Anxiety

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 164 of 501 · 20 per page

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Thus, until the letter arrived which informed me that Malherbe was out of danger, and that Charles and my brother, together with my wife and the others, were safe,603 I would have been all but utterly cast down, unless, as I have already mentioned, my heart was refreshed in prayer and private meditations, which are suggested by His Word .... "The son whom the Lord had lent you for a season, He has taken away. There is no ground, therefore, for those silly and wicked complaints of foolish men: O blind death! O hard fate! O implacable daughters of Destiny! O cruel fortune! The Lord who had lodged him here for a season, at this stage of his career has called him away. What the Lord has done, we must, at the same time, consider has not been done rashly, nor by chance, neither from having been impelled from without, but by that determinate counsel, whereby He not only foresees, decrees, and executes nothing but what is just and upright in itself, but also nothing but what is good and wholesome for us. Where justice and good judgment reign paramount, there it is impious to remonstrate. When, however, our advantage is bound up with that goodness, how great would be the degree of ingratitude not to acquiesce, with a calm and well-ordered temper of mind, in whatever is the wish of our Father .... "It is God who has sought back from you your son, whom He had committed to you to be educated, on the condition that he might always be His own. And, therefore, He took him away, because it was both of advantage to him to leave this world, and by this bereavement to humble you, or to make trial of your patience. If you do not understand the advantage of this, without delay, first of all, setting aside every other object of consideration, ask of God that

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  His conscience was so much troubled about his own weakness that, at Weimar, on his way to the Colloquies at Hagenau and Worms, he was brought to the brink of the grave, and would have died if Luther had not prayed him out of the jaws of the king of terrors. What a contrast between Melanchthon at Worms in 1540, and Luther at Worms in 1521! At the Diet of Regensburg, in 1541, he felt no better. His son was sick, and he dreamed that he had died. He read disaster and war in the stars. His letters to intimate friends are full of grief and anxious forebodings. "I am devoured by a desire for a better life," he wrote to one of them. He was oppressed by a sense of the responsibility that rested upon him as the spokesman and leader of the Reformation in the declining years of Luther, who had been formerly his inspiration and strength. It is natural that in this condition of mind he looked for a new support, and this he found in Calvin. We can thus easily understand his wish to die in his arms. But Calvin himself, though more calm and composed in regard to public affairs, was, as we have seen, deeply distressed at Regensburg by news of the ravages of the pestilence among his friends at Strassburg, besides being harassed by multiplying petitions to return to Geneva. These troubles and afflictions brought their hearts nearer to each other. In their first personal interview at Frankfurt on the Main, in February, 1539, they at once became intimate, and freely discussed the burning questions of the day, relating to doctrine, discipline, and worship.551 As to doctrine, Calvin had previously sent to Melanchthon a summary, in twelve articles, on the crucial topic of the real presence. To these Melanchthon assented without dispute,552 but confessed that he had no hope of satisfying those who obstinately insisted on a more gross and palpable presence.553 Yet he was anxious that the present agreement, such as it was, might be cherished until at length the Lord shall lead both sides into the unity of his own truth. This is no doubt the reason why he himself refrained from such a full and unequivocal public expression of his own view as might lead to a rupture in the Lutheran Church. He went as far as he deemed it prudent by modifying the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession, and omitting the anti-Zwinglian clause (1540). As to ecclesiastical discipline, Melanchthon deplored the want of it in Germany, but could see no prospect of improvement, till the people would learn to distinguish the yoke of Christ from the papal tyranny. As to worship, Calvin frankly expressed his objection to many ceremonies, which seemed to him to border too closely on Judaism.554 He was opposed to chanting in Latin, to pictures and candles in churches, to exorcism in baptism, and the like.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  The Colloquy was prorogued to Hagenau in June, 1540, but did not get over the preliminaries. A more important Colloquy was held at Worms in November of the same year. In that ancient city Luther had made his ever memorable declaration in favor of the liberty of conscience, which in spite of the pope’s protest had become an irrepressible power. Calvin appeared at this time in the capacity of a commissioner both of Strassburg and the dukes of Lüneburg. He went reluctantly, being just then in ill health and feeling unequal to the task. But he gathered strength on the spot, and braced up the courage of Melanchthon who, as the spokesman of the Lutheran theologians, showed less disposition to yield than on former occasions. He took a prominent part in the discussion. He defeated Dean Robert Mosham of Passau in a second disputation, and earned on that occasion from Melanchthon, and the Lutheran theologians who were present, the distinctive title "the Theologian" by eminence.531 He also wrote at Worms, for his private solace, not for publication, an epic poem in sixty-one distichs (one hundred and twenty-two lines), which celebrates the triumph of Christ and the defeat of his enemies (Eck, Cochlaeus, Nausea, Pelargus) after their apparent and temporary victory.532 He was not a poetic genius, but by study he made up the defects of nature.533 The Colloquy of Worms, after having hardly begun, was broken off in January, 1541, to be resumed at the approaching Diet of Regensburg (Ratisbon) in presence of the emperor on his return. The Diet at Regensburg was opened April 5, 1541. Calvin appeared again as a delegate of Strassburg and at the special request of Melanchthon, but reluctantly and with little hope of success. He felt that he was ill suited for such work, and would only waste time.534 After long and vexatious delays in the arrival of the deputies, the theological Colloquy was opened and conducted on the Roman Catholic side by Dr. John Eck, professor at Ingolstadt (who had disputed with Luther at Leipzig and promulgated the papal bull of excommunication), Julius Pflug, canon of Mainz (afterwards bishop of Naumburg), and John Gropper, canon and professor of canon law at Cologne; on the Protestant side by Melanchthon of Wittenberg, Bucer of Strassburg, and Pistorius of Nidda in Hesse. Granvella presided in the name of the emperor; Cardinal Contarini, an enlightened and well-disposed prelate, who was inclined to evangelical views and favored a moderate reformation, acted as legate of Pope Paul III., who sent, however, at the same time the intolerant Bishop Morone as a special nuncio. Calvin could see no difference between the two legates, except that Morone would like to subdue the Protestants with bloodshed, Contarini without bloodshed. He was urged to seek an interview with Contarini, but refused.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  He contemplated a political reconstruction of Switzerland, and a vast European league for the protection and promotion of Protestant interests. He attended the theological Colloquy at Marburg (Sept. 29 to Oct. 3, 1529) in the hope of bringing about a union with the German Lutherans against the common foe at Rome. But Luther refused his hand of fellowship, and would not tolerate a theory of the Lord’s Supper which he regarded as a dangerous heresy.270 While at Marburg, Zwingli made the personal acquaintance of the Landgraf, Philip of Hesse, and the fugitive Duke Ulrich of Würtemberg, who admired him, and sympathized with his theology as far as they understood it, but cared still more for their personal and political interests. He conceived with them the bold idea of a politico-ecclesiastical alliance of Protestant states and cities for the protection of religious liberty against the combined forces of the papacy and the empire which threatened that liberty. Charles V. had made peace with Clement VII., June 29, 1529, and crossed the Alps in May, 1530, on his way to the Diet of Augsburg, offering to the Protestants bread with one hand, but concealing a stone in the other. Zwingli carried on a secret correspondence with Philip of Hesse from April 22, 1529, till Sept. 10, 1531.271 He saw in the Roman empire the natural ally of the Roman papacy, and would not have lamented its overthrow.272 Being a republican Swiss, he did not share in the loyal reverence of the monarchical Germans for their

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  There is a brighter prospect for the future if Viret can be left here with me; on which account I am all the more desirous to express to you my most thankful acknowledgment, because you share with me in my anxiety that the Bernese may not call him away; and I earnestly pray, for the sake of Christ, that you would do your utmost to bring that about; for whenever the thought of his going away presents itself, I faint and lose courage entirely ... Our other colleagues are rather a hindrance than a help to us; they are rude and self-conceited, have no zeal and less learning. But what is worst of all, I cannot trust them, even although I very much wish that I could; for by many evidences they show their estrangement from us, and give scarcely any indication of a sincere and trustworthy disposition. I bear with them, however, or rather I humor them, with the utmost lenity; a course from which I shall not be induced to depart, even by their bad conduct. But if, in the long run, the sore need a severer remedy, I shall do my utmost, and shall see to it by every method I can think of, to avoid disturbing the peace of the Church with our quarrels; for I dread the factions which must always necessarily arise from the dissensions of ministers. On my first arrival I might have driven them away had I wished to do so, and that is also even now in my power. I shall never, however, repent the degree of moderation which I have observed, since no one can justly complain that I have been too severe. These things I mention to you in a cursory way, that you may the more clearly perceive how wretched I shall be if Viret is taken away from me." A month later (April 17, 1542), he wrote to Myconius:641 — "In what concerns the private condition of this Church, I somehow, along with Viret, sustain the burden of it. If he is taken away from me, my situation will be more deplorable than I can describe to you, and even should he remain, there is some hazard that very much may not be obtained in the midst of so much secret animosity [between Geneva and Bern]. But that I may not torment myself beforehand, the Lord will see to it, and provide some one on whom I am compelled to cast this care." In February, 1543, he wrote to Melanchthon: "As to our own affairs, there is much that I might write, but the sole cause which imposes silence upon me is, that I could find no end. I labor here and do my utmost, but succeed indifferently. Nevertheless, all are astonished that my progress is so great in the midst of so many impediments, the greater part of which arise from the ministers themselves.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  CALVIN IN GERMANY. FROM 1538–1541. § 85. Calvin in Strassburg. I. Calvin’s correspondence from 1538–1541 in Opera, vols. X. and XI.; Herminjard, Vols. V. and VI.; Bonnet-Constable, Vol. I. 63 sqq. Beza: Vita Calv., in Op. XXI. 128 sq.—Ann. Calv., Op. XXI. 226–285. Contains extracts from the Archives du chapitre de St. Thomas de Strasbourg. II. Alf. Erichson: L’Église française de Strasbourg au XVIe siècle, d’après des documents inédits. Strasb. 1885. Comp. also his other works on the History of the Reformation in the Alsace.—C. A. Cornelius: Die Rückkehr Calvin’s nach Genf. München, 1889.—E. Doumergue (Prof. of the Prot. Faculty of Montauban): Essai sur l’histoire du Culte Réformé principalement au XIXe Siècle. Paris, 1890. Ch. I., Calvin à Strasbourg, treats of the worship in the first French Reformed Church, the model of the churches of France.—Eduard Stricker: Johannes Calvin als erster Pfarrer der reformirten Gemeinde zu Strassburg. Nach urkundlichen Quellen. Strassburg (Heitz & Mündel), 1890 (65 pp.). In commemoration of the centenary of the church edifice of the French Reformed congregation (built in 1790) by its present pastor. III. Henry, I. ch. X.—Stähelin, I. 168–283.—Kampschulte, I. 320–368.—Merle D’Aubigné, bk. XI. chs. XV.–XVII. (vol. VI. 543–609). Calvin felt so discouraged by his recent experience that he was disinclined to assume another public office, and Conrault approved of this purpose. He therefore refused the first invitation of Bucer to come to Strassburg, the more so as his friend Farel was not included. But he yielded at last to repeated solicitations, mindful of the example of the prophet Jonah. Farel gave his hearty assent. Strassburg496 was since 1254 a free imperial city of Germany, famous for one of the finest Gothic cathedrals, large commerce, and literary enterprise. Some of the first editions of the Bible were printed there. By its geographical situation, a few miles west of the Upper Rhine, it formed a connecting link between Germany, France, and Switzerland, as also between Lutheranism and Zwinglianism. It offered a hospitable home to a steady flow of persecuted Protestants from France, who called Strassburg the New Jerusalem. The citizens had accepted the Reformation in 1523 in the spirit of evangelical union between the two leading types of Protestantism. Bucer, Capito, Hedio, Niger, Matthias Zell, Sturm, and others, labored there harmoniously together. Strassburg was the Wittenberg of South-western Germany, and in friendly alliance with Zürich and Geneva. Martin Bucer, the chief Reformer of the city, was the embodiment of a generous and comprehensive catholicity, and gave it expression in the Tetrapolitan Confession, which was presented at the diet of Augsburg in 1530.497 He afterwards brought about, in the same irenic spirit, the Wittenberg Concordia (1536), which was to harmonize the Lutheran and Zwinglian theories on the Lord’s Supper, but conceded too much to Luther (even the participation of the body and blood of Christ by unworthy communicants), and therefore was rejected by Bullinger and the Swiss Churches.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  He met at first with no opposition, but hearty co-operation among the people. About a fortnight after his arrival he presented a formula of the ecclesiastical order to the Small Council. Objection was made to the monthly celebration of the Lord’s Supper, instead of the custom of celebrating it only four times a year. Calvin, who strongly favored even a more frequent celebration, yielded his better judgment "in consideration of the weakness of the times," and for the sake of harmony. With this modification, the Small Council adopted the constitution Oct. 27; the Large Council confirmed it Nov. 9; and the general assembly of the citizens ratified it, by a very large majority, in St. Peter’s Church, the 20th of November, 1541. The small minority, however, included some of the leading citizens who were opposed to ecclesiastical discipline. The Articles, after the insertion of some trifling amendments and additions, were definitely adopted by the three Councils, Jan. 2, 1542.635 This was a great victory; for the ecclesiastical ordinances, which we shall consider afterwards, laid a solid foundation for a strong and well-regulated evangelical church. Calvin preached at St. Peter’s, Viret at St. Gervais. The first services were of a penitential character, and their solemnity was enhanced by the fearful ravages of the pestilence in the neighboring cities. An extraordinary celebration of the holy communion on the first Sunday in November, and a weekly day of humiliation and prayer were appointed to invoke the mercy of God upon Geneva and the whole Church. The second year after his return was very trying. The pestilence, which in 1541 had been raging in Strassburg and all along the Rhine, crept into Switzerland, diminishing the population of Basel and Zürich, and reached Geneva in the autumn, 1542. To the pestilence was added the scourge of famine, as is often the case. The evil was aggravated by the great influx of strangers who were attracted by Calvin’s fame and sought refuge from persecution under his shelter. The pest-house outside of the city was crowded. Calvin and Pierre Blanchet offered their services to the sick, while the rest of the ministers shrank back.636 The Council refused to let Calvin go, because the Church could not spare him.637 Blanchet risked his life, and fell a victim to his philanthrophy in eight or nine months. Calvin, in a letter dated October, 1542, gives the following account to Viret, who, in July, had left for Lausanne:638 — "The pestilence also begins to rage here with greater violence, and few who are at all affected by it escape its ravages. One of our colleagues was to be set apart for attendance upon the sick. Because Peter [Blanchet] offered himself all readily acquiesced. If anything happens to him, I fear that I must take the risk upon myself, for, as you observe, because we are debtors to one another, we must not be wanting to those who, more than any others, stand in need of our ministry.

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  THE ABRAHAM CYCLE The Theme of the Promise The J account of Abraham begins in Genesis 12. YHWH commands the patriarch to “go forth from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” This passage introduces the theme of the promise to the fathers, which runs through Genesis and is arguably the unifying theme of the Pentateuch. Some scholars regard it as a late editorial addition, introduced to bring disparate material together. It certainly has an editorial function, but it does not necessarily belong to the latest strata of the Pentateuch. It is sufficient that it belong to the work of the author/editor that we call J. There are no strings attached to the promise. All Abraham has to do is trust in YHWH and obey the command to move. Both J and P provide a more formal account of the promise to Abraham, casting it in the form of a covenant. The J account is found in Genesis 15 (with some additions that are usually ascribed to E). The point of departure is provided by Abraham’s desire for an heir and his distress over being childless. This is a familiar motif in ancient Near Eastern literature. It appears in the Ugaritic stories of Aqhat and Kirta. Abraham, however, is promised more than a child. He is told to “look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them . . . so shall your descendants be.” This promise is formalized in a covenant. Abraham is told to take a heifer, she-goat, ram, turtledove, and young pigeon, and cut each in two. Then a deep sleep and terrifying darkness fall on Abraham, and when the sun has gone down, fire passes between the pieces. Then the Lord formally promises that he will give this land to Abraham’s descendants, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates.

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  Aerial view of the remains of the Herodian stronghold of Masada, near the Dead Sea, Israel. Ben Sira on Women The practical instruction, found mainly but not exclusively in the first half of the book, deals with matters familiar from ancient wisdom instructions: honor of parents, friendship, treatment of children and slaves, and so on. The most controversial part of this instruction is Ben Sira’s view of women. The sage extols the virtues of the good wife in Sir 26:1-4, 13-18, in a manner similar to Proverbs 31. Admittedly, her virtues are assessed from the husband’s point of view. She is praised for silence and modesty. There is no mention of substantial business activity on the part of the wife, such as we find in Proverbs 31. A more significant difference from Proverbs, however, is that Ben Sira sets this praise in contrast to a discourse on the wickedness of women (Sir 25:13-26; 26:6-12, 19- 27). One might, perhaps, compare the portrayal of the “strange woman” in Proverbs 7, but Ben Sira is speaking of wives and daughters, not strangers or prostitutes, and his rhetoric is much more extreme. “Any iniquity,” he declares, “is small compared to a woman’s iniquity” (25:19). In 42:14 he goes further: “Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace.” Much of Ben Sira’s negative comment on women arises from a fear of being put to shame. In 42:9-14 he explains his feelings about daughters: “A daughter is a secret anxiety to her father, and worry over her robs him of sleep; when she is young, for fear she may not marry, or if married, for fear she may be rejected; while a virgin, for fear she may be seduced and become pregnant in her father’s house; or having a husband, for fear she may go astray.” In 22:3 he declares bluntly, “The birth of a daughter is a loss.” Such sentiments were not unknown in ancient Judaism (or elsewhere in the ancient world). According to the Babylonian Talmud: “Without both male and female children the world could not exist, but blessed is he whose children are male and woe to him whose

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  THE BIBLE AND HISTORY The Bible is a product of history. It took shape over time, and its content and even its wording changed in the process. In this it is no different from any other book, except that the Bible is really a collection of books, and its composition and transmission is spread over an exceptionally long period of time. The Bible, however, is also immersed in history in another way that has implications for how we should study it. Much of it tells the story of a people, proceeding in chronological order, and so it has at least the appearance of a historical narrative. (One of the most influential biblical scholars of the twentieth century, Gerhard von Rad, once said that the Old Testament is “a history book.”) Not all books of the Bible have this history-like appearance. Books like Proverbs and Job have virtually no reference to dates or places that would enable us to locate them in history. But these books are exceptional in the corpus. If we read through the Pentateuch, we follow a story about humanity from the dawn of history, and then the emergence of a particular people, Israel. The story of this people continues in the “Former Prophets” and in Chronicles and Ezra- Nehemiah (and also in the books of Maccabees if we include the Apocrypha). The books of the prophets repeatedly refer to events in that history and are virtually unintelligible without reference to it. Only in the Writings, in some of the Psalms and in the wisdom books (Job, Proverbs, Qoheleth), does the history of Israel recede from view, and even then it reappears in the later wisdom books in the Apocrypha (Ben Sira and Wisdom of Solomon). For most of Jewish and Christian history, there has been an uncritical assumption that the biblical story is historically true. In fact, for much of this time the Bible was virtually the only source of information about the events in question. In the last two hundred years, however, copious information about the ancient world has come to light through archaeological exploration and through the recovery of ancient literature. This information is often at variance with the account given in the Bible. Consequently, there is now something of a crisis in the interpretation of the Bible. This is a crisis of credibility: in brief, if the Bible

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  because good must have its opposite derives from Stoic philosophy. The Stoic Chrysippus, who lived a little earlier than Ben Sira, wrote that there is nothing more foolish than those who think that good can exist without evil. Nothing exists without its matching opposite. This idea, however, does not sit easily with Ben Sira’s insistence on human free will. Ben Sira also borrows from the Stoics the idea of teleology: everything is created for a purpose, to meet some need. Everything is good in its appointed time. Storms and natural disasters are created to give vent to God’s anger. Ben Sira rather blithely claims that “all these are good for the godly, but for sinners they turn into evils” (39:27). This idea is certainly in line with the claims of Genesis that God’s creation is good, but it can hardly withstand serious reflection. The book of Job had already shown that disasters can strike the good and the bad without distinction. The problem of evil was acute for Ben Sira because he resolutely resisted the idea of reward or punishment after death. Death is simply the Lord’s decree for all flesh. Whether life is for ten or a hundred or a thousand years, there is no inquiry about it in Hades (41:1-4). In this respect, his view of life resembles that of Qoheleth. “Hard work was created for everyone, and a heavy yoke is laid on the children of Adam, from the day they come forth from their mother’s womb until they return to the mother of all the living. Perplexities and fear of heart are theirs, and anxious thought of the day of their death” (40:1-2). Unlike Qoheleth, however, Ben Sira still wants to insist that there is justice in the world. So he suggests that while all creatures are troubled by anxiety, this affects sinners seven times more. Death and destruction were created for the wicked. He does not find a satisfactory explanation, however, for the fact that these things also befall the just. Unlike Qoheleth, Ben Sira remains convinced that the world is in the power of a benevolent and all-powerful Deity. At the end of the great hymn to the Creator in chapter 43, he declares: “He is the all” (43:27). Taken at face value, the phrase sounds pantheistic. The Stoics believed that the world ( cosmos ) was the body of God and was animated by a Spirit or Logos. Ben Sira, however, hardly meant this rhetorical flourish to be taken literally. He clearly maintains a distinction

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  Nor names pronounced nor destinies decreed, Then gods were born within them. (trans. S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia , 233) At the beginning, then, only the primordial pair, Apsu and Tiamat, were on the scene. (Both Apsu and Tiamat represent primordial waters. Some scholars think that Apsu represented the fresh waters beneath the earth while Tiamat represented the salt waters, or sea.) The story proceeds with the theogony, or begetting of the gods, which must come before the creation of humanity. Here it is the young gods who create a tumult. Finally, Apsu, with his counselor Mummu, goes to Tiamat and complains: Their ways have become very grievous to me, By day I cannot rest, by night I cannot sleep. I shall abolish their ways and disperse them. Let peace prevail so that we can sleep. (Dalley, Myths , 234) Tiamat resists the proposal (“How could we allow what we ourselves created to perish?”), but Mummu supports it. The young gods, however, learn of the plot because of the wisdom of Ea. Ea then devised a spell, put Apsu to sleep, and slew him. He set up his dwelling on top of Apsu. There he begat new gods, Bel and Marduk. Anu, father of Ea, created four winds and gave them to Marduk to play with. But the winds stirred up Tiamat and made some gods restless, and they incited Tiamat to action. Tiamat then prepared for battle and made Qingu leader of her army. Again, Ea discovered what was happening. Ea and Anu in turn tried to confront Tiamat but were intimidated and turned back. At last, Ea urged Marduk to come forward. Marduk agreed to fight Tiamat on one condition: “If indeed I am to be your champion, If I am to defeat Tiamat and save your lives, Convene the council, name a special fate . . . And let me, my own utterance shall fix fate instead of you! Whatever I create shall never be altered! Let a decree from my lips shall never be revoked, never changed!” The gods granted his demand: “You are honoured among the great gods. Your destiny is unequalled, your word (has the power of) Anu! . . . May your utterance be law, your word never falsified.”

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON The Wisdom of Solomon is a very different kind of wisdom book from Ben Sira. It was composed in Greek in Alexandria, Egypt, most probably in the early first century C.E. (The only other book in the Old Testament that was composed in Greek is the deuterocanonical 2 Maccabees.) Moreover, the author had evidently had a good Greek education and knew a great deal more about Greek philosophy than was the case with Ben Sira. Wisdom is not a philosophical tract; it is rather a rhetorical piece that draws on philosophical ideas. One of these ideas is the immortality of the soul, a concept that was quite alien to Ben Sira and the older wisdom tradition, and that makes a profound difference in the worldview of Wisdom. The Jewish community in Alexandria took root shortly after the conquest of Egypt by the Greeks, at the end of the third century B.C.E. Jews prospered under the rule of the Ptolemies, the Greek dynasty that ruled Egypt down to the death of Cleopatra after the battle of Actium in 31 B.C.E. A Jewish high priest, Onias IV, who fled from Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabean revolt, became a general in the Ptolemaic army and was allowed to build a Jewish temple at Leontopolis. There is an extensive Jewish literature from Egypt, written in Greek. Most of this literature is believed to have been written in Alexandria. By the early first century C.E. there were no less than a million Jews in Egypt, according to the philosopher Philo. Philo’s figures are not reliable, but there is no doubt that the Jewish population was very large. The Romans took control of Egypt after the battle of Actium. Roman rule eventually brought difficulties for the Jews. The Roman system of taxation drew a sharp line between those who were citizens of the Greek cities, such as Alexandria, and those who were not. The Jews as a group were never citizens, although some individual Jews enjoyed that status. There was increasing friction between the Jews and the Greeks in Alexandria, and violence broke out in 38 C.E. In 41 C.E. the emperor Claudius issued a decree that ordered the Alexandrians to respect the rights of the Jews to live according to their own

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  HABAKKUK The book of Habakkuk is exceptional in that there is no superscription giving the dates of the prophet’s activity. There is a clear indication of his time, however, in 1:6: “For I am rousing the Chaldeans, that fierce and impetuous nation. . . .” The Chaldeans were a tribe of Aramean origin that appeared in lower Mesopotamia early in the first millennium B.C.E. and became one of the dominant elements in the Neo-Babylonian Empire that was founded by Nabopolassar (626–605 B.C.E.) and expanded by Nebuchadnezzar II, the destroyer of Jerusalem. After the fall of Nineveh in 612, the control of the western part of the Assyrian Empire lay between Egypt and Babylon. In 609, Pharaoh Neco led an army to assist the Assyrians against Babylon at Carchemish on the Euphrates. King Josiah of Judah went to meet him at Megiddo, but the pharaoh killed him (2 Kgs 23:29). According to 2 Chron 35:20-27, Josiah was killed in battle, but there is no mention of a battle in 2 Kings. It may be that Josiah was executed, for whatever reason. In any case, the Babylonians were victorious at Carchemish and could now proceed to consolidate their control over Syria-Palestine. The prophecy of Habakkuk takes place against the backdrop of these events. Habakkuk is also exceptional in the prophetic books in that it offers a sustained reflection on the problem of injustice. Habakkuk begins on a reflective note that is more typical of the psalmists than of the prophets: “How long, O L ORD , shall I cry for help?” (cf. Pss 4:2; 13:1; et al.). The problem is that of theodicy, the justice of God, a frequent topic in the wisdom literature. The wicked surround the righteous and treat them violently, but God does nothing about it. Some scholars think the prophet is referring to the Assyrians, but this is unlikely. Assyrian oppression was not a factor in Judah for a long time before the rise of the Chaldeans. It is far more likely that Habakkuk is referring to internal injustice in Jerusalem. We find similar complaints in this period in the oracles of Jeremiah. Conjectural reconstructed image of ancient Babylon.

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  Tiglath-pileser III, an alabaster bas-relief from the king’s central palace at Nimrud, Mesopotamia, ca 730-727 B.C.E. Now in the British Museum, London. The prophecy of Amos is also dated “two years before the earthquake.” This earthquake is also mentioned in Zech 14:5, but it cannot be dated precisely. That such a precise date is given, however, suggests that the prophetic career of Amos was quite short, perhaps no more than a single season. Alternatively, this date may indicate only the beginning of the prophet’s career. Apart from the introductory preface, there is only one biographical notice in the book of Amos. This is found in 7:10-14 and relates an encounter between Amos and the priest of Bethel. The placement of this notice is probably due to the fact that the story was transmitted in connection with Amos’s visions at Bethel. Some scholars have seen a parallel between this incident and the confrontation between an anonymous Judean prophet and Jeroboam I by the altar of Bethel in 1 Kings 13. If the episode in Amos were invented on the model of that passage, however, we should expect that the prophet would address the king directly. The account of the reign of Jeroboam II in 2 Kings makes no mention of Amos and gives a relatively benign account of Jeroboam. Whatever its origin, the story of the encounter with the priest of Bethel is remarkable in several respects. Amos was preaching that divine punishment was about to befall the kingdom of Israel. The priest Amaziah was understandably nervous about this and worried lest the king think he endorsed the preaching of Amos and was party to a conspiracy. He is all the more irritated by the fact that Amos is a Judean. Therefore he tells him to go back to where he came from, for Bethel is a royal sanctuary and loyal to Jeroboam. The response of Amos has given rise to much commentary: “I am no prophet, nor the son of a prophet.” The Hebrew literally reads: “No prophet I” (the term for “prophet” is nabi’ ). Some scholars translate, “I was no prophet,” since Amos goes on to say that he was a herdsman and a dresser of sycamores until the Lord called him. But Amos does not say that he became a nabi’ , and Amaziah calls him not a nabi’ but a chozeh (seer). The point is that Amos is not a member of a prophetic guild, of the “sons of the prophets” who ate at the king’s table (such as we saw in the

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  scribes, and this fact inspires some confidence that they did not deliberately distort his message. A Sense of Impending Doom One of the most distinctive features of Jeremiah’s prophecy is the acute sense of impending disaster that informs much of his poetic oracles. The first prophecies reported in the book take the form of vision reports, similar to those of Amos, in which the Lord asks him what he sees. The first vision (1:11-12) involves a wordplay on the word for an almond tree, which has the same consonants in Hebrew as the verb “to watch” (cf. the wordplay on “summer fruit” in Amos 8:1-3). This is followed by another vision, of a boiling pot tilting over from the north. The foe from the north, in the oracles of Jeremiah, is Babylon, which would approach Judah from the north, through Syria. These visions are not likely to be any earlier than the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C.E., which opened the way to Syria and Palestine for the Babylonians. More than any other biblical writer, Jeremiah evokes the sheer terror of military conquest from the victim’s point of view: “My anguish, my anguish! I writhe in pain! Oh, the walls of my heart! My heart is beating wildly; I cannot keep silent; for I hear the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war” (4:19). He sees the coming devastation in cosmic terms: “I looked on the earth, and lo, it was waste and void” (4:23). (This verse is often taken as an allusion to the opening of the Priestly account of creation in Gen 1:2. Both passages could be using the same stock phrase, but in any case, Jeremiah’s vision implies the undoing of creation.) The announcement of impending doom is the dominant message in these oracles. The prophet also upbraids the people for various offenses, and he sometimes calls for repentance, but most of his oracles give the impression that doom is inevitable, and that the important thing is for people to come to terms with that fact. Accordingly, he is especially scathing to those who proclaim peace when there is no peace (8:11). The prophet uses some striking metaphors for the condition of Judah. In chapter 13, he is told to bury a soiled loincloth. (The location is probably the village of Parah, near Anathoth, rather than the Euphrates, which was several hundred miles away, but there may be a wordplay on the name Euphrates.) When he retrieves it after many days, it is, naturally, ruined and good for nothing. So, by implication, is Judah. In chapter 19, he smashes a potter’s jug as a symbol for the way the Lord will smash Judah. Both of these symbolic actions are reported in the sermonic prose of the Deuteronomistic editors, but they probably recall acts performed by the prophet.

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  themselves to the Lord that they are welcome on the holy mountain to minister to the Lord, and that their burnt offerings will be accepted. (This passage shows, incidentally, that Third Isaiah did not reject the temple cult in principle.) This hospitable attitude is in conflict with Deut 23:1-8, which excludes from the assembly of the Lord anyone “whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off.” The same passage excludes Ammonites and Moabites (but not Edomites or Egyptians). Ezekiel 44:9 also decrees that “no foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.” This statement is not technically contradictory to Isa 56:1-7. Both texts can be read as requiring that foreigners “join themselves to the Lord.” But the tone of the two passages is very different, one emphasizing access and the other exclusion. Access to the temple was evidently a matter of contention in the early postexilic community. The people whose views are reflected in Isaiah 56–66 favored relatively open access and were at odds with those who demanded restrictions. (It is apparent from Ezekiel 44 that the latter party included the Zadokite priests.) It does not necessarily follow that the opponents of Third Isaiah should be identified with the Zadokite priests in all cases. The prophet may have been fighting on more than one front. It is quite apparent, however, that there were bitter divisions within the postexilic community. The Hope for the Future The party with which the prophet identifies is described variously as “those who tremble at the word of the L ORD ” (66:2, 5) and “my servants.” The Hebrew word for “tremblers,” haredim , is the same word that is used in modern Israel for the ultraorthodox, but of course there is no necessary affinity between ancient and modern “tremblers.” We shall find a group of people “trembling” again in the story of Ezra (Ezra 10:9). The servants are presumably the heirs of “the servant” of Second Isaiah. These people evidently did not enjoy much power in the early postexilic community, but they entertained hopes of a dramatic reversal of fortune. Isaiah 65:13 tells the opponents: Therefore thus says the Lord G OD :

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  JUDAH IN THE ASSYRIAN CRISIS In Judah, the Assyrian era saw the reign of Hezekiah, the first king to meet the unqualified approval of the Deuteronomists. Hezekiah evidently conducted a reform that was similar to the one later carried out by Josiah. He removed the high places, broke down the pillars, and cut down the sacred poles. He even destroyed the bronze serpent, Nehushtan, that had allegedly been made by Moses in the wilderness (Num 21:6-9). It is difficult to judge the scope of Hezekiah’s reform, or even the point at which it took place. According to 2 Kgs 18:1, Hezekiah began to reign in the third year of Hoshea and Samaria fell in the sixth year of his reign. This would require a date around 727 B.C.E. for his ascent to the throne. But Sennacherib’s invasion, which is known to have taken place in 701, is said to have been in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah (18:13). This would place his accession in 715. Moreover, he is said to have been twenty- five when he began to reign (18:2), although his father, Ahaz, is said to have died at age thirty-six, and so would only have been eleven when Hezekiah was born! Some of these figures are evidently mistaken. We know from archaeology that the size of Jerusalem was greatly expanded during Hezekiah’s reign. There was presumably an influx of refugees from the north. The suppression of the high places can be understood as part of a strategy of centralization and tightening control in light of the Assyrian threat. There is a much more elaborate account of Hezekiah’s reforms in 2 Chronicles 29–32, but the value of Chronicles as a historical source is controversial. We shall return to that issue when we discuss the books of Chronicles in chapter 22. If indeed Hezekiah attempted to suppress the high places and the worship of foreign gods, he had little success. All these cults were flourishing a century later when Josiah undertook his reform. It may be that there was a relapse in the time of Hezekiah’s successor, Manasseh, or it may be that Hezekiah was not thorough in carrying out his reform.

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  “IN THOSE DAYS THERE WAS NO KING” The last four chapters of the book of Judges are framed by statements that “in those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes” (17:6; 21:25). Reminders that “in those days there was no king in Israel” are also interspersed in the intervening chapters. The stories suggest that when there was no king the society tended to disintegrate. There are two main episodes in these chapters. The first concerns the relocation of the tribe of Dan. The second describes a conflict between Benjamin and the other tribes. According to Josh 19:40-48, the original territory of the Danites included the city of Ekron, which is known to have become part of the Philistine confederacy, and stretched northward to Joppa. But “when the territory of the Danites was lost to them, the Danites went up and fought against Leshem,” which they captured and renamed Dan. Samson was a Danite, and he is located in proximity to the Philistines. According to Judg 1:34, the Amorites repelled the Danites and would not let them come down into the plain. In Judges 18 the Danites are still seeking a terrritory to live in. This time the place they find is called Laish, at the northern extremity of Israel. Laish and Leshem are presumably variant names for the same place. Later, during the monarchy, Dan was the site of one of the temples set up by King Jeroboam I of the northern kingdom of Israel in opposition to Jerusalem. This was considered an abomination by the Deuteronomistic Historian. The account of the founding of Dan in Judges 17–18 is not flattering. Even though the mission of the Danites is portrayed in terms that recall the initial conquest by Joshua (especially in the matter of spying out the land), we are told twice that the people of Laish were “quiet and unsuspecting.” The naked aggression of the Danites is not disguised. Moreover, the cult of YHWH that is established at Dan is of questionable origin. It involves idols that were stolen from the house of Micah in Ephraim, and a Levite who is portrayed as a rather mercenary character. The use of household idols seems to have been a normal part of early Israelite religion, but it was counter to Deuteronomic law. Nonetheless, the story

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  These passages raise forcefully the question of the motivation of a prophet like Jeremiah. Not only does he not stand to gain anything, but he opens himself to abuse and possible death. The reassurance he receives from the Lord in 15:19- 20 is modest: the prophet will serve as YHWH’s mouthpiece, and his enemies will not prevail over him. The Lord promises to deliver him out of the hands of the wicked. But the deliverance is qualified. There is no promise here of any reward after death, or of much by way of public recognition in his lifetime. Jeremiah did not suffer a violent death, but he died in exile against his will. Ultimately, the motivation of the prophet comes from the fire in his bones—the compulsion to speak what he believes to be true. This compulsion is formed by a tradition in which he was brought up, but evidently not everyone who was brought up in that tradition felt the compulsion in the same way. We might speak here of an ethical imperative, an obligation to do the right thing whether it is in our personal interest or not. The understanding of what is the right thing is shaped by tradition, but something more is involved that compels the prophet to go against the culture of his time and against other understandings of the same tradition.