TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible

[ttf_MoominDave]

We've seen some overlap. What about those people considered super-holy and taken early to some godlier place - i.e. Enoch and Elijah?

[ttf_MoominDave]

1 Maccabees 5 text

Highlights

 - More conflict; the rebellion grows in power

Summary

 - Hearing of the reconsecration of Mount Zion, neighbouring peoples are angered
 - They attack Jews living amongst them
 - Judas takes his army and defeats them
 - Further reports come in of the same, from Gilead and Galilee
 - Judas goes to Gilead and dispatches a force to Galilee
 - Galilee and Gilead are subdued, most brutally, with all men of fighting age murdered in towns
 - On the way home, the town of Ephron refuses to let Judas enter; he responds by sacking it and murdering all the men
 - Emboldened by all this success, two force commanders of Judas sally out against the local opposition under Gorgias, but are soundly defeated
 - Judas pillages the land of the Philistines

Questions and Observations

1) This was an ethnic patchwork of a land - Jews and not-Jews lived alongside each other and married freely when not prevented from doing so by religious enforcement. Distinctions along such rigid and ill-defined ethnic lines - everyone's making the classic mistake once again...
2) The name of Judas was greatly honoured among the gentiles? If they knew what was good for them, presumably...
3) The explanation given for the military failure of the men under Joseph and Azariah is that "they did not belong to the family of those men through whom deliverance was given to Israel". Bad luck on the circumstances of your births, Joseph and Azariah.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Oct 14, 2016, 05:06AMWe've seen some overlap. What about those people considered super-holy and taken early to some godlier place - i.e. Enoch and Elijah?

Moses may be in this category too.  But all the bible says about these people is that they were taken to be with God directly, without having to die.  There is nothing mentioned about deification or even being turned into an angel. 

By the way there is nothing in the bible about anyone becoming an angel when they go to heaven.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Oct 14, 2016, 05:32AM1) This was an ethnic patchwork of a land - Jews and not-Jews lived alongside each other and married freely when not prevented from doing so by religious enforcement. Distinctions along such rigid and ill-defined ethnic lines - everyone's making the classic mistake once again...

Is intermarriage mentioned here? or are you reading that into the passage?

Its interesting to note the use of the term Gentiles to describe the non-Jews.  In the OT its only used in the deutero-canonical books.  In earlier books "the nations" are used to describe non-jews.
 
Quote3) The explanation given for the military failure of the men under Joseph and Azariah is that "they did not belong to the family of those men through whom deliverance was given to Israel". Bad luck on the circumstances of your births, Joseph and Azariah.

just goes to show how important it is to pick the right parents.

v61 also mentions that they didn't listen to Judas and his brothers so that was probably significant too.

[ttf_drizabone]

1 Maccabees 6 text

Highlights

 - King Antiochus dies and his friends decide that the Jews are too much trouble so they go home.

Summary

 - King Antiochus hears of some treasures in Elymais in Persia so he goes to capture it.  He is defeated
 - Then he hears that his armies that had gone to Judah ahd been routed and that the Jews had grown strong.
 - He realizes that he is dying and that the cause of his problems was that he had stolen the treasures from the temple in Jerusalem.
 - He appointed Philip as regent and then died. Lysias set up the kings son to reign.
 - Meanwhile back in Judah the garrison kept pressing Israel in around the sanctuary
 - Judas decided to destroy them and surrounded them.
 - but some escaped and asked the king for help.  He raised a large army with elephants, to attack Judas' force
 - Eleazar identified the kings elephant and ran underneath and killed it, the elephant fell on him.
 - But the Jews decided to retreat.
 - Lysias heard that there were political intrigues going on back in Babylon so he made his excuses to the King and left with his army. He advises the king to let the Jews keep their own laws.
 - The king agreed to this and the Jews accepted it, but the king reneged and pulled the wall down.

Questions and Observations

1) I was getting confused who was surrounding who in v18.. I think I've got it right.

[ttf_drizabone]

1 Maccabees 7 text

Highlights

 - treacherous men try and fail to defeat Simon

Summary

 - Demetrius takes the throne from Antiochus
 - Alcimus and Jewish renegades tell Demetrius that Judas has killed all of Demetrius's Friends and asks for the king to send someone to resuce them
 - The king sends Bacchides.
 - A group of Jews appears before Alcimus to ask for just terms.  Alcimus agrees, but then kills 50 of them, and then some more.
 - Judas takes vengeance on those who supported Alcimus.
 - Alcimus retreats to the king with malicious charges against Judas
 - The king sends Nicanor who hated Israel.  He promised to meet Judas in peace, but he meant to betray him.
 - So Nicanor met Judas in battle but was defeated.
 - Nicanor threatens to burn the temple.
 - Judas met Nicanor in battle and routed them.  Nicanor was captured and killed, so they decalared another celebration of gladness.

Questions and Observations

1) see wikipedia for Demetrius: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrius_I_Soter 
2) I like the way Maccabees says he "set out from Rome, sailed with a few men and there began to reign".  Succinct.
3) those wicked men that were against Judas were not honorable men, were they.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 14, 2016, 03:21PMMoses may be in this category too.  But all the bible says about these people is that they were taken to be with God directly, without having to die.  There is nothing mentioned about deification or even being turned into an angel. 

By the way there is nothing in the bible about anyone becoming an angel when they go to heaven.

What is a god?
What is an angel?

Despite browsing of dictionaries, I feel spectacularly unclear on what these basic definitions actually are, as we toss these words around. Within this narrative paradigm, do angels exist in the same space as Yahweh? What about the competing gods that are referenced in the Bible and treated as real? Are all these beings made of the same stuff?  When a human is "taken alive" to their realm, what arrives? The whole human, body and all? Or some extracted portion? And is what arrives the same stuff as angels and/or gods?

I've said nothing about humans becoming angels and don't intend to. But the movement of a human into the same space as angels produces a reclassifying of the person that moved - no longer are they human in this narrative; they've moved above that. This is what I meant - not that they became an angel or a god, but that they can no longer be treated as equal in any meaningful sense by any person that hasn't been elevated in similar fashion. They've taken steps on the path that has human at one end and god at the other.

The process of euhemerisation is an intriguing one, connected to notions of transmission fidelity that largely drive my considerations on the earlier books of the Bible - the underlying idea is that mythology can often be understood as the garbling of historical tales subjected to centuries of round-the-fire story-telling, with a specific result being that human figures can in time attain god status in the mythologies of societies. There are genealogies that run to Woden (Odin), for example; if we take the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at face value, then the monarch of the UK is descended from mythological Norse gods... Who were in turn descended (in an incredibly clumsy religious conflation of the part of the writer) from Noah...

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 16, 2016, 12:22AMIs intermarriage mentioned here? or are you reading that into the passage?
I'm inferring it from what we've read in many places over many eras in the Bible. The strict laws against it were deemed necessary because it was a popular activity. People marry to suit their local needs and wants, and even in an age less focussed on love-marrying it isn't as easily channelable a force as ethnically-minded priests might desire.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: MoominDave on Oct 17, 2016, 05:30AM

I've said nothing about humans becoming angels and don't intend to. But the movement of a human into the same space as angels produces a reclassifying of the person that moved - no longer are they human in this narrative; they've moved above that. This is what I meant - not that they became an angel or a god, but that they can no longer be treated as equal in any meaningful sense by any person that hasn't been elevated in similar fashion.
I need to find my source.  I didn't invent the idea that human to divine was more of a continuum than discrete categories. 

Angels are a weird one though.  There is no reference to humans becoming an angel that I can find, they seem to be a separate type of supernatural creature.  BUT!  Genesis 6 describes angels mating with human women (but only the "comely" ones) and siring children. 

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 16, 2016, 12:43AM1 Maccabees 6 text
 - King Antiochus hears of some treasures in Elymais in Persia so he goes to capture it.  He is defeated
 - Then he hears that his armies that had gone to Judah ahd been routed and that the Jews had grown strong.
 - He realizes that he is dying and that the cause of his problems was that he had stolen the treasures from the temple in Jerusalem.
Antiochus IV's wiki page paints a different picture of his motives in leaving Judaea to make war in Persia. Apparently his territory was attacked in Persia, hence mounting a campaign there. I suppose this may not have been obvious to those in Judaea, particularly if they were more interested in painting him as a villain than recounting geopolitical events.

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 16, 2016, 12:43AM - He appointed Philip as regent and then died. Lysias set up the kings son to reign.
Antiochus IV died 164 BC.

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 16, 2016, 12:43AM - Meanwhile back in Judah the garrison kept pressing Israel in around the sanctuary
 - Judas decided to destroy them and surrounded them.
 - but some escaped and asked the king for help.  He raised a large army with elephants, to attack Judas' force
This in 163 BC by the text's date.

Note that the use of elephants for war in this non-elephanty area was a direct consequence of Alexander's mad empire-building spree that had brought Greek culture in touch with India a century and a half beforehand.

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 16, 2016, 12:43AM - Eleazar identified the kings elephant and ran underneath and killed it, the elephant fell on him.
 - But the Jews decided to retreat.
Sounds like a one-all draw as a football result...

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 16, 2016, 12:43AM - Lysias heard that there were political intrigues going on back in Babylon so he made his excuses to the King and left with his army. He advises the king to let the Jews keep their own laws.
 - The king agreed to this and the Jews accepted it, but the king reneged and pulled the wall down.

1) I was getting confused who was surrounding who in v18.. I think I've got it right.

I read it that there was a local garrison of Antiochus's fighters. Sound right?

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 16, 2016, 09:04PM1 Maccabees 7 text
 - Demetrius takes the throne from Antiochus
By the way, a fact that had escaped me: Antiochus Epiphanes's wife Laodice IV was a high priestess. I wonder if this bore on his pushing of non-Jewish religion?

And speaking of Laodice IV, she was at the centre of an amazingly tangled web of family marriages that saw her also being Demetrius's mother. One step-sibling from a sibling marriage (an adult) deposed another (a child).

It's all eye-catchingly odd enough that it bears recounting, even though it's only background to this tale:
Laodice was the daughter of Antiochus III and Laodice III.
Marriage 1) 196 BC to her eldest brother Antiochus. From this came one daughter, Nysa.
High priestess of her mother) 193 BC, appointed high priestess of the cult dedicated to her mother. Later that year her brother-husband died.
Marriage 2) 187 BC to her second-eldest brother Seleucus IV. From this came two sons and one daughter: another Antiochus, the Demetrius mentioned here, and Laodice V. Seleucus IV died 175 BC.
Marriage 3) 175 BC to her remaining brother, Antiochus IV. From this came a son and a daughter: Antiochus V and Laodice VI. Antiochus IV died 164 BC, as narrated here.

So she married and bred with three of her four brothers. All the while fulfilling a high priestess role venerating her mother and being empress. Crikey. Oedipus had nothing on this.

[ttf_MoominDave]

1 Maccabees 8 text

Highlights

 - Judas approaches Rome for help

Summary

 - We are told admiringly of the might of Rome, with their victories over the Greeks recounted
 - Judas sends emissaries to Rome to propose a general alliance, protecting each other's interests
 - Rome agrees and pokes Demetrius on the subject

Questions and Observations

1) An interesting little interjection here - I wonder if anything will come of it?
2) Where are we - 162 BC or so... I'm not as well-informed on Rome in this period as I'd like to be. It was well before the empire was declared, in the republic period; consuls were in charge.
3) The proposal by Judas is a barely disguised plea for help - he offers to stand by Rome under attack if Rome will stand by him. Pretty obvious who has the firmer handshake there.
4) Highly ironic in view of later events.

[ttf_drizabone]

1 Maccabees 9 text

Highlights

 - Judas dies. Jonathon makes peace with Persia.

Summary

 -  When Demetrius heard that Nicanor and his army had fallen in battle, he sent Bacchides and Alcimus into the land of Judah a second time, and with them the right wing of the army.
 - They went by the road that leads to Gilgal and encamped against Mesaloth in Arbela, and they took it and killed many people.
 - Judas saw that Bacchides and the strength of his army were on the right; then all the stouthearted men went with him,
 - and they crushed the right wing, and he pursued them as far as Mount Azotus.
 - The battle became desperate, and many on both sides were wounded and fell, including Judas
 - Then Jonathan and Simon took their brother Judas and buried him in the tomb of their ancestors at Modein,
 - Jonathon was appointed leader in place of Judas
 - Jonathon attacks Bacchides and presses him.  Bacchides gets upset and goes home.
 - Jonathon sends ambassadors to Persia to make peace and get his prisoners back

Questions and Observations

1)

[ttf_drizabone]

1 Maccabees 10 text

Highlights

 - Alliances and honours for Jonathon

Summary

 - Alexander Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, occupies Ptolemais. King Demetrius plans to oppose him.
 - Both Alexander and Demetrius decide Simon will be a valuable ally and bid for his friendship.
 - Alexander wins because he offered him the High Priesthood and because Demetrius wasn't trusted.
 - Alexander defeats Demetrius (fortunately) for our Jewish friends) and allies with Ptolemy King of Egypt.
 - Jonathonis invited to the festivities and honoured.
 - 5 years later, Demetrius the son of Demetrius returns and appoints Apollonius governor of of Coele-Syria
 - He threatened Jonathonwho raised an army and defeated him.
 - Alexander gave Jonathonmore honours as well as Ekron.

Questions and Observations

1) I wonder if the writer exaggerated the importance of Simon's friendship to the warring kings?

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 18, 2016, 04:20AM1 Maccabees 9 text
The attack on the wedding party by Jonathan and his troops is a reminder of a grizzly pattern we've seen repeated many times through history - to effectively resist an overwhelmingly powerful occupying force, vile brutality is needed. Guerrilla warriors are not pleasant people.

Chronology: 160 BC at the cessation of hostilities.

Btw, do you mean Persia? These were the Greeks that defeated Persia. But in so doing became rather Persian themselves.

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 19, 2016, 07:16PM1 Maccabees 10 text
There's a chronological gap here, as you note. Now in 153 BC by the text.

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 19, 2016, 07:16PM - Alexander Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, occupies Ptolemais. King Demetrius plans to oppose him.
 - Both Alexander and Demetrius decide Simon will be a valuable ally and bid for his friendship.
I think you mean Jonathan? Simon is not yet in charge of the Maccabeans.

Either way, this is a rapid shifting of power. The previous insurrection is now a stable seat of power valuable enough to be courted by vying emperors.

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 19, 2016, 07:16PM - Alexander wins because he offered him the High Priesthood and because Demetrius wasn't trusted.
 - Alexander defeats Demetrius (fortunately) for our Jewish friends) and allies with Ptolemy King of Egypt.
 - Simon is invited to the festivities and honoured.
 - 5 years later, Demetrius the son of Demetrius returns and appoints Apollonius governor of of Coele-Syria
By the text 148 BC.

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 19, 2016, 07:16PM - He threatened Simon who raised an army and defeated him.
 - Alexander gave Simon more honours as well as Ekron.

Questions and Observations

1) I wonder if the writer exaggerated the importance of Simon's friendship to the warring kings?

Hmm, you may well be right. It wouldn't be the first time. You're outpacing me in cynicism of the text here!

Btw, Jonathan again. But Simon is important too.

89 verses in the chapter, one of the longest chapters in the whole Bible. Of course there is a web-page listing all the chapters by number of verses, and a quick squizz through it (and its NT equivalent) tells me that only Psalm 119 (176 verses) and Daniel 3 (100 verses) are longer, with Numbers 7 also having 89.

[ttf_MoominDave]

1 Maccabees 11 text

Highlights

 - Various Seleucids come and go; Jonathan and his followers prosper

Summary

 - Ptolemy of Egypt is not to be trusted; after having allied with Alexander he seizes control of his towns
 - Estranged from Alexander, he takes his daughter (married to Alexander) and gives her to Demetrius, Alexander's rival
 - Ptolemy crowns himself "King of Asia" in Antioch; Alexander marches against him, but is defeated and flees
 - Alexander is murdered; Ptolemy dies suddenly; Demetrius is left in charge (146 BC)

 - Jonathan besieges Jerusalem's citadel; Demetrius is told, and disapproves, summoning Jonathan; Jonathan gives order to continue besieging and travels to Demetrius
 - Jonathan's credit with Demetrius is good; Demetrius treats him with honour and gives him special tax dispensations

 - Peace comes and Demetrius disbands his army
 - But a former supporter of Alexander, Trypho, uses Alexander's son Antiochus to agitate
 - Jonathan requests the removal of the garrison at Jerusalem
 - Demetrius agrees if Jonathan will supply him with an army, which he does; the Jewish army puts down a rebellion against Demetrius
 - But Demetrius and Jonathan then fall out

 - Trypho rebels against Demetrius, placing the young Antiochus on the throne, who honours Jonathan and Simon with official titles and roles
 - Jonathan and Simon subdue rebellious areas

Questions and Observations

1) The temple of Dagon at Azotus (Ashdod) was burnt out, presumably in the episode ascribed to Judas a chapter or two back. So we know that as late as the 160s BC there were alternative gods being worshipped in this area. By the by, I was recently intrigued to learn that, according to some, the
regalia of Dagon survives in the form of the Pope's mitre... The matter doesn't seem authoritatively settled, but the comparison is certainly suggestive.
2) The Ptolemy of Egypt referenced here is Ptolemy VI Philometor.
3) "King of Asia" was a title created by Alexander the Great long before, that had fallen into abeyance due to the fact that the Seleucid emperors did not command much of Asia. I suppose here it is used to signify Ptolemy claiming the empire.
4) I hadn't realised that Jerusalem wasn't already entirely in Judaean control. This shines a new light on Martin's question of a few chapters back asking about who was surrounding who.
5) In fact, I must confess that in general I am having trouble holding all the competing personalities and motives in mind through this book. We have been yomping through historical material at a prodigious rate in these chapters - it's all very dense and confusing. Which is to my mind a good thing - this feels in the main like honest reportage of confused and troubling times rather than after-the-fact spinning.
6) The outcome of the siege of Jerusalem isn't made clear. I think what is implied is that Jonathan's tax arrangement from Demetrius bought the Judaeans off, but it isn't stated clearly.
7) The chaotic and turbulent flavour of these times is conveyed quite well by the observation that in one verse Jonathan is besieging Demetrius's troops (and requiring to be bought off to cease and desist), and not long after is the sole supplier of troops to Demetrius's army. All the while ostensibly being a subject of his. Crazy stuff.
8) Clinging on to this remorseless procession of obscure similarly-named historical figures by our fingertips, we identify the young Antiochus here as Antiochus VI Dionysus.
9) This talks about Jonathan as High Priest. So I suppose this is his nominal function and title - his own mini-state with mandated state religion in a theocracy, maintaining an uneasy relation with the Seleucid and Egyptian secular powers.
10) It's interesting that we see so little interaction with the Arabian peninsula away to the SE in these books. All other directions have shown a great deal of interest.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Oct 20, 2016, 03:27AMBtw, do you mean Persia? These were the Greeks that defeated Persia. But in so doing became rather Persian themselves.

Syria might actually be more accurate, but yeah they were Grecian rulers.

QuoteI think you mean Jonathan? Simon is not yet in charge of the Maccabeans.

oops.  Fixed

QuoteHmm, you may well be right. It wouldn't be the first time. You're outpacing me in cynicism of the text here!

This isn't part of the "real" bible so I'm allowed to be cynical.

[ttf_MoominDave]

1 Maccabees 12 text

Highlights

 - Jonathan dies

Summary

 - Jonathan affirms his alliance with Rome and enters into one with Sparta

 - Demetrius's army returns; Jonathan marches to oppose them; they run away; Jonathan pursues but cannot catch them
 - Instead Jonathan's army takes it out on some apparently innocent bystanding Arabs, the Zabadeans
 - Simon also campaigns, taking Joppa
 - Defensive building works are started

 - The ambitious Trypho, seeking the empire, betrays Jonathan, who he captures and puts to death along with his men
 - The Jews mourn Jonathan

Questions and Observations

1) Definite war crimes from Jonathan here in modern parlance.
2) The internet tells us that Jonathan died in 143 BC.
3) It also tells us that the name by which he was originally introduced ("Apphus" at the start of the story) means "diplomat". I guess someone performing the nifty political manoeuvres he has done would need strong diplomacy skills.

[ttf_MoominDave]

1 Maccabees 13 text

Highlights

 - Simon settles in as leader

Summary

 - Simon takes over and musters the people against Trypho

 - Trypho parades Jonathan [who apparently didn't die in chapter 12 after all?] in front of Simon, and instructs him to pay him money and send two sons of Simon as hostages in order to secure Jonathan
 - Simon collects money, and sends the requested items, but Trypho was lying and doesn't release Jonathan
 - Trypho threatens various places, but Simon shadows him and no attacks happen
 - Then Trypho has Jonathan killed
 - Simon erects a tomb for Jonathan at Modein, where the rebellion started

 - Trypho's career moves on - he has the young Antiochus killed, and assumes the emperorship
 - Simon builds up military strength, and seeks an alliance with Trypho's rival, Demetrius.
 - Simon captures Gazara and the citadel at Jerusalem
 - Simon's son John is appointed a commander

Questions and Observations

1) Now we get Simon. The order of succession is interestingly non-standard - Mattathias was the first leader, followed by Judas Maccabeus, his third son of five. Then Jonathan, the fifth son. Then Simon, the second son. The eldest son, John, is not mentioned much, and nor is the fourth, Eleazar, though we were told of his death under an elephant. By the time Jonathan died, Simon was the only surviving brother.
2) In the previous chapter we were told that Jonathan had "perished along with his men", but here he is alive. Whoops.
3) Jonathan's tomb appears to be lost, or at least extremely uncertain. If we don't know this, how reliably can the attributions of the vastly much earlier tombs of the patriarchs be taken, despite their apparent known modern locations?
4) Chronology: 142 BC at Simon's accession.

[ttf_MoominDave]

1 Maccabees 14 text

Highlights

 - Simon's reign is a peaceful time

Summary

 - In 141 BC Demetrius invades Media, but is captured by King Arsaces

 - A song of praise for the peace of Simon's times
 - Sparta and Rome reconfirm their alliances with Judaea in light of the change of ruler from Jonathan to Simon
 - The people record their gratitude to Simon for his leading them to a place of peace

Questions and Observations

1) Demetrius's plan sounds rather ill-conceived...
2) With Arsaces a civilisation we haven't seen before appears - the Parthians, from modern NE Iran. Arsaces himself was I suspect Mithridates I; confusingly, all kings of Parthia were apparently also known by the name of their dynastic founder, Arsaces.
3) All turned out nice again.

[ttf_MoominDave]

1 Maccabees 15 text

Highlights

 - Antiochus VII defeats Trypho, taking the Seleucid crown

Summary

 - In 138 BC, Antiochus VII, son of Demetrius, raises an army and defeats Trypho; he treats Simon as an ally
 - Rome sends a letter supportive of the Jews, and ccs in all the major civilisations roundabout
 - Simon sends troops to Antiochus, as requested, but they are rebuffed and Antiochus picks a fight with him
 - Antiochus VII appoints Cendebeus military commander, and he threatens Simon's people

Questions and Observations

1) Another Antiochus: Antiochus VII Sidetes.
2) Trypho was defeated at Dor, on the NW Coast of modern Israel.
3) The recounting of the dealings of Antiochus VII and Simon is a bit suspect to my mind. Simon (our hero) is nothing but morally upright, while Antiochus (our villain) is nothing but dastardly. Some subtlety omitted, I suspect.
4) Seleucid influence is shrinking all the time as their rival leaders squabble - after this Antiochus, all they have left is Syria. I'd use a phrase like "Fiddling while Rome burns", but that hasn't happened yet...

[ttf_drizabone]

1 Maccabees 16 text

Highlights

 - John succeeds from Simon.

Summary

 - Simon hands over leadership to his sons Judas and John
 - they march against Cendebus and defeat him.  Judas is wounded.
 - Ptolemy the sone of Abdulus wanted to take control of the country
 - he invited Simon and his sons (Mattathias and Judas) to a banquet, got them drunk and killed them.
 - he sent men to kill John but he was warned and killed the men.
 - John became high priest, led Israel and finished rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem.

Questions and Observations

1) Following the story would be much easier if people had unique names.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Yes, it would, wouldn't it! This book has not been the easiest to extract the sense out of - not because it isn't a coherent historical narrative (it does appear to be), but because it's all so dense and populated by successions of people with identical names... I wonder what 2 Maccabees will be like? Glancing ahead suggests that it's something of a rerun of these events from another perspective. When 2 Maccabees is over, we'll be done with Deuterocanonical books for a while, so I suggest that we return to the ESV for Job?

Simon's succeeding son John is known to history as John Hyrcanus, who ruled until 104 BC - we are getting enticingly near to New Testament times, and these times I find are informing me on the background to the political situation that the NT narrative occurs against. Skipping forward, we have after some fratricide John's son Alexander Jannaeus, reigned 103-76 BC, whose reign was notable for a bloody civil war, characterised by the two factions, Sadducees and Pharisees. Although there were complex social and religious distinctions between these two warring sect factions, I think I am not going too far wrong if I note that the Sadducees were broadly pro-Greek and aristocratic and the Pharisees were broadly anti-Greek and not aristocratic? Somebody with better knowledge please feel free to step in and correct me on that.
I have read that the Maccabean revolt can be read as an uprising by rural Jews against the Greekified ruling Jewish class. But I note that the successors to the original Maccabeans (the Hasmonaean dynasty) very quickly all have distinctly Greeky names. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

But the Hasmonaean dynasty was short-lived in historical terms, only lasting 100 years or so. Following the upheaval bequeathed by Alexander Jannaeus, things never really settled down. His family continued to fight bloodily amongst themselves, then with Rome, who invaded, and the local situation remained parlous until Rome put their own strongman on the throne, the famous Herod, who ruled 37-4 BC. I note from Herod's Wikipedia article that he was probably an Edomite, which it occurs to me would likely not have helped ingratiate him with the religion of his subjects.

So NT times arose against a backdrop of quarrels between Jews torn in various political directions - with the Hellenised ruling class who had previously allied with Rome, now under Rome's yoke, and the people trying to maintain cultural continuity in their daily lives, but afflicted with regular bouts of bloody internal warfare. And also the recent memory of a line of Jewish kings that were also high priests... It must have been a terrifically confusing time and place to be alive; the stage is well set for people to start declaiming new religious interpretations. Enter Jesus... We are rather getting ahead of ourselves here! But I thought it would be nice to make this final little leap to the long-delayed main topic, given that we've tiptoed to within touching distance, but after these two books of Maccabees will head back in time again.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: MoominDave on Apr 06, 2016, 02:58PMPart I - The Tetrateuch
Genesis

• [li]Big picture stuff
  • [li]Creation; Adam & Eve[/li][li]Humans, take 1; Cain & Abel, Noah[/li][li]The Flood; Wash everything away, start again[/li][li]Humans, take 2[/li]
  [/li][li]Abraham; extensive travels, original covenant, Lot, not sacrificing Isaac[/li][li]Jacob; conflict with twin Esau, banishment, wives, 12 sons[/li][li]Joseph; betrayal to Egypt, rise, saving of family, supposed origins of 12 tribes[/li]

Exodus

• [li]New scene, three generations on - Israelites now of low status in Egypt[/li][li]Moses grows up, fights battle of wills with Pharoah over plagues, leads Israelites to depart[/li][li]Wandering, take 1; through the desert to Mt. Sinai, where they make a long camp and...[/li]

Leviticus

• [li]...many laws are given[/li]

Numbers

• [li]Wandering, take 2; they reach their destination, but are too weak to attempt the task, and so...[/li][li]Wandering, take 3; more pootling around, building up military prowess over the years in the preparation for invasion; new leaders emerge, and they finish on the brink of their destination again[/li]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jul 16, 2016, 04:49AMPart II - The Deuteronomistic History
Deuteronomy

• [li]Moses orates; recap of terms and conditions, forward planning[/li][li]Moses dies[/li]

Joshua

• [li]Conquest of Canaan under Joshua[/li][li]Division of conquered land between the tribes, East and West banks of the Jordan[/li]

Judges

• [li]Prologue: Messy details of attempted not-always-successful conquest, compare with previous book[/li][li]An intermittent sequence of Judges leads: Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Samson[/li][li]The Dan tribe take territory in the North and the Benjamin tribe are defeated by the other tribes[/li]

Ruth

• [li]Intermezzo: Heartwarming tale of a family coming through hard times in the era of the Judges[/li]

1 Samuel

• [li]Samuel is a priestly leader in a time of Philistine conflicts who needs a worthy successor[/li][li]Saul is appointed to the new role of king and with his son Jonathan defeats the Ammonites, Philistines, Amalekites, but he falls out with Samuel, who anoints David as a replacement king secretly[/li][li]David (a military hero) and Saul vie for superiority over a long period, eventually brought to an end when the Philistines kill Saul in battle[/li]

2 Samuel

• [li]The kingdom nearly splits, but David unites it, doing many heroic deeds[/li][li]But in time he becomes morally suspect and manipulated by schemers[/li]

1 Kings

• [li]David dies, succeeded by Solomon, who consolidates his power base brutally but gains great wealth and a reputation for great wisdom, building the "first temple" and a palace; however, like David he becomes morally suspect in time[/li][li]After he dies, the kingdom is split into Israel (larger Northern portion) and Judah (smaller Southern portion), and the continual inference is that Judah is the legitimate one of the two[/li][li]Kings succeed in both Israel and Judah; Elijah gains prominence as a prophet[/li]

2 Kings

• [li]Long successions of kings of both Israel and Judah are described, and the prophet Elisha comes to prominence[/li][li]Most kings do not prioritise Yahweh-worship - none in Israel, but some in Judah.
  [/li][li]First Israel then Judah are unable to tread the difficult path of negotiation between stronger powers on either side, with both populations destroyed and exiled by 586 BC[/li]

Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 15, 2016, 06:40AMPart III - The Chronicler's History
1 Chronicles

• [li]Recap of genealogy to the beginning[/li][li]Return of some exiles to Judah
  [/li][li]Recap of Samuel written to favour David more highly
  • [li]David secures the AotC[/li][li]David breeds[/li][li]David defeats enemies[/li][li]David arranges for Solomon to build the temple[/li]
  [/li]

2 Chronicles

• [li]Recap of Kings with only the Judah parts and a focus on relations with Yahweh
  • [li]Solomon builds the temple and is great[/li][li]Kingdom splits[/li][li]Long succession of kings, some good, some bad[/li][li]Judah squashed between Babylon and Egypt, falls to Babylon; population deported to exile[/li]
  [/li][li]End of exile when Babylon falls[/li]

Ezra

• [li]Cyrus of Persia commands Judah to return home and rebuild their temple[/li][li]Decades later Artaxerxes of Persia commands Ezra to lead a second wave of returnees[/li]

Nehemiah

• [li]Nehemiah, a Judahite official of Artaxerxes of Persia, is appointed governor of Judah, rebuilding Jerusalem's wall[/li][li]He and Ezra organise Judah, mixing enlightened social reform with brutally dogmatic interpretations of Mosaic law[/li]

Tobit Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]Tobit and his son Tobias are exiled in Nineveh when Israel falls[/li][li]Sarah lives in Media; a demon has killed seven of her husbands[/li][li]With an angel's help, Tobias rescues her, and everyone lives happily ever after[/li]

Judith Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]Nebuchadnezzar is enraged by the Israelites' failure to answer a military summons, and despatches his general Holofernes with his army to suppress them[/li][li]Judith, a beautiful Israelite widow, uses feminine wiles to distract Holofernes, killing him, sending his army into flight[/li]

Esther

• [li]Jewish exile in Susa Esther wins a beauty contest to become queen of Persia[/li][li]Factions vie to destroy the Jews in Persia, but the influence of her and her uncle Mordecai carries the day[/li][li]The Jews slaughter those that plotted to slaughter them, and this is celebrated as today's festival of Purim[/li]

1 Maccabees Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]In the 160s BC the Greek rulers attempt a religious crackdown in Judaea, against which Judas Maccabeus leads a rebellion[/li][li]Various competing empires trade blows, and all the while the rebellion becomes more secure; Jonathan Apphus succeeds Judas[/li][li]Simon Thassi succeeds Jonathan and establishes a medium-term peace, along with his dynasty, the Hasmonaeans[/li]

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Maccabees 1 text
2 Maccabees 2 text

Highlights

 - Introductions

Summary

Chapter 1
 - A letter to Egyptian Jews from Judaea: "Celebrate our new festival, plz"
 - A letter to Aristobulus, Jewish priest and adviser to King Ptolemy of Egypt from Judaea: "Thanks for your support"
 - Allusion to the history of Nehemiah - priests being exiled hid "the fire" of the altar in a dry cistern; on Nehemiah's return, he dispatched priests to retrieve it - they found a liquid, which they sprinkled on wood, which self-ignited in sunlight - naphtha
Chapter 2
 - Allusion to the history of Jeremiah - he sent some of this liquid with priests into exile; he also hid the AotC and its tent on the mountain that Moses overlooked Israel from (whereabouts to be revealed at some unstipulated future time of religious and political Jewish unity)
 - Allusion to the history of Solomon - fire came down to consume burnt offerings
 - Back to Nehemiah - Nehemiah founded a library, putting together historical material, and so later did Judas; the author has this library, and invites readers to contact them to borrow books
 - All this a prelude to an injunction to celebrating feasts as prescribed
 - The compiler talks to us, the reader - this is an abridgement of a five-volume work by Jason of Cyrene, and intends to give us an easily-memorisable outline of events rather than the "flood of statistics" (presumably) found in Jason's work

Questions and Observations

1) The letter to the Egyptian Jews is at first sight rather obscure in intent. It talks in terms of a revolt by one Jason, who we haven't yet met, but will in this book. It instructs them to keep the festival of Hanukkah, inaugurated by Judas Maccabeus in 164 BC (which we saw described in 1 Maccabees 4). The date-stamp on this letter places it in 124 BC, in the reign of John Hyrcanus, a generation and more later.
2) Aristobulus seems a somewhat attested historical character, and the Ptolemy that he advises and who aids the Jews is presumably Ptolemy VIII Physcon, although tying them together I don't think has been managed apart from this letter.
3) It isn't clear whether the letters were actually sent as specified, or whether they might be a narrative device.
4) The etymology for naphtha does not accord with the modern understood etymology...
5) Also this is not how naphtha or anything like it is produced. One might imagine that the priests knew of what naphtha did and used their knowledge of a place where it was found to good effect.
6) But I think we have a moment of insight here! (Or am I deluding myself...) The consuming on the altar by fire from heaven of burnt offerings for Solomon is in this passage about the importance of something at least naphtha-like that burns in sunlight. My reading: They treated sacrifices with this substance, and then the rays of the hot sun made the sacrifices burn. What do you reckon? Would be nice if that is solved - always more satisfying to understand something than to have to put it down to hyperbole and propaganda.
7) I presume that the books collected by Nehemiah and then Judas are more or less what we've been reading previously?
8) Jason of Cyrene is an otherwise unknown figure, and his five-volume work is lost to history, sadly. Cyrene was in modern Libya, a long-established Greek colony in Northern Africa.
9) The compiler's preface is a nicely human touch. The author talks to us directly, telling us exactly what they are doing and why, and apologising for the odd foible. It made me smile!
10) So - as they tell us clearly - we are not reading the scholarly treatment in this book, but rather a popularising history.

[ttf_drizabone]

2 Maccabees 3 text

Highlights

 - Heliodorus' Adventures in Jerusalem

Summary

 - everything was peaceful in Jerusalem and even kings gave it presents and honours
 - but someone told a governor that there was hordes of riches hidden in the temple.
 - the king sent Heliodorus to confiscate the riches.
 - the High Priest explained to Heliodorus that the only money they had was for the poor and some that had been left for safekeeping.
 - Heliodorus decides to take that but was prevented by the appearance of "a magnificently caparisoned horse, with a rider of frightening mien" who beat him up.  Heliodorus recognized this as the power of God.
 - Onias prayed for Heliodorus to be healed. an angel told Heliodorus that he had been healed because of Onias' prayer and he should tell all people the majestic power of God.
 - Heliodorus became a follower of the Lord because of this and told the king what had happened.  He advised the king to only send people he didn't like on missions to Jerusalem because they would get beaten too.

Questions and Observations

1) you don't often encounter "caparisoned" and "mien" do you.  I wonder if the original language had the same romantic medieval flavour? The translation seems to have been done by a Mills and Boon writer

[ttf_MoominDave]

No, indeed. We don't have many English versions to compare against as we're in a deuterocanonical book. All that I can see are:

NRSVACE (same thing, "Anglicised edition"), in which the exotic phrasing in verse 25 in identical;
RSVCE (old version of NSRVCE?) - identical again;
DRA (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition) - "a horse with a terrible rider upon him, adorned with a very rich covering"

I assume that the Douay-Rheims author didn't mean that the rider was a poor horseman... Their phrasing is the same as the original 1582 phrasing, when 'terrible' didn't at all have the modern meaning of 'highly incompetent'.

I may well have missed some editions that include this on the site. No real idea where "caparisoned" and "mien" first arose in the translation journey.

The writer of 2 Maccabees wasn't kidding that this isn't a scholarly work, were they? Things feel very simple here.

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Maccabees 4 text

Highlights

 - The high priesthood is dragged into corruption and infamy

Summary

 - Simon, the previous instigator, intensifies his rivalry against Onias
 - Onias appeals to the king
 - King Seleucus dies, succeeded by Antiochus IV
 - Jason, brother of Onias, bribes his way to the high priesthood
 - Jason pushes unpopular Greek-style cultural reforms, including attending the Olympic games
 - Menelaus, brother of Simon, outmanoeuvres Jason, bribing his way to the high priesthood in turn, and exiles Jason, but is incompetent
 - Onias exposes some of this corruption, but Menelaus has Andronicus kill him
 - But Antiochus doesn't approve, and kills Andronicus
 - Menelaus had left his brother Lysimachus in charge in Jerusalem, and he had behaved infamously
 - There was a popular uprising, in which Lysimachus was killed
 - Menelaus is chargedby Antiochus over this, but buys off the charge, and the leaders of the rebellion are executed instead
 - This is very much not a good thing

Questions and Observations

1) Chronologically we are a few years back from the start of the Maccabean rebellion here - circa 178 BC when Heliodorus visited Jerusalem, in the reign of Seleucus IV Philopator (another repeated name to confuse us with...). Seleucus IV was the elder brother of Antiochus IV that we saw in the opening of 1 Maccabees, and with whom he shared a sister and wife, Laodice IV, as previously goggled at. Seleucus IV was the father of Demetrius I, who vied for the throne against first the child of Antiochus IV then the usurper Trypho. Historically simple this is not!
2) NB: Those in charge in Jerusalem have Greek names, part of the evidence some put forward that this was a rebellion of anti-Greek vs pro-Greek factions within Judaism.
3) Antiochus IV succeeded in 175 BC, as previously noted. Some think that Heliodorus himself claimed the throne after assassinating Seleucus, but that Antiochus assassinated him soon after.
4) Where did Simon go?

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Maccabees 5 text

Highlights

 - Jerusalem is pillaged in succession by Jason and Antiochus

Summary

 - Antiochus invades Egypt; apparitions of air-borne golden-clad cavalry appear all over Jerusalem
 - Jerusalem hears that Antiochus is dead; Jason mounts an insurrection and kills many, but he dies
 - Antiochus, not dead, hears and isn't pleased; returns to quell the mutiny
 - Antiochus pillages the temple and kills many Jews
 - Judas Maccabeus and companions escape

Questions and Observations

1) Antiochus in Egypt correlates with 1 Maccabees 1:16-19. The extra detail that this was his second invasion here.
2) Antiochus pillaging the temple correlates with 1 Maccabees 1:20-28.
3) It makes more sense here - he is carried away in responding to a rebellion rather than simply delighting in destruction.

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Maccabees 6 text
2 Maccabees 7 text

Highlights

 - Antiochus suppresses Jewish religion

Summary

Chapter 6
 - Antiochus decrees that Judaism be brutally suppressed in favour of Greek religion
 - The writer talks to us, the reader, once more: they urge us to read these privations not in despair, but as a preparation for the strengthening of the Jews
 - An ancient scribe, Eleazar, is martyred for refusing to eat pork

Chapter 7
 - Seven brothers are all martyred in succession for refusing to eat pork
 - Their mother then dies

Questions and Observations

1) The writer isn't letting up on the archaic and flowery language! "Harsh and utterly grievous was the onset of evil", etc. Forsooth, lack-a-day, hey-nonny-nonny... I don't know what the provenance of the translation of this particular book is, but I am suspecting that it hasn't changed much from an early English translation.
2) The suppression of Judaism in favour of Greek worship is also found in the final segment of 1 Maccabees 1, linked to in the previous post.
3) But whereas the writer of 1 Maccabees follows the common Biblical scheme of not naming the rival god, the writer of 2 Maccabees has no such scruples, and tells us straight out that it was Zeus.
4) The writer's interjection is interesting - a commentary self-contained. Is this the first time we've been directly instructed by the text as to the correct way to interpret it?
5) The pork thing can go deep with those that buy into the various Abrahamic religions. It makes so little sense to me as an injunction, but yet it is taken so seriously even today.
6) Mind you, the seven brothers story seems pretty fantastical. Eleazar maybe less so.
7) I think this is the first time we've seen the concept of martyrdom described. I associate it more with Christianity than Judaism.
8) So far, this book has essentially been preparation for the events described in 1 Maccabees. It's interesting that the author of 2 Maccabees, despite being concerned with brevity, has spent so long in this period - nearly half the book.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Oct 28, 2016, 03:15AM
Questions and Observations

1) The writer isn't letting up on the archaic and flowery language! "Harsh and utterly grievous was the onset of evil", etc. Forsooth, lack-a-day, hey-nonny-nonny... I don't know what the provenance of the translation of this particular book is, but I am suspecting that it hasn't changed much from an early English translation.

It might be early English but its nothing like the AV/KJV which was first written in 1611.

Sorry for my lack of contributions lately but I'm finding it difficult to understand all who all the characters and then get my head around what's going well enough to summarise it.

Looking forward to getting back to the more familiar proto-canon.

[ttf_MoominDave]

No worries, I suspected there was some kind of deutero-vs-proto-canon enthusiasm effect at play. I'm keen on this particular material because I'm a bit of a history enthusiast and it's all new to me - poring through Wikipedia pages of all the people named "Antiochus" that have ever existed is what passes for entertainment in my world. But it's required a lot of such poring to feel even vaguely like I know what's going on with these two books. A most complicated time and place. Which is I think likely an integral part of why an idea as potent as Christianity came out of the brew not long after?

The good news is that after the next 8 chapters of 2 Maccabees, there are 243 consecutive chapters of proto-canon for us to wade through before any more deutero-canon appears (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon before Wisdom and Sirach).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14HmBsTpIwbu8feaACTyzYyAtsDal0YNF5pFnmUfht7E/edit#gid=0 - sheet reworked to be more fancy a little while ago

I don't know how you feel about this portion of the overall work? But I've found that the focus of it has wandered severely following the relatively structured account leading up to and including Ezra-Nehemiah. Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah formed what seemed a consistent history that could reasonably be termed "The Chronicler's History", as I have in making summaries - but the subsequent books have changed that impression.
If we omit deutero-canon, then this section includes only 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, and makes a sensible continuation, with only the story of Esther being a kind of supplementary extra that doesn't really fit. But including Tobit and Judith emphasises the disconnect, and ironically makes Esther look much more obviously fairy-tale in nature by changing the context in the overall work. And then these books of Maccabees seem a clear attempt to resume the history - but there are big gaps, and the transition from Nehemiah is lumpy.

So I'll continue labelling the section from Chronicles to 2 Maccabees as "The Chronicler's History" for now, but I don't feel entirely sensible about doing so... I note that the Hebrew Bible orders its books differently, and one can see some sense in the alternative scheme - the sequence after Kings continues with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, the exilic prophets, while Ruth and Esther are placed later, under 'Ketuvim' ('writings'); Tobit and Judith don't appear, and neither do the books of Maccabees. The placement of Ezra-Nehemiah and then Chronicles at the end of Ketuvim is perhaps a little strange ("things left over", as the authors of the Septuagint had it?), and here the Christian approach makes better sense to me.

Anyhow, given that it seems to be mostly me that's interested in the current material, I'll push onwards rapidly in order to get us back to more widely-enjoyed ground...

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Maccabees 8 text
2 Maccabees 9 text
2 Maccabees 10 text
2 Maccabees 11 text
2 Maccabees 12 text
2 Maccabees 13 text
2 Maccabees 14 text
2 Maccabees 15 text

Highlights

 - The rebellion gets going
 - One Antiochus is succeeded by another
 - The rebellion succeeds, obtaining ratification from the Seleucid powers, but must continue to fight its corner

Summary

Chapter 8
 - Judas Maccabeus gathers like-minded people, some 6,000; he launches assaults on settlements, taking more and more land steadily
 - Official forces under Gorgias and Nicanor are appointed to oppose him
 - Judas's forces are slightly disheartened, but he exhorts them with glorious examples from history
 - Judas defeats Nicanor and then other forces

Chapter 9
 - Antiochus IV Epiphanes hears word of these events in Persia and is seized with rage (also painful bowel issues and a nasty fall from his chariot)
 - His bowel disease mellows him and he decrees equality for the Jews; then he dies

Chapter 10
 - Judas Maccabeus recovers Jerusalem and institutes the annual festival of Hanukkah in gratitude
 - Antiochus V Eupator succeeds
 - Judas campaigns in Idumea [Edom] and nearer to home, defeating Timothy for a second time

Chapter 11
 - Lysias raises a large army to besiege Judas
 - But Judas defeats him and Lysias must flee
 - Lysias is frightened of the divine power of the Jewish army, and makes peace, ratified by Antiochus V

Chapter 12
 - Judas avenges atrocities
 - Judas defeats Arabs that attack him
 - Judas defeats Timothy once more
 - Judas sacks one town and refrains from sacking a second
 - Judas defeats Gorgias

Chapter 13
 - Antiochus V raises an army against Judaea, urged on by Menelaus (remember him?)
 - But it was unwise of Menelaus to draw attention to himself; remembered as the instigator of all this trouble, Antiochus has him executed
 - Judas attacks at night, and routs Antiochus
 - Antiochus and Judas negotiate a treaty

Chapter 14
 - Demetrius I Soter usurps Antiochus V
 - Former high priest Alcimus curries Demetrius's favour, speaking against Judas
 - Nicanor avoids a fight with Judas, then befriends him, living alongside him for years
 - Nicanor is manipulated into treating Judas more harshly, and causes Razis, elder of Jerusalem, to dramatically commit suicide

Chapter 15
 - Nicanor plans to attack the Jews on the Sabbath, but doesn't
 - Judas encourages his warriors
 - Their armies fight, and Nicanor is killed and defeated
 - The writer tells us: "I'm done here"

Questions and Observations

1) No mention of Mattathias here.
2) We weren't given a number for Judas's initial army in 1 Maccabees - 6,000 here.
3) More apparitions of golden riders. These were not mentioned in 1 Maccabees.
4) We see in quick time in these chapters the transformation of the rebels from outsiders to insiders.
5) The moral tone of 2 Maccabees is quite different to that of 1 Maccabees. 1 Maccabees was commendably thorough and even-handed despite a certain favouring of Judas's team; 2 Maccabees is more about cheerleading, it seems to me. Though even here the deeds of the rebellion don't seem entirely stain-free.
6) The emphasis on prayers for the dead at the end of chapter 12 give us some insight into religious priorities - but of Judas? Of the author? This does seem quite a loose account, in general.
7) 500 chapters up!
8) We learn in chapter 14 that the Maccabeans are called "Hasideans", a term evocatively similar to the modern "Hasidic"; but I read that it simply means "pious".
9) And that's it for 2 Maccabees. Although we got some further introduction to the overall events, the coverage of the rebellion has been simplified, and it only traces matters as far as 1 Maccabees 7. So onwards, and back to the proto-canon for Job.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: MoominDave on Apr 06, 2016, 02:58PMPart I - The Tetrateuch
Genesis

• [li]Big picture stuff
  • [li]Creation; Adam & Eve[/li][li]Humans, take 1; Cain & Abel, Noah[/li][li]The Flood; Wash everything away, start again[/li][li]Humans, take 2[/li]
  [/li][li]Abraham; extensive travels, original covenant, Lot, not sacrificing Isaac[/li][li]Jacob; conflict with twin Esau, banishment, wives, 12 sons[/li][li]Joseph; betrayal to Egypt, rise, saving of family, supposed origins of 12 tribes[/li]

Exodus

• [li]New scene, three generations on - Israelites now of low status in Egypt[/li][li]Moses grows up, fights battle of wills with Pharoah over plagues, leads Israelites to depart[/li][li]Wandering, take 1; through the desert to Mt. Sinai, where they make a long camp and...[/li]

Leviticus

• [li]...many laws are given[/li]

Numbers

• [li]Wandering, take 2; they reach their destination, but are too weak to attempt the task, and so...[/li][li]Wandering, take 3; more pootling around, building up military prowess over the years in the preparation for invasion; new leaders emerge, and they finish on the brink of their destination again[/li]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jul 16, 2016, 04:49AMPart II - The Deuteronomistic History
Deuteronomy

• [li]Moses orates; recap of terms and conditions, forward planning[/li][li]Moses dies[/li]

Joshua

• [li]Conquest of Canaan under Joshua[/li][li]Division of conquered land between the tribes, East and West banks of the Jordan[/li]

Judges

• [li]Prologue: Messy details of attempted not-always-successful conquest, compare with previous book[/li][li]An intermittent sequence of Judges leads: Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Samson[/li][li]The Dan tribe take territory in the North and the Benjamin tribe are defeated by the other tribes[/li]

Ruth

• [li]Intermezzo: Heartwarming tale of a family coming through hard times in the era of the Judges[/li]

1 Samuel

• [li]Samuel is a priestly leader in a time of Philistine conflicts who needs a worthy successor[/li][li]Saul is appointed to the new role of king and with his son Jonathan defeats the Ammonites, Philistines, Amalekites, but he falls out with Samuel, who anoints David as a replacement king secretly[/li][li]David (a military hero) and Saul vie for superiority over a long period, eventually brought to an end when the Philistines kill Saul in battle[/li]

2 Samuel

• [li]The kingdom nearly splits, but David unites it, doing many heroic deeds[/li][li]But in time he becomes morally suspect and manipulated by schemers[/li]

1 Kings

• [li]David dies, succeeded by Solomon, who consolidates his power base brutally but gains great wealth and a reputation for great wisdom, building the "first temple" and a palace; however, like David he becomes morally suspect in time[/li][li]After he dies, the kingdom is split into Israel (larger Northern portion) and Judah (smaller Southern portion), and the continual inference is that Judah is the legitimate one of the two[/li][li]Kings succeed in both Israel and Judah; Elijah gains prominence as a prophet[/li]

2 Kings

• [li]Long successions of kings of both Israel and Judah are described, and the prophet Elisha comes to prominence[/li][li]Most kings do not prioritise Yahweh-worship - none in Israel, but some in Judah.
  [/li][li]First Israel then Judah are unable to tread the difficult path of negotiation between stronger powers on either side, with both populations destroyed and exiled by 586 BC[/li]

Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 15, 2016, 06:40AMPart III - The Chronicler's History
1 Chronicles

• [li]Recap of genealogy to the beginning[/li][li]Return of some exiles to Judah
  [/li][li]Recap of Samuel written to favour David more highly
  • [li]David secures the AotC[/li][li]David breeds[/li][li]David defeats enemies[/li][li]David arranges for Solomon to build the temple[/li]
  [/li]

2 Chronicles

• [li]Recap of Kings with only the Judah parts and a focus on relations with Yahweh
  • [li]Solomon builds the temple and is great[/li][li]Kingdom splits[/li][li]Long succession of kings, some good, some bad[/li][li]Judah squashed between Babylon and Egypt, falls to Babylon; population deported to exile[/li]
  [/li][li]End of exile when Babylon falls[/li]

Ezra

• [li]Cyrus of Persia commands Judah to return home and rebuild their temple[/li][li]Decades later Artaxerxes of Persia commands Ezra to lead a second wave of returnees[/li]

Nehemiah

• [li]Nehemiah, a Judahite official of Artaxerxes of Persia, is appointed governor of Judah, rebuilding Jerusalem's wall[/li][li]He and Ezra organise Judah, mixing enlightened social reform with brutally dogmatic interpretations of Mosaic law[/li]

Tobit Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]Tobit and his son Tobias are exiled in Nineveh when Israel falls[/li][li]Sarah lives in Media; a demon has killed seven of her husbands[/li][li]With an angel's help, Tobias rescues her, and everyone lives happily ever after[/li]

Judith Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]Nebuchadnezzar is enraged by the Israelites' failure to answer a military summons, and despatches his general Holofernes with his army to suppress them[/li][li]Judith, a beautiful Israelite widow, uses feminine wiles to distract Holofernes, killing him, sending his army into flight[/li]

Esther

• [li]Jewish exile in Susa Esther wins a beauty contest to become queen of Persia[/li][li]Factions vie to destroy the Jews in Persia, but the influence of her and her uncle Mordecai carries the day[/li][li]The Jews slaughter those that plotted to slaughter them, and this is celebrated as today's festival of Purim[/li]

1 Maccabees Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]In the 160s BC the Greek rulers attempt a religious crackdown in Judaea, against which Judas Maccabeus leads a rebellion[/li][li]Various competing empires trade blows, and all the while the rebellion becomes more secure; Jonathan Apphus succeeds Judas[/li][li]Simon Thassi succeeds Jonathan and establishes a medium-term peace, along with his dynasty, the Hasmonaeans[/li]

2 Maccabees  Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]Prior to the Maccabean revolt, unedifying political struggles within the priesthood result in turmoil, resulting in the crackdown of 1 Maccabees[/li][li]Judas Maccabeus leads the first portion of his revolt, in less detail this time[/li]

[ttf_MoominDave]

So with this we've reached the end of the next block of books. This is a rather less well-grouped set, so much so that I'm not 100% convinced of the wisdom of grouping them so - the Tetrateuch has a clear narrative arc, as does the Deuteronomistic History (with the likely exception of the Book of Ruth). The first portion of the Chronicler's History follows this pattern, from 1 Chronicles through to Nehemiah, but then what follows seem more like historical novels than any attempt at realism - the deuterocanonical Tobit and Judith, and the protocanonical Esther. They also do not fit the neat historical sequence established through earlier books, skipping back and forth in era and location. Then the two deuterocanonical books of Maccabees resume the historical narration, but in a quite different style, and leaving a large gap from what has preceded.

The designation of a consistent history for these books makes more sense for the protocanonical set of books than the proto-plus-deuterocanonical set, but I'll stick with it here in an attempt to avoid confusion. I'll compress the summaries for this most recent set of books down here - but we're still getting a bit unwieldy. I feel a summary of summaries of summaries coming on...

Over to you Martin to get the Wisdom section going via Job! Longer and more canonical books coming up now.

Quote from: MoominDave on Apr 06, 2016, 02:58PMPart I - The Tetrateuch
Genesis

• [li]Big picture stuff
  • [li]Creation; Adam & Eve[/li][li]Humans, take 1; Cain & Abel, Noah[/li][li]The Flood; Wash everything away, start again[/li][li]Humans, take 2[/li]
  [/li][li]Abraham; extensive travels, original covenant, Lot, not sacrificing Isaac[/li][li]Jacob; conflict with twin Esau, banishment, wives, 12 sons[/li][li]Joseph; betrayal to Egypt, rise, saving of family, supposed origins of 12 tribes[/li]

Exodus

• [li]New scene, three generations on - Israelites now of low status in Egypt[/li][li]Moses grows up, fights battle of wills with Pharoah over plagues, leads Israelites to depart[/li][li]Wandering, take 1; through the desert to Mt. Sinai, where they make a long camp and...[/li]

Leviticus

• [li]...many laws are given[/li]

Numbers

• [li]Wandering, take 2; they reach their destination, but are too weak to attempt the task, and so...[/li][li]Wandering, take 3; more pootling around, building up military prowess over the years in the preparation for invasion; new leaders emerge, and they finish on the brink of their destination again[/li]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jul 16, 2016, 04:49AMPart II - The Deuteronomistic History
Deuteronomy

• [li]Moses orates; recap of terms and conditions, forward planning[/li][li]Moses dies[/li]

Joshua

• [li]Conquest of Canaan under Joshua[/li][li]Division of conquered land between the tribes, East and West banks of the Jordan[/li]

Judges

• [li]Prologue: Messy details of attempted not-always-successful conquest, compare with previous book[/li][li]An intermittent sequence of Judges leads: Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Samson[/li][li]The Dan tribe take territory in the North and the Benjamin tribe are defeated by the other tribes[/li]

Ruth

• [li]Intermezzo: Heartwarming tale of a family coming through hard times in the era of the Judges[/li]

1 Samuel

• [li]Samuel is a priestly leader in a time of Philistine conflicts who needs a worthy successor[/li][li]Saul is appointed to the new role of king and with his son Jonathan defeats the Ammonites, Philistines, Amalekites, but he falls out with Samuel, who anoints David as a replacement king secretly[/li][li]David (a military hero) and Saul vie for superiority over a long period, eventually brought to an end when the Philistines kill Saul in battle[/li]

2 Samuel

• [li]The kingdom nearly splits, but David unites it, doing many heroic deeds[/li][li]But in time he becomes morally suspect and manipulated by schemers[/li]

1 Kings

• [li]David dies, succeeded by Solomon, who consolidates his power base brutally but gains great wealth and a reputation for great wisdom, building the "first temple" and a palace; however, like David he becomes morally suspect in time[/li][li]After he dies, the kingdom is split into Israel (larger Northern portion) and Judah (smaller Southern portion), and the continual inference is that Judah is the legitimate one of the two[/li][li]Kings succeed in both Israel and Judah; Elijah gains prominence as a prophet[/li]

2 Kings

• [li]Long successions of kings of both Israel and Judah are described, and the prophet Elisha comes to prominence[/li][li]Most kings do not prioritise Yahweh-worship - none in Israel, but some in Judah.
  [/li][li]First Israel then Judah are unable to tread the difficult path of negotiation between stronger powers on either side, with both populations destroyed and exiled by 586 BC[/li]

Part III - The Chronicler's History
1 Chronicles

• [li]Recap of genealogy to the beginning; return of some exiles to Judah[/li][li]Recap of Samuel written to favour David more highly[/li]

2 Chronicles

• [li]Recap of Kings with only the Judah parts and a focus on relations with Yahweh[/li][li]End of exile when Babylon falls[/li]

Ezra

• [li]Cyrus of Persia commands Judah to return home and rebuild their temple; decades later Artaxerxes of Persia commands Ezra to lead a second wave of returnees[/li]

Nehemiah

• [li]Nehemiah, a Judahite official of Artaxerxes of Persia, is appointed governor of Judah, rebuilding Jerusalem's wall; he and Ezra organise Judah, mixing enlightened social reform with brutally dogmatic interpretations of Mosaic law[/li]

Tobit Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]Tobit and his son Tobias are exiled in Nineveh when Israel falls, while Sarah lives in Media; a demon has killed seven of her husbands. With an angel's help, Tobias rescues her, and everyone lives happily ever after[/li]

Judith Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]Nebuchadnezzar is enraged by the Israelites' failure to answer a military summons, and despatches his general Holofernes with his army to suppress them; Judith, a beautiful Israelite widow, uses feminine wiles to distract Holofernes, killing him[/li]

Esther

• [li]Jewish exile in Susa Esther wins a beauty contest to become queen of Persia; factions vie to destroy the Jews in Persia, but the influence of her and her uncle Mordecai carries the day[/li]

1 Maccabees Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]In the 160s BC the Greek rulers attempt a religious crackdown in Judaea, against which Judas Maccabeus leads a rebellion[/li][li]Various competing empires trade blows, and all the while the rebellion becomes more secure; Jonathan Apphus and then Simon Thassi succeed Judas and establish a medium-term peace, along with Simon's dynasty, the Hasmonaeans[/li]

2 Maccabees  Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]Prior to the Maccabean revolt, unedifying political struggles within the priesthood result in turmoil, resulting in the crackdown of 1 Maccabees; Judas leads the first portion of his revolt, in less detail this time[/li]

[ttf_drizabone]

Job 1 text

Highlights

 - Job's righteousness is tested.

Summary

 - Once upon a time their lived a good man who had was wealthy and had a large happy family
 - He used to offer sacrifices for his kids just in case they had sinned.
 - One day the sons of God came to the Lords court and the Lord asked Satan what he thought of Job, the best man on the earth.
 - Satan said that Job only feared God because God was good to him.  If the blessings were taken away Job would curse God.
 - God said that Satan do anything he liked to Job's possesions and family but could not touch Job
 - One day Job received 3 messages
   - some Sabeans had raided and killed his servants and taken his oxen and donkeys
   - the fire of God burnt up his sheep and the shepherds
   - the Chaldeans killed the camel keepters and took all your camels
   - a great wind blew his sons house down and killed all Job's children
 - Job mourned for his losses but still worshiped God, saying that he was born with nothing and will have nothing when he dies and that he blesses the Lord anyway.


Questions and Observations

1) Yay.  Back to the "real" bible.    And back to the ESV too
2) There isn't any historical evidence for Job.  Was he real or mythical?  I'm not sure.  But this is a wisdom book not a history.  It poses situations for us to consider rather than narrate historical events.  IMHO
3) The sons of God are interesting.  What are they?  Are they the "other gpds" that we've read abou?  They have power of their own, but seem to be subject to God. Satan is one.   He seems to require God's permission before he can hurt Job and is subject to God's restrictions.
4) And Job passes the test with flying colours. 
5) v21 is reasonably well known isn't it?
6) its significant that Job doesn't know that he's being tested as part of a wager, or that Satan is the primary cause of his problems and that God allowed them.

[ttf_drizabone]

Job 2 text

Highlights

 - Satan wants to test Job more.
 - Job says that God can give good and bad.

Summary

 - Satan appears before God again: God notes how good Job is.
 - Satan says he'll turn against God if he suffers physical injury.
 - God says that Job is all his, but that he can't take his life.
 - Satan strikes Job with loathsome sores from that covered his whole body.
 - His wife ridicules his refusal to curse God.  Job asks her if they should only expect to receive good from God and no evil. 
 - Job had 3 friends that sat with him for 7 days without speaking because they could see how great his suffering was.


Questions and Observations

1) There are 2 significant statements in this chapter:
  - Job states he received evil from God.  and
  - This is not considered a sin.

2) if God is considered all good how can we receive evil from him?  Is the fact that it came from Satan directly and God indirectly significant?  It seems to be.  And it also seems to be significant that its part of a test.  Does this matter to you?  For me : I believe in God, and that the bible accurately describes his, so I have to base my understanding of him on what I read.  How God relates to evil is one place that it gets tricky.  Its called Theodocy.

3) it seems significant also that God does not think its sinful to think that evil comes from him. 

4) So to me the God that we read about here is not a nice domesticate being that does what we would think is good, he's his own person that does what he thinks is good.  Like the portral of Aslan in Narnia as a wild lion rather than as a house cat.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 28, 2016, 05:13PMJob 1 text

2) There isn't any historical evidence for Job.  Was he real or mythical?  I'm not sure.  But this is a wisdom book not a history.  It poses situations for us to consider rather than narrate historical events.  IMHO
It's been about 25 years since I read Job, so my memory is due the refresh we're about to give it. But what's in my memory accords with your thoughts on it - in the fashion of Ruth, Tobit, Judith, and Esther of the books we have seen so far, a story to edify and instruct rather than a historical recounting. Incidentally - we've not talked about literalists much recently - but how do they tend to approach these books? Literally, I'm guessing...

The first hint that this might be so is the opening line - nobody knows where the Land of Uz is. Some suggest Edom - but in verse 3 we are told that Job lived in "the east". Given that Job seems to have been written by an Israelite (possibly in eastern exile?), Edom doesn't feel very far east to me.

The Wikipedia page talks about a date of composition in the middle of the first millennium BC. Jumping ahead in the book, I note that Ezekiel 14 cites Job (along with Noah and Daniel) as an example of great righteousness - presumably the same figure, so - if that section wasn't modified later - he must have been famed as a historical person of great rectitude by exilic times, whether or not the story as we have it today was already in existence and/or written down.

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 28, 2016, 05:13PM3) The sons of God are interesting.  What are they?  Are they the "other gpds" that we've read abou?  They have power of their own, but seem to be subject to God. Satan is one.   He seems to require God's permission before he can hurt Job and is subject to God's restrictions.
Satan was not such a big deal in the OT. He is mentioned in only three places throughout the whole long older canon - a passing reference in Chronicles as a metaphorical device - "Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel", here in Job, and briefly in the vision of Zechariah. One can also read the serpent in early Genesis as being Satan, but it isn't stated. There was the demon Asmodeus in Tobit too, I suppose. In terms of playing a narrative role, this story is the entirety of Satan's part prior to the NT. It is interesting that God asks him where he has been (surely the all-seeing God should know that?), and that Satan replies 'Oh, hanging out, around and about, just chilling out on the Earth'. Not quite sure what to make of that, but it's repeated again in Chapter 2.

I note that his importance to Judaism seems to correlate well with exilic times, perhaps influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism's dualism.

"Sons of God" - if Yahweh is the creator of all, then my natural reading of this phrase would be to hear it as meaning the creatures of the realm that he inhabits. Not necessarily implying sons in a breeding sense. But not necessarily ruling that out either. The phrase also occurred in Genesis, where the Nephilim bred with humans.

Could these be or include the other competing gods we've seen referenced through the text - Hadad, Moloch, Asherah, etc.? Hard to know what was in the minds of either the writer or early readers, really. This seems peculiar to me (feeling like a mismatch of concepts), but it was a characteristic of this religion to drag in god figures from adjoining cultures in order to make them subservient to Yahweh, so it's possible.

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 28, 2016, 05:13PM5) v21 is reasonably well known isn't it?
It rings a bell...

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 28, 2016, 05:13PM6) its significant that Job doesn't know that he's being tested as part of a wager, or that Satan is the primary cause of his problems and that God allowed them.

Indeed! The whole point, I would say.

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 28, 2016, 05:13PM   - some Sabeans had raided and killed his servants and taken his oxen and donkeys
   - the Chaldeans killed the camel keepters and took all your camels
Here we have a couple of clues to Job's location - he can't have been far from either of these two groups of people. The Chaldeans occupied Mesopotomia, literally the land between the two rivers Euphrates and Tigris. The Sabaens (cf. Sheba) lived in modern-day Yemen, the whole way across the Arabian peninsula from there, and much more south than east from where we think Job might have been written. Here is a puzzle - there was a great deal of desert country in between these two peoples - 1,000 miles or so. I start to wonder if these were simply set-piece 'exotic' names for peoples to be dropped into a story to lend it an air of far-away-ness?

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 28, 2016, 06:58PMJob 2 text

1) There are 2 significant statements in this chapter:
  - Job states he received evil from God.  and
  - This is not considered a sin.[/url]
Yes; I would not have picked up on this. There's a distinction between God doing evil and God doing things that will come right in time. Or is there?

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 28, 2016, 06:58PM2) if God is considered all good how can we receive evil from him?  Is the fact that it came from Satan directly and God indirectly significant?  It seems to be.  And it also seems to be significant that its part of a test.  Does this matter to you?  For me : I believe in God, and that the bible accurately describes his, so I have to base my understanding of him on what I read.  How God relates to evil is one place that it gets tricky.  Its called Theodocy.
Thanks for the word. Punwise, it's a bit of an unfortunate coinage.

Does it matter to me personally? We haven't talked much of these kinds of questions of late, have we? I see Yahweh here ostensibly engaging in behaviour that I don't find acceptable - if he's all-powerful, then he commands Satan - but whether or not he does, then the permission he gives to Satan to torment Job can be taken as Yahweh tormenting his faithful follower for no better reason than to see his limits. It's not good behaviour - in fact it's rather disgusting. To me, it doesn't matter in terms of personal philosophy - this is a fictional tale within a tradition that I don't feel bound to believe in - so double fiction, if you like - but it informs the worldviews of many around us, and that does matter. If one is down with the idea that the entity one worships is capable of doing these kinds of things on a whim, then I struggle to see how one can respect that entity. I guess if one believes that the entity is all-powerful, then one thinks that one has no choice but to do so, regardless of its documented faults?

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 28, 2016, 06:58PM3) it seems significant also that God does not think its sinful to think that evil comes from him.
This makes sense to me - Yahweh knows that he is doing evil, so judging Job for calling it that way would be big-time hypocrisy. So everybody in the story is on the same page - Yahweh is getting in touch with his jerky side in this one.

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 28, 2016, 06:58PM - Job had 3 friends that sat with him for 7 days without speaking because they could see how great his suffering was.
More location clues. A Temanite, a Shuhite, and a Naamathite. Two of these are Arabian, perhaps pushing us more that way. But the third is Canaanite.


Incidentally, can I take the opportunity to recommend this book by Robert Heinlein? It's very good.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Oct 29, 2016, 02:14AMIt's been about 25 years since I read Job, so my memory is due the refresh we're about to give it. But what's in my memory accords with your thoughts on it - in the fashion of Ruth, Tobit, Judith, and Esther of the books we have seen so far, a story to edify and instruct rather than a historical recounting. Incidentally - we've not talked about literalists much recently - but how do they tend to approach these books? Literally, I'm guessing...

I think Job is a morality tale.  Its a genre that teaches morality through a story.  Its not the what, when, who, where that is significant.  Its the why. 

The purpose of the text is to get the reader to think about how God and evil and disasters intereact, so that we know what to do when confronted by bad stuff that just seems to happen without any reason.

So I'm going to be concerned with the why of the text this time rather than who, what, when and where.

QuoteSatan was not such a big deal in the OT.

There are a few other references that are less certain (eg Lucifer) that some christians think are to Satan/the devil but he didn't make much of an appearance in the OT.

You are about to mention the "sons of God" and ask if they may include the "competing god's" mentioned in the OT.  It seems that the multiple competing god's of the OT were replaced by satan and his demons/evil angels in the NT.  I would speculate that they were the same beings, but with different names to suit the culture of the day.

QuoteIt is interesting that God asks him where he has been (surely the all-seeing God should know that?), and that Satan replies 'Oh, hanging out, around and about, just chilling out on the Earth'. Not quite sure what to make of that, but it's repeated again in Chapter 2.

Just setting the scene for the morality tale.  Its not significant that God really knows what Satan would have been doing, just that its an opportunity to introduce the wager. 


Quote"Sons of God" - if Yahweh is the creator of all, then my natural reading of this phrase would be to hear it as meaning the creatures of the realm that he inhabits. Not necessarily implying sons in a breeding sense. But not necessarily ruling that out either. The phrase also occurred in Genesis, where the Nephilim bred with humans.

Could these be or include the other competing gods we've seen referenced through the text - Hadad, Moloch, Asherah, etc.? Hard to know what was in the minds of either the writer or early readers, really. This seems peculiar to me (feeling like a mismatch of concepts), but it was a characteristic of this religion to drag in god figures from adjoining cultures in order to make them subservient to Yahweh, so it's possible.

see I knew you were going to mention this.

I think that the false gods that people used to worship were the sons of God mentioned here.  But its a morality tale so I'm not certain.

QuoteThanks for the word. Punwise, it's a bit of an unfortunate coinage.

shame I didn't spell it correctly

QuoteDoes it matter to me personally? We haven't talked much of these kinds of questions of late, have we?

this book (and others in the wisdow genre) is all about purpose and meaning so I think we will be talking about it more.  At least I will.

QuoteIncidentally, can I take the opportunity to recommend this book by Robert Heinlein? It's very good.

Shame its not on kindle.  I'll have to see if I can find it locally.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Job 3 text

Highlights

 - Job and his friends embark upon a poetry smackdown - to open with, Job rues his situation

Summary

 - Job wishes he had never been born, at some length

Questions and Observations

1) So pretty much all the rest of the book is in this format, I see - Job speaks in poetry, a friend answers him in poetry; points are made in dramatic language and philosophical concepts are turned over between them.
2) I concur on Martin's assessment of the best way to approach this work - the 'why' is over-ridingly important. With this in mind, how legitimate is it to wish that the good years of the past had never happened? Is this showing trust in Yahweh?

[ttf_drizabone]

11Quote from: MoominDave on Oct 30, 2016, 03:20AM2) I concur on Martin's assessment of the best way to approach this work - the 'why' is over-ridingly important. With this in mind, how legitimate is it to wish that the good years of the past had never happened? Is this showing trust in Yahweh?

We'll have to wait for God's assessment at the end to find out, won't we.

Do you think that Job's complaint has 3 sections:
 - 3-10 : where he says he wishes he died at birth
 - 11-19: where he asks why he didn't die at birth - ie why he had to go through this suffering
 - 20-26: where he asks why people in general live through suffering

Maybe the questions are all rhetorical and about himself but even if are, they do raise those questions.

[ttf_drizabone]

Job 4 text
Job 5 text

Highlights

 - Eliphaz the Temanite responds to Job's complaint:Just be patient, all will be well

Summary

Eliphaz says
  1 it is usually Job that is supporting others who are suffering
  2 the innocent never perish only the guilty
  3 mortal man can never be righteous before God
  4 he challenges Job to find someone who will answer him
  5 God provides good, judges the guilty and blesses the poor and needy
  6 Job should be grateful because God has reproved him because he ultimately God will bless him.

Questions and Observations

1) Eliphaz seems to think that he is taking God's side by pointing out that God only punishes the wicked therefore Job must not be righteous, so stop complaining because God will bless you again.
2) I think Eliphaz is having a bit of a dig at Job and saying that Job's not holding up too well when its him that is suffering.  Great friend.
3) I have no idea what Eliphaz's challenge to Job is about.  I'll have to research that.
4) I don't think that Eliphaz gets all his biblical theology right or applies it correctly.

He rebukes Job in 4:5–6 for being impatient and dismayed. This was an unnecessary rebuke to a righteous man in agony. That is the insensitive part of Eliphaz’s application.

Then he insinuates that Job has not really sought God the way he should. He says in 5:8, “As for me, I would seek God, and to God would I commit my cause” — as though Job needs to learn from Eliphaz to do this!

And he implies in 5:18–19 that Job would be delivered if only he would commit his way to God. That is the superficial part of Eliphaz’ application. It is too simple to say, “Just commit it to the Lord and your fortunes will be restored.”

[ttf_drizabone]

Job 6 text
Job 7 text

Highlights

 - Job's reply: God, leave me alone

Summary

Job says :
 - his suffering is too much to bear and he yearns for death
 - his friends haven't been kind or supported him, they've been too afraid to get offside with God.
 - he just wants to be shown what he did wrong

 - life in general is not worth living
 - and he is so insignificant. Why does he get the same attention as sea monsters, why does God bother testing men, why has God set his mark on him
 - God: Just leave me alone
 - what is it to you, God if I sin, why does it bother you, why don't you just excuse it.

Questions and Observations

1) Job is mostly ignoring Eliphaz because he didn't deal with Job's situation: Job thinks he's innocent
2) Although he responds to Eliphaz suggestion to be patient by saying his suffering is to much to bear
3) It seems that his friends are responding to Job situation their idea that the world is just and that only the wicked are punished, therefore Job must be have done something wrong.  Job just wants them to be on his side.

4) Job doesn't know about an afterlife,  when you die you just go down to the grave aka sheol, the place of the dead
5) I enjoy reading Job, because of his attitude of trying to stand up to God.
6) Job doens't think he's guilty of anything serious, that is worthy of the punishment he's getting

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 30, 2016, 04:09PMJob 4 text
Job 5 text

 - Eliphaz the Temanite responds to Job's complaint:Just be patient, all will be well

1) Eliphaz seems to think that he is taking God's side by pointing out that God only punishes the wicked therefore Job must not be righteous, so stop complaining because God will bless you again.
The flavour I get is that he's saying that no-one is totally righteous, so Job must be getting just desserts for some sin or other.

Which is usefully catch-all... Under this scheme anyone can suffer any apparently unfortunate reverse and it's all pre-emptively justified. No need for any accountancy. A definition so wide as to be verging on the useless...

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 30, 2016, 04:09PM2) I think Eliphaz is having a bit of a dig at Job and saying that Job's not holding up too well when its him that is suffering.  Great friend.
Maybe a bit of existing jealousy manifesting itself? After all, Job is portrayed as living a highly privileged life prior to these events.

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 30, 2016, 04:09PM3) I have no idea what Eliphaz's challenge to Job is about.  I'll have to research that.
It's a bit peculiar, isn't it? I think what is going on is this: Eliphaz has hypothesised that Job must be sinning somehow; so he suggests that Job put his contention that he is spotless to the test, by requesting divine arbitration.

Does that work?

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 30, 2016, 04:09PM4) I don't think that Eliphaz gets all his biblical theology right or applies it correctly.

He rebukes Job in 4:5–6 for being impatient and dismayed. This was an unnecessary rebuke to a righteous man in agony. That is the insensitive part of Eliphaz’s application.

Then he insinuates that Job has not really sought God the way he should. He says in 5:8, “As for me, I would seek God, and to God would I commit my cause” — as though Job needs to learn from Eliphaz to do this!

And he implies in 5:18–19 that Job would be delivered if only he would commit his way to God. That is the superficial part of Eliphaz’ application. It is too simple to say, “Just commit it to the Lord and your fortunes will be restored.”

He is suggesting very simple cause and effect, when the whole premise of the book is the subversion of that cause and effect. Eliphaz isn't to know that Yahweh is playing a game with Job, and is treating him as he would another person, I imagine.

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 31, 2016, 01:07AMJob 6 text
Job 7 text

1) Job is mostly ignoring Eliphaz because he didn't deal with Job's situation: Job thinks he's innocent
Isn't it frustrating when you ask for advice and someone responds by guessing that something is wrong with you that isn't in fact wrong?

Sometimes such a manoeuvre has caused friction here on TTF...

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 31, 2016, 01:07AM4) Job doesn't know about an afterlife,  when you die you just go down to the grave aka sheol, the place of the dead
Sheol is interesting. I hadn't appreciated when it was mentioned earlier (Solomon's injunction on - was it Joab? - "Do not let his grey head go down to Sheol in peace") that this was a metaphysical concept. I thought he was talking about a place to retire to at the time...

So the later Christian concepts of heaven/hell/etc don't exist at this date. One can see commonalities in the description of Sheol, but it's evidently an earlier version of the faith.

The hints that Sheol was regarded as some kind of living thing are truly intriguing...

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 31, 2016, 01:07AM5) I enjoy reading Job, because of his attitude of trying to stand up to God.
Ha! Isn't that a bit naughty? I mean, I thoroughly approve... But I'm not a believer.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Job 8 text

Highlights

 - Bildad the Shuhite addresses Job

Summary

Bildad says:
 - Job, you are bloviating now, and flattering yourself to boot
 - God doesn't punish the just, so you can't be as just as you say
 - Think of past examples and find consistency of God's judging conduct in them
 - The same thing round again a couple of times

Questions and Observations

1) Bildad takes the same line as Eliphaz.
2) And adds some frustration at Job's insistence that he hasn't done anything wrong.
3) He takes a theologially sound line - consider the lessons of the past. But the consistency he seeks to reference is deliberately broken in this book, and so his defence of Yahweh logically founders without anyone noticing it.
4) I do find it interesting that this book made it into the canon. It shows Yahweh in such a bad light.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: MoominDave on Oct 31, 2016, 04:55AM3) He takes a theologially sound line - consider the lessons of the past. But the consistency he seeks to reference is deliberately broken in this book, and so his defence of Yahweh logically founders without anyone noticing it.
4) I do find it interesting that this book made it into the canon. It shows Yahweh in such a bad light.

It's almost like they are slowly edging toward the idea that Yahweh doesn't cause everything, some stuff is just random.  This is an intermediate step - Yahweh didn't cause it, Satan is messing around.  But if Yahweh really controlled everything, that wouldn't be possible. 

This is a necessary step in logic, because clearly the covenant isn't fully working - Israel/Judah is not winning all battles as promised, and the theory that this is because of disobedience is wearing thin. 

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Oct 31, 2016, 04:32AMIt's a bit peculiar, isn't it? I think what is going on is this: Eliphaz has hypothesised that Job must be sinning somehow; so he suggests that Job put his contention that he is spotless to the test, by requesting divine arbitration.

Does that work?

It seems pretty reasonable.

QuoteSometimes such a manoeuvre has caused friction here on TTF...

Only sometimes?

QuoteSheol is interesting. I hadn't appreciated when it was mentioned earlier (Solomon's injunction on - was it Joab? - "Do not let his grey head go down to Sheol in peace") that this was a metaphysical concept. I thought he was talking about a place to retire to at the time...

So the later Christian concepts of heaven/hell/etc don't exist at this date. One can see commonalities in the description of Sheol, but it's evidently an earlier version of the faith.

I expect you would see it as an evolving idea whereas I see it as progressive revelation.

QuoteThe hints that Sheol was regarded as some kind of living thing are truly intriguing...

The OT writers occasionally personified things, ie described a thing as if it was a person

QuoteHa! Isn't that a bit naughty? I mean, I thoroughly approve... But I'm not a believer.

From a christian point of view it shows that you recognize that God is in control of what happens and that you are therefor dependent on God as well as not haoppy with your suffering.  I think that God is ok with that.  But I don't think you approve of the whole package do you?  Maybe hypothetically: If God existed and controlled everything then you should be able to complain.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: timothy42b on Oct 31, 2016, 05:02AMIt's almost like they are slowly edging toward the idea that Yahweh doesn't cause everything, some stuff is just random.  This is an intermediate step - Yahweh didn't cause it, Satan is messing around.  But if Yahweh really controlled everything, that wouldn't be possible. 

The way I see it, God is in control, but sometimes uses agents like Satan.

QuoteThis is a necessary step in logic, because clearly the covenant isn't fully working - Israel/Judah is not winning all battles as promised, and the theory that this is because of disobedience is wearing thin. 

The theory works, why is it wearing thin.  It sounds like you're saying that its wearing thin because its used all the time, but if that logic worked then we'd have to replace the theory of gravity because its used all the time and its wearing a bit thin too.  But that's ridiculous so you wouldn't mean that, so I don't get what you mean?

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 31, 2016, 02:46PMI expect you would see it as an evolving idea whereas I see it as progressive revelation.
Is there any particular reason that one would expect the development of such an idea to be "progressive revelation", rather than simply being laid out in its final form at the start?

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 31, 2016, 02:46PMFrom a christian point of view it shows that you recognize that God is in control of what happens and that you are therefor dependent on God as well as not haoppy with your suffering.  I think that God is ok with that.  But I don't think you approve of the whole package do you?  Maybe hypothetically: If God existed and controlled everything then you should be able to complain.

So there is a tension here, possibly? You recognise Yahweh as being in charge of everything, able to direct your life in any way he sees fit. But you don't approve of every decision he makes, and are happy to say so. That seems commendably brave when he could at any moment arrange to squash your family with a falling house, have Chaldeans burn your garden, or make your skin break out into suppuration all over...

[ttf_MoominDave]

Job 9 text
Job 10 text

Highlights

 - Job responds to Bildad

Summary

Chapter 9
 - Job acknowledges the apparent justice of Bildad's point, stressing the all-powerfulness of Yahweh
 - But maintains his innocence, noting that he is being judged by his accuser, and that this is morally unfair
 - He is unwilling to accept that he has sinned, not wanting his friends to think ill of his deeds

Chapter 10
 - Job speaks as if addressing Yahweh
 - He asks for explanation and empathy
 - He asks why Yahweh went to the bother of creating him, only to then smite him
 - He asks Yahweh to just leave him alone

Questions and Observations

1) Job names three constellations: The Bear, Orion, and The Pleiades. These had different names in Hebrew (the modern names being Greek), but were apparently the same constellations.
2) The line about "helpers of Rahab" confused me. My first thought was of Joshua taking Jericho, but apparently in this context the name refers to the Babylonian deity Tiamat, found in the Enuma Elish. I see that it's a point that confuses other people too.
3) Job sounds very bitter here (and that's fair enough, really). He complains that he is playing a rigged game, with Yahweh having convicted him, playing both judge and jury.
4) But regardless of earlier innocence, he's getting dangerously close to over-pridefulness here. Will this let Yahweh retrospectively justify his actions?
5) His friends are already thinking pretty ill of him, and this dialogue isn't helping his cause with them. In his shoes worrying about their judgments on his righteousness is perhaps not the best thing at the moment.
6) The flavour of Job's talk to Yahweh reminds me of what we saw in the first books of the Bible - Genesis and Exodus. He is not shy to express his implied judgment on Yahweh.

Tiamat has inspired some entertaining representations over the ages!

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 01, 2016, 03:11AMIs there any particular reason that one would expect the development of such an idea to be "progressive revelation", rather than simply being laid out in its final form at the start?

I don't have a reason to expect that, but that's the way it appears to have been done.

QuoteSo there is a tension here, possibly? You recognise Yahweh as being in charge of everything, able to direct your life in any way he sees fit. But you don't approve of every decision he makes, and are happy to say so. That seems commendably brave when he could at any moment arrange to squash your family with a falling house, have Chaldeans burn your garden, or make your skin break out into suppuration all over...

I don't see it as being especially brave, because I can see that God accepts criticism in some circumstances, and complaints too.  He know's I couldn't run the universe and am just grizzling about suffering.

I think God is more interested in having people engage with him and messing up, than being 'good' but ignoring him.  I can also see that God can arrange for my family to be squashed or have the local Chaldeans burn my garden regardless of whether I complain about what he's done or not.  God giveth and God taketh away as he chooses.  But he's definitely given more that he's taken, so I don't really have anything to complain about.


And on a completely different point, I've just noticed that the god that is addressed here so far is God, (probably Elohim) not the Lord, aka Yaweh.  I'll have to check and think of what the significance is, but first thought is that God refers to the less personal Almighty Creator rather then Yahweh, the personal God of Israel who entered into a covenant with them