The Bible in and as History: John

So finally we round out the four Canonical gospels with John.  We’ve thus-far seen Jesus as a revolutionary preacher, as a religious Icon, and as a sort of Wizard performing Magic for the faithful.  What we have also seen though, are four closely related Gospels.  Mark, Mathew and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels because there are elements of unity between all three.  Speeches that repeat.  Doctrines that repeat, sometimes almost word for word.  You can see, in the Synoptic Gospels, a story told through three lenses, but linked to common sources.  As mentioned previously, most believe Luke, for example, was composed utilizing Mathew and another source, some sort of Oral tradition now lost.

John is the odd man out then.  This Gospel comes from another tradition, another set of sources, and though it possesses some similarities, it also is very set apart.  One can read Mathew for example and then John and see two almost completely different narratives.  In this Gospel, John the Baptist is more a sign himself than a Prophet.  One set to clear the way for the Messiah, and one of several.  What’s more, nothing regarding Jesus’ miracle birth is covered in John.  Like Mathew, it goes straight into his ministry, though the things it talks about are quite different.

In common with the other Gospels, Jesus preaches in Galilea, but he performs many more miracles, especially of healing, and some of the things he expressly does in the other gospels, such as his disputations with authorities over his disciples picking wheat on the Sabbath, are omitted.  None of the familiar Parables are here, nor are many of the sections regarding Jesus’ teachings.  Though he feeds the multitudes and walks on water, he also claims directly to be the son of God, and that he is sent from Heaven, which the Jews Dispute.  He turns water into Wine at the wedding of Cana.  He uses his power to raise Lazarus from the Dead, as a foreshadowing of his own resurrection.

Jesus’ execution is more similar to what has transpired before, with his judgement, being brought before Pilate, his crucifixion.  Though while the crucifixion has various places within the Gospels, here it seems more a known outcome.  Less something the people do without realizing what they are doing and more a fore-ordained event permitting Jesus to return to ‘the Father’.

After his death, his resurrection is also far more drawn out. There are more references to his disciples seeing him, and he delivers greater messages and portents after his resurrection.  This is a Jesus for whom the resurrection was assured, and offers not a break, but a continuation, or perhaps culmination of his ministry.

John is written, as each of the Gospels are, in a particular historical context and for a particular audience.  Its authorship is in dispute.  Traditionally it is according to John the Apostle, one of Jesus twelve apostles, though this is not considered likely by most biblical scholars.  Its authorship is generally placed at 80-100 CE, and it is placed within a tradition of Johannine literature, which includes John, the First, Second and Third Epistles of John and the Book of Revelations.  It is believed there was a specific or several specific, Johannine ‘sects’ that composed these particular works, based around a theological conception of Jesus as a direct deity and interceder.  That is, in Mark, you have Jesus as a very Jewish-type Prophet.  John see’s Jesus as a more mythical figure, who rather than being the Son of God who shows us the way through his teachers, is the Son of God who gives us the way through his existence.

The context of this group in the case of the Gospel of John is also the emerging divergence between Judaism and early Christianity.  It is clear that initially, ‘Christians’ were in a way a ‘sect’ of John the Baptists followers, who were themselves a sect of unorthodox Judaism(for the 1rst century that is).  Over time there came to be separation, as more Gentiles entered the faith, as the faith mutated and split.  By the time of the Gospel of John, there is a clear need to differentiate one-self from ‘The Jews’ of the Second Temple.  Keeping in mind of course that this temple was destroyed in 70 CE, right before John was likely written.  So you have the orthodox Jewish religious authorities, with the central object of their authority having been destroyed by the Romans, dealing with a separate sect supporting eclectic and apocalyptic claims regarding the death of their saviour figure two generations or so earlier.  John clearly sets out to provide separation between ‘Christians’ and ‘Jews’.  Its language establishes ‘The Jews’ as separate from the author, and it is here one finds the most direct ‘blame’ for Jesus Crucifixion.  While in later centuries this would be a source of justification for anti-Semitism, John is largely concerned with the preservation of its own religious community.

Interesting to consider is how this book, compared to the other three Gospels, enters into ‘Canonicity’.  The Gospel of John was clearly in use in a host of early Christian communities, though not all.

Its message seems to have appealed in a broader Roman World, in a way perhaps that Matthew or Mark might not have.  As we shall see going forward, the Pauline works will take a subsect of a subsect of Judaism and transform it into a distinct religion, infused with Greek and Roman tradition, as well as Hebrew.

With the Gospels finished we move on to works that vary more in their content; Next time is Acts.



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Bible in and as History: Luke


The Good Samaritan

If one were to ask a layman, the sort who hasn’t ever read the Gospels in full and absorbed most of what he knows of Jesus from a combination of Sunday School, popular stories and badly drawn Children books, what the main beats of Jesus’ life are, what I think would be interesting is how many of them come in part from Luke.


Like Mathew but unlike Mark, Luke has a far more supernatural bent.  The Jesus of Luke is a divine figure, less a man than a proxy for God who speaks in mystical parables and with hints of hidden knowledge.  Where the Jesus of Mark laments his death on the Cross, a Prophet and Messiah figure asking ‘Where are you God?’, Luke’s Jesus is more serene, surrendering himself up to God as if the entirety of these events was expected.  That indeed is the part of Luke’s theology that becomes apparent and the part where, like each of the two previous works, we must try and see in historical context what was recorded for Theological purposes.  Mark, Mathew, Luke and Later John will all record events of supposedly the same person, yet have very different purposes, interpretations and even actually recordings of sayings.  Like the Akira Kurosawa film ‘Rashomon’ in which several different people each retell the same set of events from their perspective, we are left with different reflections of historical and ahistorical events, and we must parse them.

To my first point; My own, very vague, limited ‘Anglican in Theory’ upbringing would lead me to the following ‘stories’ about Jesus; The Christmas Narrative, we all know Jesus was born in a Manger in Bethlehem, under a glowing Star.  Three Kings show up to give him gifts.  A whole bunch of animals; humble birth to the sainted King of Kings.  What’s interesting is how much of that popular fiction isn’t even constructed from the Biblical texts.  The ‘Three Kings’ or the ‘Magi’ as I’ve referenced before, show up years after Jesus birth in the biblical tellings.  More interesting is that much of this is almost assuredly fiction.  The parts we could match to history simply don’t’ have any support.  No indication of a wide-spread hunt and slaughter of Babies by Herod for example.  Absolutely no reason for people to ‘return to their birthplaces’ for some sort of Census or tax thing.  The Romans were effective tax collectors, and the idea that people would have to return to their supposed birthplaces to do so would appear as strange to them as it does to us.  Astrological indications also don’t seem to point to any Star.  Certainly, the expansive Persian records would record something in this regard?  But all that is sort of immaterial in talking about Luke.  Luke’s start of Jesus’ life is about a consistent theological construction of that life.  Where for Mark, Jesus shows up as an Adult man, a follower, or something similar to John the Baptist to whom the torch is passed, etc.  In Luke Jesus is foretold, and everyone around him knows it.  John is birthed in mystical circumstances as well, a prophet of Jesus’ coming.  These are not historical understandings of events.

Moving on discussing the limited knowledge of my youth; Jesus was a preacher or something, he walks on water, feeds a whole bunch of people Loaves and Fishes through some sort of Magic, throws the Money Changers out of the Temple for some reason, and gets nailed to the Cross, where he dies and then comes back three days later.  What one notices is that much of what I ‘recall’ of my childhood exposure is magical.  Now obviously the fantastic is going to stick with a child more than any esoteric theology is going to.  That’s precisely why fairy-tales and all manner of fantasy are engrossing to children of varied cultures.  As my previous discussion on Mark talked about, however, merely because something is magical doesn’t mean there isn’t a potential for historical truth within.  The Stories of Troy, famously, are filled with the intercessions of Greek Gods, yet they led to the discovery of actual historical cities that were thought mythical.  We don’t take this as evidence that Zeus is an actual figure, however.

So Lukes text is similar, but more expansive and focused on other things compared to Mark and Mathew; Jesus and John the Baptist are born in mystical circumstances, Jesus is baptised by John, prophecy is fulfilled.  Jesus starts his ministry, isn’t well received in his home.  He travels to Jerusalem, whereby he knows the future that awaits him.  This is the biggest departure from the other two I think; wherein Mark and Mathew might abstractly suggest Jesus had some inkling of things going south, Luke straight up says “Jesus knew his destiny was to die on the cross”.  This different obviously has theological implications, if not historical ones.  In any case, Jesus has confrontations with local Jewish Leaders, he is arrested and executed on the Cross, he arrises three days later, miracles abound, etc.

Textual analysis of Luke pairs it with Acts, a book of the bible I haven’t gotten to yet.  These are generally considered to be done by the same author(s).  Luke has many similarities to Mathew and Mark, and it is generally agreed upon that Luke was formed through utilisation of Mark and ‘The Q Source’, with about a third of it unique to Luke.  Looking at surviving texts, we actually have two separate ‘streams’ or ‘families of versions’ of the two works.  There is considerable evidence that Luke was being revised well into the 2nd century.  To a society such as our, where the copying of text is so astoundingly easy that we often forget how difficult it once was, it can seem amazing that a central religious text would be altered over time.  Yet when books have to be copied out by hand, and where the survival of texts beyond a few centuries is most assuredly not guarantee, it is entirely possible and indeed likely for variations within a codex to propagate.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Bible in and as History: Mark


The Gospel according to Mark is the shortest of the four Gospels presented in the King James Bible and is, according to Biblical scholars, almost certainly the oldest.

Biblical scholarship believes that Mark, Mathew, and Luke have a close relationship.  There is much shared between all three books.  The most broadly accepted theory is the ‘Q-Source Hypothesis’.  This posits that Mark was written earliest and both Mathew and Luke were derived in Part from Mark, but also in part from another source, called the ‘Q’ Source, thought to be an oral tradition of sayings of Jesus.

I won’t be talking in great detail about the text of Mark because it basically does the exact same narrative as Mathew, though shorter.  There is no virgin birth, it starts right in with his ministry, meeting with John the Baptist and so forth.  Many of the incidents are the same; Banishing demons, healing a woman, curing the sick, etc.  But others are missing or different.  The books ending is also very controversial.  The earliest sources we have for the book seem to end at 16:8, with a woman coming out of Jesus’ empty tomb.  The following text, about his appearance, is believed to be a later addition by Church fathers in the 2nd century.

Mark was written probably within 2-3 generations of Jesus death and is different in tone and character from Matthew.  The Jesus of Matthew is a supernaturally divine figure, born of a virgin, anointed by Magi.  He speaks with a mythical voice.  The Jesus of Mark is a smaller, perhaps a more relatable figure.  A man who still performs miracles; who heals, exorcises spirits and such.  But almost a magician.  He’s also a man who asks ‘Why have you forsaken me’ of his God on the Cross, and strikes me as a more relatable historical figure.

Therein lies the trap.

In this blog before I’ve talked about looking at the source, trying to understand who was writing any particular part of the bible and why.  Here we see precisely why historians must look at the context of sources outside of their own perspectives in dealing with a source.  As someone with a hefty scientific and secular background, my inclination is, if two sources are presented and one is filled with Unicorns and Magic and one isn’t, to presume the latter is the more historically accurate.  Given that Mark was written before Matthew the temptation is to see Mark as more accurate, Matthew as an addendum to dress up Mark.  The problem, however, is that Mark isn’t being written as history for some 21st-century blogger.  It’s being written by someone in the 1rst century A.D., for a Gentile audience(we can know this because he has to explain certain Jewish rituals and practices), and as a theological work.  Its intent isn’t to tell me history, but to convey a view of Christ for followers of the 1rst century Church.  We have no more reason to accept it’s account over that of Mathew’s(or indeed other sources) save by looking at other sources, comparing them, and making judgements.

So still, looking at a ‘historical’ Jesus, we see a religious figure, broadly gaining influence, who comes afoul of the authorities in Jerusalem.  He threatens their basis of power in some way and is crucified by the Roman authorities for it.

For much of the history of Christianity, Mark was the ‘lesser’ Gospel, numbered 2nd or 4th in the order.  It was a ‘synopsis’ of Matthew to an extent.  One can see, from my prior descriptions, how the Jesus of Matthew is a fuller divine character than that of Mark.  To those composing the King James Bible then, it was still an important book, but less important than the other Gospels.  There are things unique to Mark; It’s the only Gospel that directly calls Jesus himself a Carpenter rather than the son of a Carpenter.  It names Jesus’ brothers and sister.  Yet no great parables or descriptions that were not in Matthew.

For the 1rst century Author, perhaps this telling of Jesus reflected an event that was still within the range of historical memory, if separated by a number of years, but also aimed at people who might reject outright a more ‘mythical’ figure.  People looking less for a God striving down from the heavens, but a Man leading them upward towards them.

The Gospels will continue to be interesting as we head into Luke.  I will continue to compare and contrast and try and through in any historical data that comes my way.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Bible in and as History: Matthew



Jesus is baptised by John the Baptist

At long last, we reach something about this Jesus guy and things historically get more interesting again.  The Gospels, as the books directly about Jesus are called, are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  At least those canonically accepted by most branches of Christianity.  There are a host of other Gospels, but they remain beyond the scope of this post and project, perhaps later.  I will just say that there were a bunch of different gospels, and the four that ended up in the bible did so for historical, political and theological reasons which I might talk about later.


Because the Gospels are in some ways a retelling of the same ‘story’ four times these posts will focus partially on the history of that particular gospel and it’s textual analysis, but also on different topics important to understanding the historical period of the Gospels, and how they have been interpreted in different ways over time.

First the basics of historical context; Judea was conquered by the Romans during the 1rst century BCE, first being a tributary Kingdom and then a province of the expanding Roman Empire.  As was common, especially in the east of the Empire, local rulers were appropriated into governing the state and Roman figures were placed in overseeing positions.  This is centuries after the Persian conquest/liberation of the area, which was the last historical period we had seen.

The Romans permitted local religious practice and, until after the period we are discussing, permitted local laws to deal with a host of crimes.  In Matthew, we have a couple of historical figures which help us place when this is happening(beyond of course that the CE calendar is based on the Gregorian Calendar which uses the Birth of Jesus as it’s periodization.)

The first is Herod, also called Herod the Great.  Historically we know quite a bit about him outside the Gospels.  He was raised a Jew but his father was a convert.  He was supported in what amounts to a Civil War by the Roman Senate as the King of the Jews.  He ascended said Throne, and was always questioned by some religious elements within Jewish society.  He was responsible for much building in the state, including expanding the second temple.  Upon his death, Rome divided his kingdom into five pieces.

His mention in Matthew, however, is what is called the ‘Murder of the Innocents’.  Hearing from three Magi about the birth of Jesus, Herod is supposed to have ordered the execution of all children of a certain age to end this potential threat to his rule.  This episode has a historicity problem, however.  Matthew is the only place it is recorded, and even sources, like the 1rst century Jewish Historian Josephus, that are hostile to Herod and record many other things he did, make no mention of it.

Pontius Pilate is the other significant historical figure we can place; We have enough sources to know he was appointed prefect of the Roman province of Judea in 26 CE and was deposed in 37 CE after putting down a Samaritan uprising.  While a historical figure in the Bible in that he presides over the execution of Jesus(and famously ‘washes his hands’ of the affair) what third-party information we have gives us little to go on.

So the Gospel itself; Mathew is a record of the life and times of Jesus Christ.  It seems almost trite to go over the story, as it suffuses aspects of western culture, but it also varies from Gospel to Gospel so I’ll try;  Jesus is born to Mary, a young wife of Joseph.  A man descended, we are told, from Abraham and King David.  Jesus is not Joseph’s son, but angels appear and so he doesn’t do what most men of the time would do if their wife was pregnant not by them.  Jesus is born, the story with Herod Happens, Magi show up etc.

A note regarding the Magi; Magi were the priest class of the Persian Zoroastrian faith.  They were experts on Astrology and Astronomy, Mathematics, and a host of other things, including occult and hidden matters.  Magi is where our English term ‘Magic’ comes from.  The function here, besides helping Herod fulfil a little bit of old testament prophecy, is one of celebrity and authority.  If the biblical tale was happening today you’d have a group of scientists show up.  The intent would be the same; These really wise and powerful guys showed up to vouch for Jesus.

A period of time skips and we get to John the Baptist.  My basic impression is that John is a fringe religious figure; a sort of ‘cult-leader’ who goes around absolving people of sins and so forth.  Jesus shows up and there is a sort of passing of the torch in which John baptises Jesus.  It’s unclear if Jesus was one of John’s followers but the intent of Matthew(which we recall is establishing religious doctrine through stories set in the past) is to show a sort of succession and that John the Baptist ‘predicts’ Jesus.  John gets executed and Jesus starts a ministry.

The majority of the text is this ministry; where we get the various sayings, parables, etc.  From a historical point of view, the important bit is this; Jesus gains more followers, including a core group of believers(the Disciples), impresses the multitudes, and comes afoul of the Judean religious authorities.  They try and trip him up, and eventually, he crosses some sort of line and they are able to, with the help of a traitorous Judas, seize Jesus and then have him executed.  After which he is buried, rises from the grave, etc.

Historically what this paints is the picture of a religion/political ‘radical’ upsetting a status quo.  Disregarding the overt supernatural elements we have stories of a man confronting a religious and political orthodoxy and seeking to overturn it.  Being half-tolerated until he becomes politically dangerous.  Then being executed.

What is interesting from a textual standpoint is how this book, being written decades later, deals both with what happened and what is happening at the time of it’s writing.  For example, Jesus’ burial has a section wherein the author basically says “Well The Jews and others say that Jesus’ followers stole his body, but no look, this is why that couldn’t be so.”  That’s not something you include if you’re recounting history; it’s something to prove a point to others.

A good number of scholars believe Mark(the next gospel) was the first to be composed and that Mathew follows from, and utilises much from Mark.  Mark was composed in the last quarter of the 1rst century, so easily a full generation after the death of Jesus and into a successive generation of Christians.  Christians who not only had not seen Jesus personally but might be dealing with third person accounts at this time.    They would also have dealt with radical historical changes in Judea.  Including the Destruction of the 2nd Temple and Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD after a series of unrests.  This undoubtedly shapes and shift the tone and content of the Gospel.

I’ll deal more with the historical context and change in Judea of the 1rst century with the Next Gospel, Mark.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Bible in and as History: Reviewing the Old Testament

bet_she27an_theatre_stage_1230When I started this project my original intent was to finish reading and commenting on the Bible in one year.  That, for various personal reasons, obviously didn’t happen, but at long last, I’ve finished the larger part, the Old Testament.

It’s been quite a slog, and I know now why so many people simply don’t bother, even among the faithful.  While the interesting bits are there, most of it is repetitive, often droning.  Some of it is not intended really to be ‘read’, but rather as something to be recited.  While there are aspects that are coherent, there are also competing theologies, made all the more complex when one layers in the New Testament.

The over-reaching theme of the text, if there can be said to be one, is that obedience to God is good, and brings reward, while disobedience brings destruction.  God punishes those who fall away from him.  This is centrally against the Israelites, but also sometimes to a province, a city, a family or an individual.

The Books of the Old Testament have varied authorship.  For many of them, their origin remains unknown, and others we have to infer through complex textual analysis.  Speaking of the Bible in History, the actual physical objects themselves are important.  We have examples in Greek and Latin from the 4th Century CE, and fragments prior to that.  The Dead Sea Scrolls were so critical in that they provided a variety of textual examples dating from the 3rd to 1rst centuries BCE.  Transmission of works via copying, by hand copying, entails an increase in potential errors.  Errors that can then more complexly become disagreements of doctrine or understanding.  If my Holy book says “God is in the field” and yours says “God is on the field” we may develop essential doctrinal differences on the basis of a single letter, with no essential way of determining which of us is correct.

I, for example, am using a copy of the King James edition transcribed into  That actual data probably only dates back to the mid 2000’s, most likely transcribed from a physical copy(though of course, it could be a copy of an earlier digital copy).  Most likely it was transcribed from one of the numerous physical copies made, and that have been remade over the centuries.  Our modern era presumes the power of making reliable copies; a property of the printing press, though even there the possibility of error is far from zero.  Once you go back before the invention of the printing press, every copy is made by one or more scribes, in handwriting.

So if we were to look at what I’m reading, I’m looking at a copy, of a copy, most likely of a copy, going back to some edition of the King James Bible in the 18th century.  Those made from compiled copies and editions going back to the ‘Standard’ Text of 1769.  That made to deal with the various discrepancies the editions produced since the 1539 ‘original’ produced.  Including my favourite, the ‘Wicked Bible’, an edition published in 1631 in which an error omitted the ‘not’ from “Thou shalt not commit adultery”.  This was reprinted and copied in a number of editions before being found.

What comes, in the end, is very fascinating; A modern Canadian Atheist, reading a copy of an English translation done by 16th century Englishmen in the wake of the Reformation.  A translation of works originally in Hebrew, but largely being translated into English from Greek and Latin sources, themselves copies of earlier Hebrew sources(or other now extinct languages).  Those Hebrew sources copies of other sources, or recordings of oral traditions, largely regarding the religious and political situations of several different ‘periods’ of history, from the earliest Isreali kingdoms to the Exile and Babylonian captivity to the creation of the second temple.

Imagine reading a cookbook that was an English translation of a Japanese translation from 200 years ago that itself was a translation of a Chinese work from 400 years ago, and just the beginnings of the problem come into focus.

This becomes all the more apparent as we move into the New Testament and a new generation, separated from the Old Testament as we are from the writers of the King James Bible, by centuries, utilise it and it’s religious traditions while describing their text.

We dive now into the Gospels, and confusing dating conventions, with Matthew.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Bible in and as History: Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi

malachiI end my long read of the Old Testament with the last three minor prophets.

Haggai is one of the shortest books of the bible, being only two chapters long.  It is set in 520 BCE, about 18 Years after the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, founder of the Achaemenid empire.  Cyrus had pronounced a return of various displaced peoples and a  rebuilding of temples destroyed by the Babylonians.  This included the Temple of Jews.  Cyrus is sometimes seen as a broad reformer or humanitarian, though other historians see this as vested in old traditions; The New Monarch grants reforms and gifts upon achieving supremacy over the old.

So Haggai is set after the Captivity and is a prophecy in regards to the construction of a new temple.  It abjures the people to construct a new temple and then reports that having seen the anger of God, they do.  It has similar themes to other minor prophets; Following Gods will leads to good things, going against it to bad.  The nation has fallen and now risen, a prophecy of good things to come after they pass through destruction.  All in all there isn’t a lot to say about it.

The book is interesting in that it’s set after the end of the Exile.  The Exile obviously holds a central place in Judaism, especially after the destruction of the second temple.  The recurrence; the temple destroyed, being dispersed into foreign lands beneath ‘strangers’ has a central resonance.  Haggai is a prophet speaking in the end of the first exile, unaware of the second.

Zachariah was a contemporary of Haggai, writing in the period of Darius the Great.  Darius was the ruler of the Academician Empire starting in 522 BCE, and it achieved it’s greatest extent during his rule.  These are the persons which would challenge and invade Greek lands, and of them we have accounts not merely from the bible, but also from Greek and Persian sources.

Zachariah is concerned with the history of the Jewish people and in particular the end of the Exile.  It presents first an allegorical history, leading towards the end of the Exile as both a promise of hope and a warning.  “God…” it seems to say “… has warned us before and made good on his threats but look, he also keeps to his promises, so lets not forget that this time alright?”  In this it conforms to other works in the bible but in a more particular way.  Like Haggai, Zachariah is writing from a period in which the temple is being reconstructed and prophecies of previous era’s seem, on some level, to be coming true.  Perhaps not precisely in the way those prophets would imagine, as the Jewish people still did not govern themselves, and the reconstruction was at the will of an Empire that wished obedient Satraps, but still.

The later portions of Zachariah thus reflect a prophecy more optimistic than some; speaking of a bright future for Israel in which it will be a leader among nations.

It should be noted that while a good portion of scholars accept a single authorship for the book in the 6th century, not all do.  Because the later portion of the text has no historical referents and seems to jive with themes from later works, some believe it was authored a century or more later and appended to Zachariah.

We end the old testament with Malachi, which is short and sweet and a bit of an anti-climax I am afraid.  It is only four chapters long, and contains virtually no historical information.  Because it uses a Persian term, most scholars place it after the rebuilding of the temple and the end of the Exile, so after 515 BCE.  This seems logical as a more ancient source would refer to a king rather than a governor, and might use a Babylonian term during the majority of the exile.

Malachi is largely an admonition to the priests to be more faithful.  A list of grievances, and a sort of nag against those who should hold God most high not performing their duties.  Surely not the first or the last polemic against a corrupt priest class.

One historical note is important however.  Malachi makes several Messianic promises, and these show up in Christianity and the New Testament, as obviously Christians hold that Jesus fulfilled those prophecies.  For Jews they stand as things to look for in the coming Messiah.

Alright, so over the course of what is three years, rather than the one I set out for, I have finally finished the Old Testament and am ready to begin the New.  I haven’t quite decided how I will tackle the four gospels, but I might try a different format so as to not get repetitive.  I might also do a post on my thoughts on the entirety of the Old Testament.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Bible in and as History: The Book of Habakkuk and the Book of Zephaniah

icon_of_zephaniah_2817th_c-2c_north_russia2c_priv-_coll-29A review of the Historical aspect of the Book of Habakkuk will be short and sweet because there just isn’t much.  We have no idea who Habakkuk was, and there isn’t any agreement on his identity.  Placing the work historically is difficult; we know it’s been canonical for a long time as there are examples as part of the Dead sea scrolls, but other than that only vague guesses serve us.  A mention of the Chaldean’s suggests something near the end of the 7th century, but no more helps us.

The theme and tenor of this book are again, similar to what has come before.  Habakkuk begs god for answers, specifically to the question of how he can permit the Chaldean’s(the Babylonians) to attack his chosen people.  The answer is one we have heard before; the Chaldeans’ are an instrument of gods Justice for the iniquity of the Israelites.  This does have another interesting theme, however; unlike some of the other works, in which the foreign invaders are merely an instrument of Gods will, a tool like a Sword or Hammer, in Habakkuk, they are identified as people who will themselves be judged.  The Chaldeans are themselves subject to Gods judgement, and more the harshly.  This itself is a paradox similar to the one in Exodus wherein God ‘hardens Pharaoh’s heart’.  One can see in it future theological disputations.  Do the Chaldeans have free will?  Is this merely an example of Gods perfect knowledge of the Future?  What does it mean to be punished for something that is apparently Gods will?

The book ends with Habakkuk coming to accept God’s divine will.  The text is an exhortation towards faith.  This is probably why it is quoted later by early Church fathers.  It will appear again in the Epistles apparently, but that gets way ahead of ourselves.  One can readily see how this text would be useful for both Christianity in broad terms and Protestantism in particular.  There is a long history of the idea of enduring through prosecution for your faith in Christianity.  First beneath the Romans, and later in regards to various other authorities.  Be it in the ‘Holy Wars’ of the 16th and 17th Centuries or other persecutions that arose even after the peace of Wallphalia.

Zephaniah we have a better time placing in history.  We only have his own avowed text, but that text informs us that Zephaniah was a Great-Great Grandson of King Hezekiah of Judah, the 13th king of Judah according to the bible.  We know he prophecized during the era of King Josiah of Judah, placing him between 641 and 610 BCE, and also making him contemporary with Jeremiah.

Zephaniah as a prophet continues similar themes we have seen before; God will visit destruction upon Judah in general and Jerusalem in particular.  Like Habakkuk, it places judgement over others besides the Israelites, inferring a world-wide judgement by God.  There is a bit of a focus on idolatry and degeneracy in religious life, but otherwise, it’s something we’ve seen time and again.  The prophecies also foretell of a union of the world beneath a Messianic kingdom, a restoration.  Thus again the theme; Punishment for failure to hold to God, followed by a promise of redemption.

So of the Minor prophets, we have Hagai, Zechariah, and Malachi.  I may try and do all three in one post, though it will probably make for a bit of a long one, just to finally finish off the Tanakh/Old Testament.  I may then do a bit of a looking back before going right into the Gospels.  Till then.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Bible in and as History: Book of Micah and Book of Nahum

I’m going to continue my doubling up of the minor prophets for a bit, and see how that goes, especially as the pace is going to slamicah_2cken when I hit the New Testament and get to go through the Gospels.

So the Book of Micah identifies itself as being the collection of the sayings of Micah, a Prophet living under the reign of Yehotam, Ahaz, and Heziak, kings of Judah is the period of 700-750 BCE.  This was a period of Assyrian ascendancy and aggression against the Semitic kingdoms and during the middle part of this period, Judah had been reduced to series of vassalized city-states.  Israel eventually rebelled and its capital of Samaria was destroyed as a result.

Micah has a potentially interesting compositional history.  Without further evidence, most accept that the first several chapters are either written by the prophet or transcription of generally accepted sayings and prophecies.  It is also held by scholars that the later portions are additions; reworkings of a prior set of prophecies in the post-exilic period.  The prophet foretells of the destruction of the temple, though the wording of the prophecies seems to indicate soon, rather than in the centuries to come, as one example.

Thematically the book has similarities to other prophets; disobey God bad, Samaria was destroyed for its sins and failures to honour god, etc.  Foretelling the rise of Israel and a return to glory once the people return to God.  While hardly unique with regards the prophets, it does show us how the act of taking historical works and repurposing them to later function has an ancient pedigree.  Just as Christians would later take various elements of the Hebrew bible and see in them evidence for their saviour, post-exilic priests could look to past prophecies for evidence both of divine power(i.e. Look, the prophet foretold this would happen!  God is great!) and as apparatus for political control or motivation(i.e. Don’t turn away from God and the Priesthood!  If you stay with us the Prophets say we will return to Glory!).

The book of Nahum has a less certain providence and authorship.  From the text, we can date it to after the destruction of Themes in 663 BCE.  It mentions the event and it seems unlikely the work could be written either.  It draws on the destruction of Themes to talk of a more present act; the destruction of Nineveh, Capital of the Assyrian empire by the Babylonians.  These place it at the end of the 7th century BCE.

Nahum is poetic about the coming destruction of the city and has a sort of schadenfreude with regards the Israelites enemies and conquerors impending destruction. The comparison with Themes is at once historical; so fall all tyrants and all great cities not beholden to God it seems to say.  Those that brought us low are now brought low.  Otherwise, there isn’t much to say about it.  It’s poetic and draws strange metaphors and symbols.  The author is at one point a seeming participant in a battle to defend the city for example.

Only five more minor prophets to go; Next up are Habakkuk and Zephaniah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Bible in and as History: Obadiah and Jonah

6979159895_8a8f4be133_bThese two minor prophets were quite short, so I figured I’d put them together as I race for the end of the old testament.  In truth, I finished reading it a little while ago, but in a bit of irony, it’s a bit harder to write about the shorter books than the longer.  Less material I suppose.

So Obadiah is a simple 21 verses, short, sweet and to the point.  The shortest book in the Bible.  Its historical authorship is in question and even its date is unknown for certain.

The book is about the Divine Judgement against Edom and the restoration of Israel.  Edom was a small Semitic state located south of the Kingdom of Judah, in what would be modern Jordan.  The prophet speaks of Edom having abandoned Israel, of not having come to its aid.  This leads to two potential periodizations; Either 853-851 BCE, when Jerusalem was attacked by a combined force of Arabs and Philistines, or 607-585 BCE, when Babylon invaded under Nebuchadrezzar II.  The historical consensus seems to favour the more recent date.  The book itself is simple enough; Edom failed to come to Israel’s aid, God will bring down a horrible judgement, Edom will no longer exist.  Thematically it bears some resemblance to other prophets we have seen, with their judgement of foreign nations.  A recurring theme of the old testament appears to be the use of foreign states to illustrate points for a domestic audience.  “Look out at what happened to those guys!” or “Those people are like this, and they will be destroyed!”

The Book of Jonah is very different.  Famed as the source of the ‘Jonah and the Whale’ story, and countless ‘Guy swallowed and surviving inside big Fish’ stories that have followed, the text itself is an actual story.  Jonah is called by God to be a prophet and to convert the people of the city of Nineveh to the lord.  Nineveh is, of course, a city of iniquity in which the people don’t know how far they have deviated from Gods will.

Jonah refuses the call and seeks to flee.  Getting on a  boat God creates a storm and Jonah gets the sailors to throw him overboard to appease Gods wrath.  Here is the famous consumption by a ‘Whale’ or ‘Big Fish'(a sea monster of some sort). Inside the belly of this creature he repents and prays and after three days he is thrown out of the whale at Gods will.

So Jonah goes to the city and becomes a most successful prophet, turning the whole city to repent.  The city is spared destruction and starts a sort of altercation between Jonah and God, a sort of ‘Well here is the lesson fo the story Jonah’ sort of situation in which God explains his mercy.

This work has obvious implications in Judaism and Christianity.  In the later there is a parallel in some levels with Jesus; Three days in Darkness(the Whales Belly for Jonah, the Tomb for Jesus), the demonstratable mercy of God.  Jonah has, in a way, a typical Hero’s Journey.  Leaving his home, refusing the call, a confrontation with a number of trials, the acceptance of the Quest, etc.

Dating this work is also a bit difficult; It is ‘set’ in the 8th century BCE, given its nature it’s hard to accept as a simple historical account.  It has a more directly mythical character and many scholars consider it allegorical.  Those that do tend to date it to the post-Exilic period, perhaps the 3rd or 4th centuries BCE.

Well, two short books, and more short ones as we push through the minor Prophets; Next up Micah and Nahum!


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Bible in and as History: Book of Amos


Unlike some of the Minor prophets, so called because they are a lot shorter in length than the Major prophets, Amos can be placed in a very narrow place in history.





The words of Amos, who was among the herdmen of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake.

This is how Amos opens, and it presents us with things we can use to ‘hang’ an identification on.  Obviously, we can’t be absolutely sure, but barring counter-evidence we know that Amos must have operated during the rule of Jeroboam II, between 788 and 747 BCE.  The earthquake turns out to be a historical event we can narrow down even further, with some verifiable evidence, to somewhere between 765 and 760 BCE.

So Amos is prophecizing during the period of Judah and Israel as two separate kingdoms.  prior to the Babylonian captivity, or the fall of Judah.  This puts him a bit distinct from most of the other prophets we have dealt with.

Amos’ themes start out similar in some respects; a look at Israel and the surrounding nations, then details of the sins of Israel.  We then get visions God sends the prophet, which include visions of retribution and punishment.  God’s chosen people must be moral and are not exempt from Gods judgement but a focus of it.  We see here an example of God as the god of all people, wich is an interesting juxtaposition from the usual structure of most old testament books which seem interested in other peoples only as instruments of gods justice.

Another theme that is highlighted in Amos that isn’t in all other prophets is the centrality of the responsibility of the wealthy to the poor.  The sins of Israel include the wealthy exploiting the poor, and has similar themes to popular works from other era’s and times; poor people turning away from the honest work because they are exploited and going into corrupt work, in this case growing oil and grapes for export rather than local foods.  While there have been shades of this elsewhere, this is the clearest example I think I have seen in the Old testament of a duty to the poor, though also, one must not, an expectation of social hierarchy.  I do wonder if the poor farmers growing grapes really did think their lives better growing food for subsistence living?

Because Amos is possibly the oldest of the minor Prophets, some of his wording and elements have already shown up in previous works and will again.  References to national sins, comparison with other states, and of course, an angry God who meets out judgement which is only averted by returning to grace.

Well try to keep rolling right along and go into Obadiah, possibly do that with Jonah, as they are both really short.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized