Postlogue - Tobit

Tobias and Azarias
Salvator Rosa
Phillip Medhurst Collection

The painting  above by Salvator Rosa is included in the text book for our religious education class of first and second grade girls.  The text uses beautiful artwork instead of that cartoonish stuff most dumbed-down curriculums have settled for and this particular picture, which occasioned not a small bit of curiosity on the part of the class, corresponded to a chapter dealing with the body and soul and guardian angels.  The lesson could have been conveyed without the picture but there were repeated requests, almost a clamor, for an explanation of the fish, the angel and so I managed to recount the tale.  The enchanting story in the Book of Tobit  lends itself to telling anyway.

Our catechists, though young, could readily understand that after seven failed marriages, Sarah would be "lonely," "sad, " "disappointed," and "heart-broken."  They were indignant at the notion that she might have done away with herself out of despair and were relieved that she decided to put her life in God's hands instead.  They appreciated the mystery and intrigue in that the true identity of Tobias's travelling companion was known only to us, the readers.  Though initially put off by Raphael's instruction to Tobias to kill the fish ("he must really be a bad angel"), they were back on board by the time Tobias had dispersed the demon Asmodeus, and they cheerfully anticipated Tobias's return to his father because they now knew he would apply the fish gall to Tobit's eyes.  All would end happily.

The first and very immediate question at the conclusion of the telling was Did this really happen?  Is this story real? Interesting that such questions cross the boundary of age. My sentiments exactly after reading half the books of the Bible! Even at their tender age, the girls wanted to be able to separate fact from fiction.  Is this the truth?  Can we hang our hat on this? Will God deliver us from demons, despair and blindness?  Will God really heal our broken hearts? 

The short answer to Did this really happen? is no. The Book of Tobit, which I knew and know to be part of the Apocrypha,  is not considered to be historical.  This of course is not what the girls were asking and so I didn't give (exactly) this answer.  They wanted to know the category in which memory should store this tale for them--really happened and so Tobias was real like George Washington was real or fairy tale fantasy and so Tobias was not real like Prince Charming is not real?    If the story isn't "real," then what makes it any different from other fairy tales they know?  If guardian angels and prayers to God are just storybook shenanigans, why come to religious education class.  Why believe in God at all?  (Which, curiously, is how the class began when one among the group reported that her friend had told her today that he didn't believe in God. Perhaps he had gone to the "bad side" was their reasoning.)  

The answer as I tried to construct it is that the story is true even if there's no Tobias, no Sarah and no  fish.   We do have guardian angels, though they may be as unapparent to us as Raphael in his angelic embodiment was unapparent to Tobit and Tobias.   If we have faith, if we praise God as did Tobit, Tobias and Sarah, we'll have hope and with hope we'll be able to carry on even in the face of being as our one young catechist said,  heart-broken.

I tried to leave the girls with the admonition to pray without ceasing, to always trust in the power of God and their guardian angel to help them.  Hopefully, they'll at least never look at a fish the same way again.  That cold, scaly creature has a heart, a liver and a gall.  It might jump right up and grab you.  If it does, and if you get the feeling that you should hang on, well maybe you should.  Do as Tobias did and listen for your guardian angel to guide you.

End Note

Two years, five months and thirteen days later, I've finished reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and everything in between,  no skipping around.  It's only taken me from May 16, 2011 to October 29, 2013.  I have no idea how people read the Bible in one year or ninety days or whatever else they claim to do.

Perhaps some are looking for a more general overview or maybe they have more of a foundation to begin with.  In any case, there's no way I could have completed the reading in one year, and, even with my extended-stay style of reading,  I'm not sure that I don't have much more than simply a general overview now that I've finished.  Alas!  Two and a half years of reading!  However, it's the Bible, an account of more than  2,000 years of  God's interaction with his creation.  There's no reason to expect that it should be an easy read. 

What can now follow is a different type of reading.  I would not opt for going through and re-reading the Bible again as one might do with a long-ago-read favorite novel although over the past two years I have had to do that, particularly with the book of Genesis.   I had thought of re-reading the particular books as they correspond to the daily lectionary readings.  It would be a perfect time to begin that because Year C is ending and Year A is just about to begin.  But that approach may be a bit of hop-scotching that could lead to confusion.  Garrison suggests re-reading according to themes of sin, salvation, fear, grace.  He suggests using biographies, an idea I like.  It seems neat and manageable.  Historical time periods is another possibility.  There are other guides as well.  I attempted to use this one briefly.

Revelation

Book Written:   Both HC and Baker link the time of writing to periods of religious persecution.  One such period is during Nero's reign  (54-68 A.D.) 68 A.D. and a later possibility is during Domitian's reign  (81-96 A.D.) in 96 A.D.

Time Period/Setting:   The author writes to seven Christian communities in Asia Minor:   Pergamum, Thyatira, Smyrna, Sardis, Philadelphia, Ephesus and Laodicea.  Yet, these communities would not likely have been being actively persecuted at the time Revelation was written.  HC notes that the persecution under Nero affected mostly Christians in Rome.  HC says the evidence is scant that Domitian promoted any kind of official persecution of Christians in Asia Minor. Both HC and Baker remind that the book may be a warning of things to come.

HC refers to the author of Revelation as a member of the Johannine community, but certainly not the apostle John.  Here, Baker agrees that authorship is uncertain, perhaps attributable to a disciple of John, if not the apostle himself.  The author does identify himself as having been on Patmos, Ch. 1, 9.

Title:  From the Greek apokalypsis meaning 'revelation,' 'the revealing or disclosure of something hidden' as in Ch 1, 1 "the revelation of Jesus Christ." 

I've written a bit here about apocalyptic literature but here are a few helpful reminders concerning such literature since we're on this page.  Apocalyptic literature: depicts a conflict between Satan and God or between a present evil time vs. a better time to come; is told in the first person; is abundant in symbolism; may present an "interpreting angel."   Regarding symbolism, Baker reminds us that "almost every material thing mentioned stands for something else."  Definitely.  Babylon is Rome.  The 'great whore' is Rome.   The beast is the Roman empire.  The 'little scroll' is revelation. A lampstand is this, a dragon is that.  The number 7 is mentioned 57 times.   Baker also admonishes that we not presume the book of Revelation refers to or predicts present-day struggles.  The message of the book is specific to its historical time period.  

Letter of Jude

Book Written:  Baker says the date  is around 70 A.D.  HC only notes that this book could be among the earliest NT writings.

Time Period/Setting:  Where Jude writes from or to whom is a bit murky, but HC places Jude in Palestine as a leader of Jewish Christians. 

Title:  Jude seems to be the agreed-upon author.  He is held to be the brother of James, author of the letters and the leader of the church in Jerusalem, and so a cousin of Jesus.

Jude is warning the Christian community (probably Gentile Christians according to Baker, but see above) of the dangers of giving in to "certain intruders" (v.4) who distort the gospel.   These "waterless clouds," these "trees without fruit" are "blemishes on your lovefeasts, while they feast with you without fear, feeding themselves" (v. 12).  Pretty damning language.

This book includes the beautiful doxology:

Now to him who is able to keep you from falling, and to make you stand without blemish in the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Letter of John, 1, 2 and 3

Book Written:  For all three letters, HC places the date at 100 A.D., Baker at 90 A.D.

Time Period/Setting:  HC believes these three letters to have been written in Ephesus.  For the audience, the "little children," see below.  The "elect lady" of  2 John is a particular church, though which one is not known. 3 John is addressed to Gaius whom Baker identifies simply as an important person in the church to which the letter is addressed.

Title:  Once again and no surprise, HC calls into question John the apostle and author of the fourth gospel as the writer of these chapters.  He identifies the author as perhaps the "elder" in letter 2 or a member of the same early Christian community of the fourth gospel.  Baker has no such qualms and identifies the apostle as author of all three letters.   Both Baker and HC agree that 1 John is not an actual letter but 2, 3 John are. 

Concerning 1 John, HC explains that this speech or sermon may have been written to counter those in the Christian community who were claiming that Jesus was pure spirit and not a physical human being.  Baker says the theme in 2 John is remaining faithful to the early teachings of the apostles.  The theme of 3 John, a very short letter,  discusses administrative matters.  All three letters echo the language of the fourth gospel.

Letter of Peter, 2

Book Written:   Baker gives the date as around 70 A.D. (though how that could be if Peter is thought to have been killed in 64 A.D. see below).  HC puts the date considerably later in the 80s or 90s A.D.

Time Period/Setting:  Peter is writing to all Christians of the time, no particular group intended.

Title: Though Baker notes that authorship of this book is controversial, he recognizes its author as Peter.  HC does not.  He attributes authorship to someone who wrote in Peter's name as, again, HC rather categorically places Peter's martyrdom in the year 64/5 A.D.  Baker says this is not actually a letter.

Peter reminds his audience not to revert to pagan ways (HC explains that Christians of this time were caught in a "twin transition from a Jewish to a pagan environment. . .. " He also writes of the Parousia.  And the author, whoever he may be, emphasizes the truth of his message because he is one of the "eyewitnesses of his majesty"  (Ch.1, 16-18).

Letter of Peter, 1

Book Written:  Baker simply gives a date of 64 A.D. while HC explains that the letter has to be written after Paul traveled through Asia Minor in the 60s, but before the 90s because there's no mention of Roman officials charging Christians with disobedience to the emperor.

Time Period/Setting:  Peter is writing to Christians in five Roman provinces in Asia Minor:  Asia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Galatia and Pontus.    HC explains that these Gentile Christians faced considerable animosity towards them on the part of the Greco-Roman society in which they found themselves.

Title:  Written by Peter, the apostle and first bishop of Rome though HC calls that into question by saying that the fine quality of the Greek may mean otherwise.  HC also says (2 Peter) that Peter was martyred in 64/5 A.D. so HC would conclusively be saying that this letter couldn't have been written by Peter if in fact the letter was penned between 70 A.D. and 90 A.D.   The format is considered to be an actual letter.

Peter is urging his readers to be faithful and good servants of Christ and not to revert to their earlier, heathen ways.  Just to make things perfectly clear I suppose, Peter enjoins his readers not to consort with those lousy Gentiles whom he denounces as immoral low-lifes in  Ch. 4, 3-5.  Such riff-raff lives in "licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revels, carousing and lawless idolatry."  Can't get much worse than that!

Letter of James

Book Written:  According to Baker, 57 A.D., according to HC, before 70 A.D.

Time Period/Setting:  James is thought to be addressing a live audience if you will, thus this isn't really a letter in the literal sense.  His audience is Jewish Christians.

Title:  The author is considered to be James, "brother" of Jesus (not James, brother of John and sons of Zebedee, that James having been martyred in 42 A.D.).  This James led a Christian church in Jerusalem. 

In this book of the Bible James makes the "faith not works" argument which as Baker points out is only an apparent contradiction to Paul's message about faith in Romans Ch. 3, 19 to Ch. 5.  As I understand it, Paul was admonishing the new Christians that their righteousness would not result from following every jot and tittle of Jewish law, but rather through their faith in Christ as the risen Messiah.  James, it seems, is saying nothing that different.  He admonishes his audience not to forget that their faith consists also of demonstrable acts based on love of God and trust in him, much as Abraham was willing to offer up Isaac (Ch.2, 21). 

Letter to the Hebrews

Abraham and Melchizedek
Dieric Bouts

Book Written:  Between 60 A.D. and 95 A.D. according to HC, but Baker gives 70 A.D.

Time Period/Setting:  Authorship was for a long time ascribed to Paul, however, that is now an outmoded view.  Possible authors are Barnabas, Apollos or Priscilla.  HC suggests the intended recipients of the letter may be in Rome.

Title: Called a letter, HC says the Book of Hebrews is really more like a sermon though it does conclude with correspondence-type greetings and farewells to the audience for whom the sermon-letter is intended.  HC speculates loosely that the audience is probably Jewish and Christian (does that mean Jewish Christians?).

Baker calls the letter a "treatise on Christology" and HC reminds of the very Greek style of writing (also the language in which it was written?).  The discussion of Melchizedek in Chapter 7 and the following discussion of Christ as the high priest are intriguing though mysterious.  I happened to read a bit about Melchizedek here.

Years ago I took a class with the Presbyterians on Hebrews.  Memory could be playing tricks on me, but what I recall of the class was a series of meditations on various passages of Hebrews with some kind of recorded New Age type music playing at intervals.  It was the most unenlightening class on the Bible that I've ever taken, probably due in no small part to the fact that I knew nothing about Christianity or the Bible at the time.  It's unfortunate that this association with Hebrews persisted.  The class left the impression of Hebrews as being an utterly inscrutable piece of theology to be avoided if possible. Actually, it's a rather beautifully written book with accessible ideas.   

Philomen

Book Written:  Baker gives a date of 61 A.D. to 63 A.D. while HC rules out a date earlier than 54 A.D. (see below)

Time Period/Setting:  The authorship of this letter is attributed to an imprisoned Paul, but which prison and where is not certain.  HC questions Rome as a location, preferring Philippi or Caesarea as more likely.  For that reason HC fixes an earlier date to the letter.   Paul was writing to a wealthy Colossian, Philomen, whose slave, Onesimus, had run away and come to befriend Paul (in Rome according to Baker), undergo a conversion to Christianity and remain as Paul's friend or servant.

Title:  see above

Paul is writing to Philomen to say that, though Onesimus is a valued companion and friend, he is sending Onesimus back to Colossae to his master.  Paul urges Philomen  to treat Onesimus with  respect and kindness and perhaps even grant him his freedom.

Letter of Paul to Titus

Book Written:   Baker gives a date of 65 A.D. while HC gives 90 A.D. to 110 A.D. as he did for the letters to Timothy

Time Period/Setting:  Paul is thought to have written this letter while in Macedonia (per Baker) to his friend Titus who had been left in charge of a church in Crete.

Title:   HC casts doubt on Paul as the author.

The content and tone of this letter is very similar to the Timothy letters.

Letter of Paul to Timothy, 2

Book Written:   Baker gives the date of 66 A.D., but HC holds to the later 90 A.D. to 110 A.D as was the case for 1 Timothy.

Time Period/Setting:  This letter is thought to have been written by Paul from a Roman prison.  Both Baker and HC describe this letter as a kind of last will and testament from a man about to die.

Title:   As with 1 Timothy, HC casts doubt on Paul as the author.

Baker in particular finds these letters to be filled with thoughtful advice delivered in a warm and loving way to a pastor faced with the demands of leading a congregation.

Letter of Paul to Timothy, 1

Book Written:   65 A.D. according to Baker but HC puts the date later at 90 A.D. to 110 A.D.

Time Period/Setting:  Paul is thought to have written this letter from Macedonia to his friend and colleague, Timothy, who was in Ephesus leading the Christian church there.

Title:  HC is considerably more circumspect than Baker about the authorship of this letter as well as 2 Timothy and Titus. 

The problem that Timothy faces is primarily false teachings about Christ.  Paul gives advice on church leadership and has some more comments about the submission of women, Chapter 2, and the role of young widows, Chapter 5 which are kind of interesting.  Baker describes the letter as "a marvelous blend of practical advice from the Apostle of the Gentiles."  HC emphasizes more the Hellenistic influences in the writing.

Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians, 2

Book Written:  50 A.D. or 51 A.D.

Time Period/Setting:   Paul wrote this book from Corinth to the Gentile converts in Thessalonica, a culturally Greek city in the Roman province of Macedonia.

Title:  Self-explanatory

Baker says that in this letter Paul is concerned with explaining that the Parousia  (Second Coming) has not occurred and only God knows when it will occur.  In Chapter 2, Paul explains that the "lawless one" will be revealed before the parousia, the lawless one being an evil, Satanic force.

The Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians, 1

Book Written:  50A.D. or 51  A.D.  The oldest book in the New Testament.

Time Period/Setting:   Paul wrote this book from Corinth to the Gentile converts in Thessalonica, a culturally Greek city in the Roman province of Macedonia.

Title:  self-explanatory

This letter is geared toward a non-Jewish audience heavily influenced by Greek culture.  The Gentile Christians are being persecuted by Jews.

Letter of Paul to the Philippians

Book Written:  54 A.D or the early 60s A.D.

Time Period/Setting:  Paul wrote this letter from prison, though exactly which prison and where is unclear.  HC says possibilities are Ephesus, Corinth and Caesarea.  Baker says Ephesus.  Philippi is a port city in Macedonia, a Roman province.

Title:  self-explanatory

Paul is very fond of the Philippian community as they are of him.  The letter has a warm and joyous tone as Paul writes that no other church has been as kind to Paul as the Philippian church.

Letter of Paul to the Ephesians

Book Written:  61A.D. to 63 A.D. according to Baker, but anywhere from 60s A.D. to 95 A.D. according to HC

Time Period/Setting:  Baker says Paul wrote this letter from a Roman prison, but HC says place of authorship is unknown.  Paul  is writing to Gentile Christians.

Title:  Paul is not necessarily the author.  According to HC, the author is more likely a student of Paul's who wrote after Paul's death.

This letter may not necessarily have been written to the church in Ephesus, but was rather a more general letter to all churches.  Baker says Paul wrote to combat a "challenge to the primacy of Christ in all creation."  HC talks about Paul's audience as "experiencing a radical transformation of their personal and social identity." 

Chapter 5 contains the familiar verses about the relation of husbands to wives being that of  Christ to the Church. Chapter 6 speaks of the relation of children to parents and slaves to masters along with the verses about putting on "the whole armor of God" in order to withstand evil.

Letter of Paul to the Galatians

Book Written:  54 A.D.

Time Period/Setting:  Written by Paul from Ephesus. Galatia was a Roman province near the present-day city of Ankara.  Ephesus is at a distance of some 200 miles to the east.

Title:  self-explanatory

Paul founded the Galatian Christian churches and is writing to dissuade gullible Galatians from listening to Jewish Christian teachers who are countering Paul's teachings about the new faith, particularly regarding circumcision.  HC says these rebellious teachers wanted new converts to Jesus "to undergo circumcision as a sign of their inclusion in God's covenant."  Whether they also wanted converts to adhere to Jewish food laws is unclear, but Paul again discusses food in Chapter 2 though his lengthier discussion of food appears in Chapter 8 of 1 Corinthians.

Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, 2

Book Written:  Between 54 A.D. and 56 A.D. per HC, but in 57 A.D. per Baker

Time Period/Setting:  Written from Macedonia to the same Corinthian community of his first letter.  2 Corinthians is considered to be more disjoint and fragmentary and HC discusses four theories concerning its make-up.

Title:  self-explanatory

Just to keep the un-chronology going, HC says that this second letter is actually Paul's fourth letter to his fellow Christians in Corinth.

In this letter, Paul defends himself against a nay-sayer, apparently a particular though un-named individual, who has besmirched Paul's legitimacy as an apostle.

Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, 1

Book Written:  54 A.D.

Time Period/Setting:  Written by Paul from Ephesus to the Gentile Christian community  in Corinth, a bustling city with a diverse population, in Achaia, a Roman province

Title:  self-explanatory

This letter of Paul, called first, is actually Paul's second letter to the Corinthian community per HC.  Paul had founded this Christian community and he's writing to them concerning problems that have arisen:  leaders proclaiming themselves to have special knowledge, adultery, fornication, prostitution, the persistent problem of clean and unclean food along with the matter of circumcision and resurrection to name a few.  Really, Paul covers the spectrum from head coverings to law suits.  He was a tireless crusader for the faith certainly and a relentless apologist for it as well, always stressing Christ and his message as the extension of God's covenant with Abraham and the Law.

There are many passages in First Corinthians that read a bit more poetically than those where Paul hammers away at the disobedient Corinthians.  Chapter 12 tells of the Church as being many members but one body, and Chapter 13 is the entirely beautiful passage about love (the Greek word used for love here was agape).    He writes of the resurrection of body in Chapter 15 as the "perishable body" putting on "imperishability." 

Paul does dip in to some dangerous territory by modern-day standards in Chapter 14 much more so than his comments on marriage in Chapter 7.  Women, he says, should not speak in church! Oh well, perhaps it would be easier all around if we did keep quiet, along with everyone else who may really have nothing whatsoever to say. 

Letter of Paul to the Romans

Book Written:  58 A.D.  Paul is thought to have dictated the letter to Tertius and to have asked Phoebe to take it with her to Rome. 

Time Period/Setting:  Written by Paul from Corinth to both Jews and returned Jewish Christians in Rome.  (In 49 A.D. Claudius expelled Jews and probably Jewish Christians from Rome due to religious unrest most likely the result of Christian influence.) Christian teaching had reached Rome by  this time, but apparently not through Paul's efforts.

Title:  self-explanatory

Paul's letter to the Romans was among the last of his letters to be written but is first in order of appearance in the Bible.  The first shall be last and the last first I suppose; chronological order was apparently not important in compiling the books of the Bible. (I will come to see that the Pauline Letters are arranged in descending order according to the length of each.)  The Book of Acts ends with Paul voyaging to Rome, but the Letter to the Romans, the following chapter, was written by Paul without ever having been to Rome. 

Baker describes Romans as a "doctrinal treatise" with the theme of justification by faith.  HC points out that at the time  Paul wrote this letter, he would have had "over two decades" of teaching under his belt.  That is evident.  To me, the letter is a well-thought-out philosophical piece of writing where Paul uses a sophisticated lawyer-like style of argumentation.  He's on fire with the faith. In order to "defend the . . .validity of Israel" to the Roman Christians Paul uses plenty of OT quotations and references to Jewish law. HC says that Paul uses the "diatribe style" to present his position.  That is, he writes "as if confronting an individual with a truth that demands a response." 

The Acts of the Apostles

Book Written:  Around 65 A.D. though HC puts the date closer to 90 A.D. figuring it must have been written after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.  The author is Luke who wrote the third gospel though see below. 

Time Period/Setting:  The early years of the Christian Church after the resurrection of Christ

Title: Of the title, HC says it "indicates the shift in content from Luke's Gospel, which is about Jesus, to Acts, which concerns the life and work of the church."  HC casts some doubt on Luke, companion of St. Paul, author of third gospel and physician, as the author.  HC also points out that this book actually contains little concerning the activities of the apostles, but rather is mostly about Paul who was not an apostle.

Acts reads like an historical adventure book and so is engaging and easy to follow.  Nonetheless, HC cautions against viewing this book as just history and reminds that it is "theological narrative." 

Baker gives six theological points to keep in mind:  1)  The Church developed through the power of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost);  2)  Peter is the protagonist in the first half of the book. He selects Matthias to replace Judas and he gives the nod to the Gentiles in the person of Cornelius.  Paul is the protagonist of the second half of the book;  3)  Jesus, no other,  is the savior of mankind;  4)  There are eighteen speeches in the book.  All tell the story of Jesus's ministry, his death and resurrection and that he is the savior of the world;  5)  The Church is an organized community with a hierarchy.  There are deacons, presbyters and bishops;  6)  At the Council of Jerusalem, the way to salvation is established as faith in Jesus Christ.

Some figures in the book to think about are Barnabas who sold his field and gave the proceeds to the nascent Christian church while Ananias and Sapphira  did similarly but held back some of their profits, Stephen and his martyrdom including the eloquent speech he makes before the Council, Simon the magician who wanted to pay Philip for the powers that Philip had, the Ethiopian Eunuch who resembles a fairy tale character, Tabitha (Dorcas) whom Peter raises from the dead, Cornelius the centurion, the magician Bar-Jesus or Elymas to whom Paul says, "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy. .. .: (Ch. 13, 9), Lydia the trader of purple cloth, Apollos who is re-educated by Priscilla and Aquila (Ch. 18), the Roman officials Felix, Festus, King Agrippa and Bernice.  Paul is at the center of the action as Acts comes to a close with his hairy sea voyage to Rome as prisoner on a ship.

John

Book Written:  Somewhere between 70 A.D. and 90 A.D.

Time Period/Setting:  Written in either Ephesus or Antioch about and/or for a Christian group separating from the larger Jewish community to which it had previously belonged. HC says that this gospel deals with the tension between these two groups, particularly over the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God. 

Title: Refers to John the Apostle, brother of James.  John is the author of the book.

The gospel of John is of course the different gospel, the one set apart from the synoptic gospels.  It's also the gospel of 'onlys'--the only mention of the miracle at Cana, the only mention of Nicodemus, the only mention of the Samaritan woman at the well, the only mention of  Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, the only mention of Jesus washing the disciples' feet, the only mention of the "new" commandment to love one another as Jesus has loved them (Ch. 13,34-35), the only mention of the piercing of Jesus' side, the only mention of Roman soldiers at Jesus' arrest, the only mention of Jesus appearing to Thomas. 

Luke

Book Written:  Around 64 A.D.

Time Period/Setting:  Luke writes for a Gentile, Christian audience

Title:  Luke is thought to be a physician, a Christian Gentile,  a companion to St. Paul and the author of the gospel named after him.

Both Baker and HC point out the importance of Jerusalem in this gospel which recounts Jesus travelling to this important city and returning to the same.

Mark

Book Written:   60 A.D.  

Time Period/Setting:  Written for Gentile Christians, perhaps after the persecution of Christians by Nero (64 A.D.) or the Jewish revolt against Rome. 

Title:  Mark was not an apostle. Both Baker and HC say there was a John Mark who was an interpreter or companion of St. Peter while he was in Rome.

The gospel of Mark is the shortest of the four gospels, the earliest of the four (except for Baker's confusing comment that evidence exists for Matthew being the earliest) and it is considered to have served as the basis for the other gospels.  I think of Mark as the 'bare bones' account of Jesus and his ministry, having learned somewhere along the way that Mark's account is rudimentary, giving just the essentials with few details.  HC more or less confirms this describing Mark as "cruder and wordier" than Matthew or Luke.(Not sure what he might mean by wordier.) 

The gospel of Mark begins with the baptism of Jesus.  There are two endings (a feature I'll have to explore later).  Baker comments that a theme of this gospel is the coming Kingdom of  God as well as the notion that Jesus is the suffering Messiah who seeks to hide his identity.  HC concurs on the last point. 

Baker notes that each evangelist portrays Jesus differently (e.g. he says that Mark stresses Jesus' human side more than the others), but the differences are not really apparent to me upon a first reading of the gospels.

Matthew

Book Written:  Generally considered to be written late in the first century so 80 A.D.-90 A.D., but Baker suggests that there's evidence for an earlier date of composition, 40s A.D., and so the first gospel.  The author is usually considered to be the apostle, Matthew or Levi, a tax collector, but HC offers that this gospel was most likely written in Antioch, Syria by a "an unknown Greek-speaking Jewish Christian"  and simply named after one of the apostles to give the work greater credence.   There also seems to be a discrepancy about the original language of the gospel.  Baker says that the gospel first existed in Aramaic and was translated into "Koine Greek" whereas HC asserts that the gospel was originally written in Greek.

Time Period/Setting:   Post 70s A.D., after the fall of the temple in Jerusalem.  The author is writing for a Jewish audience

Title:  Named after the apostle Matthew.  See above.

There are five discourses in the book of Matthew along with 41 Old Testament quotations.  The five discourses can be found in Ch. 5 (the Beatitudes), Ch. 10 (Missionary Discourse), Ch. 13(parables), Ch. 18 (community, Church)  and Ch. 24 (the Second Coming).  Matthew's account of Jesus presumes a knowledge of the OT, hence the quotations.  He presents Jesus as a compassionate, dignified teacher, the Messiah, the fulfillment of the Law.  The Gospel of Matthew begins with the genealogy of Jesus.

Maccabees 1, 2

Book Written: 100 B.C. during the reign of John Hyrcanus (a grandson of Mattathias, the Maccabee who first revolted in 167  B.C.).  The author is unknown.

Time Period/Setting:  175 to 134 B.C. during the reign of the new Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes.  This is also the time period during which the book of Daniel was written even though the events in Daniel unfold at the time of the Babylonian exile. 

Title:  Maccabees means 'hammer' and is the name of the priestly family that led the revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes.  The Maccabees were also called the Hasmoneans. 

I looked forward to reading Maccabees because I knew it dealt with the Hellenized Jewish world,  a  time period with which I am not overly familiar but about which I was curious to know more.  I gleaned what I could from the notes and background in both HC and Baker, but in the end the books themselves were a little dry and there was so much history with a quantity of unfamiliar names that the actual reading of the books failed to live up to what were my somewhat false expectations.  For example, I wrongly assumed the story of Hanukkah to be a central event of the Maccabee reign, but it was just one event among many.   Similarly, the ghastly torture of the mother and her seven sons resonates with greater significance when the verses stand on their own as a single  reading as opposed to being a chapter in Maccabees 2.  In Maccabees 1, God's presence occurs within the first seven chapters.

 Why would Maccabees not be included in the Protestant and especially in the Jewish Bibles?  Is it of any significance that Baker includes his discussion of the Maccabees books in his section on prophets?  In the Catholic Bible, the books follow the book of Esther.



Revisiting Maccabees 1,2 would be a good thing to do at a later time.

Malachi

Book Written: About 450 B.C. after the temple is restored but before the return of Ezra

Time Period/Setting:  post-exilic Jerusalem

Author:  The name Malachi means 'my messenger'

The theme is the spiritual desolation of Jerusalem and Malachi's attempt to revive the faith life, especially of the religious leaders

Zechariah

Book Written:  ?

Time Period/Setting:  Post-exilic Jerusalem about the years 520 B.C. to 518 B.C.

Author:  A contemporary of Haggai

The theme is the rebuilding of the temple and the coming of a Messiah.  Zechariah is killed for his efforts.  There are touches of the apocalyptic in this book.

Haggai

Book Written:  mid-August to mid-December of 520 B.C.

Time Period/Setting:  The reign of Darius I, 520 B.C.  in post-exilic Jerusalem.  Zerubbabel, a grandson of former king Jehoiachin,  is the governor of Judah

Author: The name is from the Hebrew root "hgg" meaning to make a pilgrimmage.  Haggai is a contemporary of Zechariah

The theme is the rebuilding of the temple

Zephaniah

Book Written:  ?

Time Period/Setting:  Reign of King Josiah, 640-609 B.C.

Author:  A contemporary of Jeremiah and Nahum so a "southern" prophet.  Baker says Zephaniah is the most important prophet in Judah after Isaiah

Zephaniah repeats or borrows two themes from Amos and Isaiah, the concept of the day of the Lord and concept of the survival of the remnant.

Habbakuk

Book Written:  Around 597 B.C., the time of Jerusalem's destruction by the Babylonians

Time Period/Setting:  The impending fall of Judah, so the southern kingdom in 597 B.C. and the rise of Babylon

Author:  Little known about Habbakuk

Habbakuk is spoken of as the prophet who questions God and enters into dialogue with him. 

Nahum

Book Written:  Around 612 B.C.

Time Period/Setting:  The fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C.

Author:  Nahum hails from a town called Elkosh, geographic location unknown.

The tone of this book is considered to be a bit haughty and hateful though the book is also regarded as poetic and among the best written in the OT (Baker).   Nahum speaks of the fact that Assyrians will now get their comeuppance (at the hands of the Babylonians) and will suffer as they have made the Israelites suffer for so many years. 

Micah

Book Written:  ?

Time Period/Setting:  The reigns of three kings of Judah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, roughly the years 742 BC to 687 BC.  At this time, Assyria was the enemy of the southern kingdom.

Author: Micah means 'who is like the Lord.'  One of the four 8th century BC prophets along with Isaiah, Amos and Hosea.  Micah is a contemporary of Isaiah.

Jonah

Book Written:  After the Babylonian exile according to HC and during the 5th century according to Baker

Time Period/Setting:  The city of Nineveh in Assyria

Author:  The author's name

Jonah is a cantankerous and unwilling prophet, rebellious and a bit of a grump.  After running away, spending three days in a whale's belly (or whatever dark place he descended into, separated from God) and finally being vomited onto shore, Jonah is still rambunctious enough to dispense his opinions of God's actions directly to the Lord. He explains to God that this is why he ran away in the first place, because he knew the Lord would be too forgiving of the sinful city of Nineveh. 

That sounds strangely familiar, no?  As when we condemn to hellfire and damnation all those people we really can't stand, the ones we've decided are unforgivable liars and cheats?  Like the Catholic politicians who support abortion and same sex marraige and for whose excommunication and public humiliation we clamor.  It really is profoundly difficult to accept that God loves Andrew Cuomo or Nancy Pelosi as much as he loves me, not to mention Hitler or the Taliban.   And yet it's so obvious how wrong the prophet is when God extends his merciful care to Jonah with a lovely bush as protection from the elements and Jonah seems to think he deserves this conveniently protective bush sprung out of nowhere. 

Jonah's direct approach with the Lord calls to mind the manner in which Moses spoke to God.   Jonah's questioning of God's ways calls to mind Job or even Qoheleth/ Ecclesiastes, as they seek to understand why life is so seemingly unjust and inscrutable at times.

For the wonderful story of Jonah in song go here for Louis Armstrong's version and here for the Nightingales telling of it.

Obadiah

Book Written:  Unknown according to HC;  about 450 BC according to Baker.

Time Period/Setting:  The fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC and after.

Title:  The prophet's name which means 'servant of the Lord.'

The single-chapter book begins in the genre of 'oracles against the nations' with an oracle against Edom.  The reason Edom would be the subject of an oracle is because the Edomites helped Babylonians in the sacking of Jerusalem.

Amos

Book Written: Both Baker and HC say that Amos is the oldest of the books of the prophets though they give no exact dates.  Baker adds that Amos is the first prophet to have a book named after him.

Time Period/Setting:  The reign of Jeroboam II, 786 BC - 746 BC, the northern kingdom at Bethel.  Amos and Hosea are contemporaries.

Author:  Amos is a shepherd, not prophet by trade.  He hails from the southern kingdom but prophesies in the northern.  Along with Isaiah, Hosea and Micah, Amos is one of the four 8th century BC prophets.

Amos is the social justice prophet, speaking as much from his own experience as a laborer as opposed to any formal training in the matter of prophesy.  Per Baker, Amos is the first to introduce the "day of the Lord" although the notion more the theme of Joel than Amos

Joel

Book Written:  Unclear though Baker says around 400 BC.

Time Period/Setting:  Unclear though the book refers to an invasion but doesn't mention by what nation

Title:  The prophet's name which is a common one and means the same as the name Elijah--'My God is the Lord' - but in reverse order. 

The book begins with a colorful description of an enormous invading plague of locusts which I initially took to be a description of an enormous, invading army.  Joel introduces the theme of the day of the Lord or the coming of the Lord's Day.

Hosea

Book Written: 

Time Period/Setting:  The northern Kingdom of Israel, called Ephraim in this book, during the reign of Jeroboam II, 786 BC-746 BC.  Hosea was active toward the end of Jeroboam's reign and, according to HC, continued to prophesy until the reign of King Hoshea right before the fall of the northern kingdom to Assyria in 722 BC.

Title:  The prophet's name, a shortened form of Hoshaiah meaning 'Yahweh has saved' in Hebrew.  Hosea is one of the four 8th century BC prophets along with Isaiah, Amos and Micah.

Hosea marries (is told by the Lord to marry) Gomer who turns out to be an adulteress or a "whoring bride."  He rejects her, but then takes her back.  Baker sees the marriage motif as key to understanding this book.  He explains it this way:  .." under the influence of the Holy Spirit, he [Hosea] sees that his experience with Gomer is a symbol or replica of the relationship between Israel (Gomer) and the Lord God (Hosea)."   Using marriage to explain Israel's/bride's relation to the Lord/bridegroom is introduced by Hosea and then employed by other prophets (Ezekiel) and also by St. Paul in the NT.

During Hosea's time, Israel has two main sinful flaws.  One is turning to foreign powers for help in fending off the ravages of Assyria and the other is worshipping foreign gods, Baal most notably.

Hosea and Amos are contemporaries, both prophets of doom. 

Daniel

Job, Daniel, Noah Three Righteous Men
 Poor Man's Bible 13th C
Sonia Halliday Photo

Book Written:   165 BC during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes

 

Time Period/Setting:   Babylonian exile, 587-537 BC, Daniel is an exiled Jew living in the court of the Babylonian king

Title:  The use of the name Daniel both for the title of book and its protagonist is probably the same reason the name Solomon was used in the Wisdom of Solomon and the Song of Solomon.  That is to say that a certain Daniel (not even an Israelite?), along with Noah and Job, were "figures known widely in the ancient Near East" and were seen as exceedingly righteous men (Collins). These three are depicted in the stained glass window to the right.  The name Daniel may refer to the Danel or Daniel mentioned in Ezekiel Chapter 14 or it may refer to a judge Danel/Daniel from an Ugarit 14th century BC legend. 

So, first question, was there really a Jewish exile who interpreted Nebuchednezzar's dream and the handwriting on the wall?  And did this exile have friends Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, renamed in exile respectively as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego?  Did they endure some sort of torture, whether a fiery furnace or other, and emerge unscathed?  Did Daniel survive a torture, a lion's den or other? 

Regardless of the answers to these (perhaps naive) questions, Baker says that the book of Daniel was written for the purpose of inspiring Jews experiencing the domination if not persecution of a foreign power, the Seleucids.  Daniel is an example of a wise (e.g. his Solomonic role in determining the fate of poor Susanna) and a godly man who shows undying faith in the one God of Israel.  Daniel's God is more powerful than the pagan's idols and Daniel's faith gives him the wisdom to be clearly smarter than the Chaldean sorcerers and priests (e.g. Daniel can interpret the dreams where they are unable). 

As noted earlier, Daniel is deemed the only book in the OT which is truly apocalyptic, though I fail to see why certain chapters of Ezekiel wouldn't qualify.  

Chapter 12 of Daniel alludes to the resurrection of the body and both Baker and Eerdmans say, respectively,  this is the only (?) such reference in the OT and the earliest reference.  However, what about the Wisdom of Solomon, the first five chapters and also the writings in the Books of the Maccabees?

Ezekiel

Book Written:  About 550 B.C. (by Ezekiel's disciples?).

Time Period/Setting:  The Babylonian exile, specifically the years 593-571 B.C. when Ezekiel was prophesying.  Ezekiel prophesies from Babylon to the exiled community there with him as well as to Jerusalem.

Title:  The prophet's name.

Ezekiel is prophet, priest and contemporary of Jeremiah.  Garrison cautions against applying Ezekiel's prophesies to current events as a modern-day "fire-breathing evangelist" might do.  Could he mean someone like this?  Garrison says such interpretations miss the point of the book by focusing on doomsday predictions about modern times, rather than Ezekiel's universal message about God's unmatchable power, personal conversion and the suffering caused by sin. See below on apocalyptic literature.

Garrison advises skimming this book, but it was near impossible to skim the first three chapters describing Ezekiel's call to prophesy and his vision of the four-faced, winged and wheeled creatures.  Fantastical and bizarre images!  The song hardly does the Biblical text justice.

Equally unskimmable was Chapter 16 where Israel is depicted with unrelenting insistence as the "whoring" bride of the Lord.  It was also hard to skim Chapter 37, 'dem dry bones.  Do you not remember the song?   The image of Ezekiel prophesying to some bones in a Mesopotamian valley as the bones rattle, join together, take on sinew, flesh, skin and finally life when Ezekiel breathes on 'dem--the toe bone connected to the foot bone, the foot bone connected to the---well, take a look and listen here  .   Who wouldn't squirm and sweat?  It is, in a word, unbelievable.   Isn't it a prefiguring, albeit a crude one, of the resurrection that will follow once the Messiah has come into the world?  Collins doesn't make much of it in his notes. 

The excruciating details concerning Ezekiel's vision of the new temple in Chapter 40 compel one to read every word rather than skim.  Just the circumstances of the vision  preclude skimming the final chapters 40 to 48.  Ezekiel is carried to a high mountain by the Lord and is then ushered through the new temple by a man whose "appearance shone like bronze."  And, the man measures every nook and cranny with his measuring reed as he takes Ezekiel around!  Why, I don't know.   These few examples, plus simply the length of the book make Ezekiel a text to be reckoned with.

Lastly there's the matter of apocalyptic literature, a genre of writing particular to Judaism between 250 BC and 250 AD, but having its roots in Near East mythology.  Baker says that its origins are to be found in Ezekiel, but there is also evidence of it in the OT books of Haggai, Zechariah, Joel and Malachi.  Eerdmans says the only "true" example of apocalyptic writing is in the book of Daniel, Ch 7-12.  The word itself is from the Greek and means revelation or disclosure.  Eerdmans:  

"Apocalypses are characterized by the presence of vision, symbolism, a human seer and an other-worldly mediator, an otherworldly journey, an emphasis on events in the cosmic rather than human realm, an increased interest in angels and demons, the notion of transcendence of God, and pseudonymity." p. 72  

Eerdmans gives three characteristics of the apocalyptic genre:

1) it is a first person narrative. .. "with revelatory visions often mediated to the author by a supernatural being"  2)   the content communicated is eschatological in nature  and achieved through a variety of devices, both literary and visual such that  3) those hearing the message will behave in "conformity with the transcendent perspectives."  p. 1124-1125 

There is much more of course, but time to move on to the Book of Daniel.

Baruch

Book Written: Most likely sometime after 180 B.C. or anywhere from 200 to 60 B.C.   Baker says the book is "attributed" to Baruch (who of course wasn't living in 180 B.C.), but is the work of 3-4 different authors.

Time Period/Setting: Baruch writes from Babylon both to those left behind in Jerusalem after the second deporation, so after 587 B.C., as well as to those in exile.  However, Baruch was thought to have remained behind in Judah with Jeremiah and both are thought to have gone to Egypt. 

Title: Baruch is the name of Jeremiah's secretary and friend.  The Hebrew meaning is 'he who is blessed.'

The five chapters of Baruch follow Lamentations in the Catholic Bible and include the Letter of Jeremiah as its sixth chapter.   Baruch contains a wisdom poem which equates wisdom with the Torah.  The Letter of Jeremiah dates to somewhere between the fourth to second century B.C. Its author uses the name of Jeremiah to give credence to the writing and because the letter "developed the venerable prophet's ideas. . ."  (HC) The Letter is an exegesis on the evils of idols.

Lamentations

Book Written:  After the final destruction of Jerusalem so around 586 B.C. 

Time Period/Setting:  After the final destruction of Jerusalem so around 586 B.C.  The author (or authors?) is thought to be a Judean who was not exiled but remained in Jerusalem. The author is not the prophet Jeremiah.

Title:  In Hebrew, the title of the book is 'ekah or 'How!' taken from the first word of the first chapter. The title 'Lamentations' is taken from the Latin threni and Greek threnoi.

The book consists of five chapters all of which are essentially psalms, some sorrowful, some hopeful.  The psalms of Lamentations are used during Holy Week in Tenebrae services.

HC says this about Lamentations.  It is "an eloquent expression of grief that helped survivors come to terms with the historical calamity they had gone through."   And, the author(s) of the book accepted the view of "the great preexilic prophets. . . that the destruction of the holy city was the just judgment of God for Israel's sin."   Thus, Lamentations like Jeremiah (and Second Isaiah per Baker) follows the Deuteronomistic view that turning away from God will result in punishment and suffering.

Jeremiah

Book Written:  ?

Time Period/Setting: Roughly the years of King Josiah's rule in Judah beginning in 640 BC and extending through the reigns of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah whose reign, ending in 587 BC, marked the final destruction of the temple and the second deportation of the Hebrews to Babylon under Nebucheddnezzar.

Title:  Self explanatory, the book is named after the prophet Jeremiah whose name in Hebrew means 'Yahweh exalts.'

Baker describes this book as covering a dark and tumultuous period of Israel's history.  The kingdom is always fighting off adversaries-- three of them,  Egypt, Assyria and Babylon-- while simultaneously defying the Lord with the worship of pagan gods, false idols and shady prophets. There's plenty of history in the book and HC gives copious notes explaining Jeremiah's oracles, laments and prophesies against the appropriate historical backdrop.  I questioned earlier why the Babylonians deported the Hebrews rather than killing them off.  That question is answered here with many notes on who was deported, who was left behind (Jeremiah elected to remain in Judah) and why.

There's a powerful sense throughout the book that the Lord is thoroughly disgusted with the sinfulness and disobedience of his people, that their punishment --destruction of their homeland and deportation to live under a foreign king--will be harsh and sure.   Interestingly, it is the Lord himself who takes credit for the Babylonian takeover and later the Lord who commands Cyrus to finally send the Hebrews back to Jerusalem.  It's not just happenstance that events unfolded as they did. Despite what the faithless Israelites think (or the Assyrians or Babylonians-- or us for that matter), there is a reason for their suffering and exile.   God is master over everything. 

The "new covenant" in Ch 31 is noted by HC as being a conversion of heart rather than a new law.

Baker describes Jeremiah as the "most personal and most self-revealing" of the prophets.  Perhaps, if Baker says so, but I found Job and Moses equally if not more so. HC describes Jeremiah's sixth lament or complaint (Ch 20) as the 'most blasphemous in the Bible.'  Garrison paints a picture of Jeremiah as dynamic, "intoxicated" by God's glory and "attuned" to God's voice. He describes the book as fast-paced, especially Ch 36-39.  Garrison notes that prophets are not recluses who sit in caves and meditate, Jeremiah least of all.  He explains that prophets like Jeremiah arise in a time when organized religion is corrupted by lazy priests and prophets.  At such times "God raises up some amateur through whom the covenant is revived."

Maybe a second reading at a later time will give me a more, shall we say, mature insight into this prophet.

Isaiah

Isaiah contains oracles or prophecies given over a span of time and by different authors.  There are three sections to the book.  The book was perhaps not completed until 200 BC.  Isaiah is one of the four 8th century BC prophets along with Amos, Hosea and Micah.

Chapters 1-39 correspond to the reigns in Judah of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah so roughly 780s B.C. to 680s B.C.  I like the way HC further breaks this up:  the Syro-Ephraimite war when Syria and Israel attached Judah (735-732 BC), anti-Assyrian activity against Sargon II (720-710 BC and Hezekiah's revolt against Sennacherib (705-701 BC).   I'm a bit fuzzy about authorship here.  Is it Isaiah of Jerusalem who wrote these chapters as Baker says.  Or, is it just a rehashing from 2 Kings along with the writings of some others as HC says?  Or, as Baker says later, Isaiah didn't write any of it, but it was his disciples who collected his prophecies and wrote them down.  In these chapters, Isaiah emphasizes the power of God, the holiness of God and the importance of reliance upon God rather than worldly help. 

Chapters 40-55 correspond to the Babylonian exile and so the 500s BC.  Here authorship is ascribed to a Deutero-Isaiah who harkens back to what the first Isaiah said (God is the holy of holies, Lord of hosts, the Holy One of Israel), but this prophet is offering reassurance to the Hebrews that their exile will end and they will return to an even more glorious Jerusalem. In this section there's considerable condemnation of idols as well as the comparison of the weakness of idols to the power of the Lord and also a satire of idols (Ch 44).  In Ch 46, idols are burdens to be carried while in contrast the Lord carries us. 

Chapters 56-66 correspond to the return from Babylon.  Here, perhaps yet a third Isaiah, talks about the difficulties the Hebrews encounter once they are back in the homeland and he prophesizes about the punishment of those who are enemies of the Hebrews and the defeat they will suffer at God's hands.

Many familiar passages of course come from Isaiah:  beating swords into plowshare, the Sanctus, the call of Isaiah, the phrases repeated in Handel's Messiah (Chapters 9,10), the Lord's threat to Sennacherib (Ch 37), a voice crying out (Ch 40), running without wearying (Ch 40), the remnant and many others. 

And Isaiah is the Old Testament book most frequently-quoted in the New Testament after Psalms.

There's much more here but I must move on to the prophet Jeremiah.  Perhaps the one prophet will provide further insights to the other.

Sirach

Just determining the author of this book constituted a little mini-study of its own.  The author's name is Jesus, from the Hebrew Yeshu'a, but he is Ben Sira or son of Eleazar who is the son of Sirach.   Consequently the book is known as the Book of Ben Sira, but for Christians it's also known as Ecclesiasticus (not to be thought of as the name of the author and so not to be confused with Ecclesiastes or Qoheleth) meaning the book of the church or churchly matters.  In addition, there is a translator mentioned, Ben Sira's grandson, who translated the book from Hebrew into Greek.

Despite all this, the book was written around 180 B.C. in Jerusalem prior to the Maccabean revolt.

As it turned out, the historical period during which the book was written proved more interesting to me than the content of the  book itself.   Ben Sira lived in a Hellenized Jerusalem and was writing against a background of several threats to Jewish culture.  According to HC, these threats are the rule of foreign kings, disputes between priestly (I presume Jewish) families vying for power, conflicts between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids who succeeded Alexander the Great (both groups of which I, at present, know precious little), all constituting threats to Jewish religious practices and beliefs and daily living. 

Wisdom of Solomon

The Wisdom of Solomon post-dates the book of Sirach but like Sirach is set against a Hellenic backdrop, and, like Sirach, is not included in the Protestant Bible.

The book is written in 50 B.C. by a Greek-speaking Jew thought to live in Alexandria, Egypt. 

As with the Song of Solomon, the reference to the Hebrew king is to give the author's writings greater credibility.  Solomon is not responsible for the book!   The idea of immortality is introduced here.  Wisdom comes from God and means fidelity to the Laws of Moses.

The Song of Solomon

The Song of Solomon or Song of Songs (meaning the greatest song)  was not written by Solomon and in fact the author is unknown.  The reference to Solomon in the title is to add cache and give credence and greater status to the writings.  The book is thought to be written after the Hebrews returned from their Babylonian exile so post 539 B.C.

Like the books of Ruth and Ecclesiastes, there is no mention of God in the Song of Solomon.

The language is colorful, lyrical, luxuriant.  The reading is almost entertaining.  Human sexuality and married love are metaphors for God's love of his people and vice versa.

The Red Tent Redux

I commented on the novel The Red Tent here, but since then I've had the good sense to actually read the whole novel in order to draw conclusions.

If, as my copy of the book states, this novel presents a new view of women in biblical times, I guess I'll assume that it's a new view based on historical evidence of some kind.  Or, is it just a new view as in a made-up view loosely based on some historical evidence.  I don't know.  But having a tendency toward the literal and the practical, I can get myself hung up on questions like 'Could this really have happened?' or 'Was there actually a tent that was red?'  Thus, I felt unsettled reading about the wonderfully supportive bonding between all the women in Jacob's tribe. Were women of that time really so dedicated to celebrating their femininity, their fertility, their womanhood and  lavishing attentions on one another when they gave birth or started to menstruate?   Or, is this  21st century A.D. feminism overlaid on second millenium B.C. women.  

I also found the injection of romantic love into the picture a little disconcerting.  In the novel, Shechem and Dinah are a case of a head-over-heels-nothing-can-stop-us-now kind of romance.  All rose petals and gardenias, dreamy and lush, but why?  True, the account of their liaison or marriage in Genesis is ambiguous; Shechem does insist that he wants to marry Dinah which is in part I guess what makes the account of Dinah intriguing for a novelist to speculate upon.  But. . . .

There's more 21st century-style romance when Dinah re-marries later on. She finds the perfect guy in Benia the carpenter!  Benia has a sense of humor, he's sensitive, he loves Dinah, they have a wonderful sex life and Dinah is completely fulfilled as a woman. And it's 3,000 years ago in the Middle East. 

Rebekah is given a role in the novel that she doesn't have in the Bible.  The author makes her into a kind of elder stateswoman,  a seer and/or healer.  Again, I'll assume this is a role  that might have accrued to a woman of Rebekah's status.  Then again, perhaps there's no historical accuracy here but just the author's fantasy.  I don't know.  I did poke around and look for interviews with the author and some reviews of the book.

In the final analysis, I guess this type of novel just isn't my cup of tea.