bookmark_borderAug 17

Reference links:

Old Testament

We finish Nehemiah today. We get to see another case of applying commands explicitly meant for the Israelites as they were taking over the land of Canaan to the Israelites returned from exile (or, alternately, we see another case that adds to the suspicion that the details of the traditional stories were doctored to apply more closely to the situation of the returned exiles). We also have a couple more passages that make it seem like the point of Nehemiah is to show what a great and obedient person Nehemiah was.

Overall, I was rather bored with Nehemiah. Our next book, Ester, should be much more interesting.

New Testament

In today’s reading, Paul tries and fails to make a case that his cultural norms are somehow absolute.

Judge for yourselves. Is it right for a woman to pray to God in public without covering her head? Isn’t it obvious that it’s disgraceful for a man to have long hair? And isn’t long hair a woman’s pride and joy? For it has been given to her as a covering.  But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches. [emphasis added]

Essentially, Paul is arguing that women should have long hair because… women have long hair. Nice tautological reasoning there.

This is part of an argument that women should wear head coverings in prayer and men should not. I don’t buy the argument. Not only, as is not unusual, do I no buy the premises. I also think that the reasoning makes no sense. Paul seems to be working under the assumption that if he strings enough statements together, eventually he will be convincing. There is no actual underlying argument here. Even Harris says, in Understanding the Bible, Eight Edition,

Paul’s argument for relegating women to a subordinate position in church strikes many readers as labored and illogical.

That’s the problem here. This whole passage feels labored. It seems like Paul is trying to make a logical argument, but his statements follow none of the rules for a logical argument.

Paul should, perhaps, stick to passionate persuasion and leave logic to someone else.

It’s also worth noting that Genesis most distinctly has two creation stories. One where man and woman are created at the same time and one where woman is created from man. Paul very selectively chooses the later. A case nearly opposite to his easily could be (and has been) made with the other.

Psalms and Proverbs

Nothing new.

bookmark_borderAug 16

Reference links:

Old Testament

Once again, pseudo random number generators are being declared holy. After that, more lists.

How many days worth of reading would be be able to skip if got rid of all of the boring lists of people. I’m guessing at least two weeks worth. If we added other random lists (such as the detailed descriptions of the tabernacle and temple), I am guessing we could probably get rid of another week’s worth.

Overall, I am still finding this project interesting and valuable, but those lists represent hours of my life that have been utterly wasted.

New Testament

Paul continues to talk about eating habits. Paul touches here upon a very valid point. There is much importance and symbolism in eating and drinking. Both what we eat and how we eat it. A McDonald’s burger eaten in the car is an emotionally different thing than a lovingly made meal eaten with loved ones.

Paul spends any points he may have gained today by saying that all idols are demons. Really Paul, really? Demons? Not just fake or perhaps incorrectly worshiped manifestations of the one true God? But demons? That is both likely to breed disrespect and kind of ridiculous.

I think Paul’s feelings on what one should and should not eat can be summed up with this statement from near the end of today’s reading:

So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

Psalms and Proverbs

Another proverb of questionable morality:

A secret gift calms anger;
a bribe under the table pacifies fury.

bookmark_borderAug 15

Reference links:

Old Testament

We finish up the summary of Israel’s history covering: the conquest of the land of Canaan, the disobedience of the people, and God’s repeated mercy. This is followed by yet another list. The people then vow to follow the Law of Moses.

It is interesting how exactly the regulations expressed in the Law of Moses seem to fit with the needs of the time. E.g., preventing marriage between the easily absorbed group of returned exiles and the locals or supporting the priests in the newer and much poorer temple. This, in my opinion, provides support for the scholarly opinion that much of the Mosaic law was actually codified at this time.

New Testament

After finishing his speech about adjusting your behavior to those you live among, Paul also gives us a history lesson. Paul claims that Christ was travelling with the Israelites through their 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. He also implies that everything that happened to the Israelites, happened to provide a lesson for Christians of Paul’s time.

Claims like these annoy me. Certainly, Paul and his followers should reinterpret the past to get meaning that is applicable to their present situation. But what bugs me is the implication, based on the wording, that this Christ-centric interpretation is the only valid interpretation of those past events. This, in essence, says to the Jews, “Everything you believe about your past is wrong. Here is what it actually means.” A more healthy attitude would be, “Everything you believe about your past is valid, but here is an additional level of meaning.”

Of course, it’s always hard to analyze such subtle issues as wording in a translation. Paul’s original Greek may very well have had more of the second sense than the first. In that case, the issue still stands, but the subject changes. Instead of Paul showing disrespect for the interpretive traditions of the Jews, it is the translators. Either way, still annoying.

It’s also worth noting that the sexual immorality that caused 23,000 people to die in one day is, as best as I can tell, referring to Numbers 25 (although that says 24,000 people died). Paul fails to mention that the primary source of God’s wrath is that the Israelites are having sex with foreign Moabite women and worshiping their God. Paul, it seems, is committing something of a lie of omission by not mentioning that aspect of the situation.

I find it interesting that Paul says this:

And God is faithful. He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you can endure.

Not only does God choose who he will let believe properly, but then he makes sure that those who have been led to believe are not put into situations that will test their belief beyond their abilities. This seems rather unfair.

Now, I know that one standard answer for this unfairness is that God leads everyone who would believe to believe. Thus, it’s perfectly fair because the people God does not lead to belief would not believe even if God did try to help them, and so, since God knows everyone’s hearts perfectly, it’s perfectly okay for him not to try.

However, I have not really seen anything which makes a Biblical case for that particular theodicy. Everything I have noticed so far seems to imply, like today’s reading, that God just favors some people or another for no reason that we are given.

Psalms and Proverbs

Nothing of particular note.

bookmark_borderAug 14

Reference links:

Old Testament

So, the first part of today’s reading, Nehemiah 7:61-73, is pretty much word for word the same as Ezra 2:59-70. Boring!

The rest is not much more interesting. Ezra reads the law of Moses to the people, they paid attention and worshiped the Lord, celebrated the festival of shelters, and then listened to a recap of the adventures of the Israelites from Abraham to the 40 years of wandering.

The idea of a festival where you build yourself a shelter still entertains me, so at least that bit was interesting.

New Testament

Paul discusses how it was within his rights to expect the support of the churches he founded, but he never took advantage of that right. Reminds me of Nehemiah.

Psalms and Proverbs

I do not think I get this proverb:

If you punish a mocker, the simpleminded become wise;
if you instruct the wise, they will be all the wiser.

The second part is pretty clear, but the first part confuses me. I am guessing the author is saying that people learn from seeing others punished? I suppose so although there is much proof to support that punishment is among the least effective ways to regulate behavior.

bookmark_borderAug 13

Reference links:

Old Testament

I am reading Jane Austen’s Persuasion and, since I am not a Christian, I can say with out guilt that is is vastly more interesting and instructive than the vast majority of the Bible. This includes today’s reading which consists largely of more lists.

Nehemiah describes his virtue in refusing to put more burdens on the people during his years as governor of Judah, his devotion in working on the wall of Jerusalem, and his faithfulness in resisting his enemies. Both the things described and the wording make it seems like Nehemiah is mostly using this document to count up the points God should award to him and deduct from his enemies.

After that, a long dull list of the people who returned from exile.

New Testament

Paul talks about whether or not one should eat food sacrificed to idols. It is okay, but because some weak minded folks might be led astray by it, it should be avoided. Independent of the religious content, this seems like sound advice with respect to personal relationships: don’t lead the people around you into temptation. However, I think that such cautiousness can be taken to the extreme. If you never do things because someone might be led astray by them, then you will live a very limited life since almost anything can be a source of weakness to someone.

Psalms and Proverbs

Nothing of a particular note.

bookmark_borderAnd now I’ll actually review the books

As mentioned in my last post, I recently finished two books about the Bible. Karen Armstrong’s The Bible: A Biography and Stephen L. Harris’s Understanding The Bible. In this entry I am going to actually review the books.

Armstrong is quickly becoming one of my favorite non-fiction authors. This is because, in addition to writing about interesting topics, she is a truly superb story teller. In this book, Armstrong weaves together history, the revelations of Biblical scholarship, and the Bible itself to form the story of the Bible’s writing and canonization and the different ways it has been perceived throughout history.

At a high level, all of the content in this book is in the Harris textbook, but this book is a much more interesting read. It also has a different balance. Where Harris mostly focuses on the origins and content of the Biblical texts and spends very little time on the process of canonization and the subsequent history of the Bible, Armstrong spends time on all of those things. Overall, Armstrong’s book was a quick, entertaining, and educational read. If you read only one book about the Bible, I recommend this one.

The limitation of Armstrong’s style is that it does not allow for much detail. She limits herself to the most generally agreed on claims of Biblical scholarship and does not spend time discussing different theories or their merits. When there are legitimate differences of opinion within the scholarly community, she limits herself to the common kernel (e.g., when discussing books with a disputed date of composition, she limits her claims of composition date to a general period).

To get those sorts of details, you are going to need a textbook. The textbook I have read and am recommending is Harris’s Understanding the Bible. However, I do not think that it is particularly special. I chose it because it covers both testaments in one volume, was well rated on Amazon, and was available at my local library. Any textbook that meets those criteria will probably meet your needs.

The text includes some chapters of overview and some chapters providing historical background. However, the bulk of the text is devoted to a discussion of each book of the Bible plus the Old Testament apocrypha. Although you will certainly get more out of this book by reading the whole thing, these core chapters are structured so that each can be read on its own. For each book, there is a discussion of the historical circumstances surrounding the composition, the date (or possible dates) of composition, a discussion of authorship, a discussion of literary genre (where appropriate), and a discussion of the content of the book. Harris provides some justification for why scholarly opinion has settled as it has, and he provides an extensive bibliography for each chapter that can be used for those who want to examine the different views in more depth.

One of the most useful things I got out of both of these books was the overview of Jewish thought, especially how it evolved after the Hebrew canon was closed. I think that people who have not been educated otherwise often assume that Jewish thought stopped after what was recorded in the Bible. I know that people who use the New Testament as their main reference on Jewish thought at the time of Jesus have an unfairly negative view of the Jews of the time. Learning a little about the actual history of Jewish thought shows how many of the tenants of Christianity which people now claim were novel innovations actually followed quite directly from the thoughts of the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus and his followers.

Finally, a quick note for those who know me in real life: I own both of these books and would be happy to lend them out (although I am still actively using the Harris book for my project).

bookmark_borderSome books need pre-review notes

As part of my project to blog my way through the Bible, I have been reading books to educate myself about the Bible. At the same time, I have been looking for books that I can recommend to others since I know that not everyone enjoys reading text books (weirdos =P).

I have finally found two books that I can recommend. The short, sweet, easy to read book is Karen Armstrong’s The Bible: A Biography. As far as I have found, there is no book that really gets the depth that I want without being a textbook, so I am also recommending a textbook: Stephen L. Harris’s Understanding The Bible.

Before I get into the details, I want to explain in a bit more depth why I think every Christian should read these kind of books. (I assume that non-Christians who find the Bible an interesting topic of study do not need this persuasion.)

If you are a Christian, you probably read the Bible in a primarily devotional manner. You see the books as applying to you and your life. You interpret the books of the Bible in light the whole (e.g., seeing the Old Testament as pointing to Jesus). This is all well and good. If the Bible really is the work that you think it is, then these are proper ways of reading it.

However, there is value in understanding the Bible from literary and historical perspectives. The advantages are both of principle and of practicality. The advantages of principle are pretty simple, and you probably either agree with my perspective or not: If you are basing your life on what you read in the Bible, you have a duty to understand when and why it was written. Otherwise, you are basing your beliefs on a weak foundation and quite possibly lying to yourself.

The practical advantages are, I think, less controversial. Understanding the literary and historical origins of the Bible helps readers in a number of ways. Understanding the history behind the Bible and its composition helps it make more sense. For example, Ezra and Nehemiah are clearer when you know about the Bablyonians’ exile of the bulk of the people of Judah.

Understanding the literary forms used in the books of the Bible open your eyes to the subleties of those literary forms. The apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelations are easier to understand if you know about the genre they belong to. The wisdom books make more sense if you understand the larger tradition of wisdom literature (both Jewish and non-Jewish).

Knowing the origins of books of the Bible can clear up confusing or contradictory passages. For example, knowing that the last chapter of Romans is generally considered to be a genuine Pauline fragment from a different letter makes the awkward seam at that point less confusing.

One more thing for the Christians before getting onto the reviews. If you worry that reading these books will threaten your faith, you shouldn’t. These are not books written by atheists or skeptics. They are written by authors who respect the Bible. They do not try to push a non-believing agenda. Both, especially the Harris book, often go out of their way to reconcile the best research with belief. That said, these books are based on the best contemporary research. They clearly point out that many traditional beliefs about the Bible and its origins are flat out wrong. If you find books like that, honest, respectful books that may challenge particular beliefs, to be threats to your faith, then I would urge you to consider the possibility that a challenge may do you good.

This is getting rather long. I’ll put the reviews themselves in a separate post.

(Note also that I have decided to start linking to books and, since I would always link to Amazon any way, I am using Amazon associate links.)

bookmark_borderAug 12

Reference links:

Old Testament

The rest of chapter 3 is more lists thinly veiled in prose. After that, we read about how the enemies of the Jews are threatening to violently oppose the Jews rebuilding the wall. In response, Nehemiah has half of the men stand guard and arms the men who are not currently on guard.

Which is interesting and all, but I am more interesting in what I noticed today: the Bible is referring to them as Jews! I know I am a little slow since that apparently started back in Ezra. But that was still an interesting discovery.

We end today’s reading with a very interesting passage. Nehemiah condemns those who take advantage of their fellow Jews. Furthermore, he tells them to no longer charge interest on borrowed goods and to return the lands that people gave up in exchange for help through the hard times.

One reason this passage is interesting is the ideas it presents: people should not take advantage of each other, and they should take care of each other in times of hardship.

Even more interesting is the fact that Nehemiah does not quote the scriptures to support his position. This is odd considering that Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy all contain the provision against charging interest to other people of Israel. This, to me, gives strong support to the scholarly opinion that even the Torah was not yet in its final form at this time or, if it was, it was not commonly accepted as authoritative scripture yet.

New Testament

I have a question that may sound snarky but which I mean sincerely: How often do Christians actually try to follow Paul’s advice about abstaining from marriage? In today’s reading and yesterday’s reading, Paul makes it pretty clear that marriage should rank below singleness in the preferences of a Christian. How often do Christians even attempt to decide firmly not to marry and try to control their passion? Certainly, there are some churches that teach the opposite of this, where the single members of the congregation pushed to get married as quickly as they can find a suitable partner. Are they just flat out ignoring these passages?

Today’s reading also shows that Paul clearly expected the end times to happen very soon, probably within his lifetime.

The time that remains is very short. So from now on, those with wives should not focus only on their marriage. Those who weep or who rejoice or who buy things should not be absorbed by their weeping or their joy or their possessions. Those who use the things of the world should not become attached to them. For this world as we know it will soon pass away.

Psalms and Proverbs

Three proverbs today! This one’s my favorite:

Good planning and hard work lead to prosperity,
but hasty shortcuts lead to poverty.

bookmark_borderAug 11

Reference links:

Old Testament

New book means overview time! Let’s see what Understanding the Bible has to say:

Appointed governor of postexilic Judah by Emperor Artaxerxes, Nehemiah oversees the rebuilding of Judah. After promulgating a version of the Mosaic Torah compiled and edited during the Babylonian exile (perhaps the final form of today’s Pentateuch) the priest Ezra institutes an atonement ceremony. A report of Nehemiah’s reforming zeal, enforcing Sabbath-keeping and the ban on foreign marriage, concludes the book. 

Harris also says,

Originally combined with Ezra, the Book of Nehemiah enlarges our picture of conditions in postexilic Judah and Jerusalem.

The Wikipedia article expands on what it means to say that Ezra and Nehemiah were originally combined,

A work ascribed to Nehemiah, but bearing in some canons the title Esdras II. or Esdras III., having been attributed to Ezra on the ground that Nehemiah’s self-assertion deserved some punishment (Sanh. 93b), or because, having ordinarily been written on the same scroll with the Book of Ezra, it came to be regarded as an appendix to it.

Based on this, I think the situation is that Ezra and Nehemiah were often considered one book because of their closely related subject matter and the fact that they were often written on one scroll, but neither tradition nor modern scholarship ascribe both to the same author.

Onward to today’s reading! Nehemiah shows great concern for the fate of Jerusalem and gets permission from Artaxerxes to go and rebuild Jerusalem. Because Nehemiah has found favor in the king’s eyes in his role as cup bearer, Artaxerxes gave him permission and resources to carry out his plan.

Quick side note, Artaxerxes is both fun and difficult to type. Artaxerxes! Artaxerxes! … And now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Nehemiah goes to Jerusalem and finds the city in shambles. His plans to rebuild the city wall meet disapproval from Sanballat, Tobiah, and Gershem who appear to be officials of some sort. Despite their disapproval, Nehemiah gathers people to start rebuilding the wall.

What follows is essentially yet another list, this time disguised as prose. The people working on the wall are listed in conjunction with what part they were working to rebuild. Although, as I said, this is essentially a list in very thin disguise, it does include some interesting details. First, the different gates and towers in the city walls had interesting names. As a sample: the Sheep Gate, the Fish Gate, the Tower of the Ovens, and the Dung Gate.

Also interesting is that women, at least some women, were working side-by-side with the men:

Shallum son of Hallohesh and his daughters repaired the next section.

New Testament

Today talks about marriage. Marriage is for the weak. If people were awesome (like Paul) they would remain unmarried (like Paul). But since people are weak, they are allowed to marry lest they do even worse things.

This reading then goes on to talk about the relationship between spouses. The most interesting thing about this passage is the near absolute symmetry used in the language describing the relationship of a woman to her husband and a man to his wife.

But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.

and

The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs. The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife.

and

A wife must not leave her husband. But if she does leave him, let her remain single or else be reconciled to him. And the husband must not leave his wife. [implied symmetry]

and

If a Christian man has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to continue living with him, he must not leave her. And if a Christian woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to continue living with her, she must not leave him. For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage.

and

Don’t you wives realize that your husbands might be saved because of you? And don’t you husbands realize that your wives might be saved because of you?

Because the letters known to be genuine Pauline letters often stress equality, as above and in other places such as the well known Galatians verse, the lack of such equality in the pastoral letters are one of the many strands of evidence that lead most scholars to believe that they were not written by Paul.

Psalms and Proverbs

Not a bad proverb:

Haughty eyes, a proud heart,
and evil actions are all sin.

bookmark_borderAug 10

Reference links:

Old Testament

We finish Ezra today which means that it is the second shortest book we have read so far (by number of days spent reading it).

Ezra ends with the destruction of families and yet another list (of those people whose families were destroyed). When we left Ezra yesterday, he was dramatically mourning the fact that some of the returned exiles had married the locals. On the advice of Shecaniah, who had not been introduced as anyone of note as far as I can tell, Ezra tells the people to divorce their pagan wives and send away any children they had by their wives.

I think this is pretty terrible. First, families are being broken up, and it is likely that the members of many of these families loved each other. Second, women and children, the weakest members of this society, are being sent away from their source of support. Now, the women who had not had children may have been able to find new husbands without too much difficulty, but the women with children may very well have been seen as a burden by potential new husbands. Even if those women did remarry, it is likely that many of those children pretty much lost out on everything since they would not necessarily share in the inheritance of their new family.

And all this because of Ezra’s mourning. Note that Ezra did not get any sort of explicit vision or message from God. He was just using his own interpretation of the law (which he may very well have been the one to compile) and applying it to the people who had returned to Judah.

At least the text makes it clear that not everyone supported these cruel actions:

Only Jonathan son of Asahel and Jahzeiah son of Tikvah opposed this course of action, and they were supported by Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite.

New Testament

Christians should not sue each other in courts judged by non-believers. Furthermore, they should not be bringing suit in the first place; they should just accept the injustice done to them and take comfort in knowing that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

This passage also implies that not only will everyone eventually be judged, but it will be the believers themselves doing the judging. I do not believe we have seen this idea in our readings before and it brings up some very interesting issues about the idea of judgment.

Paul also discusses how sexual sin is particularly terribly because it is done to the body and the body of a believer is part of Christ.

Psalms and Proverbs

Nothing of particular note.