Job chapter 6

After reading chapter 6:

*Here we have Job's reply to Eliphaz. He says if his misery could be weighed it would outweigh all the sands in the sea. The poisoned arrows of the "almighty" are in him. Here is another word that is assumed to be referring to the one God worshipped by the Abrahamic faiths. It comes from the hebrew word shaddai and is usually translated "almighty" in the bible, though the actual meaning is unclear. As with animals who only make noises when they don't have food, so it is with him. Life has no savor. It is like an egg white without salt.

*Job wants one thing from God (elowah), to have his life ended. Then he would have consolation knowing he had not denied the words of "the holy one." This phrase is is actually a one word adjective that means holy. The noun it follows is "words." It is possible that this passage means "holy words", not "words of the holy one." Job continues on, saying, he has no strength or power left to help himself. With an apparent dig at Eliphaz, he says a despairing man should have the devotion of his friends, even if he does not fear the almighty. Whoa, is Job saying a friend should be loyal even if the other party rejects God? So, shunning is out?

*Job goes on to rant about how undependable his friends are in very poetic imagery. His friends have proved to be of no help. When did he ever ask them for anything? Perhaps they could inform him where he went wrong, then he would be quiet. Their honest words are painful but they prove nothing. Are they trying to correct what he has said, disregarding his despair? They would gamble for orphans, and trade in their friends. Ooh, burn.

*Finally, he says, "look me in the eye and call me a liar." He asks them to be just, for the sake of his integrity. Has he ever said anything wicked before? He wants them to admit they have no evidence that he deserves what is happening.

Job chapter 5

After reading chapter 5:

*Eliphaz is still talking, blathering in my opinion. He goes on about how man is born to trouble, while subtlely implying that Job is resentful and foolish. He asks Job which one of the "holy ones" will he turn to? Who will answer if he calls. (We already know nobody will.)

*Eliphaz goes on to say if he were Job, he would appeal to God. This makes sense if we look at it as Eliphaz giving Job advice as to which "Holy one" he should call on. The literal translation of verse 8 is "For I would seek unto God (el) and unto God (elohim) would I commit my cause." Isn't this interesting? There are two words that are both translated God in this sentence, but they are not the same word! The first, el, is the name of the Canaanite high God. The second, elohim, could mean "the gods", it is a collective singular noun. We could read Eliphaz's statement as a suggestion that Job appeal to El and the council of all the gods. Job is not told to call on the lord (yahweh).

*Next, in the English NIV, from verses 9-15, we  read about boundless number of wonderful things that "he" does. Who or what is he? El or the collective group of the gods? He makes things right by correcting injustices. He brings down the wicked and lifts up the poor and needy. Since when? Seems to me there has never been a time that supernatural justice could be counted upon.

*In verse 17 Eliphaz tells job, "blessed is the man that God (elowah ) corrects. So do not despise the discipline of the almighty." He seems to imply that Job probably deserves what he is getting in some way. Then Eliphaz says this almighty wounds and injures but also binds up and heals. (Sounds abusive)Then he goes on to talk about the wonderful ways this almighty saves people from calamities and protects them and their belongings. Eliphaz knows it is true because he has examined it. (Sigh) So, Job needs to hear these words and apply them to himself. Just how is he supposed to do that?

*I sighed because someone in my life right now sounds like this. That person just "knows" the truth because of their personal experience. Forget the outside evidence that it is not true. Forget the reality of life for the rest of the world.

Job chapter 4

After reading chapter 4:

*Eliphaz the Temanite, Job's friend, talks next. He says Job has been strong for other people when they were weak, but now he is in trouble and discouraged. Shouldn't Job be confident and hopeful if he is pious and blameless. "Who being innocent has ever perished?" What kind of question is that? Lots of innocent people have perished. "Where were the upright ever destroyed?" Um, pretty much everywhere.

* Eliphaz says he has observed that you reap what you sow, evil for evil, trouble for trouble. "At the breath of God they are destroyed." Really, are wicked people always destroyed? Do none of them ever prosper?  I need to note that "God" here (and in more of Job than I realized ) is Elowah, not Elohim. It is the singular version of Elohim, probably "a god." Then he uses a metaphor of a lion, re presenting the wicked, coming to a sad end.

*Now Eliphaz says he had a dream and heard voices. He was trembling all over and felt a spirit glide past his face. He saw an unknown apparition which whispered," can a mortal be more righteous than god? Can a man be more pure than his maker?" (I will say this again: Are dreams and visions reliable sources? ) Then there are more metaphors about those who live in houses of clay, easily crushed, obviously meant to be humans. This is probably a dig at Job's " blamelessness." Surely Job couldn't be better than a god. He's only human, destined to perish.

*Verse 21 has something about tent cords being pulled up. The literal hebrew has nothing about tents or tent cords, it just has a sense of departure or going away. I guess that's when you pull up the stakes of your tent,  but it seems to me that the translators took a few liberties with the  text. No tents in the King James either. Also, Interpreters aren't sure where the spirit stops speaking and Eliphaz resumes. Some think it is at verse 17.

Job chapter 3

Afer reading chapter 3:

*Now the text shifts from prose to poetry for the next 40 chapters, with occasional lines interjected to tell us when there is a change in speakers. We start with Job talking. He is cursing the day of his birth. The NIV text says "and the night it was said, 'A boy is born.'" On further examination, the literal translation says "A boy is concieved." Job is cursing the night his parents got together to produce him.  Job cursing his birth is in contrast to his children who had frequently celebrated their birthdays with feasting. The curse includes a desire for the day of his birth to perish, to turn to darkness, and to be Overwhelmed by a cloud of blackness. Job wants the night of his conception to be excluded from the calendar, and to be lonely and barren. The day of his birth is to be cursed by other people, and to not see the light of day, because it did not keep him from being born and from seeing trouble.

*Then Job wails, asking why didn't he die at birth. In that case, he would be asleep and at rest with others who had died, including kings and counsellors, who also were once rich.  Here we see a glimpse of the cultural attitude toward death. In death is peace and equality, no one is toiling, no one is poor or rich. They all have the same fate. Verse sixteen has Job asking why he hadn't been stillborn, which seems repetitious. Upon looking at the interlinear text, a better word would have been miscarried, or born before it was time. Again, he would now be at rest: with the weary, the  wicked, the prisoners, and the slaves. Again there is an emphasis of freedom and equality in death. No eternal torment for anyone.

*Lastly, Job wonders why those who are miserable and long for death  are instead given light and life. They search for death like someone hunting for buried treasure and are elated when they finally get to the grave. Job says he has sighs instead of food and his groans pour out like water. He has been afraid something like this would happen; his fears have been realized. He hasn't had peace and quiet, just turmoil.

*In verse 8, we are introduced to the word Leviathan for the first time. All we are told so far is that it is something (a creature?) that is roused by those who curse days. Also, I get the idea the the metaphorical language in the Hebrew is much more interesting and expressive than the English version in the NIV. In fact, it seems that the King James Version is a much better English translation of Job, in a sense. It captures more of the meaning and poetry. I think I may read the KJV and the NIV simultaneously for the book of Job.

Job chapter 2

After reading chater 2:

*On another day the Angels came again, to present themselves to Yahweh. Let's stop here for a minute. This week I discovered that the hebrew words  we see translated as "angels" in this book literally mean sons or children of God (Elohim). The Hebrew word "bene," from this passage, is translated in other places as sons or children. Not spiritual children...physical offspring. These so called Angels, literally translated, are the children of the gods. Not only that, Satan the adversary, is one of them.

*Yahweh again asks the adversary where he has been. He again says he was roaming back and forth through the earth. (The bible excels at repetition.) Yahweh again brings the perfection of Job to the adversary's attention, asking him to notice how Job maintained his integrity in spite of the adversary inciting Yahweh to ruin him without reason. Then the adversary ups the ante. He implies that men are so self centered they will endure any loss as long as they are not bodily afflicted. He dares Yahweh to really hurt Job physically, and see if Job refrains from cursing him then.

*Strangely enough, Yahweh takes the dare. He gives the adversary permission to do anything but kill Job. Doesn't christianity say God is omnicient? Wouldn't Yahweh already know what torture Job will be going through and how he will handle it? Is this an ethical bet? Also, how could a loving God sit by and  allow so much pain and suffering? Is it fair to Job? Well, so far, the bible hasn't actually said that Yahweh is completely omnicient, full of loving kindness, ethical or fair. I think I would be very angry if I believed that some  God was piling hurts on me to see if I would cave in.

*So, the adversary leaves Yahweh and gives Job sores, possibly boils,  all over his body. Job meekly sits among the ashes and scrapes the sores with a piece of broken pottery. Meanwhile, his wife says, "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God (Elohim) and die!" The study bible and the online interlinear text both say that the word "curse"here in English  is actually the word "bless" in Hebrew (barek). From what I can tell, the book of Job is the only place this word was translated as "curse" in English. It was apparently an euphemism to say "bless God." In the same way, a southern american may facetiously say "bless your heart" and mean the opposite. I imagine the wife of Job, and the authors of Job, were superstitious enough to think that if they personally said or wrote the literal words "curse God," they might be found guilty of blasphemy themselves. It is interesting that the modern English writers have no such Qualms.

*Notice that the worst thing that could happen to Job in this story is physical death. There is no mention of an afterlife, or eternal punishment. So, really, if he felt like he was practically dead already, what more harm could a little cursing do? But apparently Job had enough life left in him  to rebuke his wife and call her a fool, which is an insult. Then he says, "Shall we except good from God (Elohim) and not trouble?" Here again, the translators have been somewhat dishonest. The Hebrew word translated "trouble" is hara, which literally means "evil." Yes, Job said we need to accept evil from the gods. It is made clear from examining this story that that is where evil comes from... If you believe in gods.

*Last, we are introduced to Job's three friends, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, Zophar the Naamathite. They met together to go comfort Job. When they saw him from a distance, they could hardly recognize him and began to weep. They tore their clothes and sprinkled dust on their heads, a sign of grief. Then they sat on the ground with him for seven days and nights without saying a word. Those were some hardy people.

Job chapter 1, part 3

*Now that the adversary has permission to mess up Job's life, things start to happen. One day, all Job's kids were feasting and drinking at the oldest son's house. Then a messenger came to
Job and told him the Sabeans had attacked and carried off the oxen that were plowing (All 500 pairs of oxen at once?) and the donkeys that were grazing (All 500 donkeys at once?). They also killed all the servants and that messenger was the only one that had escaped. That appears to be a a lie, because another messenger comes and tells Job that fire from God (Elohim) fell from the sky and burned up the sheep (All 7,000 sheep at once?) and all the servants. That messenger was the only one who escaped. He looks like a liar too when another messenger comes and tells Job that three raiding parties of  Chaldeans carried off the camels (All 5,000 camels at once? ) and killed all the servants. He was the only one left. Wait. There was yet another messenger. He told Job that the house where all his children were feasting had been knocked down by a mighty desert wind. The children were all dead and the messenger was the sole survivor.

*So, in rapid succession, four sole surviving servants told Job he had lost all his livestock, servants, and children. But he still had the four servants, his land, and his wife. Job tore his robe, shaved his head, and fell to the ground in worship. He said these famous words, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. Yahweh gave, and Yahweh has taken away; May Yahweh's name be praised." Job did not sin by charging God (Elohim) of wrongdoing. Is he human?

*I will assume that because the text emphasizes that Job did not accuse God, or the gods, of wrong doing, there must have been people complaining of just that when this passage was written. We are being given a foreshadowing of the main point: If you want to be considered devout, you don't become God's accuser or adversary, no matter how bad life gets.

Job chapter 1, part 2

*Now that the stage is set, we are told that the Angels, including Satan, came to present themselves before Yahweh. This is the first time we have encountered Satan. The English text uses a capital letter S to show that Satan is one of the Angels' names. However, literally translated, it would be a common noun, not a proper noun...ha-satan, " the accuser" or "the adversary." He is the accuser and adversary of mankind, not the adversary of Yahweh. It is a job description, not a name. Basically, he was like a prosecuting attorney for the state. Satan does not become a proper name, or a devil, until later in history. Notice, he comes into Yahweh's presence, speaks to him, and bargains with him. Is this what a "fallen" Angel does? Yahweh allows that? If Satan is evil, how can he be in Yahweh's presence? When was Satan supposed to have been cast out of heaven anyway? Speaking of heaven, where does this supernatural conference take place? Heaven is not mentioned.

*Believe it or not, we have met a satanic adversary before. In Numbers 22:22, the Angel of Yahweh that appears to  Balaam is le-satan, an adversary. Now, however, Yahweh asks the adversary of this story where he has been. He says he's been roaming back and forth through the earth. Then Yahweh asks the adversary if he has noticed how perfect Job is, and how he fears God and shuns evil. A quick reminder here: "God" in the English text is usually translated from the Canaanite/Hebrew word Elohim, which is a collective singular and could refer to a group or council of gods. "Lord" is translated from Yahweh, the specific Israelite God. Why does Yahweh say Job fears Elohim and not himself? If Elohim is another name for Yahweh, why does he speak of himself in the third person?

*Also, after a quick skim through the book of Job, I noticed that Yahweh, or lord, is only referred to in the beginning prose chapters and a few chapters at the end. The bulk of the poetic portion of the book uses the term Elohim, translated God. This is one reason why some biblical scholars think there were multiple authors and contributions to the text of the bible. They often compare and contrast the portions of text that emphasize either Yahweh or Elohim. The Elohim portions are assumed to be written at an earlier date, before the monotheistic worship of Yahweh. The Yahweh portions of this book could have been added at a later time, possibly by Israelite priests. We will visit this possibility again.

*Moving on. The adversary tells Yahweh that of course Job fears God (Elohim), because Yahweh has "put a hedge around him" and everything that belongs to him. (Have you ever heard a Christian pray for a "hedge of protection?") Yahweh has personally blessed everything Job has done. But, says the adversary, if Yahweh was to eliminate Job's wealth, surely Job would curse Yahweh to his face. Then Yahweh caves in and tells the adversary he can do anything he wants to Job's possessions, but he can't touch Job. Then the adversary left Yahweh's presence.

Job chapter 1, part 1

After reading chapter 1:

*The setting of this story is the land of Uz.  If we go back to scriptures that mention people named Uz and assume that the land of Uz was named after one of them, we have:
1. Genesis 10:23. Uz is the grandson of Shem and the son of Aram, father of the Arameans.
2. Genesis 22:21. Uz is a nephew of  Abraham and the brother of Kemuel, who is  called the father of Aram. My study bible says the children of Nahor, Abraham's brother, Uz's  and Kemuel's father, became the ancestors of twelve Aramean tribes. Will the real Arameans please stand up.
3. Genesis 36:28 Uz is a descendant of Esau and clearly an Edomite.
My study bible tries to solve the problem of which Uz and where by smooshing them all together into "a large territory from Edom in the south to Aram in the north." There is currently no way to know for sure where Uz was, or if it ever existed. For all we know, it may be as fictional as the land of Oz.

*The main character of this story is Job, an "upright and blameless" man in the NIV version. Interestingly enough, the first word of this book in the interlinear Hebrew text means "perfect," describing Job. Christianity, on the other hand,  is predicated on the position that noone can be perfect except God.

*Job is said to have had seven sons (the perfect number) and three daughters. He also had 7,000 sheep, 5,000 camels, 500 yoke (pairs) of oxen, 500 donkeys, and a lot of servants. Do you realize how much land would be needed to support that many animals and all the people needed to care for them? In other words, Job was an extremely wealthy man.  In fact, he is said to have been the greatest of all the men in the east at that time. (When was that time?) This would practically make him the ruler of a  kingdom, presumably east of the Jordan River.

*Job's children threw big parties on their birthdays, inviting their brothers and sisters. Job was afraid these parties would be the downfall of his children by causing them to sin or curse God. What kind of "sins" was Job worried about? Why would they curse God? Too much to drink? The day after a party, Job would sacrifice a burnt offering on behalf of each child. The passage doesn't say what Job thought could happen if he didn't make the sacrifices. Apparently Job has not heard any  rules about sacrifices to Yahweh only being made by priests, and only at the location of the ark of the covenant. Poor man, he seems to have been a victim of religious scrupulosity.

The biggest con in history?

On the first day of the   convention for the official nomination of the  Republican candidate for the next President of the United States, Neil Carter at Godless in Dixie makes a very good case that Donald Trump is a fake.  Time will tell if that is so, and personally, I sort of hope it is. At least I hope he will quit the race before he has any chance of making it to the White House. The sooner the better, for him and everyone else. After the convention is over, when he has official Republican Party endorsement, would be the perfect time to spring his "gotcha," if there is going to be one.

If it is a "sting,"  I will laugh so hard. Unless he is elected president and then quits, leaving us with fundamentalist Christian Mike Pence; then I will cry. But I will still say, "I told you so." If he pulls it off, he will be both famous and infamous worldwide. He will not soon be forgotten. Think of the book and movie deals. There won't be as big a payoff if he merely loses to Hillary.

A public scandal of that enormity would shake up the Republican Party, let alone the U.S.  Whether or not such an event would shake some sense into either one is another thing. Since the Republican Party became the party of Christian fundamentalism,  it also seems to have become the party of delusion. After all, christianity is one of the biggest cons in history.

Edited.

Introduction to Job

First, we will read the Wikipedia article about Job. Notice that Job is a work of poetry. That tells us that the author (unknown) deliberately crafted this story in a particular way. Poetic language is often highly metaphorical. This is not written as an historical account, but as an object lesson in the sovereignty of Yahweh. The date of the original writing is unknown, but believed to be around the 6th century BCE. The setting and time period of the story appear to be uncertain. Authorship has been traditionally ascribed to Moses, which is impossible. Here we will meet Satan for the first time.

Ruth wrap up

The book of Ruth has no known author and no definitely known date. It must have been written after the establishment of the Davidic monarchy because one of its purposes seems to be to establish David's lineage from Judah. Another purpose could be to show that Yahweh can approve of marriages with women from other nations, and even bless them and the Israelites through them, in spite of his previous adamant commands against them. Plus, descendants of Moabites are not supposed to be allowed to enter the assembly of  Yahweh for 10 generations. (Deuteronomy 23:3) Jewish commentaries get around that by saying the nationality of the father is what mattered, not the mother.

 The book does not claim to be the word of Yahweh or to be inspired by Yahweh or his Holy Spirit. There is no mention of angels, demons, or other supernatural beings besides Yahweh. There is no heaven, hell, or messaiah mentioned. There are no descriptions of religious rituals or commands, in spite of the fact that the story must have taken place from the time of passover to Pentecost, because those dates are tied to the harvesting of grain. The only hint of religion is the kinsman-redeemer tradition depicted, and that is more cultural. There is no mention of the ark of the covenant, Shiloh, priests, or sacrifices.

There is a conspicuous lack of violence and  prejudice against other people groups. Ruth, a Moabite, is given the highest praise. She is said to be better than seven sons to Naomi, high praise indeed. Everyone else behaves admirably as well. I have an atheist friend who says this is her favorite story in the bible.

A hint that the story may have been fabricated is found in the names of people in the story. Naomi means "pleasant" but she asks to be called Mara which means "bitter." Ruth means "friendship." Ruth's dead husband Mahlon's name means "weakling" and Boaz's name means "strength." Coincidence?

Job will be our next book, because its events also seem to take place before there was a monarchy. Then we will continue on to 1 Samuel. 

Ruth chapter 4

After reading chapter 4:

*That was fast! We are already on the last chapter of Ruth. Now we see Boaz arranging for his marriage to Ruth. He finds the kinsman-redeemer who has a closer claim than he does. In the presence of ten elders, he explains that Naomi is selling the land of their "brother" Elimelech. Does this mean Boaz and the other man are actually younger brothers of Elimelech, Boaz being the youngest? The other man is willing to redeem the land until Boaz explains that there is another piece of property that goes along with it, the dead man's widow, which technically is Naomi, not Ruth. But I suppose Ruth would be part of the package, since it appears that once a family owned a woman, she was theirs to do with what they wanted. Boaz also told the other man that if he took on all this "property," he would be responsible for maintaining the name of the dead. This would mean he was obligated to produce  children for a dead man with the dead man's widow, as in the story of Tamar back in Genesis.

*The other man was unwilling to take this on because of legal implications regarding the property he already owned,  probably his current wife and children. So, he took off his sandle and handed it to Boaz, which is said to have been a way of concluding legal transactions in those days. Boaz was told he could buy the "property" himself. Then Boaz reminds the ten elders that they are witnesses and that he now owns the dead men's property, including Ruth. He owns Naomi too, even though the text doesn't say so, which gives her the security of a good home for the rest of her life. The elders  agreed to be witnesses of the transaction and gave Boaz a blessing saying may his offspring be famous in Bethlehem and may his family be blessed like that of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah. Judah was also much older than Tamar (He was her father-in-law and a kind of kinsman redeemer, even if reluctantly.) Of course the author of this story already knew that Boaz's descendant was claimed to be King David. That increases the likelihood that he put these words into the mouths of the witnesses. See, another prophecy conveniently came true! Funny how that works.

*Ruth and Boaz became husband and wife, and Yahweh "enabled"  Ruth to concieve. She had a son, because Israelite women seem to disproportionately bear sons. The local women praised Yahweh and blessed Naomi, again prophesying Ruth's son would become famous. Naomi took care of her grandchild like she was its mother. The other women even said, "Naomi has a son."  Hopefully Ruth was okay with that. The boy was named Obed, and became the father of Jesse, the father of David.

*Lastly, we are given a geneology from Perez, the Tamar connection, to David. Ten generations from Judah, a son of Israel (Jacob), in Genesis, to David, forefather of the Judahite monarchy. This appears to be problematic. A generation is approximately 22-32 years. We have been told the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. (Exodus 12:41) David's ancestors from that era would have been Perez, Hezron, Ram, and Aminidab. That is an average generation  of 107 years. The time of the judges supposedly lasted at least 350years from scriptures we have read so far. We may find out more later. David's ancestors from that period would have been from Nashon (also mentioned in Numbers 7), Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse.  That is an average generation of 70 years. 780 years altogether, at normal human reproduction rate, would have produced at least 25 generations, unless they all took after Abraham and produced children at a very advanced age. What is the likelihood of that?

Ruth chapter 3

After reading chapter 3:

*One day, Naomi decides to take matters into her own hands and find Ruth a permanent home. She thinks Boaz is a good prospect because he is a relative of her husband's. Lots of sources assume this has to do with Levirate marriage, where a brother of a widow's deceased husband is obligated to marry the widow and produce heirs for his older brother. But it doesn't seem to fit the circumstances of this story. Naomi does call him a kinsman, which suggests that the kinsman-redeemer tradition may have included more than land. Women were property as well, after all.

*Anyway, Naomi tells Ruth to wash her self, put on perfume, and dress in her best clothes. Then she is to go to the threshing floor, where Boaz is, and secretly watch him eating and drinking until he goes to sleep. Then she is to creep up to him, uncover his feet, and lie down. This is obviously a proposal of some kind. There are lots of opinions about this floating around. Some people have suggested that "feet" is a euphamism for genitals. Others say that it just means Ruth got under the covers with him, which is risky/risqué enough. There is the natural tendency to think this could have gone very wrong. A jewish perspective is found here.

*Ruth did what Nomi told her. In the middle of the night, Boaz was startle and discovered Ruth. He naturally wanted to know who she was. She told him and them requested that he spread the corner of his garment over her, because he qualified as a kinsman redeemer. It seems to imply that she is proposing that he take her as a wife and possibly may imply that she is offering to give him the right to redeem the family lands in exchange for her body. I don't know how else to put it.  This would be in Boaz's benefit as well. He would become richer in fact, if not in verbal technicality. Traditional semantics would say any children or profits would be in Ruth's dead husband's name. It seems Boaz was willing to live with that, and with Ruth. Boaz was flattered that she chose him, an obviously older man. Plus, she has a very good reputation as a hard worker.

*However, Boaz tells Ruth that someone else has a closer family relationship, with the right of first refusal. He will go see if that man wants Ruth. If he doesn't, then Boaz will take her. Ruth has become a commodity. Meanwhile, she is to remain sleeping near him. Early in the morning, she got up to go and Boaz told her not to let anyone know she had been there. I can see why. It certainly looks like something was going on. I'm sure neither one of them wanted to be stoned to death. Then Boaz sent Ruth home to Naomi with a shawl full of barley. Down payment on a bride price? Next Naomi assured Ruth that she just needed to wait, Boaz would not rest until the matter was settled that day. Boaz wanted Ruth.

One year anniversary of this blog!

Hello,

If you are reading this, I thank you for visiting. Today marks one year since I started commenting on the bible, book by book, chapter by chapter. I think I can honestly say that  I've learned more about the bible in the last year than in my previous 35 (or more) years as a Christian. I truly hadn't realized how wierd it is, and how horribly bloodthirsty. And so far, I've only completely covered seven out of the 66 books!

To date, I've written 288 posts. Some have been slightly reworked. Many have been edited for grammar, spelling, and content errors. I've purposely tried to keep things as simple as possible.  Each regular chapter commentary took about an hour to an hour and a half to write. Much of it seemed to write itself. The bible has a lot of wacky content to comment on.  If I had a question about the history or meaning behind a word or topic, I figured other people would too. Those are the things linked in the text. There are so many ways to dig deeper, but I wanted to keep moving, to prevent my own boredom as well as yours.

Speaking of you, my visitors have come from over 15 countries around the world. The bulk of the readers are from the U.S.   I have at least two regular readers there. Europe is second in volume of visits. Lately, I've had at least one regular from France. I also get readers from Romania, Germany, and the U.K. For a while, I had a lot of visitors from Russia and a few from Australia. Mexico has joined in recently. I don't know any of you personally, but I thank you any way. You make me feel like it is worth the effort. Plus, it helps to know I'm not only talking to myself.

If you can, I would greatly appreciate it if you would share this site with anyone you think might be interested, especially on some form of social media. I am not free to do much of that myself. Right now I need to remain as anonymous as possible. That is why this blog has very few bells and whistles.

I have been an atheist for about 2 1/2 years now.  I am happy to be free from the feelings of guilt and the need to live up to impossible standards. My self esteem has never been better, but I am still basically the same person  with the same personal values I had before. I'm just a lot more accepting of others and a lot less judgemental. This blog has made me so aware of how impossible the bible is that it is hard to keep my mouth shut when I sit in bible classes week after week, out of necessity. Some day that may change. For now, I will continue doing this. Hopefully someone out there will benefit.

Sincerely,
The Reader

Ruth chapter 2

After reading chapter 2:

*Now we are introduced to Boaz. He is a relative of Naomi's dead husband Elimelech, but we are not told how close a relative. Boaz is also a well respected and affluent man in the community. He owns barley fields and has hired hands.

*Ruth has told Naomi that she is going into the fields to glean barley behind the harvesters.  This would have been a necessity to provide food for Ruth and Naomi, who had little or no economic support. Ruth was gathering grain in one of Boaz's fields when Boaz came home from a trip to Bethlehem. He greeted his workers then asked them who Ruth was. They explained where she came from and said she was a hard worker. Boaz went to Ruth and told her she was welcome to keep working in his fields. Not only that, he told his hired hands not to bother her, and she was free to get water from their water jars. But first he called her "daughter," which is a little creepy if you know what will be happening next. Does it mean he is significantly older than her?

*Ruth is overwhelmed with gratitude and bows down to Boaz, asking why she has found favor with him. He tells her that he has heard about the story of her and Naomi and he is impressed. Then he "blesses" her in Yahweh's name with pretty phrases. She says she wishes to continue to have favor in his eyes. I don't think she needs to worry about that. At lunch, Boaz invites her to join him and the rest of the harvesters. Afterwards, he gives special instructions to his workers to treat her with respect and generously leave grain for her.

*Ruth worked until evening, then threshed the barley she had gathered. She brought the threshed grain to Naomi, along with leftovers from lunch. Naomi asked her where she had worked. When Ruth told Naomi it was in Boaz's fields,  she was glad and said he was one of their "kinsman-redeemers," a close relative.  This does not have to do with marriage rights, but property/land rights, according to Leviticus 25:25. Naomi is probably wanting back the land that her husband sold when they left during the famine. Because she is poor, and Boaz is a relative, he has the "right" to buy back Elimelech's property for her, from whomever Elimelech had sold it.

*When Ruth tells Naomi how well Boaz treated her, Naomi sees opportunity knocking. She tells Ruth to keep working in Boaz's fields. Ruth does so until the barley and wheat harvests are over. This was traditionally seven weeks, after which would be a celebration called The Feast of Weeks, Shavuot, or Pentecost today. Ruth continued to live with Naomi.

*In modern times, the book of Ruth is read during the celebration of Shavuot.

Ruth chapter 1

After reading chapter 1:

*The story starts off in a once-upon-a-time way: "In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land." Right away, this tells us the story was not written when the judges ruled, which would mean it was written  some time after the institution of the monarchy. Then we are told about a family of Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. There was Elimelek the father, Naomi the mother, and their sons, Mahlon and Kilion. The family was living in Moab, presumably to escape the famine. The father died there, and the sons married Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth. After10 years, the sons both died, leaving the three women alone, which probably was not a good thing in those days. They had no children.

*Deuteronomy 23:3-6 forbids alliances with Moabites and their descendants. In the book of Ruth, Yahweh seems to have no problem with the marriage of an Israelite to a Moabite. I've seen suggestions that that is really the whole point of the story. Now, I wonder if some contradictions in the various bible books are done on purpose, like a duel of different Israelite ideologies.

*An interesting feature of this story, and many of the Old Testament stories is that the names of the main characters have Hebrew meanings that give the story added dimension. According to my study bible, Elimelek means "God (El) is king." Naomi is "pleasant." Mahlon may mean "weakling." Ruth is similar to the Hebrew word for "friendship." Kilion and Orpah are not defined, and other sources seem doubtful about definite meanings.

*Because her husband and sons were dead, and she had heard that Yahweh was finally providing food for his people,Naomi decided to go back to Judah. She told her daughters-in-law to go back to their families of origin and get new husbands. She said a tearful goodbye, but they said they would go with her. She wondered why they would do that when she didn't have any more sons to give them as husbands. (See Levirate marriage) Then she says her lot is a bitter one and Yahweh is against her. Orpah kissed her and left, but Ruth clung to her. Naomi urge Ruth to return to her family. Then Ruth said those famous lines, "Where you will go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my god." Then Ruth made an oath that Yahweh could punish her if she should ever leave Naomi. So Naomi stopped telling her to leave.

*They traveled on to Bethlehem. When they got there, they caused quite a stir. Naomi told her old friends to call her "Mara" (meaning bitter) because her life was so bitter. She also told them Yahweh brought misfortune upon her. No fake praise in the face of disaster for her.

*When Ruth and Naomi arrived in Bethlehem, the barley harvest was just beginning. This would make it early spring, around the time of Passover.

Introduction to Ruth

I was not sure whether I should comment on Ruth or Job next, because the story of Job must take place during the time of the Judges, if it takes place in history at all. I decided on Ruth because the thought of spending my summer immersed in Job was giving me a headache.

First I recommend reading the Wikipedia article on the book of Ruth. Notice that the author is unknown, just like all the other books I have covered so far. It is traditionally ascribed to Samuel, a priest who we will meet later. The date of the writing is also unknown but it probably was originally written sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries B.C.E., at least 500 years after the events supposedly happened.

The oldest manuscripts of Ruth are  fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were written sometime in the first century B.C.E., at least 800 years after the events described.

The Jewish Encyclopedia on Ruth.

As is my usual custom, I will comment on a plain reading in English, from the NIV, with links to Wikipedia articles and a few other sources. This is because of the modern protestant Christian claim that the Bible is understandable to everyday people, without specialized knowledge. You are free to expand your personal research.

Judges wrap up

What have we learned from our reading of the book of Judges?

Yahweh is all about war. His spirit manifests itself in different people, called judges, in different ways, sometimes in their hair. It is very helpful for killing enemies. In spite of that, sometimes people need to cast lots or consult priests to figure out what Yahweh wants them to do. They still offer him food, even though he can't eat.  Physical death is still the standard punishment for infractions of his will. Spiritual death is unheard of. Rewards and punishments in an afterlife are absent. There is no mention of Heaven or Hell.

There is no Satan, no demons, Devils, or unclean spirits. One angel with an unspeakable name appears in the form of a man to Samson's parents. There is no mention of a personal savior or messaiah.

Strangely, in spite of injunctions against personal altars in the previous books, Judges has many examples of people constructing and using sacrificial altars in places other than Shiloh. One person even has a personal priest and idols that represent Yahweh. Nothing bad happens to him, except that his priest and idols were stolen. Very little is mentioned about the actual religious practices of Israel until the last few chapters, and they feel like add ons. Someone appears to have tried to temper the weirdness of the stories with the phrase "These things happened before there was a king in Israel, when everyone did what was right in their own eyes."

The author(s) of the book is unknown. He does not claim the book of Judges is the infallible word of Yahweh or that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was clearly written and/or edited after the establishment of a monarchy. The last few chapters were confusing stories that had to have taken place before the rest of the book, or not at all. The writing was sloppy and disjointed and required careful rereading for me to figure out the supposed sequence of events. I can understand why some bible scholars think different authors meshed different versions of the same stories into one tale. Very few of the events can be historically verified, if any. Many place names can, but many can not.

The amount of gratuitous bloodshed, if true, was horrendous. Thousands died in wars, thousands more innocent women and children were needlessly slaughtered. Women, excluding Deborah and Jael, were portrayed as the mere  property of men, for the purpose of carrying on the family line. They could be sacrificed, given away, used, abused, and stolen. What they wanted did not matter.

Do you ever wonder what happened to all the bodies from the wars? They would be a terrible health hazard.  Were they just left on the battlefields? We are never told.  Remember the laws given by Moses, um Yahweh, about dead bodies? The people were considered unclean if they touched one and had to go through ceremonial cleansings. Did that apply to soldiers that had fought and killed?

Edited.