Tag Archives: History

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: 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 Christianity.com.  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: 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

The Bible in and as History: Joel

joel_michelangeloEach of the minor prophets is quite small compared to the Major prophets, and as I get through them I notice some repetition in terms of theme, though this is true of a good portion of the ‘old testament’.

First, the text.  Joel follows a pattern that seems to repeat in most of the minor prophets.  A sort of brief biographical bit on the Prophet, or at least an attribution of the text to said prophet.  Joel then focuses on a plague of locusts and a drought that afflict Jerusalem. This affliction is, of course, seen as a punishment from God for the iniquities of the people.

Then follows a call for repentance, that God may lift this punishment.  Indeed an outlining of how, if the nation repents, it will not only see the locusts and other problems vanish but gain future benefits and see the destruction of its enemies.  This is a theme we have seen before, but in Joel it’s spelt out in more specific terms.

Like Hosea, and unlike the minor prophets, there seems in Joel, to be an emphasis on specific details; This bad thing has happened as a punishment from God, that good thing will happen if we repent, etc.

Joel however, for my projects, is a more frustrating Text because it is impossible to properly place it into a historical context.  Textual analysis has tried and there have been a variety of theories.  The 9th, 7th, 6th and 5th Centuries BCE have all been suggested, based on various interpretations of the Texts language, it’s character.  We can identify that it predated the mid-4rth Century BCE because there is pretty clear evidence the entire cannon of the Minor Prophets had been assembled by that time.  Yet without reference to specific events, people or what have you, and with the entire Locust/Drought situation being possibly an analogy, there is no clear way to place it in history.

That bears mentioning of course; several classical Jewish sources consider the book to be an allegory regarding Israel’s enemies.  Certainly, given the end promise of destruction for those enemies, this seems a solid interpretation.

With little to speak of then, I’ll move on.  Next: Amos.



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Bible in and as History: Hosea

The major prophhosea_and_gomerets are gone, and now we have the rapid-fire, often easily readable in a day minor prophets.  We start with with the Book of Hosea.

We have very little information about Hosea, the book of Hosea, or external references to it.  From it’s internal context it’s believed to have been written by ‘Hosea’ a man from the Northern Kingdom of Samaria.  It’s historical context makes many assume it was written in the 8th Century BCE, probably from within Judah, after the fall of Samaria’s Capital.

As a quick reminder, ‘Israel’ separated into the two states of Judah and Samaria.  Samaria, at least in the biblical context, is largely painted as a kingdom that fell away from God.  Embraced the worship of other gods, such as the Canaanite sky-god Baal.

The book of Hosea is sort of broken down into two parts.  The first is basically an autobiographical metaphor of sorts.  God commands Hosea to marry a ‘promiscuous woman’.  He has a son with this woman, she continues her ‘harlotry’ and than he divorces her.  The context of marriage within 8th century Judah and Samaria is instructive.  Like most pre-modern cultures, Marriage is a contractual arrangement, functionally between families.  The patriarchal structure of these ancient societies means men are expected to have dominion over their wives, and their wives are suppose to be obedient.  The analogy here to God and Israel is obvious.  In this metaphor Israel, or specifically Samaria in this instance, is the wayward wife.  ‘Whoring’ with other gods and violating the covenant.

The remainder of Hosea is prophecy regarding the destruction of Samaria for it’s failure to return to God.  Some in rather Graphic detail.  13:16 for example talks of infants being dashed to pieces and pregnant women being gutted.  Though this is a little more visceral than some of what has come before it’s in a very similar tradition, and a motif repeated over, and over, and over again.  Obedience to God equals good stuff, disobedience equals destruction.

Hosea’s place in later history has a couple of interesting facets; Obviously it has usages in a variety of theologies.  It justifies notions such as negative things in life being a consequence of sin, both in personal and national terms.  It’s quoted and references in the new testament as prophesying Jesus, though as with most such usages the link is tenuous.  Hosea is pretty obviously speaking from the context of his time and about a return of Samaria, the largest of the two Israelite communities, into the fold of the particular worship Hosea advocates.  Still it’s important to recall that theology isn’t about historical reconstruction.  New theologies often use old theologies in new ways to justify themselves.  The Chinese Scholars of the 19th century, for example, utilizing millenia old Confucian texts to justify radical shifts towards modernism.  Or Protestant reference to ‘early Christians’ or indeed particulars aspects of the bible during and after the reformation.

So we should go through these pretty quickly, the next is Joel.  Interestingly I’m actually getting ahead of myself in reading terms here, so I might do more than one post a week, which was my initial goal.




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Bible in and as History: Daniel

book_of_daniel_chapter_6-7_bible_illustrations_by_sweet_mediaSo, into the Lion’s Den!  The Book of Daniel forms another of the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible, and how different it is from the previous books.

The text itself is considered by scholars to be a collection of stories assembled first from court tales, and than adjusted by Hebrew religious iconography.  We can narrow down pretty specifically when certain sections were penned to the middle of the 2nd Century BCE.

The Book’s first section is a set of stories featuring the character of Daniel.  Israel is ruled by Babylon, and the king, Nebuchadnezzar, has an assortment of Hebrew Noble youth brought to his court to be trained.  Four of these, led by Daniel, refuse the wine and meat set aside for them, least they be contaminated.  Proving themselves and maintaining their devotion to God, Daniel is granted visions and abilities.

He successfully interprets a dream of the King, winning his favour, a mirror somewhat of Joseph and a repeated connected theme; The Hebrew who by virtue and God’s gifts becomes the favourite of a foreign king.

What follows is series of stories; Daniel’s companions refuse to bow to the statue the Babylonian king has made and are thrown to a fire.  Looking in the King see’s not three, but four figures, one seeming godly.  Astonished, he removes the others from the furnace, decreeing that none should blasphemy against the Hebrew’s god.

The King goes mad and is only made sane and restored when he acknowledges heaven’s supremacy.  After dying the New King profanes some holy vessels from the Jewish temple and is beset by a strange vision.  Daniel criticizes him and he repents, only to die and be replaced by another King after rewarding Daniel.

The most famous passages regard the ‘Lions Den’.  Raised up by the Third king of Babylon he has served, Daniel makes the other advisors jealous so they conspire to have a law passed forbidding the worship of any god for 30 days.  Since Daniel cannot stop his worship, he breaks the law and is thrown to the Lions.  God ‘stops up their mouths’ and Daniel escapes unharmed.  Daniel’s accusers, along with their wives and children, are than cast into the fire.

There are then a succession of visions, some prophecies both vague and somewhat more specific.

Like many sections of the bible thus-far, Daniel is a book written in a particular historical context that has been used for purposes far outside that context.  The context is a crisis in 2nd century, as a Greek kings of the Seleucid Empire made traditional sacrifice and worship in the temple of Jerusalem impossible.  The Seleucid was one of the many successor states to the massive empire of Alexander the Great.  The Greek king defiled the temple and engaged in a Hellenization campaign, prohibiting Jewish texts and such.  violent resistance to this was able to re-purify the temple.  Indeed, it is how we can date the book accurately.  The prophecies describe some events up to about 167 B.C. very accurately, but prophecies wars between the Syrians and Egyptians that do not happen.

Daniel had an immense impact on Christianity and ‘Christendom’.  Much of it is essential a book about faith; Daniel is given special powers by God for following Gods rules.  He follows those rules even in the face of oppression, violence and attacks by others, and God brings him and his fellows through it.  It’s pretty obvious why this narrative appeals to Christian theologians.  Also, for the lay person, it’s just far more exciting than many of the previous prophets.  Rather than esoteric verses about four-winged beings or the rebirth of the temple, there are people being thrown in furnaces, Lions!  People being devoured!  A king going Mad!  Really you can imagine much of Daniel being performed as a play for entertainment as much as a holy book.  It has much purchase outside the Christian faith as well, appearing both in iconography and story-telling motifs in a variety of sources.  It’s the first book since I believe Job to have a story in it I was familiar with from my youth.

An important side note here; Daniel has sections of it that appear in the Apocrypha.  That is, there are ‘extra’ sections that were considered Canonical by the Christianity until the Protestant reformation.  All pre-reformation denominations(Roman Catholic, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) consider it cannon, but Protestants and Jews do not.  Indeed the reasons Protestants do not is because it is not part of the Hebrew text.  It’s important to remember that arguments about the text and texts are a long-standing part of it’s history.   The notion that the Hebrew text should be considered above the Greek is itself a theological discussion.

Alright, so the major prophets are done and I’m down to the minor prophets; Next up, Hosea!




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized