We are living in a time of virtually unparalleled crisis, and it is forcing us not only to cope with tragedy — either our own or that of so many millions of others — but also to make sense of it and figure it out. It is easy to come up with simple Pollyanna views that don’t take seriously the trauma, and to cite religious mantras that try to make it sound like it is all right, when in fact it is not. And the reality is, most people very much *don’t* want to go down the rabbit hole of deep reflection.
I certainly, absolutely, do not think this is a time for despair and complete despondency. But I do think it is a time for thoughtful reflection, on the state of the world, on our values and priorities as a human race, a nation, a locality, and individuals. Being in isolation for a couple of months can certainly provide us some opportunity to think about our world, our lives, our own goals and objectives, our sense of what we want to be doing with our lives (Is all the busy-ness really necessary and important to us? Do we really want to spend masses of time engaged in numbing and brainless “entertainment,” what would we really like to do with the hours we have in a week, when we are *not* forced into isolation?), and, well, the meaning of it all. Not just the meaning of all the pain and suffering, but the meaning of existence. Our existence.
The Bible is obviously a large and extraordinarily multi-faceted book. It is a book worth reading and reflecting on, whether or not one is personally a believer. I myself am no, but I cherish the Bible and am deeply moved by parts of it. And no part of it is more important in situations like this than those that reflect on the meaning of life. In particular there are the books in the Hebrew Bible that scholars have called “Wisdom” literature, the books of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes, the last of which is my favorite, not just of the Wisdom books but of all the books of the Old Testament.
I want to do a couple of posts on Wisdom literature in general and the book of Ecclesiastes in particular, before returning to my thread on the Johannine writings and community. Here is how I explain the Wisdom literature broadly in my textbook, The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction.
********************************************************************************
Introduction to the Wisdom Literature
I can begin by providing a working definition of the books known collectively as “Wisdom.” These are books that focus on understanding the world and on how best to live, based on an intelligent assessment of life, rather than on divine revelation to Israel.
To understand the foci of these books, it might be useful to summarize some of the distinctive features of the historical and prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible (that is, virtually all the other books!) These feature, in broad terms, apply to books as wide ranging as Exodus, Joshua, 2 Samuel, Amos, and Ezekiel – in fact, just about all of the books we have considered so far (even, to a limited extent, the poetry and most of the short stories). These are some of the major concerns of all that (historical and prophettic) literature:
- God’s actions, both in the world generally and among his own people in particular
- The history of Israel as the people of God
- The covenant, or covenants, God has made with his people
- The Torah, or direction/instruction he has given them (through Moses)
- Divine revelation, where God reveals himself directly to chosen humans
- National concerns, that is, an intense interest in the people of Israel specifically
- Communal orientation: it is the whole people of Israel, ultimately, who are of paramount concern, even if individuals are also important within that collective
We will see that the books of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes are very different from one another; but one thing that binds them together is that they lack almost completely these various concerns of the historical and prophetic writings. These books simply are not interested in God’s historical acts, the history of the people of Israel, the covenant God has made with them, the Torah – and all the rest. These books have a different orientation and focus, that include the following (these are broad generalizations, but they should serve to give the idea of how this literature differs from the other):
- Universal needs, desires, and lives, rather than national. Here the nation of Israel, its history, its governance, its accomplishments, its missteps, and its punishments are not in view; the concern instead is with what it means to be human and with people in general, not just with the people of Israel.
- Observation rather than revelation. The writer closely observes the world to see how it works, and he does not acquire his understanding from a divine revelation that has been given.
- Individual rather than communal focus. The Wisdom literature focuses on the individual person, rather than his or her community. How can you, as an individual, understand the meaning of life or how to live it?
- Multi-cultural rather than Israelite. Wisdom traditions can be found in many cultures, both ancient and modern – and in many instances these traditions are very similar to one another, cross-culturally; there is nothing specifically Israelite at the heart and core of the Wisdom Traditions of the Hebrew Bible (apart from the fact that even these books acknowledge the lordship of Yahweh; but there is little in them about Israel per se).
Of the Wisdom books found in the Hebrew Bible, one, the book of Proverbs may be considered a representative of what we might call “positive wisdom.” This is the more typical form of wisdom, both within Judaism and cross-culturally. Positive wisdom attempts to describe the general orderliness of the world and to explain how people should live in accordance with it. Job and Ecclesiastes have a contrary emphasis, and can be labeled “skeptical wisdom.” These are writings that lament the world’s lack of order or the impossibility of understanding the world, and they try to explain how best to cope with life in light of this impossibility.
IN MY NEXT POST I will say a bit by way of introduction to the book of Ecclesiastes.
Isolation to me means I can finally get to all those books on my shelf I haven’t had time to read.
Prof Ehrman,
Some scholars hold the view that aspects of the Hebrew Bible may have been influenced by ancient Mesopotamian text (Epic of Gilgamesh). Stories like the Creation story, The Great Flood, aspects of Ecclesiastes, aspects of Nebuchadnezzar etc.
What is your thought on this please?
I think it is absolutely right!
Along these lines, I have wondered about the possible influence of Zoroastrian beiiefs on Jewish concepts beginning with the Babylonian captivity and Persian era. Was not a dualistic conflict between good and evil personified by one God and a Devil-like persona central to the belief system? Not quite the same as judeo-Christian beliefs, but sounds like it has parallels. I am thinking Book of Job.
Also as the state religion of the Persians I think, Jewish writers were surely familiar with Zoroastrian beliefs.
Just a thought beyond the true limits of my knowledge.
Yes, I deal with the question in my book on heaven and Hell. I end up arguing that the Jewish view was probably not much influenced by Persia. (I would say a bit more definitively that Job was not, since it does not have a dualistic view; “Satan” there is one of God’s advisors, not his arch-enemy)
When I was experiencing my own personal ‘de-conversion’, decades ago, I found great comfort in these ‘wisdom books’. I also found value in the books of Timothy, as I felt they spoke to me in the way a caring father might speak to his own son, even if I thought he was laying it on a bit thick and is maybe coming up with a few things on-the-fly.
It helped me realize the the Bible was, in my nascent opinion at the time, a collection of writings by well-intended people, using an ongoing narrative to reinforce current, topical narratives to guide and instruct less-educated folks. It is neither a cosmic mandate nor a conspiracy – just a set of writings that have value that persists through multiple copies and iterations, just like any other valuable content. People must find value in Batman comics; they keep printing them. I often wonder if people will debate the existence of the historical Batman 1,000 years from now. But I guarantee they will know who he was, and what he stood for. Those values reflect our time, and what is important to us. That will surely mean something to the people studying our culture in the future.
I chuckle when I hear people quote Proverbs as a source of parenting wisdom; have these people ever read about David’s and Solomon’s family life?! No thanks, I’ll get my parenting advice somewhere else.
Yeah, haven’t connected the dots I suppose. But hey, spare the rod and ….
Have you read Havamal – the old Viking wisdom literature? I recommend it.
Nope. It’s amazing what I haven’t read.
When I used to attend church and engage in worldly affairs with others, some would always stress their unbelief in human behaviour and the evil and suffering caused/committed willingly as such.. I would just look at them and asked them to read, Ecclesiastes 8; 11-13.( I was not very good at paraphrasing the Bible). A lot of believers are not usually familiar with the book of Ecclesiastes and would write the verses down and then approach me a week or so later, and express how relevant the scripture was to the evil of the world. Especially verse 11, I truly believed it was the answer, even today.
It’s all in the John KNOX Bible: Machabees, Ecclesiastes. . .DEATH JUDGEMENT HEAVEN HELL(AND PURGATORY)
I love Ecclesiastes, looking forward to it. When I was a young Jr. High Schooler at a very conservative church camp, the camp leader encouraged us campers to spend the daily 2 hour (!) private bible study to pick a book that you weren’t already familiar with, and really dig into it. I picked Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs completely at random. Oops. I don’t think that’s what he had in mind. And thus began my long road to depart from that denomination. Took a while, but that was the start.
Ha! Not what he had in mind!
Professor Ehrman, synoptic gospels say that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross for Jesus but John specifically says that Jesus
carried his own cross. My question is if it is historically accurate that the crosses or poles ( stauros) were carried to the crucifixtion site each time or were they left standing there permanently as a warning sign? I read somewhere that criminals had to carry the crossbars to the site but the poles were driven into the ground permanently. I wonder what leverage did they have to compel a person
sentenced to death to carry the woodwork needed in order to kill him?
We don’t know. We don’t have a single source that tells us!
If you believe the crucifixion story is true, there were actually two types of crosses which could have been used: the so-called Tau-cross which we see in most Western art, and the Chi-cross (X). The X’s were permanently installed, which made a lot of sense if there was one place of execution. Personally, I believe these are what can be called “foundational mythic” stories”, so the ones which they could imagine would give the most pain and suffering would be the preferred cross, ie. the Tau. Historically, I see the other. Neither is a nice way to be executed.
No, not a nice way to go? But I don’t know of any evidence of the two types of crosses or that they were permanently installed. (If you know of any sources of information — other than people simply saying that it was that way — let me know!)
Just looking at America alone, we have survived a Revolution, a Civil War, a Depression where young people had to ride freight cars in the hundreds of thousands to find work, two world wars (the second one being literally for the fate of civilization), a Cold War that could have ended in a literal Apocalypse (no need for God to get involved), a battle for civil rights that was both bloody and inspiring, and let’s not forget Disco. And in 1918, the H1N1 flu killed tens of millions around the world–nearly a million in the U.S. And let’s not forget polio, which struck at will, touching even a U.S. President. What’s changed, in many ways, is our ability to accept that we can’t control everything. We got complacent. We thought we were above Nature. So we’re more afraid, now that we have learned, once more, that is never true.
What’s happening now is bad, on many levels, but even with the qualifier, ‘unparalleled’ is a bit much. It has all happened before, and one thing history has to teach us is that we are not alone in our misery and our doubts.
That being said, a little wisdom now would be good, yeah.
I’m not saying it’s the only bad thing that has happened. But it is certainly unparalleled in *our* lifetimes. AT least my 64-year life time. And I would argue in my mom’s 93-year lifetime. But I absolutely don’t minimize the others, at all. Spanish flu is the obvious analogy — both epidemic and economic disaster. This one almost certainly one match the deaths; as to the economic disaster: we’ll see.
Born 1961, and though I was largely unaware of what was happening in my natal decade at the time, I’d say that was on a different level. Vietnam, the battle for civil rights in the south (and riots in northern cities), several major assassinations, unrest all over the planet. The 60’s were a deeply unsettled time we’re nostalgic about now because of the music and fashions. Faith in the government was badly eroded under Johnson and Nixon.
I know you didn’t mean nobody else ever had it bad. But again, history gives us perspective, teaches us that no matter how bad we think it is now, you don’t have to go back very far to find something worse. The problem may be that we have it too easy, Just staying home most of the time feels like like punishment. There have been many pandemics–this is the first one we can talk to anyone anywhere without leaving our rooms. Or read. Mind you, those people in the Decameron are having a lot more fun than I am. But they’re in a lot more danger too.
Yup, I get your point. Unprecedented doesn’t mean worse — it means there’s been nothing like it in our lifestimes (even mine, a whopping 6 years older! 🙂 )
Mr. Ehrman.
I would like to ask you about something strange i Deuteronomy 32:8-9:
«When the Most High(Elyon) gave the nations their inheritance(…), the LORD’s(Yahweh’s) portion is his people»
One interpretation of this text is that the Most High is above Yahweh, and that the Most High only gives Yahweh a portion. The reason is that the text uses two different concepts of God – Elyon and Yahweh.
The Septuagint:
LXX: “When the Most High(ύψιστος) divided the nations(….) And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord(κύριος)”
Once again we see a distinction, here between the Most High and the Lord.
The difference between the Father and the Son seems to have been transferred to the New Testament
The Most High – ὕψιστος (G5310)
The Lord – κύριος (G2962)
Luke 8:28 «What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High(ύψιστος)(G5310) God?»
Matt 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord(κύριος)(G2962), Lord(κύριος),’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
As we see, the NT uses the same designations for the Father and the Son as we find in Deuteronomy 32: 8-9.
Do you think this is a coincidence?
Think of Yahweh leading the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land, as «the light» and «the road», when reading John 10:27-29:
«27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.»
«My Father, which gave them me»(John) – Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9)
I don’t think these authors of Hebrew poetry had the same view of divinity as the early Christians, no. The key is to understand how Hebrew poetry uses synonymous parallelism, in which the second line of a couplet repeats the idea of hte first line using different terms. It is a ubiquitous poetic device in all teh poetic sections of the Bible. The second line is not differentiating itself from the first, but reaffirming the same thing in different terms.
Thank you for your answer, Mr. Ehrman. I totally agree that the authors of the OT didn’t have the same view as the Christians. But the real question here is how the Christians interpreted the OT. There is a great difference between a writer’s intentional opinion, and the reader’s interpreted opinion. Or worse, religious people’s quest for an underlying meaning in the text. We know they used Pesher and Midrash techniques in their quest.
There are too many parallels between the miracles of Jesus and that of Yahweh in the OT that it can be coincidental.
Even in the Old Testament God could empower his spokespersons to do amazing miracles (think Moses; Elijah). The earliest Christians maintained God had empowered Jesus to do miracles, so that he was his spokesperson. And many of his miracles in fact *do* replicate those done by Moses and Elijah….
Can the Holy Spirit be read into the Book of Exodus?
John: «When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father», «he will teach you all things», «When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment»
Exodus 23:20 “See, I am sending an angel ahead of you(…) Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. 22 If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies(…) 25 Worship the Lord your God, and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you, 26 and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span.
Sure, the Holy Spirit can be read into any of the books of the OT. And often has been!
The latest on Dirk Obbink—
https://www.theoxfordblue.co.uk/2020/04/16/exclusive-christ-church-professor-arrested-over-scandal-of-stolen-papyrus/
Thank you.
Great stuff!
I’ve been meaning to read the wisdom literature for years, but just could not bring myself to it. Maybe I shall after your mini-series.
Ecclesiastes will take an hour, max. A good hour spend. And Job? Amazing.
The Bible has been the cause of massive persecution, suffering, and mass murder. It may contain some fascinating stories and even a few pearls of wisdom, but for a recovering ex-fundamentalist Christian like yourself to say that he “cherishes it” is disturbing to say the least.
I see no difference between someone “cherishing” the Bible and someone cherishing Mein Kampf. Both books preach hate. Both books preach fanaticism (follow me and abandon all else, even your family), anti-Semitism (New Testament), racial purity and ethnic cleansing (Old Testament).
Please choose your words carefully, Dr. Ehrman. Every time you say something like this, my Christian relatives and their pastor proclaim that “Bart Ehrman is coming back to Jesus”.
Oh, I always try to choose my words carefully. Anyone who thinks I’m re-converting isn’t reading my words very carefully! I do cherish the Bible. I also cherish hundreds of other books (and artists), none of which I “believe” and many of which I think have been used for very bad purposes as well as good.
During this terrifying health crisis, I would encourage people seeking wisdom to read a good science book. I believe that the primary reason why a significant minority of Americans are out on the streets protesting the advice of scientists and medical experts regarding quarantining is that they have spent much more time obtaining their wisdom from the Bible than they have science books.
Cherish science, dear readers. Science is our salvation from this crisis, not ancient texts.
I certainly wouldn’t turn to a biblical author for guidance for a vaccine! But our amazing scientific advances do no help us in trying to make moral *sense* of what is happening.
Are you seriously recommending that people turn to the Bible to make moral sense of the coronavirus pandemic??
My goodness, Bart.
In normal times, the Bible is certainly an interesting source of information regarding ancient Jewish philosophical concepts. I don’t dispute that. But encouraging your readers to obtain morality lessons from the misogynistic, anti-gay, anti-semitic, genocide and ethnic cleansing endorsing Bible during a deadly pandemic?? Come on.
If you want to give recommendations regarding good sources of information regarding morality, I would suggest referring your readers to a secular humanist site, not the Christian Bible (or the Jewish Bible, or the Muslim “bible”, or the Hindu “bible”). Your opinion carries a lot of weight, Bart. Whether you like it or not you are a significant representative of the atheist/agnostic/non-supernaturalist movement, a movement which is fighting an uphill battle against the deadly beliefs and superstitions imposed on our culture by organized religion.
Please do NOT encourage people to read the Bible to find their morality!
Re: Heaven and Hell
As you’re probably aware in the last few years the evangelical world has been roiled a bit by a new movement which coalesced under the moniker “Rethinking Hell” advocating an annihilationist perspective on divine punishment in the afterlife. Just out of curiosity I was wondering if you have been approached by anyone in this group for interviews and such since the publication of your book? (I can see where they might have mixed emotions about your work since in other aspects of the faith they seem quite traditional.)
thanks
No, but I’m publishing a piece on the Daily Beast dealing broadly with this issue.
Just in case anyone is looking for a recommendation, my all-time favorite wisdom book: Jonah.
Of course, it pretends to be one of the 12 minor prophets, but it’s really wisdom literature, and it is freakin’ hilarious.
Jonah is hilarious? I’m going to have to re-read it now that you said that.
I was listening to one of your debate on suffering. You said the book of Ecclesiastes has no after life. But your opposer told you to read the last verses of the book which it talks about recognizing God and after life. But you said those last verse are later addiction. May you please Cralify a little, and does it has to do with old Testament textual critism.?. Sorry my english mighty be broken one. I speak Swahili
Your English is great! I dated a young woman in college who spoke Swahili and she tried to teach me some. But it never got too far, either with the language or our relationship…. It’s a long story, but many books of the Bible have later editorial additions to them that more or less reverse their teaching because the later editor wasn’t comfortable with what it said. That happens, for example, at the end of Amos — and in Ecclesiastes.
So your favorite wisdom book from the Old Testament is Ecclesiastes, what was your favorite wisdom book When you were a Christian? Have you always liked the book Ecclesiastes or when did you start taking notice of it?
I suppose as a child I never read any of the Wisdom books! Too bad. I would have lived more wisely!!
I considered spending this time of isolation in thought and contemplation…. but opted for jig saw puzzles instead.
When I still went to church the pastor ridiculed NASA efforts to identify near-earth objects that might collide with us, and the efforts made to discover how potential impacting objects might be deflected. He felt he knew the ending. It was all in the Bible. No need to worry about asteroid impacts. And probably if he’d heard anything about possible global pandemics he would have shrugged that off as well. In fact, he kept telling people that they’d all be whisked away into the clouds before anything bad could happen. No suffering in any global cataclysm for the saved! I have no idea how he’s coping with current events.
The fact of the matter seems to be that humanity has no special place in nature. The Earth wasn’t made for us, or for any other creature. Everything is subject to change without notice. No guarantees. Any state of affairs is temporary, control is largely an illusion. I guess we should value anything good we can find. That’s pretty much what I get from Ecclesiastes. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity seems to be a great summary of what life is. Still, it does not have to be joyless.
This is why we don’t want fundamentalists heading up our crisis response teams….
“Personal beauty is a better recommendation than any letter of reference”.
-Aristotle-
What does it suggest to you why there is NO PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION of Jesus Christ in the Bible?
OK, let me ask this. How many physcial descriptions of *ANYONE* do we have from the ancient world. For example: Aristotle? 🙂 We have a few of course: Socrates e.g. But it wasn’t normally what people spent their time writing about. when it came to Jesus, there almost certainly couldn’t have been one, since the peole writing the Gospels would have had no idea. They were living decades later in different parts of the world and didn’t know a soul who had ever seen Jesus. And just like now, when people talk about Jesus, it’s not what people were talking about.
From Christian materials the only physical description I can think of of anyone is in a late second century legendary work that describes Paul.
Sorry if it’s off topic, but you mentioned parts of the Bible that moved you. For me it’s Hagar putting her child away from her as she couldn’t bare to see him die in the wilderness.
If that doesn’t move you….
P.s enjoying Heaven and Hell!
It’s easy to see that the crucifixion story is colored with quotations from the Psalms and the Prophets. These quotes obviously need a framework to build upon. The framework could be a historical event, but it might as well have been based on a religious study of events in the Book of Exodus – Especially chapters 17, 18 and 19.
The Israelites wanted to leave Yahweh and return to Egypt, and at Meribah a climax ensued. Moses struck the rock with the wand and was not allowed to enter the Holy Land, as a consequence. In the next chapter we meet the pagan priest Jethro. Jethro was a gentile who became convinced that Yahweh was true God. Jethro accepted Yahweh as God and abandoned his own Egyptian God – Jesus Barabbas. The Israelites wanted to leave Yahweh and return to the Egyptian gods – they wanted Jesus Barabbas.
Amalek came with an army to attack. In rabbinic literature, Amalek is equated with Esau, in fact, it is Edom who is the problem after Meibah in the Book of Numbers 20.
The story is based on Moses, Aaron, Jethro and Amalek/Esau as Caiaphas, Annas, Pontius Pilate and Judas Iscariot.
Jethro was also known as Reuel. When Jethro underwent a change of heart, he became Reuel.
That is perhaps why Moses was given two names – Caiaphas and Cephas. Two names with essentially the same meaning, but which refer to two different aspects of Moses’ mind. When Yahweh resurrects on the third day (Chapter 19), Moses is back as Peter.
When Yahweh first came to Egypt, the Israelites were enthusiastic. But their hearts soon turned when they were given additional work by Pharaoh. The ten plagues made everyday life even more difficult for the Israelites. This is a kind of allegorical parallel to the purification of the temple site.
According to Yahweh, the Israelites had to believe in the rod that Moses carried. It was this rod that would save the Israelites. Thus it can be said that Moses bore the cross. Moses was the father of Eliezer (Alexander) and Gershom.
Moses built an altar and called it: Yahweh Nissi – perhaps this is the origin of the name “Jesus of Nazareth” that was written on the cross. If Moses placed this rod on the altar, it would resemble a cross.
Yahweh Nissi means: The Lord Our Banner. Banners are lifted to a height where we can see it as a reminder what it symbolizes: security, hope, and freedom.
Is it possible to find a place for John the Baptist in the Book of Exodus?
Just as Herod had three wise men, so did Pharaoh have three counselors – Jethro, Job, and Balaam.
Much has been written in rabbinic literature as to why Job had to suffer.
One story about Job says he was present at the crossing of the Red Sea, preoccupied with preventing Satan from stopping the Israelites.
Job then saw the Lord, and he saw the Red Sea divided – he didn’t see the heaven divided.
«I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel»
How did Job die?
Rabbinic literature says that Job died when the Israelites left Egypt, but says nothing about how he died. But remember that Job was one of Pharaoh’s counselors, which brings to mind an episode in Genesis 20 where two of Pharaoh’s counselors sat captive with Joseph. Why not use this story?
Genesis 20:20 «Now the third day was Pharaoh’s birthday, and he gave a feast to all his officials. He lifted the head of the chief baker (…)»
Genesis 20:19 «Pharaoh will lift off your head and impale your body on a pole.»
Job 1:8 «And the Lord said to the devil, Hast thou diligently considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a man blameless, true, godly, abstaining from everything evil?»
Jesus about John the Baptist: «What did you go out to the desert to see(…)Someone dressed in fine garments? Those who dress luxuriously and live sumptuously are found in royal palaces(…)
28 I tell you, among those born of women, no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”(…)
33 For John the Baptist came neither eating food nor drinking wine, and you said, ‘He is possessed by a demon.»
Job 38:1 «(Then) the Lord spoke to Job through the whirlwind and clouds»
Mark, Matthew, Luke: «The heaven was opened. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.»
Jethro was known by many names. Rabbinic literature wondered why, and what it meant. Jethro was a pagan priest, but did he not convert after the meeting with Moses in the wilderness? Furthermore, Jethro was an outsider who contributed to Israel’s judicial system, and whose progeny sat in the Sanhedrin.
Jethro was a legislator, a priest, a counselor to Pharaoh and a convert. To convert, he had to wash away any dirty paganism.
If we have this in mind as we read Exodus 18, we see that Jethro can play several roles here. Especially the role of Pontius Pilate – perhaps a pun on Pontiff Phil-ethos?
But after Jethro had converted – after his baptism – also the role as Joseph of Arimathea, the owner of the garden.
Sepuagint 19:3 «And Moses went up to the mount of God, and God called him out(inside out) of the mountain, saying, These things shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and thou shalt report them to the children of Israel.»
Yahweh came down on the mountain on the third day in chapter 19 verse 16, but before that, in verse 3, Yahweh talks to Moses from inside the mountain. From his grave?
Sorry, I’m not sure what book you’re referring to.
If God is or can be everywhere it’s really not much of a problem is it? He’s not bound by a human body.
It is important to note that most of what the Book of Exodus describes is about what happened in the time before the law was given.
The only thing the Israelites had to do to be saved out of Egypt was to accept Yahweh as their Savior and God, and to believe in the miracles performed by the rod of Moses. Doesn’t that sound familiar?
Yahweh had in the beginning told Moses that even if the Israelites would not believe in Moses, they would at least believe the miracles the rod did.
But the Jews believed in the law, and only the Christians believed in the salvation of the cross.
«If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me» – John 5:46
«When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, here is your son.” 27Then He said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” So from that hour, this disciple took her into his home»
What is the theological meaning here?
After God revealed himself to Job, in the Book of Job, God gave Job a new wife and new children. Some traditions (Testament of Job) say that his new wife was Dinah.
Dinah was also believed in some traditions to be Asenath, Joseph’s wife.
Dinah, who became Job’s new wife, is regarded as Job’s new mother – Mary, through some theological freedoms.
While Job’s formerly dead wife, in the Testament of Job called Sitis, is similarly regarded as Job’s former mother: Elisabeth.
Zakkaria and Elisabeth are none other than Job and Sitis until Job is born again when God at last revealed himself to Job in the Book of Job.
In this way, Mary and Elisabeth can be seen as “relatives”.
Through Dinah, these two stories can be linked together.
So, after God had revealed himself, Job had a new wife and new children. But is it not safe to say that Job had also become a reborn man? Job was a pretty grumpy man for most of the Book of Job. Job was like an unborn child who was self-pitying and kicking around in every direction. Job needed a new birth.
As one of Pharaoh’s counselors, Job had been silent in advising what was to be done to the Israelites. This was something that put the early Job in a disadvantageous light. The symbol of this silence is found in Zacharias who became mute in the meeting with the angel.
The reborn Job, in many ways, symbolizes Christianity and the new covenant. While Jacob represents the old covenant.
Mr. Ehrman. This is important. This applies to Judas Iscariot.
As said; The events in Exodus 17, 18 and 19 are the main framework for the history of the crucifixion. Amalek’s attack on the Israelites is the starting point for the story of Judas. So far, the story of Jesus is only about a docetic Jesus – Jesus as Yahweh.
But Amalek is not the real Judas Iscariot. Amalek is more of an associate of Judas, in the Gospel of John named under the anagram of Malchus. The real Judah Iscariot is Esau. Amalek is just Esau’s co-conspirator.
Now that the framework has been laid, the design of Judas’ personality can be unraveled, and the story surrounding both the betrayal of Judas and the anointing of Jesus falls into place.
We must go back to Genesis and the story of Isaac, Rebecah, Esau and the anointing of Jacob. It is Rebecah who stages the anointing of Jacob, and here we find Jacob in the type of Christ.
The first time we read about Rebekah, she comes bearing a jar (Genesis 24:15). Abraham’s servant had prayed at the fountain, and Rebekah went to the fountain and filled the jar with water, showing that she was the chosen one of God.
The story of Simon the Leper has now been made clear. Like Jacob lying at table with Isaac, so now Jesus is at table with Simon the leper.
However, it is not Isaac who anointed Jacob. In reality, Rebekah is behind it, and allegorically it is the jar she once carried that now comes in handy. Rebekah saw what Isaac did not see!
Esau, on the other hand, is filled with anger and hatred toward Jacob, and from now on wants to kill him.
This is the backdrop conveyed into the attack by Amalek.
“Jesus replied,” It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish. ” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. ”
“He who shared my bread has turned against me.”
One would think that if any of the patriarchs were given the role of Judas Iscariot, then it should have been Judah. But that would also be problematic because Judah was the father of Israel’s coming kings, including King David. Instead, Judah was given the role of another Judas, namely Judas Didymas Thomas – the doubter Thomas.
Here it is more the allegorical meaning of royal symbols, in transferred meaning, which provoked the doubt of Thomas.
Judah had given his daughter-in-law (Thamar) three things in pledge – his ring and bracelet and staff. But Judah did not believe that Thamar was the mother of his children until Thamar showed Judah the three pledges.
Thomas believes, similarly, only after witnessing the three wounds to Jesus.
«she(Thamar) sent to her father-in-law, saying, I am with child by the man whose these things are; and she said, See whose is this ring and bracelet and staff. 26 And Judas knew [them], and said, Thamar is cleared rather than I,»
The other two incidents with Thomas in the Book of John are fairly easy to understand now, identifying Thomas with Judah.
Philip is more of an enigma to understand. Philip was the brother of Herod, and Philip had four daughters.
Let’s start with Pharaoh’s counselors; Balaam, Job, and Jethro. Balaam has an ambivalent role in Christianity. It was Balaam who preached one of the most important Christian prophecies throughout the OT. Balaam was also believed, by some, to be the same person as Laban and Elihu.
Laban gave Jacob four wives, and some traditions say the four were sisters. Hence Philip’s four daughters. Rachel died, but the other three went to Pharaoh’s Egypt with the Israelites. Balaam was an important conspirator with Pharaoh, he was more like a “brother”.
The name Philippos means horse lover, or more like femal-horse lover. The Greek word ιππος is the name of a femal horse – a mare. The name comes from Balaam’s problematic connection with his femal donkey.
Hi Bart,
What do you think of this part in the book of Proverbs that says: “The dread of a wicked man that will befall him”. When I was an Evangelical Christian the pastor would point to it to discourage us from not being afraid of things, else they would happen. Of course it had the opposite effect on me… So I make a mistake and screw up and my worst fears come true?
I’m not sure. You’ll need to cite teh verse: what you’ve quoted isn’t the full sentence?
I missed the whole sentence, lol. it is Proverbs 10:24 and serves as follows:
24 The dread of a wicked man-that will befall him, but the desire of the righteous He will grant.
This does not count as a “revelation” but as a “piece of advice” from the writer?
Bart, do you think the “fear” in concern here could the fear of death? (maybe a prominent one during those times). I just feel It is a bit harsh to imply that whatever fear you have (we are all wicked at this point lol) will happen… if could shed a light on this I would really appreciate it as, as silly as it sounds, affected me a lot when growing up..
Possibly, yes. The point of the saying is a typical one in Proverbs: those who are righteous will have good lives given by God; the wicked will pay a price in this life.
It’s a typical view of Proverbs: if you are righteous life will be good, if not, it’s cookies….
Thanks Bart as always! I feel that if it is taken into account the historical context it kinda makes sense as thieves and adulterers (to name a few) had to pay a heavy price back then but, nowadays, especially the Evangelical Church uses that paragraph to impose fear on people saying that whatever is on your mind (and I think we all have fears) if you screw up your fears will happen. I am a person who has suffered from anxiety since I was a teenager so imagine, it was not a good experience… My point is, Isn’t that a fundamentalist way to “create” an order? We all know that if that was true all the evil people in the world would be either dead or bankrupt?
Oh yes, fundamentalists are famous for manipulating the Bible for their own purposes, almost always be taking a verse out of it’s context. Very common indeed, and harmful….
So sorry I am not a native English speaker. By it’s cookies you mean “it’s nothing or nothing happens”, right?
Thanks ! 🙂
Sorry — that was an expression we used in high school. I’m not even sure if it’s known widely. But that we meant “we’re in trouble” or “it is NOT going to work out” or “things then will be very bad indeed” or something like that.
Hi Bart,
Just to double check, were proverbs like 10:24 (The dread of a wicked man-that will befall him, but the desire of the righteous He will grant.) aimed at scaring/manipulating people into “doing the right thing or else.. (God would punish them) ? also, Do you think the bit that says “the dread” of a wicked man is a metaphor, referring to the concerns of being caught doing something wrong ?
I cannot find an explanation to that verse that makes sense anywhere on the internet (they all seem to have different views)
No, it wasn’t designed to scare anyone. It was stating a truism so people would think, Hmm… I guess it’s better to be righteous than to be a shmuck.
Thanks Bart! You mean stating something as a “universal truth” so people would not doubt it and think It is better to be righteous, right?
Yup, that’s it. Universal in the sense that it’s always true.
Thanks Bart! This is my last one I promise, to fully understand it: So stating something as a universal truth (something that it is always true) although it is actually not (else we would all be living in disgrace as our worst fears, as the proverb says, would happen as a result of our “bad actions”/living, in life)?
Thanks as always! As a recovering fundamentalist Christian myself I really appreciate your work and your insight
Proverbs is constantly saying things about how the righteous are rewarded and the sinners punished. So far in my life, I have not seen that this is true….
Like it was “designed” to be a truism without actually being one?
Right! Welcome to the Book of Proverbs!