Isaiah 6-12
Who truly wrote the book of Isaiah is a puzzle that archaeologists, historians, and other scholars (theists and atheists alike) are still trying to piece together. The oldest copy of this Hebrew Scripture is called the Isaiah Scroll aka the Great Isaiah Scroll. In 1947 this scroll was one of 220 scrolls discovered at the caves of Qumran located in the West Bank near the Dead Sea; part of the contentious Israeli/Palestinian conflict that has been raging for a few generations now.
These scrolls are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are the remnants of a Jewish sect, most likely the Essenes, that got wiped out a few years after the Roman Revolution of 66 B.C.E. when the Jews kicked Rome out of Jerusalem. The nation of Israel would be independent again for the first time since the fall of Judah to the Babylonians. Of course three years later the Romans return and slaughter everyone and burn the Temple of Yahweh to the ground. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the holy scrolls that the Essenes, or other jewish group on the run, hid away in order to protect before either fleeing or falling to the sword.
What is interesting about the Great Isaiah scroll, though, is the fact that it is the oldest copy of the entire book of Isaiah with a carbon dating placing the scroll between 330-110 B.C.E. The scroll itself is most likely a copy of an even older scroll that has been lost to history and that was probably not the oldest copy of this story, either. There are some slight grammatical and textual differences between this Great Scroll and the modern hebrew versions, but these variances don’t change the meaning of what is being conveyed too drastically. Although, with the extent that mankind likes to twist things to their own advantages that could be debatable.
Despite the Jewish tradition of the author being the Prophet himself Biblical Studies of the past two centuries have led most scholars to believe that the text was probably written over a large period of time and can be broken into three major sections; Proto-(1st), Duetero-(2nd), and Trito-(3rd)Isaiah. We will get into the 2nd and 3rd Isaiahs later.
The 1st part (chapters 1-39) is believed to have been either written by the prophet Isaiah or a historian of the time soon after Isaiah in the 8th century B.C.E. Chapters 6-8 give a little biography of the man. He was known to use his own self as well as his wife and children as tools for his prophecy. His wife was even known as the Prophetess. These first 39 chapters are believed to be the actual recorded sayings of the ancient prophet Isaiah. Up till chapter 12 is believed to be the early years of the prophet. These are the warnings to the people of Israel that they are living the wrong way according to words of Moses. This is all told in the book of Kings, too, as this would have been during the reign of first King Uzziah and then King Jotham, roughly 750 B.C.E. Uzziah died near the start of Isaiah’s preaching.
Chapters 10-11 warn of the impending doom at the hands of Assyrians. Isaiah warns that Yahweh will use the Assyrians as his instrument of punishment against the Israelites just as he used the Israelites against the Canaanites after warning those heathens for hundreds of years, as well. However, just as Yahweh warned the Israelites all those generations ago, so too does Isaiah issue a warning to Assyria. He tells them in chapter 10 that they will be judged for their transgressions, as well. Just because they are the instrument of God’s wrath does not mean they get to escape that wrath.
In Chapter 11 we get the prophecy concerning the next great leader of Israel. For Isaiah, this prophecy was for a coming king that would lead after Assyria had laid waste to its people. This would be a leader that would call back the people that had been scattered by the conquest of Assyria and restore the kingship of the divided nations back into the one nation of Israel under one King. This king would be a descendent of the last great king, David. Unfortunately, Assyria destroyed the northern kingdom and whoever escaped fled to southern Judah.
Since this king never came, as all kings up until the fall of Judah fell short of this expectation, the prophecy of Isaiah was still used in the days of Roman occupied Israel. These would have been the prophecies that were talked about in the days of Jesus and John the Baptist. The fact that the Great Scroll of Isaiah was the most complete scroll of 220 shows its significance and respect in the ancient Jewish mind. The people of that time, just as today, could use these passages as prophecy for their political situations in that time period. The Essense especially were huge fans of this scroll and had many parallel prophecies of their own using passages from The Great Isaiah Scroll.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Time to Shake Things Up
Isaiah 1-5
This book begins the collection of scrolls of the Major Prophets. The events of the book of Isaiah take place during the periods mentioned in II Kings and II Chronicles. Isaiah is a prophet that preaches in Judah, the southern Kingdom, during the reigns of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah; 740-690 B.C.E. During this time period Assyria was the dominant civilization, with Babylon making rapid progress as well. It was also within this time period that the Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians; around 729 B.C.E. The origin of this book of the Tanakh is interesting and I will be able to get into it as we get deeper into the story of Isaiah. For now, though, lets soak up the atmosphere of the time and place of ancient Judah. We don’t learn anything about the prophet until Chapter Six, but the story opens right up with a harsh critique of the people of Judah in the year following the reign of King Uzziah, who ruled Judah from around 791-739 B.C.E.
Under King Uzziah the nation of Judah was rich and powerful. Since Uzziah was a boy of sixteen when he became king (II Kings 15:2) his reign lasted fifty-two years. He was one of the most prosperous kings since King Solomon. He also did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to scripture. The events in II Kings and II Chronicles indicate an event late in his life where Uzziah’s pride got the best of him and he sinned against God (II Chronicles 26:19-21). He was struck with leprosy and died (2 Kings 15:5, 27; 2 Chronicles 26:3) leaving the kingdom to his son Jotham (II Kings 15:5) in roughly 739 B.C.E.
It is under the rule of King Jotham that the Book of Isaiah opens upon. Jotham is a good king. He rebuilds many towns and fortresses as well as the walls of the Temple in Jerusalem. Over his sixteen year reign as king he does well to stay within God’s favor. Unfortunately, the people grow lazy and proud with his success and his piety does not rub off on them. That’s where Isaiah comes in.
The first five chapters are an admonition to the people of Judah warning them of their proud ways and teaching that the descendants of Abraham and Jacob have a unique relationship with the God of gods, but they are failing to live up to their end of the covenant. Isaiah warns the people that their refusal to honor the Lord by taking care of the less fortunate people (widows, orphans, the poor, etc), as well as their love of things other than Yahweh, would cause them to lose the favor of Yahweh. They had entered into an agreement with the Creator and were not living up to their end of the bargain. Isaiah then explains exactly what the consequences for their behavior will be.
Finally, in chapter five Isaiah explains that because Israel has failed, generation after generation, to fulfill its covenant with Yahweh they will be uprooted and scattered to the four winds. This does not mean that God’s plan of bringing the nations of the world back into his grace, explained to Abraham in the book of Genesis, has failed and ends here with the Jews. It just means that the next phase is about to begin.
Under King Uzziah the nation of Judah was rich and powerful. Since Uzziah was a boy of sixteen when he became king (II Kings 15:2) his reign lasted fifty-two years. He was one of the most prosperous kings since King Solomon. He also did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to scripture. The events in II Kings and II Chronicles indicate an event late in his life where Uzziah’s pride got the best of him and he sinned against God (II Chronicles 26:19-21). He was struck with leprosy and died (2 Kings 15:5, 27; 2 Chronicles 26:3) leaving the kingdom to his son Jotham (II Kings 15:5) in roughly 739 B.C.E.
It is under the rule of King Jotham that the Book of Isaiah opens upon. Jotham is a good king. He rebuilds many towns and fortresses as well as the walls of the Temple in Jerusalem. Over his sixteen year reign as king he does well to stay within God’s favor. Unfortunately, the people grow lazy and proud with his success and his piety does not rub off on them. That’s where Isaiah comes in.
The first five chapters are an admonition to the people of Judah warning them of their proud ways and teaching that the descendants of Abraham and Jacob have a unique relationship with the God of gods, but they are failing to live up to their end of the covenant. Isaiah warns the people that their refusal to honor the Lord by taking care of the less fortunate people (widows, orphans, the poor, etc), as well as their love of things other than Yahweh, would cause them to lose the favor of Yahweh. They had entered into an agreement with the Creator and were not living up to their end of the bargain. Isaiah then explains exactly what the consequences for their behavior will be.
Finally, in chapter five Isaiah explains that because Israel has failed, generation after generation, to fulfill its covenant with Yahweh they will be uprooted and scattered to the four winds. This does not mean that God’s plan of bringing the nations of the world back into his grace, explained to Abraham in the book of Genesis, has failed and ends here with the Jews. It just means that the next phase is about to begin.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
The Book That Makes You Blush
Song of Solomon 1-8
The Song of Songs, as it is also known, is the last piece of work of the section of the Tanakh known as the Ketuvim (Writings). It is a story about a man and a woman who are in love and going through the different stages of romance. It starts of with them romancing each other and ends with the final act of love. It is a very odd piece of scripture to be included among the other writings. In fact, through the whole short work of Song of Songs there is only one mention of God. Solomon is never mentioned as the protagonist in the story, in fact Solomon is referenced by the man in the story as the King, which leads one to believe that this main character is someone other than King Solomon. Some people think the song was written for Solomon rather than by him.
According to the Talmud, the Jewish book of tradition compiled by the Jews after the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., King Solomon is the author of the Song of Songs and he wrote this piece after first writing the Book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. However, according to modern scholars the authorship of this book cannot be specified. Scholars can not even agree on an estimated date of authorship. The estimates of these scholars put the origin of this book between 950 B.C.E. to 200 B.C.E. There are some schools of thought that state the original author existed in the 900s B.C.E. and wrote in the language style of that day. Other scholars state that some of the language used in the original texts is actually Persian, which would put the date of composition sometime during or after the exile in 500 B.C.E.
The love story contained within the Song of Songs can be a little sexy compared to the rest of the Tanakh. It really is a mystery as to why it was included in the Jewish Holy scriptures. The use of the book has been, traditionally, as a metaphor for God’s love for his chosen people. Later, it was included in the Christian Canon and used as a metaphor for God’s love for all of his children. Early church history has some of the original leaders interpreting it for their followers and using it as an allegory for Christ’s relationship with Israel and the Gentiles. Some interpretations have lended it to the idea that this is a metaphor for the soul in relation to Christ.
Despite the mystery and uncertainty over the history this is a very beautiful piece of poetry and I bet it's even better when read in its original language.
According to the Talmud, the Jewish book of tradition compiled by the Jews after the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., King Solomon is the author of the Song of Songs and he wrote this piece after first writing the Book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. However, according to modern scholars the authorship of this book cannot be specified. Scholars can not even agree on an estimated date of authorship. The estimates of these scholars put the origin of this book between 950 B.C.E. to 200 B.C.E. There are some schools of thought that state the original author existed in the 900s B.C.E. and wrote in the language style of that day. Other scholars state that some of the language used in the original texts is actually Persian, which would put the date of composition sometime during or after the exile in 500 B.C.E.
The love story contained within the Song of Songs can be a little sexy compared to the rest of the Tanakh. It really is a mystery as to why it was included in the Jewish Holy scriptures. The use of the book has been, traditionally, as a metaphor for God’s love for his chosen people. Later, it was included in the Christian Canon and used as a metaphor for God’s love for all of his children. Early church history has some of the original leaders interpreting it for their followers and using it as an allegory for Christ’s relationship with Israel and the Gentiles. Some interpretations have lended it to the idea that this is a metaphor for the soul in relation to Christ.
Despite the mystery and uncertainty over the history this is a very beautiful piece of poetry and I bet it's even better when read in its original language.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Life? Don't Talk To ME About Life
Ecclesiastes 1-12
Before we delve into this book of the Book I’d just like to say that this is my favorite one in the Tanakh. I admit that there are a lot more compelling stories, characters and theology throughout the Old Testament, but this book is my absolute favorite from start to finish. It is attributed to my favorite character in the Hebrew Scriptures, Solomon. When I first read this book ten years ago I felt like it was drawn right from my own personal worldview. I completely agreed, and still do somewhat, with Solomon’s perspective. There is a sort of depressing view that one could take when reading this book, but I love reading it. It is a very freeing philosophy that Solomon presents because he encourages the reader to indulge in the pleasures that life has to offer, but at the same time he cautions the reader against becoming a fool because of it. This is the true Wisdom that Solomon is sharing. That’s just my opinion, though. Let’s get into the history of this book.
The title, Ecclesiastes, comes from the Latin version of the Greek word (Ἐκκλησιαστής, Ekklesiastes) for the Hebrew title קֹהֶלֶת which sounds like Koheleth. Koheleth literally translates to ‘Gatherer’, but is traditionally translated as ‘Teacher’. Koheleth is written in First Person and the author claims to be the son of David and the king in Jerusalem. Though Solomon is the author by tradition, the actual author is anonymous.
In fact, many scholars agree that the book was written between 400 and 100 B.C. and so could not possibly have been written by the actual first son of David because that guy is supposed to have lived in the tenth century B.C. The main argument against Solomonic authorship is the fact that this book contains words that do not appear in any other ancient texts until hundreds of years after the time of King Solomon.
However, this argument can be challenged by the fact that there are a limited number of texts from the ancient Near East so there can be no definitive way to verify when a certain word was in use or not. Another challenge to the 400-100 B.C. authorship lies in the Koheleth borrowing phrases from even older works such as the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, 9:7-10 being the most used example. Add to that the lack of any reference to any later works of wisdom such as the classic Greek texts from the fifth century to the first B.C. This could support the notion that Solomon was the actual author because he was a king that would have had access to great works of other foreign nations’ history on account of his many wives from those nations.
This book may trouble certain people. It can come across as very cynical and depressing. It may be especially troubling for Christians because Koheleth talks a lot about the finality of death. There is no talk of a happy afterlife or God rewarding you for your good works. There is no concept of salvation because that is not what the author was about. In fact, I'm not even sure there was a concept of salvation in those old days.
Yet, this book was included for a reason. When it came time to decide what made it into the Hebrew Scriptures this was a known piece of work and deemed worthy of inclusion. There is much wisdom in these pages if you can see past the grim portrayal of the Real World.
Before we delve into this book of the Book I’d just like to say that this is my favorite one in the Tanakh. I admit that there are a lot more compelling stories, characters and theology throughout the Old Testament, but this book is my absolute favorite from start to finish. It is attributed to my favorite character in the Hebrew Scriptures, Solomon. When I first read this book ten years ago I felt like it was drawn right from my own personal worldview. I completely agreed, and still do somewhat, with Solomon’s perspective. There is a sort of depressing view that one could take when reading this book, but I love reading it. It is a very freeing philosophy that Solomon presents because he encourages the reader to indulge in the pleasures that life has to offer, but at the same time he cautions the reader against becoming a fool because of it. This is the true Wisdom that Solomon is sharing. That’s just my opinion, though. Let’s get into the history of this book.
The title, Ecclesiastes, comes from the Latin version of the Greek word (Ἐκκλησιαστής, Ekklesiastes) for the Hebrew title קֹהֶלֶת which sounds like Koheleth. Koheleth literally translates to ‘Gatherer’, but is traditionally translated as ‘Teacher’. Koheleth is written in First Person and the author claims to be the son of David and the king in Jerusalem. Though Solomon is the author by tradition, the actual author is anonymous.
In fact, many scholars agree that the book was written between 400 and 100 B.C. and so could not possibly have been written by the actual first son of David because that guy is supposed to have lived in the tenth century B.C. The main argument against Solomonic authorship is the fact that this book contains words that do not appear in any other ancient texts until hundreds of years after the time of King Solomon.
However, this argument can be challenged by the fact that there are a limited number of texts from the ancient Near East so there can be no definitive way to verify when a certain word was in use or not. Another challenge to the 400-100 B.C. authorship lies in the Koheleth borrowing phrases from even older works such as the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, 9:7-10 being the most used example. Add to that the lack of any reference to any later works of wisdom such as the classic Greek texts from the fifth century to the first B.C. This could support the notion that Solomon was the actual author because he was a king that would have had access to great works of other foreign nations’ history on account of his many wives from those nations.
This book may trouble certain people. It can come across as very cynical and depressing. It may be especially troubling for Christians because Koheleth talks a lot about the finality of death. There is no talk of a happy afterlife or God rewarding you for your good works. There is no concept of salvation because that is not what the author was about. In fact, I'm not even sure there was a concept of salvation in those old days.
Yet, this book was included for a reason. When it came time to decide what made it into the Hebrew Scriptures this was a known piece of work and deemed worthy of inclusion. There is much wisdom in these pages if you can see past the grim portrayal of the Real World.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Job and Friends
Job 3-42
The poem of the trials of Job is a fascinating read. I really wish I could read and understand the original Hebrew because the language and flow of the poem is probably lost in the translation. It took some real focusing when I first started into the book. I kept getting lost in the language and the characters. I’m thankful for all the footnotes and extra information that is included in my Bible. I don’t think I fully appreciated the advice from Job’s buddies the last time through. These wise old men from the early days of civilization all provide some great insight and observation of the nature of God. However, even though they may speak some truth they also are condemning their poor friend for wrongs and trespasses that he did not necessarily commit. The lesson I gained from their statements was that even though they were wise in understanding the nature of God based on the information they had at the time it is arrogant to assume you can possibly know everything about God.
The poem runs in a set of three cycles. Each cycle starts with Job and is an interaction with each of his friends in the same order. At least up until chapter 31. After that some other character pipes up that was not mentioned in the previous chapters. He claims to be the ‘youngest’ of the old men, but he kind of just shows up out of nowhere to reprimand everyone.
Satan: The Accuser, the one that accuses man of breaking the Laws of God and reports back to the Creator. Being the one that focuses on the negative aspect of humanity over thousands of years would probably skew the perspective of an individual. This story sort of presents a prologue for the story of the Enemy, as he is referred to in the New Testament. You see the beginning of the rebellious nature of this angel as his accusations switch from humanity to a challenge of God’s omnipotence.
Job: The righteous sufferer. The poem revolves around his perspective that he is an innocent man suffering for no good reason. Time and time again he brings up the fact that he has led an honest life and been a decent human being to all those he has come in contact with. He has always been loyal to his God and given him praise for all the blessings he has received. Even when he is at his wits end and covered in sores he does not accuse God of doing wrong. He simply wants an answer as to what he has done to offend God. I was really drawn to the passage Job 13:26 where Job hints at the fact that he knows he has done something wrong or some things wrong and it may have happened in his early days. We are all idiots in our late teens and early twenties, no matter how good we want to be. Everyone makes mistakes. Yet, to Job the punishment does not match the crime. He simply wants an explanation.
When God shows up at the end and gives the Ultimate Beratement (my favorite part, btw) the response to Job is righteous indignation and almost a mocking tone when God asks if Job had ever caused the sun to rise or the oceans’ tides to change. God never tells Job about the stakes at play with Satan’s challenge. God makes it very clear that there is no need for the approval from the creation to rule as the Creator sees fit. However, God does offer praise to Job in the fact that Job represented the Creator the most accurately compared to the other guys.
Eliphaz: The name of Job’s first friend is an interesting one. Eliphaz is called a Temanite in the text. Teman is a major city in the ancient land of Edom. In the book of Genesis we find the name Eliphaz again, as the eldest son of Esau, nephew to Jacob (Israel), and the father of the Edomites. The name is believed to have been chosen because the perspective of Eliphaz’s argument to Job is based in Edomite philosophy. That philosophy being grounded in the principle that the righteous people of the world do not suffer, possibly even conquering death. Only the wicked suffer and in equal measure to their sin. He believes that Job is either lying to his friends or to himself about the sins that have warranted this punishment.
However, when God shows up he is shown the error in his logic. The same God is also the healer in life as well as the one who punishes. Eliphaz believed that these two things were based only on whether a person does good or does bad. Very black and white. God convicts Eliphaz of having a false understanding of Divine Dispensation. Job understands the fact that, from a human perspective, things work much more randomly.
Bildad: Another fun name to dissect. Bildad is referred to as a Shuhite from the lands near ancient Chaldea (Babylon) and Arabia. These people are supposedly descendants of Shuah, the son of the Patriarch Abraham and his second wife Keturah. Bildad has a slightly softer approach and tries to offer support for Job. Yet, he always ends up sounding like Eliphaz only a little more so. In fact there is almost an hysterical element as he ramps up his argument and accuses Job of speaking wickedness and impiety towards the Creator of All Things. Bildad even goes so far as to say that Job’s children deserved to die for whatever sins they committed.
Zophar: Probably the quietest of the three he is by no means the least harsh. He is referred to as a Naamathite, but the land of Naaman is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible and I can’t find a lot of information about it. One thing that was interesting is that the name Zophar is a Gentile name. Gentiles were non-hebrew. He kind of sounds like he might be the oldest and he kind of rambles on and on about the consequences of sin and how Job is getting what he deserves. Zophar is pretty blunt and really rips into Job accusing him of being a really wicked person.
Elihu: Where did this guy come from?!? According to the text he is descended from Nahor which can be traced back to the descendants of Shem, son of Noah. He definitely has a softer and kinder approach towards Job than the other three, but that doesn’t stop him from cutting the poor guy down. Elihu argues that the righteous and the wicked suffer and prosper equally. However, it is always at God’s discretion as to why these things happen. A wicked person may prosper by the standards of the world, but eventually God’s justice will be meted out. He claims that the righteous may suffer in the present to avoid an even greater sin from arising in the future. Sometimes suffering is used to make the person stronger or even a warning sign of future dangers. After Elihu speaks he is again gone from the story and God shows up for his big monologue. Interestingly enough Elihu is the only not chastised by God, like the other three friends, for misrepresenting the nature of God. Job is also given praise, after a heavy lecture, as being the only one that represented the nature of God correctly. Not sure what happened to Elihu. Some think he may have been inserted later on in the construction of the Old Testament as a counter argument to the other three friends similar philosophies.
The poem of the trials of Job is a fascinating read. I really wish I could read and understand the original Hebrew because the language and flow of the poem is probably lost in the translation. It took some real focusing when I first started into the book. I kept getting lost in the language and the characters. I’m thankful for all the footnotes and extra information that is included in my Bible. I don’t think I fully appreciated the advice from Job’s buddies the last time through. These wise old men from the early days of civilization all provide some great insight and observation of the nature of God. However, even though they may speak some truth they also are condemning their poor friend for wrongs and trespasses that he did not necessarily commit. The lesson I gained from their statements was that even though they were wise in understanding the nature of God based on the information they had at the time it is arrogant to assume you can possibly know everything about God.
The poem runs in a set of three cycles. Each cycle starts with Job and is an interaction with each of his friends in the same order. At least up until chapter 31. After that some other character pipes up that was not mentioned in the previous chapters. He claims to be the ‘youngest’ of the old men, but he kind of just shows up out of nowhere to reprimand everyone.
Satan: The Accuser, the one that accuses man of breaking the Laws of God and reports back to the Creator. Being the one that focuses on the negative aspect of humanity over thousands of years would probably skew the perspective of an individual. This story sort of presents a prologue for the story of the Enemy, as he is referred to in the New Testament. You see the beginning of the rebellious nature of this angel as his accusations switch from humanity to a challenge of God’s omnipotence.
Job: The righteous sufferer. The poem revolves around his perspective that he is an innocent man suffering for no good reason. Time and time again he brings up the fact that he has led an honest life and been a decent human being to all those he has come in contact with. He has always been loyal to his God and given him praise for all the blessings he has received. Even when he is at his wits end and covered in sores he does not accuse God of doing wrong. He simply wants an answer as to what he has done to offend God. I was really drawn to the passage Job 13:26 where Job hints at the fact that he knows he has done something wrong or some things wrong and it may have happened in his early days. We are all idiots in our late teens and early twenties, no matter how good we want to be. Everyone makes mistakes. Yet, to Job the punishment does not match the crime. He simply wants an explanation.
When God shows up at the end and gives the Ultimate Beratement (my favorite part, btw) the response to Job is righteous indignation and almost a mocking tone when God asks if Job had ever caused the sun to rise or the oceans’ tides to change. God never tells Job about the stakes at play with Satan’s challenge. God makes it very clear that there is no need for the approval from the creation to rule as the Creator sees fit. However, God does offer praise to Job in the fact that Job represented the Creator the most accurately compared to the other guys.
Eliphaz: The name of Job’s first friend is an interesting one. Eliphaz is called a Temanite in the text. Teman is a major city in the ancient land of Edom. In the book of Genesis we find the name Eliphaz again, as the eldest son of Esau, nephew to Jacob (Israel), and the father of the Edomites. The name is believed to have been chosen because the perspective of Eliphaz’s argument to Job is based in Edomite philosophy. That philosophy being grounded in the principle that the righteous people of the world do not suffer, possibly even conquering death. Only the wicked suffer and in equal measure to their sin. He believes that Job is either lying to his friends or to himself about the sins that have warranted this punishment.
However, when God shows up he is shown the error in his logic. The same God is also the healer in life as well as the one who punishes. Eliphaz believed that these two things were based only on whether a person does good or does bad. Very black and white. God convicts Eliphaz of having a false understanding of Divine Dispensation. Job understands the fact that, from a human perspective, things work much more randomly.
Bildad: Another fun name to dissect. Bildad is referred to as a Shuhite from the lands near ancient Chaldea (Babylon) and Arabia. These people are supposedly descendants of Shuah, the son of the Patriarch Abraham and his second wife Keturah. Bildad has a slightly softer approach and tries to offer support for Job. Yet, he always ends up sounding like Eliphaz only a little more so. In fact there is almost an hysterical element as he ramps up his argument and accuses Job of speaking wickedness and impiety towards the Creator of All Things. Bildad even goes so far as to say that Job’s children deserved to die for whatever sins they committed.
Zophar: Probably the quietest of the three he is by no means the least harsh. He is referred to as a Naamathite, but the land of Naaman is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible and I can’t find a lot of information about it. One thing that was interesting is that the name Zophar is a Gentile name. Gentiles were non-hebrew. He kind of sounds like he might be the oldest and he kind of rambles on and on about the consequences of sin and how Job is getting what he deserves. Zophar is pretty blunt and really rips into Job accusing him of being a really wicked person.
Elihu: Where did this guy come from?!? According to the text he is descended from Nahor which can be traced back to the descendants of Shem, son of Noah. He definitely has a softer and kinder approach towards Job than the other three, but that doesn’t stop him from cutting the poor guy down. Elihu argues that the righteous and the wicked suffer and prosper equally. However, it is always at God’s discretion as to why these things happen. A wicked person may prosper by the standards of the world, but eventually God’s justice will be meted out. He claims that the righteous may suffer in the present to avoid an even greater sin from arising in the future. Sometimes suffering is used to make the person stronger or even a warning sign of future dangers. After Elihu speaks he is again gone from the story and God shows up for his big monologue. Interestingly enough Elihu is the only not chastised by God, like the other three friends, for misrepresenting the nature of God. Job is also given praise, after a heavy lecture, as being the only one that represented the nature of God correctly. Not sure what happened to Elihu. Some think he may have been inserted later on in the construction of the Old Testament as a counter argument to the other three friends similar philosophies.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
God and His Man
Job 1-2
This book has been the toughest one for me to get through, so far. Not just reading it, but trying to organize the thoughts into a way that fit the structure of what I’m trying to accomplish with the Journey Through the Book. I think what has been so difficult with this book is that up until now its been very easy to deal with the content of each book in their historical context, but this writing of the Ketuvim is so steeped in theological ideas and philosophical arguments that it’s difficult to avoid getting sucked into the debate between Job and his friends in the process.
Before even getting too deep into the content of the book I was struck by how hard it was for me to actually read and comprehend the message in the text after chapter 3. I think it was because it is actually an old Hebrew poem from chapters 3-42:7 that is translated into English I tried many different translations until I settled on the NIV and just took it slow.
The Talmud states the book of Job was written by Moses even though the text doesn't really give any indication of who the author is. Yet, there are also other statements in the Talmud that hint that Job may have been a story from the days of the Patriarchs considering the importance of Job’s wealth being based off land and livestock and the fact that it took place in the land of Edom. In fact, the Talmud contains many differing opinions of the origin of this story including the possibility that Job ‘never existed and was never created; it is a parable’.
The poem itself could be based on a story that is older than the days of Egypt. Stories are fascinating things. The human brain is actually designed to learn through storytelling. The activity in the brain that occurs during the storytelling experience is astronomically more intense than what happens when the brain takes in simple statements of information. When the brain is engaged in a story the activity is equal to that of actually participating in the events. The concept of the Righteous Sufferer is an archetype that goes back to the first written recordings of human history and is an idea that we struggle with into this age.
Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do the schemes of evil hearts seem to succeed while the innocent are trampled under their feet? I think this question burns in the hearts of people all across the world these days.
In the old days these questions were also asked. The Sumerian people had a story that they wrote down in the Akkadian language. A language that predates the Ancient Assyrian and Egyptian languages by a couple thousand years in written form and in spoken form by tens of thousands of years. The Sumerians believed in many gods, some good and some evil, but they too had morals and concepts of right and wrong within their cultural frame. They had a story called A Man and His God that concerned the unjust suffering of a good and honest man. The Babylonians even had a version of the story they called the Poem of the Righteous sufferer with the same theme befalling a man named Shubshi-meshre-Shakkan. There is even an old Palestinian folk tradition that says that when Job was finally healed of his afflictions it was at a ‘fountain of youth’ type spring located in the town of Al-Joura. There is a four day festival every year where people from all faiths come to bathe in this spring.
The Hebrew version of this story replaces the pantheon of gods with the monotheistic name of YHWH. This book mentions the name Satan, but the character is a little different than how our culture recognizes him. In this story the ‘sons of god’ (angels) present themselves before God and among them is one named Satan. The name in Hebrew, Ha-Satan, translates to the Adversary or the Accuser. It would seem he is a member of this Divine Council of Angels and his role seems to be one that is sent to tempt mankind and report back to YHWH regarding all who break his decrees. Ha-Satan states that he has come from roaming the earth and offers a challenge to YHWH when asked about the Lord’s favored. He states that Job only praises YHWH because YHWH has showed him favor. If he was afflicted with suffering he would curse the name of the Lord. YHWH accepts the challenge. Already in the first two chapters we see the reason for Job’s affliction. Job may not understand and his friends can not fathom the underlying reasons for the events they are speculating about, but we can. Through Job’s suffering and continued allegiance to YHWH the Accuser is rebuked and his power over the oppressed will be lifted in the fullness of the story arch. If Job does forsake YHWH not only is he lost, ‘cause Ha-Satan sure isn't gonna take care of him, he will become a beacon of darkness and hopelessness for all those who come after him and suffer in this broken world. There is a reason for Job’s suffering and in the end as with most of the Books in the Bible it is ultimately for the benefit of humanity and the Glory of YHWH in the long run that suffering is allowed to happen in the short term. However, in the end evil is defeated and the righteous are restored. Spoiler!
Talmud: Second in importance to the Torah in Judaism. It is a mixture of the first written collection of Jewish Oral Law as well as theology and history of the Hebrew people.
Patriarchs: Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
Before even getting too deep into the content of the book I was struck by how hard it was for me to actually read and comprehend the message in the text after chapter 3. I think it was because it is actually an old Hebrew poem from chapters 3-42:7 that is translated into English I tried many different translations until I settled on the NIV and just took it slow.
The Talmud states the book of Job was written by Moses even though the text doesn't really give any indication of who the author is. Yet, there are also other statements in the Talmud that hint that Job may have been a story from the days of the Patriarchs considering the importance of Job’s wealth being based off land and livestock and the fact that it took place in the land of Edom. In fact, the Talmud contains many differing opinions of the origin of this story including the possibility that Job ‘never existed and was never created; it is a parable’.
The poem itself could be based on a story that is older than the days of Egypt. Stories are fascinating things. The human brain is actually designed to learn through storytelling. The activity in the brain that occurs during the storytelling experience is astronomically more intense than what happens when the brain takes in simple statements of information. When the brain is engaged in a story the activity is equal to that of actually participating in the events. The concept of the Righteous Sufferer is an archetype that goes back to the first written recordings of human history and is an idea that we struggle with into this age.
Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do the schemes of evil hearts seem to succeed while the innocent are trampled under their feet? I think this question burns in the hearts of people all across the world these days.
In the old days these questions were also asked. The Sumerian people had a story that they wrote down in the Akkadian language. A language that predates the Ancient Assyrian and Egyptian languages by a couple thousand years in written form and in spoken form by tens of thousands of years. The Sumerians believed in many gods, some good and some evil, but they too had morals and concepts of right and wrong within their cultural frame. They had a story called A Man and His God that concerned the unjust suffering of a good and honest man. The Babylonians even had a version of the story they called the Poem of the Righteous sufferer with the same theme befalling a man named Shubshi-meshre-Shakkan. There is even an old Palestinian folk tradition that says that when Job was finally healed of his afflictions it was at a ‘fountain of youth’ type spring located in the town of Al-Joura. There is a four day festival every year where people from all faiths come to bathe in this spring.
The Hebrew version of this story replaces the pantheon of gods with the monotheistic name of YHWH. This book mentions the name Satan, but the character is a little different than how our culture recognizes him. In this story the ‘sons of god’ (angels) present themselves before God and among them is one named Satan. The name in Hebrew, Ha-Satan, translates to the Adversary or the Accuser. It would seem he is a member of this Divine Council of Angels and his role seems to be one that is sent to tempt mankind and report back to YHWH regarding all who break his decrees. Ha-Satan states that he has come from roaming the earth and offers a challenge to YHWH when asked about the Lord’s favored. He states that Job only praises YHWH because YHWH has showed him favor. If he was afflicted with suffering he would curse the name of the Lord. YHWH accepts the challenge. Already in the first two chapters we see the reason for Job’s affliction. Job may not understand and his friends can not fathom the underlying reasons for the events they are speculating about, but we can. Through Job’s suffering and continued allegiance to YHWH the Accuser is rebuked and his power over the oppressed will be lifted in the fullness of the story arch. If Job does forsake YHWH not only is he lost, ‘cause Ha-Satan sure isn't gonna take care of him, he will become a beacon of darkness and hopelessness for all those who come after him and suffer in this broken world. There is a reason for Job’s suffering and in the end as with most of the Books in the Bible it is ultimately for the benefit of humanity and the Glory of YHWH in the long run that suffering is allowed to happen in the short term. However, in the end evil is defeated and the righteous are restored. Spoiler!
Talmud: Second in importance to the Torah in Judaism. It is a mixture of the first written collection of Jewish Oral Law as well as theology and history of the Hebrew people.
Patriarchs: Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Esther and the Yehudim
Our next stop on our Journey takes us to the Book of Esther. A gripping story of the rise of an orphaned Israelite to become the Queen of the Persian Empire and in so doing saves her people from imminent genocide. This book is the third in the Ketuvim (Writings) portion of the Tanakh and besides the Song of Songs it is the only book in the Bible that does not mention God.
This has been a rather difficult book to nail down as actual history. Certain elements of it are verifiable, such as certain persons of power in the Persian empire as well as various locations and customs. One biblical scholar, Michael Coogan, even claims that the original intent of the Book of Esther by its author was for it to be a historical short story. This was something that was very popular during the Persian and Hellenistic periods, according to Coogan. What is the Hellenistic Period, you ask? Well, that is another blog.
The compilation of the Bible in the modern form we know was a very interesting process and in researching the origin of the Book of Esther I can see why there is so much confusion surrounding this book. Some claim it as history and others claim it to be historical fiction. According to Jewish tradition most of the Tanakh (Old Testament) was completed and compiled by 450 BCE, however it is believed by many scholars that there were a few additions and edits over the centuries and the final Hebrew version was not finalized until between 200 BCE and 200 CE. That is still a pretty big window of 400 years.
The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible aka the Christian Old Testament. There are many wonderful, fantastical tales surrounding its origin in the Greek Empire during the 3rd century BCE. What can be gleaned from them is this. In the 300s BCE the king of Egypt, Ptolemy II, had the Torah translated into the early form of Greek spoken in his region by the Alexandrian Jews. He did this for the purpose of having a copy of their holy book in the Library of Alexandria. Then over the centuries many more Hebrew works were translated into Greek. It is not known when or what was transcribed and its believed that some books could have been translated more than once and revised and combined, possibly even reinterpreted or paraphrased, thus leading to many errors.
I gave all that background to help you understand that, when it comes to Esther, the Hebrew version of the story and the Greek version of the story cannot be reconciled. The Hebrew names for the royalty mentioned put the date of the book centuries off from the Greek translated names of royalty. This causes the actual events and story line to be clouded in a shadow of mystery as to its legitimacy as actual Hebrew history.
Regardless of its origin or its authenticity of the details the Book of Esther had to have come by the time the Hebrew word Yehudim was a popular word with a meaning that was understood by many cultures. The book of Esther is the first book so far to use that word. Yehudim, or ‘Jews’, was a term for the people of Hebrew descent that had been scattered to the four winds and lived among many cultures and were constantly a target for hatred.
Yehudim is derived from the Hebrew word Yehudi which means ‘From the Tribe of Judah’. If you remember the stories before Esther when the kingdom split eleven tribes went north and created Israel while the southern kingdom remained Judah. Israel was destroyed and though Judah was taken away to captivity by Babylon, they survived.
The compilation of the Bible in the modern form we know was a very interesting process and in researching the origin of the Book of Esther I can see why there is so much confusion surrounding this book. Some claim it as history and others claim it to be historical fiction. According to Jewish tradition most of the Tanakh (Old Testament) was completed and compiled by 450 BCE, however it is believed by many scholars that there were a few additions and edits over the centuries and the final Hebrew version was not finalized until between 200 BCE and 200 CE. That is still a pretty big window of 400 years.
The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible aka the Christian Old Testament. There are many wonderful, fantastical tales surrounding its origin in the Greek Empire during the 3rd century BCE. What can be gleaned from them is this. In the 300s BCE the king of Egypt, Ptolemy II, had the Torah translated into the early form of Greek spoken in his region by the Alexandrian Jews. He did this for the purpose of having a copy of their holy book in the Library of Alexandria. Then over the centuries many more Hebrew works were translated into Greek. It is not known when or what was transcribed and its believed that some books could have been translated more than once and revised and combined, possibly even reinterpreted or paraphrased, thus leading to many errors.
I gave all that background to help you understand that, when it comes to Esther, the Hebrew version of the story and the Greek version of the story cannot be reconciled. The Hebrew names for the royalty mentioned put the date of the book centuries off from the Greek translated names of royalty. This causes the actual events and story line to be clouded in a shadow of mystery as to its legitimacy as actual Hebrew history.
Regardless of its origin or its authenticity of the details the Book of Esther had to have come by the time the Hebrew word Yehudim was a popular word with a meaning that was understood by many cultures. The book of Esther is the first book so far to use that word. Yehudim, or ‘Jews’, was a term for the people of Hebrew descent that had been scattered to the four winds and lived among many cultures and were constantly a target for hatred.
Yehudim is derived from the Hebrew word Yehudi which means ‘From the Tribe of Judah’. If you remember the stories before Esther when the kingdom split eleven tribes went north and created Israel while the southern kingdom remained Judah. Israel was destroyed and though Judah was taken away to captivity by Babylon, they survived.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Rebuilding Zion
Ezra-Nehemiah
Nehemiah 1-13
The second part of the two part sequel of Chronicles deals with the final historical record of the Old Testament. The books of Ezra-Nehemiah are intended to be read together as there is much mention of Ezra in the book of Nehemiah and the stories overlap at points. In fact both book are based off source material known as the Ezra Memoir and the Nehemiah Memoir as well as supposed Persian documents. There are arguments that these source material may have been heavily edited over years before being added to the Jewish Tanakh.
The book of Nehemiah tells the story of the rise of the final governor of Judah in Old Testament history. Its the story of the returning Israelite exiles' final rebuilding process of the ancient city of Jerusalem, or Zion, and the reinstitution of monotheistic worship of their god Yahweh. Its the final reminder to the generations to come that they have been given a second chance to live up to their role as the chosen people of Yahweh. It is this story that would have been recent history to the jews living under Roman rule in the time of Jesus.
The events that take place in these books could have been edited over the centuries before they became Jewish Canon by the 2nd or 1st Century B.C.E. However, there are some fun little historical truths sprinkled within the book. The dates that are stated at the beginning of Nehemiah 1:1, “During the month of Chislev in the 20th year, when I was in the fortress city of Susa”, which by our calendar would be November-December 445 B.C.E. This would fit with the historical backdrop that Nehemiah sets; Susa being one of the three capitals of ancient Persia. In chapter two Nehemiah also names the well known Persian king of the time, Artaxerxes, as well as a governor of Samaria named in the Elephantine Papyri as being the governor of Samaria in that time period. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantine_papyri).
It is true that the Jews were allowed to return from Babylon, but the only decree known to history (as far as I have found) is the one included in Ezra-Nehemiah. These passages were written in Aramaic which was the language of the Persian court and it is a known fact that Persia allowed exiles to return to their country as long as they pledged allegiance to the Empire. It is Ezra-Nehemiah’s position, however, that Cyrus became so enamored with the idea of Yahweh that he gave special care to the Israelites. This has not been completely verified outside of Jewish Scripture.
Nehemiah 1-13
The second part of the two part sequel of Chronicles deals with the final historical record of the Old Testament. The books of Ezra-Nehemiah are intended to be read together as there is much mention of Ezra in the book of Nehemiah and the stories overlap at points. In fact both book are based off source material known as the Ezra Memoir and the Nehemiah Memoir as well as supposed Persian documents. There are arguments that these source material may have been heavily edited over years before being added to the Jewish Tanakh.
The book of Nehemiah tells the story of the rise of the final governor of Judah in Old Testament history. Its the story of the returning Israelite exiles' final rebuilding process of the ancient city of Jerusalem, or Zion, and the reinstitution of monotheistic worship of their god Yahweh. Its the final reminder to the generations to come that they have been given a second chance to live up to their role as the chosen people of Yahweh. It is this story that would have been recent history to the jews living under Roman rule in the time of Jesus.
The events that take place in these books could have been edited over the centuries before they became Jewish Canon by the 2nd or 1st Century B.C.E. However, there are some fun little historical truths sprinkled within the book. The dates that are stated at the beginning of Nehemiah 1:1, “During the month of Chislev in the 20th year, when I was in the fortress city of Susa”, which by our calendar would be November-December 445 B.C.E. This would fit with the historical backdrop that Nehemiah sets; Susa being one of the three capitals of ancient Persia. In chapter two Nehemiah also names the well known Persian king of the time, Artaxerxes, as well as a governor of Samaria named in the Elephantine Papyri as being the governor of Samaria in that time period. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantine_papyri).
It is true that the Jews were allowed to return from Babylon, but the only decree known to history (as far as I have found) is the one included in Ezra-Nehemiah. These passages were written in Aramaic which was the language of the Persian court and it is a known fact that Persia allowed exiles to return to their country as long as they pledged allegiance to the Empire. It is Ezra-Nehemiah’s position, however, that Cyrus became so enamored with the idea of Yahweh that he gave special care to the Israelites. This has not been completely verified outside of Jewish Scripture.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
One Book or Two?
Ezra-Nehemiah
Ezra 1-10
We are now closing in on the historical narrative of the Israeli people. Long ago the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were considered to be one piece, Ezra-Nehemiah. The earliest copy of these texts date back to the 400s B.C.E. and are contained in one book. In the 300s A.D. the Christians split them into two books. It wasn't until the middle ages that the Jews also separated the works in their own canon. These two short books provide a final point for the historical narrative of the nation of Israel.
The rest of the Old Testament takes us back to various points and places within the story arc of Genesis - Nehemiah. We will revisit old kings and prophets that we barely touched on in Kings and Chronicles, the story of Job is said to have taken place during the time between Genesis and Exodus, we'll take a look at life for the refugees in Babylonian captivity, and there is great poetry and words of wisdom attributed to the first great kings; David and Solomon.
But lets not get ahead of ourselves......
First we must finish the final chapter in the history of the Jews. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah tell the story of the fall of Babylon and the inspiration of Yahweh upon the gentile nations to shape the story of the role of the Jews in Yahweh's grand plan. These books are believed to have existed in their early forms in at least 400 B.C.E. since they deal with verified historical events of the rise of the unassuming Persian nation into the next great Empire. The traditional author is Ezra the scribe who served under the Govornor of Judah, Nehemiah, in the early years of the exiles return and rebuilding of Zion. Zion was the revered name of Jerusalem as Yahweh's throne on Earth.
The events of Persia’s rise and Babylon’s fall occurred during the mid 5th century B.C.E. and was well documented. Cyrus II of Persia, AKA Cyrus the Great or Cyrus the Elder, was known by the nations he conquered as taking a different approach to conquest. Until this time when a nation rose to power they did so at the expense of the smaller cultures it dominated over. Often killing the inhabitants of places, the more fortunate ones were scattered to the four winds as refugees, and moving their own people in to interbreed and rub out the older, conquered, culture. Cyrus II took an approach that would later be a model for the great empires for the next couple thousand years. Whenever he conquered a nation he respected the people, their customs and their gods. He allowed them to keep their local rulers in most cases as long as they paid tribute and provided warriors for future campaigns.In the case of the new Babylonian empire of the Chaldeans when Cyrus overtook the land he allowed all the slaves to return to their homelands. According to ancient records of the Jews and Babylonians Cyrus had no known religion of his own, but held a respect for all the deities of the conquered lands. Giving respect to the Babylonians gods of Marduk and Bel as well as the Hebrew monotheism of Yahweh.
Ezra 1-10
We are now closing in on the historical narrative of the Israeli people. Long ago the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were considered to be one piece, Ezra-Nehemiah. The earliest copy of these texts date back to the 400s B.C.E. and are contained in one book. In the 300s A.D. the Christians split them into two books. It wasn't until the middle ages that the Jews also separated the works in their own canon. These two short books provide a final point for the historical narrative of the nation of Israel.
The rest of the Old Testament takes us back to various points and places within the story arc of Genesis - Nehemiah. We will revisit old kings and prophets that we barely touched on in Kings and Chronicles, the story of Job is said to have taken place during the time between Genesis and Exodus, we'll take a look at life for the refugees in Babylonian captivity, and there is great poetry and words of wisdom attributed to the first great kings; David and Solomon.
But lets not get ahead of ourselves......
First we must finish the final chapter in the history of the Jews. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah tell the story of the fall of Babylon and the inspiration of Yahweh upon the gentile nations to shape the story of the role of the Jews in Yahweh's grand plan. These books are believed to have existed in their early forms in at least 400 B.C.E. since they deal with verified historical events of the rise of the unassuming Persian nation into the next great Empire. The traditional author is Ezra the scribe who served under the Govornor of Judah, Nehemiah, in the early years of the exiles return and rebuilding of Zion. Zion was the revered name of Jerusalem as Yahweh's throne on Earth.
The events of Persia’s rise and Babylon’s fall occurred during the mid 5th century B.C.E. and was well documented. Cyrus II of Persia, AKA Cyrus the Great or Cyrus the Elder, was known by the nations he conquered as taking a different approach to conquest. Until this time when a nation rose to power they did so at the expense of the smaller cultures it dominated over. Often killing the inhabitants of places, the more fortunate ones were scattered to the four winds as refugees, and moving their own people in to interbreed and rub out the older, conquered, culture. Cyrus II took an approach that would later be a model for the great empires for the next couple thousand years. Whenever he conquered a nation he respected the people, their customs and their gods. He allowed them to keep their local rulers in most cases as long as they paid tribute and provided warriors for future campaigns.In the case of the new Babylonian empire of the Chaldeans when Cyrus overtook the land he allowed all the slaves to return to their homelands. According to ancient records of the Jews and Babylonians Cyrus had no known religion of his own, but held a respect for all the deities of the conquered lands. Giving respect to the Babylonians gods of Marduk and Bel as well as the Hebrew monotheism of Yahweh.
No one is really sure who the author of these two books are. There are many competing theories out there, but its interesting to see how the dialogue changes from third person to first person early on in the book Ezra. The book of Ezra also ends rather suddenly with the plan to kick out all of Israel’s foreign wives and then it goes right into Nehemiah. One popular theory for this is that Ezra 1-6 and Ezra 9-10 were actually separate documents of the same story that were spliced together by the author of Ezra 7-8 in the very earliest compositions of the text and then underwent layering and editing over the next couple hundred years between 550 B.C.E. and at least 333 B.C.E.
The Jewish Roman historian Josephus sets this date as being the latest date of final composition since the list of high priests in Nehemiah 12:22 ends with the high priest Jaddua, who shares the name with the high priest during the conquering of Persia by Alexander the Great in 333 B.C.E. This identification is not certain, but is used to set a latest possible composition date. By the end of the 1st century B.C.E. it was pretty much the book we have now in our own modern Bibles.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
A Forward Looking Glance Back
II Chronicles 1-36
The book of Chronicles, or Dibere Ha-Yamim (The Words of the Days), is a very interesting addition to the Old Testament. The text does not indicate an author, but according to Rabbinical tradition the author of Chronicles was the scribe Ezra who is also believed to be the author of the books Ezra/Nehemiah. The fact that the Book of Ezra begins with the final line of Chronicles also suggests that the author of Ezra/Nehemiah had access to the book of Chronicles. Based off the events that are recorded at the end of II Chronicles we know that the book was written as early as 538 B.C. because that is when Cyrus took over Babylon and sent the exiles back to Judah to rebuild the Temple of Solomon.
The early years of return were not easy ones for the returning exiles. The first seventy-five years were the hardest. The area of land they were able to control was about a fifteen mile radius around the ruined city of Jerusalem. The walls of the city were in ruins leaving little protection from raiding Bedouins or bandits. The surrounding ‘neighbors’ did not view them kindly, seeing them as interlopers and rivals politically and economically. The harvests were poor or nonexistent and there were many famines in the land in those days. To top it all off there were no resources to rebuild the Temple. The people’s morale would have been very low.
The text indicates that the author, or Chronicler, was most likely a returning exile of the priestly or Levitical tradition. The work is often considered a whitewashing of Jewish history since there is no mention of the serious moral failings of both David and Solomon. Also, there is very little mention of the northern Kingdom of Israel and even then its not a slanderous or negative view of the heathen rebellious kingdom. The Chronicler would have been speaking to the returning exiles from Babylon who would have been a mixture of the descendants from both Israel and Judah.
The point of Chronicles is not to give a straight political history of the Monarchy because the author assumes that his audience is already familiar with the events in the books of Kings and other political records and histories that were preserved in their culture. The Chronicler is taking a teleological approach to Hebrew history in the sense that he is telling the story from the perspective that there is a Divine Plan in action and when humanity lives in harmony with that Plan they prosper, but if they live in opposition to the Plan the natural outcome is destruction.
There are many differences between events in the books of Chronicles and the same historical events as told in Samuel-Kings. It is believed that the book of Kings relied on political records kept from both kingdoms, while the book of Chronicles sites sources such as prophets and seers along with official government genealogies. Another contribution to the differences is the different language styles that were used for each book. Kings would have been a more traditional Hebrew language pattern whereas the Chronicler used a lesser known Palestinian version of Hebrew that came from the Samaritans.
In the end I think that the differences between Kings and Chronicles aren’t a cause for pointing out contradiction and inconsistency in the Bible. One could definitely make that argument by giving a quick superficial glance to the text. However, I think its important to remember that the Old Testament has been around for a few thousand years and was compiled very specifically to include both the books of Kings and Chronicles despite these inconsistencies, or maybe even because of them. Each book serves as a different theological perspective of Jewish history. Kings seems to be more of a warning by focusing on the failings and division of the Hebrew people whereas Chronicles is a very positive and future based perspective that is meant to unite and inspire the descendants of the Children of Abraham.
The book of Chronicles, or Dibere Ha-Yamim (The Words of the Days), is a very interesting addition to the Old Testament. The text does not indicate an author, but according to Rabbinical tradition the author of Chronicles was the scribe Ezra who is also believed to be the author of the books Ezra/Nehemiah. The fact that the Book of Ezra begins with the final line of Chronicles also suggests that the author of Ezra/Nehemiah had access to the book of Chronicles. Based off the events that are recorded at the end of II Chronicles we know that the book was written as early as 538 B.C. because that is when Cyrus took over Babylon and sent the exiles back to Judah to rebuild the Temple of Solomon.
The early years of return were not easy ones for the returning exiles. The first seventy-five years were the hardest. The area of land they were able to control was about a fifteen mile radius around the ruined city of Jerusalem. The walls of the city were in ruins leaving little protection from raiding Bedouins or bandits. The surrounding ‘neighbors’ did not view them kindly, seeing them as interlopers and rivals politically and economically. The harvests were poor or nonexistent and there were many famines in the land in those days. To top it all off there were no resources to rebuild the Temple. The people’s morale would have been very low.
The text indicates that the author, or Chronicler, was most likely a returning exile of the priestly or Levitical tradition. The work is often considered a whitewashing of Jewish history since there is no mention of the serious moral failings of both David and Solomon. Also, there is very little mention of the northern Kingdom of Israel and even then its not a slanderous or negative view of the heathen rebellious kingdom. The Chronicler would have been speaking to the returning exiles from Babylon who would have been a mixture of the descendants from both Israel and Judah.
The point of Chronicles is not to give a straight political history of the Monarchy because the author assumes that his audience is already familiar with the events in the books of Kings and other political records and histories that were preserved in their culture. The Chronicler is taking a teleological approach to Hebrew history in the sense that he is telling the story from the perspective that there is a Divine Plan in action and when humanity lives in harmony with that Plan they prosper, but if they live in opposition to the Plan the natural outcome is destruction.
There are many differences between events in the books of Chronicles and the same historical events as told in Samuel-Kings. It is believed that the book of Kings relied on political records kept from both kingdoms, while the book of Chronicles sites sources such as prophets and seers along with official government genealogies. Another contribution to the differences is the different language styles that were used for each book. Kings would have been a more traditional Hebrew language pattern whereas the Chronicler used a lesser known Palestinian version of Hebrew that came from the Samaritans.
In the end I think that the differences between Kings and Chronicles aren’t a cause for pointing out contradiction and inconsistency in the Bible. One could definitely make that argument by giving a quick superficial glance to the text. However, I think its important to remember that the Old Testament has been around for a few thousand years and was compiled very specifically to include both the books of Kings and Chronicles despite these inconsistencies, or maybe even because of them. Each book serves as a different theological perspective of Jewish history. Kings seems to be more of a warning by focusing on the failings and division of the Hebrew people whereas Chronicles is a very positive and future based perspective that is meant to unite and inspire the descendants of the Children of Abraham.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)