Basic Scripture

Introduction: The word prophet has at least two senses in the Old Testament. There are ecstatic prophets, and classic prophets.

The ecstatic prophets are marked by odd, even frenzied behavior. In 1 Samuel 19:20-14 David had just escaped, for the time, the hands of Saul. But Saul sent messengers to arrest him. The messengers found Samuel seeming to lead a band of frenzied prophets. The messengers fell into frenzy too. Saul himself then pursued, but the "spirit of God" came upon him, and he fell into the same state. He took off his clothes and lay naked all that day and night.

Was this really a spirit of God, or merely what the onlookers would call that? It is hard to imagine the spirit of God leading to uncontrollable frenzy and making a king lie naked all day and night. In 1 Cor 14 St. Paul speaks much of prophets, and compares the gift of tongues to them, unfavorably for tongues. Paul speaks of a supernatural gift of prophecy, and even then, in 14:32-33 we find: "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets; God is not a God of uproar but of peace." Such then is the nature of really supernatural prophecy, at least, such as it was known to St. Paul. Such an example as that of 1 Samuel 19 does not seem to be of supernatural origin especially since the spirits of the prophets in 1 Samuel seem not to be subject to the prophets. As to the statement that Samuel was leading them, he could have fallen into a nonsupernatural frenzied state, or could have feigned it, to protect David from Saul.

The ecstatic type of prophets in the times of the kings were often in large groups, of even 400 at a time. Their prophecy might be induced by music. Kings often consulted them, and at times they gave messages such as the kings wanted, showing that at least in such cases there was nothing supernatural about their state. In other cultures there are similar phenomena, e.g., the dervishes.

Even Abraham is called a prophet in Genesis 20:7 and the whole people of Israel are called prophets in Psalm 105:15. So the term is not entirely precise. Before the great prophets there were lesser nonecstatic prophets, such as Samuel (except for the case mentioned), Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah, and Nathan.

But it is clear that the classic prophets, of the type of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are very different from the ecstatic prophets. Amos explicitly says (7:12-16) he is not a prophet - he meant he was not an ecstatic prophet.

The call of a prophet may have come by way of a vision (e.g., Isaiah 6), or also through an interior communication. Such an experience enabled the prophet to understood God in a way not given to others. Thus they had a basis for judging events in God's way. So the prophet was a spokesman for God. The image of Ezekiel eating a scroll given him by God (2:8 - 3:3. cf. also Jer 15:16) is probably a way of expressing this. Foretelling the future was not the basic work of a prophet, it was only part of his whole message.

The books of the greatest prophets are collections of things they had said on various occasions. The collections could have been made by others, e.g., Baruch for Jeremiah. It is not always easy to determine the original setting. And continuity may be poor, especially in Jeremiah. The fact that so many prophetic utterances were in poetry makes it more difficult to understand them, for they may indulge in poetic fancy.

Besides the exaggerations of poetry - and Semitic poets at that - we need to keep some other things in mind to understand the prophecies of the future. St. Augustine, in City of God 17. 3, notices that some predictions refer to Old Testament persons, some to New Testament persons, some to both. He finds an indication of this latter when something that at first sight would seem to refer to a certain figure, does not entirely fit him, e.g., the prophecy of Nathan to David in 2 Samuel 7:12 speaks of a successor who will come "after David sleeps with his fathers." At first sight this would seem to be Solomon. But Augustine notices that Solomon became king not after David's death, but before it: so he concludes the prophecy is only partly fulfilled in Solomon: we must look ahead also to Christ. And only Christ would have the kind of realm and reign predicted (cf. Psalm 72:8, which is entitled, "Of Solomon").

Further, some predictions may have a less glorious fulfillment than it might have been, e.g., Gen. 49:10, as we saw, says a ruler will not be lacking from Judah until the time of the Messiah. This came true, but would have had a much more glorious fulfillment, in splendid kings on the throne of David, if the Jews had not been so unfaithful so many times.

Amos: Amos began his mission around 760. He foretold the punishment of the northern kingdom - it fell in 721 with the fall of Samaria. So it was announced far in advance, ample time for people to reform, and also to say: He has been threatening in vain for so many years, a prophet of doom and gloom.

Amos came from the town of Tekoa, about 12 miles south of Jerusalem. He had been a shepherd, but he ministered in the northern kingdom.

His speech opened dramatically. God said through him:

"For three crimes of Damascus and for four, I will not take back my word... ." This was a threat against Aram or Damascus. He continued with such threats against other gentile nations, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab. His hearers were probably pleased to hear the gentiles denounced. But then he turned on Israel (with perhaps - the authenticity is debated - a prophecy against Judah in between). He accused them of crimes against the poor and the powerless. They thought their sacrifices would make up for it all, and the fact that God has chosen their nation. Amos shattered their illusions. In fact, early in chapter 1, he said the very fact that they had had special favor and proved unworthy, called for greater punishment.

Then (chapter 7) Amaziah, a priest of Bethel, reported to king Jeroboam what was going on: Amos was foretelling Jeroboam would die by the sword, and the people would go into exile. So Amaziah told Amos to go back to Judah where he came from. Amos replied that he was no prophet - that is, not an ecstatic type, nor did he belong to a company of prophets - he was just a shepherd.

Yet at the end of his prophecy, Amos says God will not completely destroy Jacob, there will be a remnant, and God will raise up the fallen hut of David. He will send the Messiah.

Two comments: 1) We noted the repeated lines, "for three crimes and for four". The Hebrew poets thought it artistic to repeat things in parallelism, using different words. But when they had to repeat a number, they did so with the next higher number. Interestingly, such patterns were found in the second millennium B.C. in Urgarit to the north. (cf. Stories from Ancient Canaan, edited and translated by Michael D. Coogan, Westminster, 1978, esp. p. 16).

2)We see Amos confidently predicting restoration, and the critics do not deny he did it. Jeremiah will do the same (cf. especially chapters 29-31). So why could not one Isaiah have foreseen a restoration, even without a special revelation, as part of the deuteronomic pattern of sin -punishment - repentance - restoration. It is generally admitted that the prophets helped contribute this way of thinking to the historical books. Thus we could answer the chief argument against the unity of Isaiah. There would still be one objection to the unit of Isaiah, which we will consider later.

Hosea: He began his mission only a short time after that of Amos, i.e., near the end of the reign of Jeroboam, which ended in 746. He too prophesied in the northern kingdom, long before its fall with the capture of Samaria in 721. Again, as with Amos, we have prophecies made long before their fulfillment.

The first three chapters deal with the marriage of Hosea. Every detail is debated - was there such a thing? or is it only imaginary, to teach a lesson. Further, many editors rearrange the text, moving a block to a different position. Even St. Jerome admitted there are puzzles in Hosea.

But the chief message is clear in spite of all these things. Hosea seems to have had an unfaithful wife. She bore him children to whom he gave prophetic names: Jezreel (the name of the place where Jehu brought to an end the dynasty of Omri by bloodshed. (2 Kings 9-10). The name foretells the fall of the northern kingdom; lo- ruhama ("she is not pitied") for God will not longer pity Israel; and lo-ammi ("not my people") for Israel was going to fall out of the people of God. Hosea through this imagery denounces the sins of Israel who is pictured as the spouse of

God, but unfaithful. The people seemed so impressed with the idea that they were God's chosen people that they practically thought they could buy His favor by sacrifices that were empty externalism, without the interior obedience that would make them worthwhile. So God said (6:6): "It is observance of the covenant (hesed) that I desire, and not sacrifice, and knowledge of God rather than holocausts." Knowledge here carries the sense of the verb yada, which means to know and love. It is not mere intellectual knowledge. Also, when God says he wants one thing and not the other, we must understand the Hebrew pattern which, lacking the degrees of comparison (e.g., good, better, best - much, more, most etc.) would say one things is wanted, and not the other. It really means God wants obedience more than holocausts. We recall the words of Samuel to Saul in 1 Samuel 15:22.

It is important to see that Hosea not only speaks of the covenant, but that he compares God's relation to His people to that of husband and wife.

Hosea foretells that for many days Israel will sit without a judge, priest, or sacrifice. This probably has two fulfillments, one in the exile, the other in the time after their rejection of Christ, up to the end of time. St. Paul in Romans 9:25-26 uses a free combination of Hosea 2:24 (Revised Standard Version = 2:23) and 2:1 (Revised Standard Version = 1:10) to refer to the conversion of Israel before the end of time.

Hosea even boldly invented the name Beth-aven, "house of iniquity" to use in place of Beth-el, "House of God". Hosea still loved Gomer in spite of her infidelity and hoped to restore her. So God continued to love Israel, who is compared to His spouse, so that her sins are adultery, even when it was no longer part of His people of God. He planned a restoration. (cf. Ephesians 5:21-33).

On of the most tender expressions of God's love is found in chapter 11.

Isaiah: His ministry began about 742, "the year King Uzziah died", and ran until sometime in the reign of Hezekiah (715-687). He worked chiefly in Judah. That was a very turbulent time for Judah and others, since Assyria was expanding to the west, aiming at a world empire. This period included the Syro-Ephraimitic War: Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, son of Remaliah King of Israel tried to force Ahaz, King of Judah to join a coalition against Assyria. They even invaded Judah in 735. Isaiah advised against joining them, even offered (chapter 7) a sign in the sky or in the depths. Isaiah called for faith, meaning total commitment to God. That would make Judah safe. Ahaz refused, paid tribute to Tiglath Pileser of Assyria, and became a vassal.

Most scholars today see three Isaiahs, for chapters 1-39, 40-55, and 56-66, describing three periods: threat of punishment, exile, and restoration. We consider this is possible, but there is surely no convincing proof that there were three. For this is simply the familiar deuteronomic pattern we have met before. And, as we pointed out, Amos and Hosea show the same pattern. Isaiah merely fills it in more thoroughly.

Another attempt against the unity of Isaiah comes from the fact that there is a the prediction of the actions of Cyrus by name (44: 28). But this argument is valid only if one insists there can be no true prophecies. Actually, as we will soon see, Isaiah did predict things about the Messiah in three passages. Micah 5:2 his contemporary predicted by name the place of birth of the Messiah. And someone less than a major prophet in 1 Kings 13:2 foretells actions of King Josiah, to come about 300 years later (which are recorded in 1 Kings 23:15). Flavius Josephus, in Antiquities XI. 1. 1-2 asserts that Cyrus before releasing the Jews from captivity, read the prophecy about himself in Isaiah, and that this influenced his decision.

The book opens with a denunciation of the sinfulness of the people, with special stress on the fact that sacrifices then were mere externalism. This thought is crystallized in a passage farther on, in 29:13: "This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." Older critics used to claim that Isaiah and other major prophets rejected sacrifices. But it was the empty external "participation" that they denounced. Then 29:14 goes on to say that because of this defective worship, "the wisdom of the wise will perish". This would be a punishment like that given through Rehoboam.

Some major messianic prophecies are found in Isaiah, which the Targums recognize as messianic - except, in their present form, for 7:14.

We will compare two texts, namely 9:5-6 and 7:14. The former says a child is born to us, whose name will be called wonderful counselor, God the mighty... 7:14 as St. Matthew renders it, says the virgin will conceive and bear a son.

It is good to begin with 9:5-6 which foretells a wonderful child who will be the wonderful counselor, and even the Mighty God. The NAB version, "God- hero" is simply incorrect, as even modern Jewish versions see. The Hebrew el gibbor occurs a few other times in the OT, and always means Mighty God. Modern Jews avoid saying the Messiah is God the Mighty by changing the structure and word order, e.g., Samson Levey (The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 1974 p. 45) says: "The wonderful counselor, the Mighty God... has called his name 'Prince of Peace'." In his rendering of the Targum, Levey says his name has been called "messiah' by the one who gives wonderful counsel, the Mighty God, etc. We grant the structure can take this interpretation both in the Hebrew and in the Targum, but it surely need not. To render the Hebrew of 9:5-6 as Levey does is a bit difficult, for how can one know what titles are part of the subject and what part of the object? We grant that the Targum can be understood as Levey does it with somewhat less difficulty. For in the Targum there is the Aramaic phrase min qedem,which can mean either "from of old" or" by" With "by" the Targum could read: "His name shall be called by the wonderful counselor, (by) the mighty God, (by) the one who lives forever: Messiah. It is easier to take both Targum and Hebrew to mean his name will be called wonderful counselor, Mighty God... .

Now it is remarkable that the Targum as we have it does not mark Isaiah 7:14, the virginal conception text, as messianic, even though scholars generally admit that chapters 7-12 can be called the "Book of Immanuel", with the result that the child of 9:5-6 is the same as the child of 7:14. The reason our present Targum does not mark 7:14 as messianic is found in the fact that although Hillel, one of the great teachers at the time of Christ, said that Hezekiah, son of Ahaz to whom Isaiah spoke, had been the Messiah (Cf. Jacob Neusner, Messiah in Context,Fortress, 1984, p. 174), yet later Jews seeing the Christians using the text, began to say that 7:14 did not speak of the Messiah (cf. Neusner, p. 190).

Who then is the child of 7:14? On the one hand, the combined descriptions of 7:14 and 9:5-6 are much too grandiose for Hezekiah the son of Ahaz. On the other hand, a sign given to Ahaz that would not appear for more than 700 years would not be much of a sign for him. We therefore conclude that we have another case of multiple fulfillment of a divine prophecy: the child is both Hezekiah (a sign that the line of David continued) and Jesus.

As to the fact that Isaiah used Hebrew almah in 7:14 instead of betulah - the former meaning a girl of marriageable age who should be a virgin, the latter being definitely a virgin - it is quite possible Isaiah did not see as much in the line as did the Holy Spirit, the chief author of Scripture. Vatican II seems to imply this in Lumem Gentium #55.

Isaiah 11:1-3 says a shoot will sprout from the stump of David, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit. If we take the opening words to mean a shoot from the stump (some challenge the translation "stump"), they are a remarkable prediction: that the line of David (still reigning in the day of Isaiah) would be reduced to a stump, but later, a shoot would come from it, the Messiah (for the Targum does see the Messiah in these lines).

Why would the Messiah, being divine, need the Gifts of the Holy Spirit? Because God willed that the Messiah have a full complement of humanity and all that ideally goes with it, contrary to the heresy of Apollinaris, who argued that not even a human rational soul was in Christ, for the Divine Logos could do the work of a soul. What Isaiah says is quite in line with the principle in Summa I. 19. 5. c which says that God in His love of good order, likes to have one thing in place to serve as a reason for giving a second thing, even though the first did not really move Him.

Isaiah 53 according to the Targum also refers to the Messiah. But the Targum as we have it is badly distorted: it changes the meek lamb being led to the slaughter into an arrogant conqueror. At least three very honest modern Jews: Levey (p. 152, n. 10), Neusner (p. 190), and H. J. Schoeps (Paul. The Theology of the Apostle,Westminster, 1961, p. 129) admit that the ancient Jews deliberately distorted the Targum to try to keep Christians from using Isaiah 53 and similar passages. We can admit the Jews would find that prophecy difficult, for they also generally believed that the Messiah would live forever. Also, the leader of the second Jewish revolt against Rome, in 132-35, Bar Kokhba, was thought by many to be the Messiah - hence his name "Son of the Star", in allusion to Numbers 24:17.

Chapter 53 is the fourth of the four "Servant Songs" in Isaiah. The others are: 42:1-7; 49:1-7 and 50:4-11. The Targum sees the first and fourth as Messianic, but not the other two. The New Testament sees 1 and 4 also as Messianic. Some think that in 49:1- 7 the servant is Israel - but in it the Servant has a mission to Israel. However, this could be an instance of the Hebrew pattern in which an individual stands for and is identified with a group.

In songs 2 and 3 we notice a universalism, the mission is to all peoples: cf. 42:6 where the servant is a covenant of the people, a light for the nations" and in 49:6 similarly it is too little for the servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, he is to be a light to the nations, so God's salvation may reach the ends of the earth.

Finally, we need to note that Isaiah is a powerful poet, and as such is given to highly colored language and idealization, e.g., in the images of the restoration. Also, as a Hebrew, he is more prone to exaggeration than we are. We see an instance of this in the passage where the wolf will be the guest of the lamb in 11:6- 9. We already saw in chapter 6 above some remarkable passages of apocalyptic language in Isaiah.

Micah: He was a contemporary of Isaiah, and in his opening line he asserts he worked during the reigns of Joatham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, i.e., about 740-687. Interestingly, Jeremiah 26:18-19 says that Micah foretold that Jerusalem and its temple would become ruins, but Hezekiah did not condemn him to death. He seems to have been a man of the countryside, from Moresheth who was shocked at the vices of the great cities: the rich who exploited the poor, crooked merchants, judges who were bribed, corrupt priests. He predicted the downfall of Jerusalem, but yet was confident later God would deliver His people. In 5:2 he predicts the Messiah will come from Bethlehem. When Herod consulted the Jewish theologians (Mt. 2:6) for the Magi, they readily quoted the prophecy of Micah.

Nahum: This very brief prophecy, probably to be dated around 612, the fall of Nineveh, celebrates the fall of Assyria, which had been so great a danger to Israel and to many other nations because of its deliberate terrorism and cruelty. It depicts God as the sovereign master of all. A unique feature of this book is that it does not threaten punishment to Israel for its sins. This may have been due to its composition around the time when the reforms of Josiah (622/21) were still recent.

Jeremiah: He was born about 645 in the village of Anathoth, a few miles to the north of Jerusalem, in the time of the evil king Manasseh. His ministry began in 627 during the reign of Josiah (640-609). He continued until sometime after the fall of Jerusalem.

The arrangement of materials in this book is rather haphazard, which makes it difficult to study. Chapter 36 reports that in 605 Jeremiah dictated the oracles he had given since 627 to Baruch, his secretary. This was read to the people and to the king. The king destroyed the scroll, but Jeremiah and Baruch made another larger edition.

He was young when called to be a prophet, and was reluctant to accept (1:6). He pleaded that he did not know how to speak. But God promised to strengthen him. Like Hosea he pictures the people as the bride of God, once faithful, but then turned to adultery and harlotry by the fertility cult, idolatry, and other pagan practices. He charges that pagan nations do not desert their gods, but Israel does. Josiah's reform started in 628, and was reinforced with the finding of the book, probably part of Deuteronomy, in the temple (1 Kgs. 22-23). But the reform did not really convert the hearts of the people, and Jeremiah became disillusioned with the reform. He delivered a stinging address in the Temple probably in 609 (7:1-15). He charges pagan worship, while the people were confident God would protect them because they were His people - even though their sacrifices were empty of interior dispositions. In 13:23 he says that true conversion is as unlikely as it would be for a leopard to change its spots. In chapter 19, Jeremiah in public smashed a potter's earthen flask, as a sign of how God would smash Jerusalem. Since symbolic acts were thought to have power to bring about what they stood for, Jeremiah was threatened with death (chapter 26). He contradicted the belief that God would save them no matter how wicked they were. But some of the princes defended Jeremiah against the priests who called for his death, and pointed out that Micah had foretold the same things in the days of Hezekiah, and was not put to death. However, another prophet, Uriah was executed for a similar prophecy (16:20-24).

Jeremiah was deeply distressed. He had no wife (16:1-4). He was finally excluded from the Temple (36:5) and mocked by many. In his interior torment, he even said that God had deceived him (20:7) for Jeremiah had thought God's initial call seemed to tell him God would protect him. Yet he was mistreated, scourged and put in the stocks by the priest Pashur. Jeremiah did not yet know the redemptive value of suffering, which Jesus taught by word and by example. He was tempted to give up his mission (20:9), yet he said when he tried to be silent, God's words burned within him. In 20:12 he even called for what the versions call "vengeance", but in the Hebrew Jeremiah was calling for God's naqam, that is the executive action of the supreme authority to set things right. Whether or not Jeremiah understood it clearly, there is a great difference between revenge - wishing evil to another so it may be evil to him - and a desire that the objective order be rebalanced. (Cf. our comments on objective order and sin as debt in chapter 11).

Jeremiah suffered much under King Jehoiakim - it was he who had Jeremiah's scroll destroyed. Jehoiakin, son of Jehoiakim, followed his father, but reigned only three months. The rebellion of Jehoiakim brought on the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 597. When Jehoaiakin capitulated he was exiled to

Babylon and the temple was plundered. He was a prisoner in Babylon 37 years. After the exile of Jehoiakin, Nebuchadnezzer installed Mattaniah, son of Josiah as king, and changed his name to Zedekiah. Zedekiah was rather well disposed to Jeremiah. Jeremiah sent a letter to the exiles in Babylon (chapter 29) warning them about false prophets who said the exile would be short. He told them it would be 70 years, they should settle down.

In 589 Zedekiah provoked the Babylonians again, which led to the tragedy of 587. Jeremiah was cast into a cistern, but was later released and imprisoned in the court of the guard until the city fell. During this time Jeremiah wrote the great prophecy of the New Covenant (3l:3l-34). Vatican II (Lumem Gentium # 9) says Jesus made the covenant at the Last Supper. The essential obedience was that of Jesus, yet, since St. Paul makes clear we need to do all things with Jesus - the syn Christo theme - we must join our obedience to His. Did Jeremiah see that the essential obedience would be that of Jesus? We do not know - Vatican II (Lumem Gentium # 55) seems uncertain on the point. The Holy Spirit, the chief author, could intend more than the human writer saw.

There are two remarkable passages in which we may perhaps see an indication of the divinity of the Messiah. In 23:3 God said: "I myself shall gather the remnant of my sheep", but in verse 5:" I will raise up for David a righteous branch." The Targum on verse 5 marks it as messianic. So it seems that God will be the shepherd to rule His people, also the Messiah will rule. So the Messiah seems to be God. In 30:11:" I am with you -oracle of the Lord - to save you." Levey (op. cit., p. 72) notices that it seems to say God Himself will come. Yet 30:9 is marked by the Targum as messianic.

We have also five beautiful laments over the fall of Jerusalem in the Book of Lamentations. The text does not name the author. It could be Jeremiah. The date is also uncertain, suggestions range from 586 to 538, that is, the extent of the exile.

After the fall of Jerusalem in 587, Jeremiah was released from chains (chapter 40). Before long (chapter 42), the survivors asked Jeremiah to consult the Lord, and they would heed. He did, and advised them to stay in their land, and not to flee to Egypt. In spite of their promise, they went to Egypt, forcing Jeremiah and Baruch to go with them.

The short book of Baruch pretends to be by the secretary of Jeremiah. It may be by a pious Jews of a later time, using the name of Baruch as a sort of pen name. It contains reflections on the circumstances of the exiles in Babylon, and expresses sentiments like those of Jeremiah.

Some of the objections usually made against an early date for the book of Baruch are of no weight. Thus it is said that chapter 1 supposes the temple as still standing, while chapter 2 supposes it is in ruins. Two dates of composition for the two chapters, not too far apart, could account for that. In 1:11 Belshazzar is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But it often happened, especially with rulers, that they would speak of an earlier ruler as their father. For example King Tirhakah, c. 680 B.C. speaks of his father Sesostris III, c. 1880 B.C., and the genealogies in Matthew contain similar gaps; and Jesus is called the son of David - with a gap of centuries. (cf. Kitchen, op. cit.,p. 39). We do admit that an observance of the feast of booths probably could not have happened after the fall of Jerusalem.

The contents are varied: a prayer of the exiles; a praise of the wisdom in the law of Moses; the lament of Jerusalem over her children; a consolation for Jerusalem, since the exile is about to end. The sixth chapter seems to be a separate work, the Epistle of Jeremiah against idolatry, sent to the exiles.

Zephaniah: He is one of the minor prophets, and seems to be a contemporary of Jeremiah. He speaks at the start, of the coming day of the Lord. That phrase meant the time when God would set things right, whether at the end of time, or at some intermediate points, resulting in aid to Israel, ruin to the enemies of Israel. Early in the text the prophet speaks of the final day, for it will strike all mankind. He threatens also Jerusalem, and the neighbors of Jerusalem. But in the final chapter he promises restoration to Jerusalem.

Incidentally, chapter 1 may have been the inspiration for the liturgical sequence, Dies irae.

Habbakuk: This small book seems to have been composed between the battle of Carchemish, when Nebuchadnezzar routed Assyrian and Egyptian forces (605) and 597, the year when Babylon invaded Judah and struck Jerusalem. There is an alternation - the complaints of the prophet, and God's answer. The prophet looks to God's fidelity to the covenant, asks why He is not helping. God predicts the fall of Babylon, still far in the future, in 539. The prophet's complaints seem to be based on forgetfulness that the covenant is two-sided, it promises good things to those who obey, evil retribution to the disobedient (cf. Dt. 11:26-28).

In 2:4 God promises that the man of faith who trusts in Him will not perish in the calamities that are coming. St. Paul quotes this line in Romans 1:17 and Gal 3:11, giving it a somewhat different sense, to support his preaching of justification by faith. The rabbis often cited the OT and did not heed the context. Paul was trained that way. Yet there is a strong connection, for in Paul, faith includes intellectual belief, confidence, obedience, and love.

Jonah: This book is very different, in that it is not a collection of utterances of the prophet; instead there is a story of a reluctant prophet. 2 Kings 14:25 briefly mentions a prophet, Jonah ben Amittai from the time of King Jeroboam II of Israel (786-46). But most scholars would date him in the sixth century.

Most commentators think this work was intended as a sort of extended parable rather than as history. There are considerable difficulties in taking it as historical. These can be answered (Cf. W. Most, Free From All Error,Prow, Libertyville, 1990, pp. 57-60). But to answer them does not solve the problem of genre.

Nor do the words of Benedict XV in Enchiridion Biblicum 463 solve it, for they speak of Jesus as using "views [sententias] and examples". Jesus in referring to Jonah in Mt 12:38-42 was appealing to an example, and it sufficed for His purpose that the narrative of Jonah was popularly known and accepted. Similarly, St. Paul used a rabbinic legend in 1 Cor 10:4 (cf. Jude 9).

Whatever be the genre, the lessons of Jonah are clear. Jonah tried to run away to avoid preaching in Nineveh. The very fact God ordered him to preach there shows God's concern or love for even the Assyrians, the world's worst people in the eyes of people of the region: so He must love all! It also shows, sadly, that the People of God were so often more resistant to God's grace than were pagans. In the Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, a late 4th century rabbinic work, we find words put into the mouth of Jonah, saying that since the gentiles are more inclined to repent, he, Jonah might be causing Israel to be condemned if he went to Nineveh and they welcomed him. Cf. also similar instances in: Ezek 3:5-7; Lk 10:30-37; 17:11-19 and Mt 11:21.

Ezekiel: His ministry began with the call of God to him in 593 in Babylonia. He had been deported in 597. The date of the last of his sayings (29:27) seems to have been 571.

In contrast to Jeremiah's book, that of Ezekiel is rather well- ordered, in three major parts: Judgment on Judah and Jerusalem; Judgment on the nations; Restoration of Israel.

The first of these sections is not in chronological order, for during part of the time he seems to be in Jerusalem before its fall, whereas at the start he was already in exile.

It is often said that Ezekiel was an ecstatic prophet. The basis for such a claim is found in things like his dumbness in 3:22-27. But the ecstatic prophets are out of their mind, and hardly if at all know what they are doing. Ezekiel knew well what he was doing, it was a symbolic act that God had ordered him to perform.

Jeremiah had spoken kindly of the first wave of exiles, who went out in 587 (24; 29). But Ezekiel speaks of them as stubborn of brow and obstinate in heart (2:3-8; 3:4-9 - Jeremiah did not so much praise them as say God would help them). He tells how in Babylonia he saw the glory of God transported there on a throne- chariot (1:1 - 3:15). In this vision he saw the famous four living creatures. He also is told to eat a scroll (chapter 2), which stands for his being filled with the messages of God. This vision appointed Ezekiel as a watchman and prophet: If the watchman does not warn his people, he will be guilty of their ruin.

Chapter 4 seems to imply he is still in Jerusalem before its fall: he is told to perform symbolic actions including drawing Jerusalem on a large clay tablet, and raising a siege against it. In chapter 12 he acted out the part of an exile going into captivity.

In chapters 8-11 he is given visions as though he were transported back to Jerusalem, to see the glory of God leaving the temple. We cannot be sure if this was a physical transport, or a vision. While in Jerusalem he saw the abominations committed even in the temple precincts.

He sometimes makes use of allegory to express the sinfulness and worthlessness of Israel. In this he at times speaks of Israel as the spouse of God, as Hosea had done (16 & 23). Of major importance is his teaching on individual responsibility in chapter 18: they must stop using the proverb that said the fathers have eaten sour grapes, the teeth of the children are set on edge. Each shall bear his own iniquity. But if the evil man repents, he is readily forgiven; if the good man turns to sin, he will not live.

The vision of the dry bones in chapter 37 is especially famous: it is a vivid way of saying that God can and will still restore His people. Hence in 43:1-9 Ezekiel saw the throne-chariot return and enter the new temple, as part of chapters 40-48 which picture an idealized cult within an idealized temple.

Some have attempted to see a prophecy of the last times of the world in chapters 38-39 and even to identify Russia within it. This is quite fanciful, lacking in any solid exegetical support.

Finally, there is a fascinating possibility in 34:11: "Thus says the Lord God: I, I myself will search out my sheep and seek them out." We notice the repeated I, clearly standing for God, as though He Himself intended to come in person. Yet in 34:23: "I will set one shepherd over them, my servant David". It is possible that this could imply the divinity of the Messiah. (cf. Jeremiah 23:3-5 and 30:11 for a similar situation. The Targum marks both passages of Jeremiah as messianic).

Obadiah: This is the shortest prophecy of the OT, only 21 verses long. The date is uncertain, but most likely it belongs to fifth century BC - the range of suggested dates runs from 850 to 312. The fifth century was a time when the Edomites had left their original home near the Gulf of Aqaba and had settled in southern Judah. They were among the adversaries of the Jews returning from exile. Obadiah hopes God will set things right. Please recall our comments on Jer 20:12, on the sense of Hebrew naqam.

Haggai: Here we can date the book confidently to 520 BC, and even become more precise in regard to each of the four pronouncements in the book. Haggai first said God willed work to resume on the temple - failure to do that meant that things that should naturally have helped them did not; then Haggai urges the work to continue even though the temple might not be as grand as Solomon's temple; the third section has questions to the priests about ritual cleanness; the final oracle says Zerubbabel, God's chosen one, is to be exalted.

There is special interest in 2:6-7, where God says: "In a little while, I will move heaven and earth and the hemdat of all the nations will come in, and I will fill this house with glory". St. Jerome translated: "The one desired by the nations will come in", i.e., the Messiah. More commonly it is translated "the desired things [or treasures] of all nations will come in." The fact that hemdat is singular, while its verb is plural causes a problem, and inclines many to translate "desired things, or treasures. But even if so, the picture is that of all nations coming to Jerusalem - which points to the messianic age. And God says He will fill the temple with glory, and even, in verse 9, says the glory of this new temple will be greater than that of Solomon. Materially this did not come true - but there was greater glory, in that Jesus the Messiah came in to the new temple. Therefore in view of the background, even if we do translate hemdat as plural, there is at least an implication of the messianic age in it - which is only "a little while" - from 520 BC!

Zechariah: He was a contemporary of Haggai. There are two main sections of this book. The first, chapters 1-8 has a series of eight night visions, dated to 519 BC, promising the restoration of Israel. First there are four horsemen who patrol the earth; then there are four horns, standing for the four nations that dispersed Judah and Israel, but they are terrified by four blacksmiths, agents of the Lord; then there is the measuring of Jerusalem, foretelling the restoration of Jerusalem. Next, in chapter 3, the High priest, Joshua is made glorious and given responsibility for both civilian and religious restoration. In the fifth vision (chapter 4) Joshua and Zerubbabel share responsibility for the golden lampstand, which is the restored community. In 5:21-4 there is a flying scroll, standing for God's curse on those who swear falsely. In chapter 5:5-11, a woman in a bushel is taken to Babylon, to remove wickedness from Israel. In the eighth and final vision (6:1-8), four chariots and horses patrol the earth, to prepare restoration, as in the first vision. The remainder of the first part of the book (6:9 - 8:23) is a series of oracles concerning the messianic age: coronation of the messianic king, then a stress on the ethical ideals of the prophets as more suited for the restoration than mere external observances. Finally, chapter 8 gives an idealized image of the messianic age in Jerusalem.

The second part of the book, chapters 9-14 - which many scholars assign to a later prophet - again focuses on restoration, and humiliation of the enemies of Israel, the gathering of the dispersed people, the power of God over nature and history. Already in 9:9-10 Jerusalem is told to rejoice, for her King will be righteous, coming riding on a donkey - Palm Sunday, of course. Very impressive is the allegory of two shepherds (11:4-17): the prophet seems to have acted out the part of a good shepherd, the Messiah, rejected by the sheep, paid for by thirty silver pieces. Then the Lord Himself said to the prophet who was acting for Him: "Throw it [the price] to the potter, the fine price at which they valued me." The me seems to refer to the Lord Himself - and since the Messiah is in view, we can gather that the Messiah is the Lord. It would be hard not to think of Mt. 27:3-10. Of course we are reminded of the remarkable text of Ez. 34:11 where the Lord says :"I, I will search out my sheep" and Jeremiah 23:3: "I myself shall gather the remnant of my sheep (and 23:5-6 according to the Targum, speaks of the Messiah), and "this is the name they give him: 'The Lord is our justice'." Samson Levey, op. cit.,p. 70 comments that a later rabbinic document said, referring to this text, "His name is 'the lord'"- in Hebrew Yahweh! - These texts could give a hint that the Messiah is God Himself!). Cf. Apoc/Rev 1:7.

The final chapters 12-14 foretell the Day of the Lord. Within them, 12:10 is striking. The Lord says He will pour upon the people of Jerusalem a spirit of favor and supplication, of repentance: "They will look upon me the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child." The strange shift from me to him is striking. It seems that the Lord speaks of Himself here - even as He did in 11:13 - as the pierced Messiah - and then they will mourn for him. The Targum does not see this as Messianic, but we in the light of the later events can easily do it. It foretells the final conversion of Jerusalem - of which St. Paul speaks in Romans 11:25-26 - when they will be converted and will mourn over the fact that they did pierce the Messiah, the Lord. This understanding is helped by the words of 13:7, which Jesus Himself quoted shortly before His death: "Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be dispersed" - we recall how the Lord identified Himself with the good shepherd above in 11:7-13.

Altogether, Zechariah is, next to Isaiah, the most messianic of the prophets.

Joel: Dates have been proposed for Joel from the late 9th century to the late 4th century. From his knowledge of and interest in cultic matters, some think Joel may have lived near Jerusalem. The first part of the book (1:1 - 2:17) speaks of a devastating plague of locusts - which could be taken as a literal infestation, or as describing a foreign invasion, or as an apocalyptic account of a divine judgment on Judah. The remainder of the book is concerned with the Day of the Lord, a day of judgment on the nations, but blessings for Israel. For the battle that will lead to such blessings, they will beat their plowshares into swords - not a contradiction of Isaiah 2:4, which speaks of the period when the blessings are won and assured, while Joel speaks of the battle needed to reach that day.

The language becomes heavily apocalyptic at times: in 2:10 and in 4:15 the sun and moon are darkened, and the stars do not give their light. We saw other examples of this pattern of speech in chapter 4 above, from Isaiah and Ezekiel.

St. Peter in his address on the first Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21) quoted Joel 3:1-5, and said it was being fulfilled then. But there is multiple fulfillment in some prophecies, and so the words of Joel are to apply again before the final day of the Lord.

Malachi: We have no personal information about Malachi, and some even doubt that Malachi - which means "my messenger" - was his name. We gather something on the date from 1:8, which speaks of the nation as ruled by a governor - which was true in the Persian period (540-450).

There are six oracles in this book. It opens with the expression of God's love for Israel/Jacob, in contrast to His anger with Edom; secondly, God charges the priests have become careless, they even offer defective victims, He prefers the clean oblation offered from the rising to the setting of the sun (more on this below); then God objects to mixed marriages. He will come in judgment, they have wearied Him. His messenger will come first. The Lord will refine the priesthood. In fifth place He complains of their failure to pay the tithes, promises reward if they do. Then, He rebukes those who question the value of obedience to God. The faithful will be written in the Lord's book. The prophet Elijah will come before the Day of the Lord.

We must ask about the offerings made by the gentiles in 1:11. Many opinions have been proposed: some think the prophet means pagan sacrifices - but, would an Israelite prophet speak that way? We recall St. Paul who in 1 Cor 10:20 says what the pagans offer is offered to demons - in the sense that the demons promote such offerings. Some have suggested it refers to proselytes - but they were not so numerous, or so widely spread, to qualify. Some suggest it refers to the fame of the name of Yahweh. But that would not be called a sacrifice. Some think it means prayer, praise etc, in the days of the Messiah - Again, this is not sacrifice.

So by elimination, we go back to an interpretation found in many of the Fathers of the Church: this is a prophecy of the Mass. Of course, all Protestant commentators would reject that. The Council of Trent (Enchiridion Symbolorum 1742) said the Mass is the fulfillment. So did Vatican II, Lumem Gentium #17.

The words of 3:1 are remarkable: "Behold, I am sending my messenger, who will prepare a way before my face, and suddenly the Lord will come to His temple, the messenger of the covenant whom you are desiring." This is related to 4:5: "Behold I am sending to you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful Day of the Lord comes." The noted former form critic (more recently Fuller declared form criticism bankrupt), Reginald H. Fuller (The Foundations of New Testament Christology,Chas. Scribner's Sons, NY, 1965, p. 48) said that 4:5 is a note commenting on 3:1: "Elijah appears as the forerunner not of the Messiah but of Yahweh himself... ." Of course, we know the Messiah is God, and we note that Jesus Himself in Mt 11:3-10 (Lk 7:24-27) referred Mal 3:1 to Himself, implying He knew His own divinity. (He used the then current form of the words in which it was modified by similarity of wording to Ex 23:20).

First we must explain that there are two numbering systems for the Psalms, one following the Hebrew numbers, the other following the Septuagint (LXX) numbers. Both systems are the same for 1-8. But then: 9-10 of Hebrew = 9 of the LXX. 11-113 Hebrew = 10-112 LXX; 114-15 Hebrew = 113 LXX; 116 Hebrew = 114-15 LXX; 117-146 = 116- 145 LXX; 147 Hebrew = 146-47 LXX; 148-150 = 148 - 150 LXX. Most modern versions follow the Hebrew system, while the older Catholic versions follow the LXX and the Vulgate.

Our present Psalter is likely to be a collection of several earlier collections. The Psalms at present fall into five books or groups: 1-41; 42-72; 73-89; 90-106; 107-150. Each book closes with a shorter doxology, or praise of God. Many of the Psalms are attributed to David. It is likely that he did compose many. At the time of Christ it was customary to speak of all as by David. Christ merely adopted the current way of speaking. His mission was not to reveal the history of literature.

The Psalms are in general sacred songs, prayers. There are several different types of Psalms: Psalms of Lament; Psalms of Thanksgiving; Hymns; Enthronement Psalms; Royal Psalms; Liturgical Psalms and Wisdom or Torah Psalms.

The titles at the beginning of Psalms are in general mysterious. So also is the use of the word selah, which is frequent. Its sense is not known. It may be a musical notation.

The Psalms are all poetry. Poetry in general requires two things: elevation of thought and language; and some special metrical form. The meter of Hebrew verse does not depend on rhyme or regular meter, but on rhythmic beat and parallelism. It is necessary to count how many stressed syllables - usually 2, 3 or 4.

Parallelism is very common. In synonymous parallelism the sense of the first stich (group of words) is repeated in the second. There is also antithetic parallelism, in which the repetition gives the same idea in contrasting ways. Sometimes the second member merely completes the thought of the first. Sometimes the parallelism is worked out in three lines.

The parallelism of the Psalms is much influenced by that of Ugaritic literature. Ugarit is the modern Ras Shamra. A plow of a farmer in 1928 accidentally came upon the buried ruins of Ugarit, which had been destroyed by fire in 1185 BC, probably in an invasion of the Sea Peoples, who distressed many lands around that time, including Egypt. For examples of Ugaritic texts cf. Peter C. Craigie, Ugarit and the Old Testament (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1983, esp. pp. 53-55, or Stories from Ancient Canaan, Edited and Translated by Michael D. Coogan (Westminster, Phila., 1978, pp. 14-18). It is remarkable how much of the imagery of God riding upon the clouds etc. comes from ancient Ugarit.

in many Psalms: 18, 21, 45, 61, 72 (the whole Psalm), 80, 89, 132.

We will examine the most important of these, and add some that the Targum does not see as Messianic.

First, those which the Targum does call messianic.

In 21:5 the Hebrew texts says "He asked for life from you." The Targum expands: "He asked eternal life of you." This reflects the widespread view that the Messiah would live forever.

Psalm 45, many think, was written for the marriage of Joram to Athaliah. Yet the Targum takes it to refer further, to the Messiah. References to God, the Messiah, and Israel are interwoven. 45:7 in the Hebrew says "your divine throne is forever;" the Targum renders "your throne of glory lasts forever". Psalm 61: 7-9 echoes the belief that the Messiah will live forever.

Psalm 72 is entirely Messianic, and is similar to the thought of Nathan's prophecy (of 2 Sam 7. 4-17 to David. 72:17 says "May his name be forever", reflecting the prevalent rabbinic belief of the preexistence of the name of the Messiah.

In Psalm 80:18 we find, "May your hand be upon the man of your right hand, on the son of man, whom you raised up for yourself." Levey (op. cit., pp. 119-20) notes that the Targum takes the Messiah to be the son of God. He adds that later rabbis carefully steered clear of any messianic interpretations of it. It is interesting to see the Messiah called "son of man" here.

Now for Psalms which the Targum does not take as messianic: First, Psalm 2 speaks of the Lord's "anointed one" who is the son of God, and who will rule the nations, "with an iron scepter". Peter and John in Acts 4:25-26 explicitly take Psalm 2 to refer to Jesus. So does Revelation/Apocalypse 12:5. The Targums often see messianic indications with less reason than Psalm 2 offers. We suspect deliberate suppression by the Jews - that this happens at times is admitted by three major Jewish scholars today: Jacob Neusner, Samson Levey, and H. J. Schoeps (cf. chapter 14 above).

In Acts 2:25-28 St. Peter argues from Psalm 16:8-11 in which v. 20 says: "You will not abandon me to the grave, and you will not let your holy one see corruption." St. Peter says that the body of David did decay - therefore this referred to Jesus.

Jesus Himself recited the opening line of Psalm 22 on the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" In a General Audience of Nov 30, 1988, Pope John Paul II commented on this text: "Dominant in His mind, Jesus has the clear vision of God... But in the sphere bordering on the senses... Jesus' human soul is reduced to a wasteland, and He no longer feels the presence of the Father." Verse 17 says: "They have pierced my hands and my feet." We think again of Zechariah 12:10: "They will look on me, the one they have pierced." (cf. again Apoc/Rev. 1. 7) And Ps. 22:19 adds: "They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots."

Jesus Himself in Mt 22:41-46 reasoned from Psalm 110:1: "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool for your feet." So, Jesus said, David calls the Messiah Lord - a hint of divinity. Matthew 22:46 reports that the Pharisees could not answer this reasoning.

Psalm 118:42 says: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone". Jesus referred that to Himself in Mt. 21:42 (cf. Eph 2:20 and 1 Pet. 2:6).

There are some Psalm lines that seem to reflect a belief on the part of the writer that he will be with God even after death, for his union with Him has been so close in this life, that it cannot be interrupted.

Psalm 49:16: "But God will rescue my soul from the hand of Sheol; surely He will take me." Right after this the fate of the wicked rich is pictured: he cannot take his riches with him.

Psalm 73:23: "But I am always with You, You hold my right hand by Your hand; you guide me with counsel and afterwards you will take me to glory." In the first part of the psalm, the author said he was tempted to think God was not just. But he understood the fate of the wicked when he went into the sanctuary. After that, he gained the confidence he expressed in verse 23. He continued: "Whom do I have in the heavens but you? Being with you, I desire nothing on earth. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion forever (le olam)."

Mitchell Dahood, in the introductions to his three volume commentary on the Psalms in Anchor Bible,proposes revised translations of about 30 Psalm lines, in the light of Ugaritic language discoveries. If one accepts them, there are more lines like those we have just cited. We will see more evidence on belief in after life and on future retribution in our consideration of individual wisdom books in the next chapter.

There are some Psalms and parts of Psalms that call down punishment on enemies. For example, Psalms 35, 58, 59 ask God to punish the enemies of the Psalmist. Ps. 137:8-9 is similar.

How can we explain? Some have said these were merely predictions of punishment without any desire. That seems unrealistic. Some have said the morality of the Old Testament was imperfect: it was, compared to the new, but we must not say there is something positively immoral in it.

It is helpful to think of Revelation/Apocalypse 6:10 where the souls of martyrs under the altar ask God: "How long, until you will bring justice for our blood?" They are with God, so their wills are completely aligned with His. Many versions here use the word avenge. That is unfortunate. To will vengeance is to will evil to another so it may be evil to him. The souls of martyrs do not do that. But to will that the objective order be righted - we discussed that in chapter XI - this is supremely moral, it is the attitude of God Himself. It is a bit dangerous to indulge in that wish, for one may slide over readily into a desire for vengeance. Yet we must admit that in itself it is highly moral.

It has been traditional to speak of seven books as wisdom books: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth), Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). Actually, the character of these is rather diverse. We have just commented on the Psalms. We will hold the Song of Songs to the last place, since it is quite different from the usual wisdom books.

We begin with Proverbs, Sirach, Wisdom and Ecclesiastes since they have strong similarities. The first three of these have deep roots in other civilizations of the ancient Near East, especially Egypt. The ancient Near Eastern court circles seem to have been the source of much wisdom literature. One of the oldest works is The Instructions of Ptahotep, a vizier, c. 2400 B.C. The Instructions of Amenemopet, dating from around 1200 B.C. is significant for the remarkably close similarity to the Book of Proverbs, especially to 22:17 - 24:22: compare Amenemopet III, 9-12; XI, 13f; XXVII, 16f.

Ptahotep advises that when one meets a speaker who is better at argument, one should cut down on bad talk by not opposing him. On meeting an equal, one should show his superiority by silence, so that the attending official may be impressed. An inferior opponent should be treated with indulgent disregard, so as to "smite him with the punishment of the [truly] great." At the table of a superior, one should keep a sedate countenance, take only what is offered, laugh only when the host laughs. An official should listen patiently to pleas of clients because "a petitioner wants attention to what he says even more than the accomplishing of that for which he came."

So, even though the Egyptian wisdom urges conformity to the virtue of ma'at - which seems to be a complex of social justice virtues, though the sense is unclear - yet practical advice on how to get along is the most prominent feature.

Some of Hebrew wisdom is also merely practical advice, though the religious element does enter often enough. Especially there is praise of Wisdom which is often personified - cf. e.g., Proverbs 1, 8, 9; Sirach 24; Wisdom 7-9. She, Wisdom, existed before creation, with God, and after traveling through earth and sky, has taken up her abode with Jacob (Sirach 24:8-10). Wisdom is also identified with the Law: Sirach 24:22-23 (cf. our remarks on Dt. 4:6-8 in chapter 11 above) She is also a communication of God, an effusion of divine glory: Wisdom 7:25-26. So it is an easy step from there to speak of Christ as the wisdom of the Father: 1 Cor 1:24.

Proverbs: This book is not really unified. Instead it is a collection of short sayings, with a long poetic introduction (chapters 1-9), and a conclusion consisting of longer sayings and short poems (30-31).

The date is difficult to determine. Some think many of the sayings go back to monarchic times, although the collection was made later.

The book opens: "The proverbs of Solomon". But we know that in that culture as pen names, the name of a famous man would often be used, and Solomon, famous for his wisdom, was a natural choice. There are within it two special Solomonic collections: 10:1- 24:22, and 25:1 - 29:27.

Much of the wisdom is largely practical and aimed at success in this life. Yet there is a religious color especially in personified Wisdom, particularly in chapters 1, 8, and 9. And "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord" (9:10). A specially beautiful passage, 8:22-31 is an optional reading for the Common of the Blessed Virgin, the Seat of Wisdom ever most closely joined to her Son, who is the Wisdom of the Father (1 Cor 1:24). Vatican II, in chapter 8 of Lumem Gentium,beautifully develops this union, which began in eternity, embraced every one of the mysteries of His life and death, and will continue beyond the end of time forever.

Chapters 30 and 31 include wisdom of other nations, that of Agur, and that of Lemuel.

The whole book closes with a beautifully ideal picture of the perfect wife.

Sirach/Ecclesiasticus: It is remarkable that we know the name of the author of this book, Yeshua ben Eleazar ben Sira. Sirach is the Greek form of the name. His grandson wrote a preface to the Greek translation of this book. Ben Sira was a Jerusalem sage who passed on his reflections in a school he conducted. In time he wrote down these teachings, probably c 190-180. The grandson brought the book to Egypt and there translated it sometime after 132 B.C. Though the Hebrew original was long lost, starting in 1896 documents have been found, which give us about two-thirds of the Hebrew original.

Unfortunately, not all versions use the same numbering system. The NAB and older Revised Standard Version have a system that matches neither the Greek nor the Latin numbers. The newer Revised Standard Version is better.

It is almost impossible to outline the book, because of its lack of systematic arrangement. However, materials are often grouped according to content - a feature lacking in Proverbs.

Ben Sira like Proverbs personifies wisdom. She is God's creature and His gift to us, but to attain wisdom requires much discipline. She dwells especially in the temple of Jerusalem, and is identified with the Law.

A specially important section is the praise of the ancestors (44:12 - 50:24) from Enoch to the high priest Simon II.

The charge is often made that Sirach denies an afterlife or retribution in the afterlife. The chief line is 14:16-17: "Give and take and enjoy yourself, for it is not possible in Sheol to seek luxury. All flesh grows old as a garment. For the decree of ages is: You must surely die."

We need to work with care and precision here. The commentators commonly forget that before the death of Christ, heaven was closed (cf. Enchiridion Symbolorum 780, 1000) even to those who were just and fully prepared. So what was existence like in Sheol? There was no praise of God. Psalm 6:6 asks: "Who in Sheol can give you praise?" Sirach 17:27- 28 has the same thought. Again, Isaiah 38:18-19 says: "Death cannot praise you. Those who go down into the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness." M. Dahood (Anchor Bible,Psalms 16, p. 38) comments that the writer of Psalm 6 does not suffer from an inability to remember God in Sheol, but from not being able to share in the grand liturgical praise of God as in the public worship, which the people of Israel sincerely loved. (They loved the externals so much that God complained in Is 29:13: "This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me"). We could add that the very Hebrew words used in Isaiah 38:18-19 for praise or thanks of God also appear in 1 Chron 16:4 and 2 Chron 5:13 and 31:2 for the liturgical praise of God.

Is 38 says they cannot hope for God's faithfulness: it is because the covenant does not extend to Sheol - the word used is regular for God's faithfulness to the covenant. But this does not mean that God does not watch over Sheol: Job 26:6 says: "Sheol is naked before God." Cf. Prov. 15:11.

Qoheleth 9:10 says: "There is no work or reason, or knowledge, or wisdom in Sheol." Of course the dead in Sheol do not work. Nor have they any natural means of knowing what goes on on earth - they get this only if God chooses to reveal something to them. Cf. Job 14:21.

We do not see in Sirach any positive indication of retribution in Sheol. But that does not mean the dead were non-existent (these are two separate questions: survival, and retribution in the future life). Jesus Himself answered the Sadducees on this point (Mt. 22:29-33) by citing from the Pentateuch - perhaps the only part of the OT they accepted - from Ex 3:6, the words of God to Moses: "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob" and Jesus added: "He is not the God of the dead but of the living." The Sadducees were silenced, they could not answer His reasoning. Further, it was necessary to give repeated commands in the OT against necromancy, consulting the dead, which indicates it was being done, and done persistently: e.g., Lv 19:31; 20:6, 27; Dt. 18:11 and many more texts. Saul himself had a medium bring up the spirit of Samuel in 1 Sam 28:8-19. Even if we say the mediums were fakes, it remains true that there was persistent belief that the dead did exist. (We will consider some added problem texts in Job and Qoheleth in treating each book).

Let us recall also the Psalm lines on the future life we saw at the end of the chapter on Psalms.

Really, it would seem strange after some centuries in Egypt, where the concept of an afterlife was so strong and clear, if the Hebrews had no concept of survival at all.

Many today assert the Hebrew had a unitary concept of man: a body with breath. Then there could be no survival. But we already saw the widespread belief of survival in the attachment to necromancy. And we saw the answer of Jesus to the Sadducees. Some confusion comes from the Hebrew word nefesh, which has many meanings including soul, but those who hold for the unitary concept refuse to accept that. meaning of soul. Really, we think the Hebrews were acting according to proper theological method, without realizing that technically of course. In divine matters we may meet with two truths, which seem to clash. Even after rechecking our study they are still there. Then we must hold both, hoping sometime to find how to reconcile them. They saw two things: 1)Man seems to be a unit; 2)They knew, as we saw, that there was some survival after death (with or without retribution there). How to fit these together they did not know, but they held both. Then in the second century B.C. when they reached the concept of man as made of body and soul (under stimulus of Greek thought and the horrible deaths of the martyrs under Antiochus IV), they finally knew how to do it. Not all Jews accepted that, but many did, especially the Pharisees. And St. Paul was a Pharisee.

Job: Job consists of a prose introduction and conclusion - which may have existed separately from the rest, and of a large poetic core. Satan - who seems not to be the same as the devil, merely an opponent - tells God that Job would not obey if he were afflicted. God gives permission to afflict Job greatly. So Job's suffering is permitted as a test - an idea that is a bit new, for usually suffering had been considered as a divine punishment for sin (and it could be that).

Three friends of Job come, but do not really console him: they say he must have sinned or the affliction would not have come. Job insists on his innocence. The fact that God could afflict an innocent man disturbs Job, he almost becomes angry with God at some points. Finally he asks the Almighty to answer him. God does speak from a storm: Would Job condemn God so he, Job could seem just? Job confesses he has not reacted well, he has tried to deal with things above him, he repents in dust and ashes. God directs Job's friends to ask Job to pray for them, so their fault may be pardoned. In the prose conclusion Job gets back much more than what he had lost.

Job basically wrestles with the question: Why do the just sometimes suffer in this life. The answer is: We cannot know all of God's ways - that is, this is the answer of the poetic core of the book. The prose conclusion says: God repaid Job richly before the end of his life. This is not a contradiction, but simply fails to repeat the gain.

Did Job, as some say, deny a future life in 14:13 ff? Not at all. Here is an outline of what Job really said in chapter 14: In verses 10-12: Even though a tree may put forth shoots again, a man who dies does not come back, i. e, not to this life. In verse 13: Job indulges in a poetic fancy - he knows it is only a fancy: He wishes God would hide him in Sheol until His anger would pass, and then remember Job again. This is a fancy for certain, but we must remember Job is high poetry, and such poetry can indulge in fanciful things. Marvin Pope, In Anchor Bible, Job does take this view of verse 13, and Pope points out that Is 26:20 indulges a similar fancy: let the people of Judah hide in their chambers till God's wrath passes. Amos 9:2 ff. pictures the wicked as trying in vain to hide in Sheol, in Heaven, on Mt. Carmel or on the bottom of the sea. Verses 14-17 continue the fancy of verse 13: "If a man dies, will he live again? All the days of my service I would wait until my change would come. You [God] would call, and would answer and you would want the work of your hands. Then You would number my steps, and not keep watch over my sin. My transgression would be sealed up in a bag, and you would sew up my iniquity. Verses 18-22 return to reality: just as a mountain may lose strength and a rock be moved from its place, just as waters wear away even rock, so, in the end, God prevails, and destroys man's hope of this life. God sends him away. In verses 21-22: Man goes to sheol, and does not know whether his sons fare well or not,"His flesh on him has pain, and his soul mourns over him." To sum up: Job for a moment indulges fancy, then returns to reality: No one can win against God, he must go to Sheol. There he will not know what goes on earth - as we saw earlier, even the souls of the just there, not having the vision of God before the death of Christ, have no normal means of knowing things on earth, unless God gives a special revelation. But Job adds that his flesh has pain and his soul mourns over him. This at least seems to imply some awareness after death.

We must add: Job may have seen even more about the future life. For the much debated verses 19:25-27 read, in the NAB: "I know that my Vindicator lives, and that he will at last stand forth upon the dust; whom I myself shall see: my own eyes, not another's shall behold him, and from my flesh I shall see God." Now this could not mean a rescue in this life, for in 7:6-7 Job said: "My days have passed more swiftly than the web is cut by the weaver, and are consumed without any hope." So he had no hope for this life - the hope must have been for the future life. The New Revised Standard Version is similar. So this rendering is at least not impossible. (Let us recall our comments above on Sirach 14:16-17).

Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes: The author is unknown, he seems to have been a rather late sage, probably about 3rd century BC. A copy of the book was in circulation at least by 150 BC, fragments have been found at Qumran.

Today it is often said that the author did not believe in an afterlife - but we have already commented on such claims in general earlier, in connection with Psalms Sirach and Job. Some time ago many believed there must be two authors for the book, for what they considered contrasting or incompatible statements. However, if we recall proper theological method, we can gain some light. In divine matters, it is not unusual to find two conclusions which remain even after rechecking our work, but which seem to clash. Then we need to resist any temptation to force the meaning of either. Rather, we should accept both, and remain that way until someone finds a solution. It is likely that Qoheleth did precisely this.

The first set of texts do seem not to know an afterlife, though they do not deny it:

2:14: "The eyes of a wise man are in his head; the fool walks in darkness. I myself perceived: the same thing comes to all of them." That is, all die and turn to dust.

3:19: "For what happens to man is the same as happens to beasts. As one dies, the other dies".

3:20: "All are from dust and will return to dust."

3:21: "Who knows whether the spirit of the sons of man goes up and the spirit of the beasts goes down?" Of course the sense is debated. The word we have rendered spirit is Hebrew ruach. Its sense is similar to that of nefesh - which is also much debated. Both surely have a wide range of meanings. However, we notice here that the author considers if the ruach of humans goes up, but that of animals goes down. At least a hint of a difference.

9:5-6: "The dead know nothing. They have no more reward... their love and their hate and their envy have perished. Nor do they have any more forever a portion of all that is done under the sun." We spoke of this in commenting on Sirach and Job. Yes, the dead have no normal means of knowing what goes on on the earth. And being in the Limbo of the Fathers, not in heaven until after the death of Christ, their lot is indeed dim. They never will return to ordinary earthly life - we know that after the resurrection life will be much different. Qoheleth would not know what we know, but what he said is not false.

Yet no one of the above really proves a denial of an afterlife.

The second set seem at least to imply a future life:

3:17: "I said in my heart: God shall judge both the just and the wicked." But the author knew well it does not always work out so in this life - hence an implication of a judgment beyond this life.

8:12: "If a sinner does evil a hundred times, and prolongs his life, yet I know surely that it will be well with those who fear God." Again, a possible implication, especially since in 8:14 he adds: "There are just men to who it happens according to the deeds of the wicked; and there are wicked men to whom it happens according to the deeds of the just."

12:14: "For God will bring every deed into judgment, every hidden thing, whether good or evil." Again, since it often does not happen in this life, there is an implication of retribution after death.

So Qoheleth at least seems to give us implications of retribution after death. He was groping, but did what he could. The fact that he spoke so dimly of all earthly things, and yet knew God is so good might possibly be considered as raising the question to a higher plane, going above mere earthly reward.

Wisdom: What Qoheleth saw only dimly at best, the author of Wisdom did see very clearly (3:1-5): "The souls of the just are in the hands of God, and surely no torment will touch them. They seemed to the eyes of senseless men to die, and their departure was considered an evil... but they are in peace. And if in the eyes of men they be punished, their hope is full of immortality. And having been tried a little, they will be greatly blessed for God tried them, and found them worthy of himself."

The author was a Jew, probably at Alexandria, in the first century B.C. He was familiar with Hellenistic philosophy, culture and rhetoric. Pagan wisdom, and especially the pagan claims of Isis, the goddess of wisdom, would be apt to impress the Jews. Science had been flourishing in Alexandria for some time. The writer wants to strengthen fellow Jews against the attractions of these things.

The passage we cited above comes from the section on wisdom and human destiny (which runs to 6:21). The wicked may persecute - probably the memory of the persecution of Antiochus IV of Syria was vivid. But God makes it all right in the life to come. For God had formed man to be imperishable (1:13-14; 2:23). But death entered by the sins of wicked people. Death cannot harm those who are faithful to God, but it will strike those who plotted against the just.

The second section 6:22-11:1 speaks of acquiring wisdom. It is a gift of God, but will be given those who are just and who seek it. Specially impressive are the words of 6:5-6 which say that the lowly may be pardoned by mercy, but there is a stern judgment for the powerful.

In the third section, 11:2-19:22 the author reviews the wonders of God's works for Israel, in the Exodus and beyond. Israel benefitted by the very things, the plagues, that struck the Egyptians.

A special gem of wisdom appears in 4:12: "The magic spell of worthless things obscures what is right, and the anxiousness of desire perverts an innocent mind." This anticipates St. Paul's plea for detachment in 1 Cor 7:29-35. It is quite possible, since the author knew Greek culture that he has in mind too the plea of Socrates, often repeated, that the philosopher, to find the truth, should have as little as possible to do with the things of the body (e.g., Phaedo 65, 66, 82-83, 114; Republic 519).

The Song of Songs: It is customary to list this work among the wisdom books, even though it is clearly not such. The title, which is also given as Canticle of Canticles, is merely a Hebrew form of superlative: the greatest song.

Dates of composition have been proposed all the way from the monarchic period to the third century B.C. The attribution to Solomon is only a familiar literary device.

There is much disagreement on its structure: some have seen only seven love songs in it, others as high as fifty.

If taken in the literal sense it would be an erotic composition. In that way it could be a message that God created sexuality as a means of spiritual growth, if used according to His plan and within His laws. Thus Paul VI, in an address to the 13th National Congress of the Italian Feminine Center, on Feb. 12, 1966 (cf. The Pope Speaks 11, 1966, p. 10), said that marriage should be "a long path to sanctification."

But at least by the 2nd century A.D. the allegorical view was. We saw, especially in Hosea, the imagery of God as the husband of Israel. Early Christians tended to make it refer to the relation of Christ and His Church. cf. Eph 5:22-32.

Daniel is commonly thought of as a prophet. Really, as we saw briefly in chapter 1, the book contains two very different genres, edifying narrative, and apocalyptic.

The pattern of the book is clear: chapters 1-6 are the edifying narrative type, of which we spoke in chapter 1 above. Chapters 7- 12 are apocalyptic; chapters 13-14 are narrative additions. We recall from chapter 4: Apocalyptic is a genre or pattern of writing in which the author describes visions and revelations. It is not usually clear if he meant to assert they were real, and not merely a vehicle for his message. They contain bizarre, highly colored images. Often there are figures of animals, to represent pagan empires, a horn to stand for a king or a power, and they often include an angel who interprets images. Apocalyptic is commonly a work to give consolation in time of severe trial. God is presented as Lord of history. There may be prediction of the future. Now if such predictions were made in a rather factual genre, we would need to maintain that they really were made before the events. However because of the highly colored imagery and fanciful nature of apocalyptic, the predictions may be made after the events pictured, without any dishonesty. It is understood such things may happen in this genre.

The dating of the book is debated. Most scholars would give a second century date, in the context of the terrible persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV, Epiphanes, of Syria; some others, especially the evangelistic type, would hold for 6th century. The argument for the later date depends much on the type of Hebrew used. But there are respectable replies to the linguistic arguments.

Most of Daniel is in Hebrew, yet chapters 2-7 are Aramaic. The reason for this is not fully clear. The suggestion has been made that the Hebrew chapters were for the special concerns of the Jewish people, while the Aramaic portions were intended especially for the gentiles - for Aramaic was the international language of diplomacy at the time.

In chapter 1 above we described the edifying narrative genre, and used it to explain the alleged defect in chronology in Daniel 1:1.

Otherwise, chapter 1 tells of the dedication of 4 Jewish youths in the exile to the dietary laws. Eating nothing but vegetables made them more healthy. We must add: If the story is factual, it will not prove that vegetarians always get such an effect: there, God miraculously supplied.

Chapter 2 contains the great vision of the four kingdoms, symbolized by the kinds of metal in a huge statue, which the king saw in a dream. Many have been tempted to see the 4th kingdom as Rome, so it may connect in time with the messianic kingdom, which comes after it. But we must note that the feet standing for that kingdom are part pottery, part iron - which do not mix. This hardly fits the strong power of Rome. Most interpreters take the four to be: Babylonian, Median, Persian, and Hellenistic kingdoms after the death of Alexander. We observe: if one follows that view, then there is a Median kingdom before the Persian, which would imply that Darius the Mede, who in 6:1 took Babylon, is a historical figure. Most writers say Darius is fictitious, that Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon. If so, we would say the edifying narrative genre could account for the matter. However, we must add that the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, in his Antiquities,10, 245-49 (xi. 4) does report that there was a Darius the Mede, a kinsman, who would have ruled for Cyrus for a time while Cyrus was occupied with other things. Such an action would be quite in character with the known policies of Cyrus.

Other narrative incidents - the three men in the fiery furnace, the vision of the giant tree, and the stories in the appendix (chapters 13-14), could have served the purpose of encouraging the Jews to perseverance in fidelity to their laws at a time of persecution. The episode in chapter 4 of Nebuchadnezzar's temporary insanity (boanthropy) does seem strange. Yet we notice that the Babylonian records carry no entries of activity on his part between 582 and 575.

An objection used to be made about chapter 5: Belshazzar is presented as the last king of Babylon before its fall. But it was said that the cuneiform records showed the last king was Nabonidus. We now know that Nabonidus in the third year of his reign, 553, made his son Belshazzar coregent, and he himself left for Tema in Arabia, where he stayed for about ten years, and never reassumed the throne.

With chapter 7 we enter the strongly apocalyptic portion of the book. The four beasts rise from the sea, showing they are hostile and chaotic forces opposed to God. They seem to represent the same sequence of kingdoms as the vision of the great statue in chapter 2, except that here we get the detail of the small horn that spoke arrogantly, which at least seems to many to be Antiochus IV of Syria.

Chapter 7, verses 13-18 includes the famous vision of one like a son of man, who receives from the Ancient of Days dominion, glory and kingship that will never be taken away forever. Commentators like to make this individual son of man just the "holy ones of the most high." But this is unrealistic, the Jewish people never did get such a kingship, one that will last forever. Nor would Jewish thought suppose a headless kingdom. However if the figure is the Messiah, then we do have a rational explanation. In Hebrew thought we often meet an individual who stands for and as it were embodies a collectivity. Jesus often used the phrase Son of Man to refer to Himself. This was part of His deliberately gradual self- revelation.

Chapter 8 largely repeats the thought of chapter 7, in different imagery.

In chapter 9 we meet the famous enigmatic prophecy of 70 weeks of years.

We begin with 9:2 in which Daniel is told that the desolation of Jerusalem is to last 70 years.

First, we notice that the number 70 is normally round, as is 40. How free this can be can be seen from a comparison of the Hebrew text of Jonah 3:4 where Jonah says Nineveh will be destroyed in 40 days - along side of the Septuagint translation of the same line, where it is not 40 but 3 days. The 70 years to Jeremiah 25:11 were the length of the exile - very roundly, 70 years. But Daniel by inspiration sees that there is a further fulfillment of the 70.

The Fathers of the Church commonly understood chapter 9 as a prophecy of the Messiah - a view now usually dropped. Modern scholars want to make it fit the events of the time of Antiochus IV who persecuted the Jews, and desecrated the temple.

We can make it fit rather well with the time of Antiochus, thus:

1) Start with 605, the message to Jeremiah (25:11 - for 70 years they will be enslaved to the king of Babylon. In one sense, which Jeremiah saw, this meant the length of captivity - Daniel does not contradict, but extends the prophecy by taking weeks of years instead of single years, about 70 weeks of years.

2) 605 BC minus 62 weeks (434 years) extends to 171 BC, the death of Onias, the High Priest, the anointed one (9:26).

3) Persecution for one week = 7 years, goes from 171-164 (death of Onias to death of Antiochus). Antiochus makes the compact with many, the fallen Jews (v. 27).

4) The half week in v. 27 is 167-65, the time of desecration of the Temple.

But, there must be a reference to Christ also. We note that 9:24 is too grand - there was no everlasting justice, nor expiation of guilt after end of Antiochus. Now, St. Augustine wisely noted in City of God 17. 3, that some prophecies refer partly to OT events, partly to Christ - we know this when they do not fit either one perfectly. So 9:24 refers to Christ. "A most holy" could hardly refer to Onias - it does refer to Christ.

We add two details to the interpretation that takes the prophecy to refer to the period up to Antiochus:

1) The he in v. 27 may mean Antiochus making a deal with fallen Jews - but it might also vaguely refer to Jesus making the eternal covenant. After half a week Jesus abolishes the sacrifices of the old law, and starts the new regime.

2) V. 25 says seven weeks of years remain until Cyrus, God's anointed (as Isaiah 45:12 said, in the sense that God empowered him to crush Babylon and so to liberate the Jewish captives in 539). Jeremiah twice (25:11, dated in 605 BC, and 29:10, dated between 597 and 587, probably in 594) foretold the exile would last 70 years. From 594 to 539 is 55 years, not precisely seven weeks or 49 years. However, in this sort of prophecy that is a good enough approximation - we recall the case of Jonah 3:4 mentioned above.

We conclude: the prophecy of the seventy weeks works out rather well - with allowance for some approximation - in reference to the times leading up to Antiochus, yet verse 24 refers entirely to the time of Christ, and there may be vague allusions to that same time in verse 26.

From 10:1 to 11: 35 it is not hard to see a picture of the Hellenistic wars. But from 11:36 to the end of that chapter we meet many things that hardly fit Antiochus IV. The evil ruler in this passage magnifies himself above every god - this does not fit Antiochus, who put not a statue of himself but of Zeus in the Jerusalem temple. Verse 37 says he pays no attention to any god - again, this does not fit Antiochus. St. Jerome in his commentary on this passage thinks the figure is the Antichrist. Already in 8:17 the angel-interpreter told Daniel that the vision referred to the end- time. But we could make Antiochus a weak prefiguration of the horror of the Antichrist. In 11:45 the evil ruler will come to a sudden end, with no one to help him, seemingly at the beautiful holy mountain, which probably means Zion. But Antiochus met his end in Persia.

Some fanciful interpretations would make the "King of the North" in 11:40ff to be Russia.

Chapter 12 opens with a prediction of a great tribulation such as has never been before. This would fit with the time of the great Antichrist. Mt 24:21 speaks similarly of the tribulation at the end. There seems to a conflict between the angels in charge of various places, with Michael victorious.

In 12:2-3 a resurrection is clearly predicted. It is not clear if the "many" means the whole human race (cf. Hebrew rabbim), or only the just. We recall a similar prophecy in Isaiah 26:19. Chapter 12:4 tells Daniel to seal the prophecy, and says many will fall away and evil will increase: Again we are reminded of Mat 24:12, Lk 18. 8, and 2 Tim 3. ff.

Especially puzzling are the words of 12:7. Daniel in verse 6 had asked how long it would be until these things would happen. The angel said it would be a time, and times, and half a time, which seems to stand for three and a half - a frequent symbolic number in the Book of Revelation. And then, still in v. 7, come words whose translation has caused problems: The things will happen, "when the scattering of the power (hand) of the holy people has been completed [i.e., has come to an end]." Anchor Bible Daniel suggests that the line was mistranslated from an Aramaic original, and wants to read: "When the power of the desecrator of the holy people is brought to an end." But there is no need to suppose a mistranslation - Hebrew klh can mean to complete, to finish. Hence it is quite possible to render as we did above. Then the sense will be that the things predicted are to happen when the dispersion of the Jews finally comes to an end, before the end of time. This brings to mind the odd incident in 2 Macc. 2:4-8.

Of course, we are not certain, but this is an interesting speculation. The original Revised Standard Version substantially agreed with our translation. New Revised Standard Version "when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end... ."

Besides the chapters 13-14 which were added to the book of Daniel, there were two other additions: the prayer of Azariah and the canticle of the three young men in the furnace, inserted in the Greek text after 3:23. They were probably written separately from the book of Daniel towards the end of the 2nd century B.C. and were not accepted into the Hebrew text. But the Council of Trent has declared them inspired, and so part of Scripture.

Both books are named after Judas Maccabeus, the third son of the priest Mattathias who began the revolt against Antiochus IV in 167. Antiochus, as a means of unifying his sprawling empire, tried to spread Greek culture. This entailed, for the Jews, apostasy from their faith. Many Jews did give up their faith and took up Greek ways, even building a gymnasium in Jerusalem; many became martyrs, but many others, led by the Maccabees, resisted with an army, and made possible the survival of Judaism until the time of Christ, being the root of the Hasmonean dynasty (which later proved that power corrupts).

Mattathias was so bold as to kill the king's agent who came to force Jews to sacrifice to the gods in Modein, his city. Then they fled to the hills, and other loyal Jews joined them (1 Macc 2:1- 28).

Second Maccabees is not a continuation of First Maccabees. Both cover much of the same period. First Maccabees tells the history, beginning with Alexander the Great, and from the accession of Antiochus IV in 175, to the death of Simon Maccabeus in 134.

Second Maccabees covers the same period, but closes with a crucial victory won by Judas in 165.

First Maccabees relies at least in part on the recollections of those who had been witnesses of the events. The idea of the genre of history seen in it is closer to ours than are the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Its message is that keeping the law brings blessings and divine support.

Second Maccabees, after an introduction by the author, explicitly says that it is summarizing a five volume work of Jason of Cyrene (mentioned in 2:23). The author refers us to the fuller work of Jason for more details (2:28). Here the genre is also history, but closer to the rhetorical type of history which permits perhaps a bit of freedom at times.

First Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew, and shows Hebrew style by the frequent use of and to connect sentences. We have only the Greek text. The Hebrew was probably written near the start of the first century B.C. Second Maccabees is earlier, probably written in Egypt, most likely around the end of the second century B.C. Its Greek is of good literary quality.

Second Maccabees shows a deep religious spirit. God is given all the titles form the older books of the Old Testament, with the addition of ho epiphanes kyrios - the Lord who appears - in contrast to Antiochus Epiphanes.

A belief in the future life, or at least, resurrection, is entirely clear, especially in chapter 7, in the narrative of the martyrdom of the mother and her seven sons, and also in 14:46.

There is more testimony to the same belief in the account in 12:38-46, of the fallen Jewish soldiers who had pagan amulets on them. Judas took up a collection to have sacrifice offered in the Temple for their souls - thus giving a testimony to a belief in purgatory.

In the same spirit, we see the dream of Maccabeus showing that the deceased Jeremiah and Onias were praying for the living: 15:11-16.

Of especial interest is the account in 2:1-8 of Jeremiah hiding the ark, and telling his followers later it was to be hidden until God gathers his people together again and shows mercy. (Let us recall the translation we proposed above for Daniel 12:7). But we must not overlook the fact that 2:1 says we will "find this incident in the records". So inspiration merely guarantees that the story was in some records - it does not guarantee that the episode is true in itself.

The death of Antiochus is told in chapter 9, out of sequence, for the sake of grouping of material.

Finally in 6:13-16 we read the fullest account of the frequent Scriptural theme of filling up the measure of sins. The author is meditating on the fact that they are so afflicted by the persecution, and says: "It is a sign of great kindness not to let the irreverent run a long time, but to punish them at once. In handling other peoples, the Lord in long-suffering waits until they reach the full measure of their sins before He punishes them. But with us He acts differently, so that He may not have to punish us more severely later when our sins would reach their fullness". This same theme appears many other times in Scripture: cf. Genesis 15:16; Mt. 24:12; 1 Cor 11:32; 1 Ths 2:15-16.

In Daniel we saw two genres, one of which was the edifying narrative type. Now we have a large example of this type in the story of Judith, and perhaps in Esther and Tobit.

Judith: Nebuchadnezzar, "King of the Assyrians" declares war on the Medes, ruled by King Arphaxad. The Persians and western nations, including the Jews, refuse to aid in the attack. Nebuchadnezzar does defeat the Medes, and then is angry with the west even though many did not fight against him. He sends his general Holofernes to take revenge. Holofernes quickly conquers Damascus, and is about to attack the Jewish city of Bethulia and cut off the water supply. The citizens urge their leaders to surrender, Uzziah, the chief elder, calls for a delay of five days.

Judith, an extremely beautiful widow calls the elders to hear her plan. Counting on God, she adorns herself, goes to the enemy camp, and is taken before Holofernes. She told him the Jews can easily be conquered since they were about to sin by eating consecrated food. Holofernes invites her to a private banquet. There he becomes very drunk. Judith beheads him while he is in the drunken stupor. She takes his head back to Bethulia. She then is led in triumph to Jerusalem, and composes a hymn of thanksgiving, and lives to a great age.

It is obvious that the story is fictional, e.g., Nebuchadnezzar (605-562) was king of Babylon, not Assyria, and is pictured as reigning from Nineveh, which fell in 612. Also, the Jews are said to have just come back from exile and to have rebuilt the temple - all impossible.

The text exists only in Greek.

Esther: Ahasuerus, King of Persia - probably the same as Xerxes (485-65) at a banquet tells his queen Vasthi to come with her royal robes so he may display her beauty to the guests. She refuses. The king is angry and she is deposed. He then orders a search for the most beautiful successor to her. Esther, a Jewess is chosen. Mordecai, her cousin and former guardian, learns of a plot to kill the king and informs him through Esther. Soon after this, Haman, the prime minister, is angered at Mordecai's refusal to pay him homage. He obtains an edict for the extermination of the Jews, but Esther invites him to a banquet with the king, and there reveals what Haman plans. The king is furious, Haman is executed. Mordecai is made prime minister, and all the Jews are authorized to defend themselves - for the order, a decree of the Medes and Persians, which the King had given, cannot be undone.

The feast of Purim commemorates the rescue. Pur means "lot". Haman had cast lots to determine the day for the slaughter of the Jews.

Is this another fictional story? It is more difficult to say. Most scholars today would say it is fictional. Yet the story shows good knowledge of Persian customs. Archaeological evidence shows there was a prime minister Mordecai at about the supposed time of the story. And there are references to official documents in 2:23; 6:1; and 10:2.

It exists in a shorter Hebrew form, and a Greek form with additions of 107 more verses telling the dream of Mordecai, the prayer of Mordecai, edicts of the king, a second account of Esther's appeal to the king, the prayer of Esther. The Hebrew form does not mention God, the Greek makes divine intervention the key to the solution. And the existence of the Feast of Purim is some evidence for historicity.

Tobit: The devout man Tobit is in exile "in the days of Shalmaneser, King of the Assyrians". He has to flee from Nineveh because, contrary to edict, he has buried the bodies of slain Jews. He returns, but becomes blind from bird dung falling on his eyes while he was asleep.

Meanwhile at Ecbatana in Media, Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, a kinsman of Tobit is sad since the demon Asmodeus killed four husbands of hers successively, each on the wedding night.

God sent the Archangel Raphael help Tobiah, son of Tobit, to get funds Tobit had left in trust in Media. Raphael escorts Tobiah there and back. He enables him to marry Sarah without dying. Tobiah uses the heart and liver of a great fish to rout the demon. He also takes back the gall of the fish to heal his father's eyes. When that is done, Raphael reveals his identity, most dramatically.

The text survives in two, rather different recensions. The original language may have been Hebrew or Aramaic. St. Jerome said he used a "Chaldaic" text for his Vulgate version.

The date of composition has been estimated as early as 6th century, as late as 70 AD. Second century B.C. is most probable.

The character of Tobit as edifying narrative is obvious from the confusion of 7th century Assyrian history.

Copied from EWTN with permission.
HTMLized by Luke Wadel, Aedificatio: On the Basis and Beauty of Catholic Belief.