vision of how atheists happen. It also evokes Jesus at the moment of his death. It further proposes the doctrine of eternal life for the faithful. The fifth chapter calls Jesus to mind, too. The tenth and eleventh chapters recap Genesis and Exodus without any names mentioned. They're pretty interesting. The thirteenth chapter is the book's version of how pagans come to worship their idols. The rest of it becomes a little tiresome.
The Book of Sirach (so I'll call it for simplicity's sake) is another piece of wisdom literature, and so far it's far better than Wisdom of Solomon. It's got a prologue from the translator, who studied, of course, in Egypt.
Wisdom of Solomon is kind of the opposite. It's another plodding wisdom literature effort. (Neither one is actually by Solomon, by the way.)
The first chapter references "that which holds all things together," a phrase that calls to mind Yoda's description of the Force in Star Wars. Hades is also referenced again. The second chapter covers this book's vision of how atheists happen. It also evokes Jesus at the moment of his death. It further proposes the doctrine of eternal life for the faithful. The fifth chapter calls Jesus to mind, too. The tenth and eleventh chapters recap Genesis and Exodus without any names mentioned. They're pretty interesting. The thirteenth chapter is the book's version of how pagans come to worship their idols. The rest of it becomes a little tiresome.
The Book of Sirach (so I'll call it for simplicity's sake) is another piece of wisdom literature, and so far it's far better than Wisdom of Solomon. It's got a prologue from the translator, who studied, of course, in Egypt.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Proverbs 16-31, Ecclesiastes 1-12
Proverb 6 includes the "pride goes before the fall" concept.
17: "the Lord tries hearts"
19: "It is not fitting for a slave to rule over princes." (Besides Joseph, right? Or Moses, for that matter?)
I have a rant about the "spare the rod spoil the child" advice that is reiterated repeatedly, based on a suggestion that children are apparently inherently evil. I'll suffice to say that only a really bad parent would have a child like that. A child is only as bad as you allow them to be. If you have to discipline them severely, chances are you ought to be severely disciplined yourself.
24: "A wise man is mightier than a strong man" (or in other words, the pen is mightier than the sword).
26: "I'm only joking!"
The later proverbs are a little more proverbial, as it were. They also uniformly prefer poor people to rich people.
29: "Where there is no prophecy the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law." This may indicate what the Old Testament thought prophets were really doing, which is to say they were like judges in the time of kings, which is to say they weren't predicting the future so much as interpreting the present by way of bringing the focus back to the faith.
30 is "of Agur" while 31 is "of Lemuel" (the latter name, for those literary types keeping score, is also Gulliver's first name from the famous Jonathan Swift novel). The former includes the line, "What is his name, and what is his son's name?" in relation to speaking about God.
Ecclesiastes is officially my favorite book of the Bible so far, just so you know. It's a work of true wisdom reflected in weary experience. It's more like Book of Job than Proverbs.
"For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
Chapter 3 is the famous "for everything there is a season...a time to etc." passage. "He has made everything beautiful in its time; also he has put eternity into man's mind, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."
If you want to actually read only one book of the Bible, I highly recommend Ecclesiastes.
17: "the Lord tries hearts"
19: "It is not fitting for a slave to rule over princes." (Besides Joseph, right? Or Moses, for that matter?)
I have a rant about the "spare the rod spoil the child" advice that is reiterated repeatedly, based on a suggestion that children are apparently inherently evil. I'll suffice to say that only a really bad parent would have a child like that. A child is only as bad as you allow them to be. If you have to discipline them severely, chances are you ought to be severely disciplined yourself.
24: "A wise man is mightier than a strong man" (or in other words, the pen is mightier than the sword).
26: "I'm only joking!"
The later proverbs are a little more proverbial, as it were. They also uniformly prefer poor people to rich people.
29: "Where there is no prophecy the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law." This may indicate what the Old Testament thought prophets were really doing, which is to say they were like judges in the time of kings, which is to say they weren't predicting the future so much as interpreting the present by way of bringing the focus back to the faith.
30 is "of Agur" while 31 is "of Lemuel" (the latter name, for those literary types keeping score, is also Gulliver's first name from the famous Jonathan Swift novel). The former includes the line, "What is his name, and what is his son's name?" in relation to speaking about God.
Ecclesiastes is officially my favorite book of the Bible so far, just so you know. It's a work of true wisdom reflected in weary experience. It's more like Book of Job than Proverbs.
"For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
Chapter 3 is the famous "for everything there is a season...a time to etc." passage. "He has made everything beautiful in its time; also he has put eternity into man's mind, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."
If you want to actually read only one book of the Bible, I highly recommend Ecclesiastes.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Psalms 106-150, Proverbs 1-15
Psalm 106 is a recap of Jews acting badly under Moses.
It's kind of unfortunate, after a while, that Psalms is after the Book of Job. All the theological revisions in Job are undone in Psalms, which sticks to the more orthodox beliefs. We'll see the same shortly in Proverbs, naturally.
110 has a reference to the phrase, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," which is something from the Old Testament that left a lasting legacy even though Melchizedek otherwise is meaningless as an entity in it.
118 features the word "hark."
120 is another psalm that mistakes the apparent Jewish mandate for war with a mandate for peace, or perhaps not of the budding transition between the two.
It's also worth noting that the psalms are really all over the place theologically. They were definitely not written by the same hand at the same time.
Psalms tagged with "of Ascents," heavily stacked in the back of the book, are generally more hopeful and positive, however.
136: "For his steadfast love endures for ever" in a lovely and constant refrain.
137 is very poetic and evocative of life in the exile era.
139 is a fairly comprehensive encapsulation of God.
Proverbs, popularly attributed to Solomon, is not exactly, so far, what I would've expected from it.
1 features the lines:
"How long, O simple one, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?"
9: "Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you."
Really, though, it's just a lot of fatherly advice and orthodox belief statements concerning God, with lots and lots of repetition, and an apparently classic Solomonian fear of "loose women." Not very proverbial, so far anyway...
It's kind of unfortunate, after a while, that Psalms is after the Book of Job. All the theological revisions in Job are undone in Psalms, which sticks to the more orthodox beliefs. We'll see the same shortly in Proverbs, naturally.
110 has a reference to the phrase, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," which is something from the Old Testament that left a lasting legacy even though Melchizedek otherwise is meaningless as an entity in it.
118 features the word "hark."
120 is another psalm that mistakes the apparent Jewish mandate for war with a mandate for peace, or perhaps not of the budding transition between the two.
It's also worth noting that the psalms are really all over the place theologically. They were definitely not written by the same hand at the same time.
Psalms tagged with "of Ascents," heavily stacked in the back of the book, are generally more hopeful and positive, however.
136: "For his steadfast love endures for ever" in a lovely and constant refrain.
137 is very poetic and evocative of life in the exile era.
139 is a fairly comprehensive encapsulation of God.
Proverbs, popularly attributed to Solomon, is not exactly, so far, what I would've expected from it.
1 features the lines:
"How long, O simple one, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?"
9: "Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you."
Really, though, it's just a lot of fatherly advice and orthodox belief statements concerning God, with lots and lots of repetition, and an apparently classic Solomonian fear of "loose women." Not very proverbial, so far anyway...
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Psalms 71-105
Psalm 74: "We do not see our signs; there is no longer any prophet, and there is none among us who knows how long. How long, O God, is the foe to scoff?"
78 references the concept of the parable, something Jesus frequently uses, although it's really just a reiteration of Exodus. Although maybe there's a point to that for the Davidic era. David is specifically referenced as part of God's revised plan.
The phrase "son of man," which Reza Aslan in Zealot interprets as something Jesus seems to have coined for himself, at least as a title, appears repeatedly, I should note, although not nearly as often as it will in the Book of Jeremiah a little later. Is this taken by Christians to be another foreshadowing?
89: "Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord, a God feared in the council of the holy ones?" Just like to regularly point out the constant acknowledgment of other divine beings in the Bible, which otherwise promotes God on the strength of his services to his chosen people. Monotheism by choice rather than options, you might call Judeo-Christians (although by the time of Christians all the other ones, who are never really addressed directly in the Bible except the pagan gods whose representatives always look so pathetic, seem to have been completely forgotten). This psalm also reiterates the permanent covenant with David, which Christians would interpret as finally fulfilled in Jesus.
A lot of the psalms from this part of the book have been adapted into modern hymns, possibly only among Christians. I don't know about Jewish practices. The psalms were originally conceived to be incorporated into services, and perhaps they remain so.
A key to unlocking authorship of these psalms might be found in 99, which is "of" Moses but still references him in the third person. Other claims of apparent authorship include David, of course, as well as Asaph, the Sons of Korah, and Ethan.
105 is a summary of biblical history from Abraham to Moses. It occurred to me while reading this time that perhaps the Bible from Genesis on might simply be a chronicle of orthodox Jewish genealogy, which was known to start with a man named Adam. Since it wasn't until Abraham that the faith truly began, it would have been natural to assume that the first name didn't represent fidelity with God very well. Anyway, a thought. That might explain why Cain would be able to wander off and find other people, because even as biblical scholars will tell you the account of creation mustn't be taken literally. Insofar as the part God played, sure, but as far as how man came into the world...Anyway, again, take this for what you will.
78 references the concept of the parable, something Jesus frequently uses, although it's really just a reiteration of Exodus. Although maybe there's a point to that for the Davidic era. David is specifically referenced as part of God's revised plan.
The phrase "son of man," which Reza Aslan in Zealot interprets as something Jesus seems to have coined for himself, at least as a title, appears repeatedly, I should note, although not nearly as often as it will in the Book of Jeremiah a little later. Is this taken by Christians to be another foreshadowing?
89: "Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord, a God feared in the council of the holy ones?" Just like to regularly point out the constant acknowledgment of other divine beings in the Bible, which otherwise promotes God on the strength of his services to his chosen people. Monotheism by choice rather than options, you might call Judeo-Christians (although by the time of Christians all the other ones, who are never really addressed directly in the Bible except the pagan gods whose representatives always look so pathetic, seem to have been completely forgotten). This psalm also reiterates the permanent covenant with David, which Christians would interpret as finally fulfilled in Jesus.
A lot of the psalms from this part of the book have been adapted into modern hymns, possibly only among Christians. I don't know about Jewish practices. The psalms were originally conceived to be incorporated into services, and perhaps they remain so.
A key to unlocking authorship of these psalms might be found in 99, which is "of" Moses but still references him in the third person. Other claims of apparent authorship include David, of course, as well as Asaph, the Sons of Korah, and Ethan.
105 is a summary of biblical history from Abraham to Moses. It occurred to me while reading this time that perhaps the Bible from Genesis on might simply be a chronicle of orthodox Jewish genealogy, which was known to start with a man named Adam. Since it wasn't until Abraham that the faith truly began, it would have been natural to assume that the first name didn't represent fidelity with God very well. Anyway, a thought. That might explain why Cain would be able to wander off and find other people, because even as biblical scholars will tell you the account of creation mustn't be taken literally. Insofar as the part God played, sure, but as far as how man came into the world...Anyway, again, take this for what you will.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Psalms 36-70
Psalm 46 includes the phrase, "He makes wars cease," which would certainly be news to a lot of biblical history, but would certainly sound perfectly fine to modern ears..
Psalm 56, "In God I trust without a fear," which could be the source of "In God We Trust," which can be found on US currency.
Psalm 69, "and the drunkards songs about me." The context is less merry than my extrapolation of the statement: biblical drinking songs! This one also includes the far more sober, "and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," which is associated with Christian prophecy concerning Jesus and the moment of his crucifixion.
Psalm 70 ends on this note, which I think would make a pretty good prayer:
But I am poor and needy;
hasten to me, O God!
Thou art my help and my deliverer;
O Lord, do not tarry!
Psalm 56, "In God I trust without a fear," which could be the source of "In God We Trust," which can be found on US currency.
Psalm 69, "and the drunkards songs about me." The context is less merry than my extrapolation of the statement: biblical drinking songs! This one also includes the far more sober, "and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," which is associated with Christian prophecy concerning Jesus and the moment of his crucifixion.
Psalm 70 ends on this note, which I think would make a pretty good prayer:
But I am poor and needy;
hasten to me, O God!
Thou art my help and my deliverer;
O Lord, do not tarry!
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Book of Job 26-42, Psalms 1-35
"By his power he stilled the sea." Jesus famously performed this act in the gospels.
Job's laments are eventually answered in a mainstream Jewish perspective, and then by God as if in a final test. And then he gets everything he lost right back. And thus ends the Book of Job.
Psalms is a bunch of psalms, a hundred and fifty of them, although thematically they're incredibly similar to Book of Job, which is hugely apparent when you read them back-to-back. Historically they're associated with David, although not all of them date back to him.
Psalm 16 is very reminiscent of the 23rd Psalm.
Psalm 18 is a little like a whole New Testament preview, and even evokes Paul's later "I have run the race" lyrical statement.
Psalm 22 includes the phrase, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Psalm 31 includes, "Into thy hand I commit my spirit." Psalm 22 is rich in Christian theology of the suffering servant variety, evoking the Isaiah prophecies.
Psalm 27 reads like a sequel to the 23rd Psalm.
Psalm 31 also includes the phrase, "Be strong,and let your heart take courage, all you who wait for the Lord." Note Lord and not messiah.
This linking of David with Job also strengthens the link between Job and Jesus, and thus Jesus with David.
And because it's the most famous and best one, here is the 23rd Psalm in its entirety:
The Lord is my shepherd,
I shall not want;
he makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters;
he restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil;
for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff,
they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
thou anointest my head with oil, my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life;
and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord
for ever.
Job's laments are eventually answered in a mainstream Jewish perspective, and then by God as if in a final test. And then he gets everything he lost right back. And thus ends the Book of Job.
Psalms is a bunch of psalms, a hundred and fifty of them, although thematically they're incredibly similar to Book of Job, which is hugely apparent when you read them back-to-back. Historically they're associated with David, although not all of them date back to him.
Psalm 16 is very reminiscent of the 23rd Psalm.
Psalm 18 is a little like a whole New Testament preview, and even evokes Paul's later "I have run the race" lyrical statement.
Psalm 22 includes the phrase, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Psalm 31 includes, "Into thy hand I commit my spirit." Psalm 22 is rich in Christian theology of the suffering servant variety, evoking the Isaiah prophecies.
Psalm 27 reads like a sequel to the 23rd Psalm.
Psalm 31 also includes the phrase, "Be strong,and let your heart take courage, all you who wait for the Lord." Note Lord and not messiah.
This linking of David with Job also strengthens the link between Job and Jesus, and thus Jesus with David.
And because it's the most famous and best one, here is the 23rd Psalm in its entirety:
The Lord is my shepherd,
I shall not want;
he makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters;
he restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil;
for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff,
they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
thou anointest my head with oil, my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life;
and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord
for ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)