Hooray! The complaining finally stops! Or is at least toned down substantially. It looks like Bella is actually trying to enjoy her wedding day. What a novel concept. But then Jacob shows up and things get a little complicated.
See, all this time, Jacob has been in werewolf mode running around northern Canada. Hmm, that sounds like the concept for a cool television series. A lone man travels from small Canadian town to town, solving mysteries, crimes, and just helping out the locals in general along the way. But here's the kicker: he's a werewolf! And you know there's at least one scene in each episode where he utilizes his werewolf powers. It'd be kind of like the Incredible Hulk, but with a werewolf. Lou Feriggno could probably put on a werewolf costume for it, though. How awesome does that sound? Why are we reading about a wedding when there's the exciting tales of a werewolf vigilante to enjoy?
So Jacob and Bella dance in the shadows by the trees, for the werewolf boy is technically a runaway/missing person at the moment. For some reason Bella lets it slip that she plans to get it on with Edward while she's still human. First off, Bella, way to rub salt in the open would that is Jacob's already broken heart. Second, this sends Jacob into a frenzy of anger. Remember how he's a werewolf? Yeah, you wouldn't like him when he's angry (it works! Someone get Lou Feriggno on the phone!). The dude goes berserk and threatens to kill Edward right then and there. Oh, how I wish that would happen. We need a big slaughter between the vampires and werewolves with lots of bloodshed and death. I think we've all been waiting for that.
Prediction: Somewhere down the line Edward and Jacob do fight, full throttle, and both die in the cool battle. Both of Bella's potential love interests are dead and she's left all alone for the rest of her existence. Cruel irony.
But it won't happen now. Instead, Jacob's werewolf buddies drag him away and the confrontation is avoided. Bummer.
Bella and Edward flee the festivities to go to a secret honeymoon destination. It ends up being a private island off the coast of South America. I am certainly excited, but my hopes are quickly dashed as it becomes evident that this island is not Jurassic Park. It's not even Site B. So, no raptors. That would have been such a cool crossover, too! Oh well, guess I'll just have to settle for romantic Vampire Island. Right.
In the island bungalow, awkwardness ensues, for neither of them know what to do. Somebody should have told them it's just like Legos. So they go skinny dipping in the ocean instead. Man, this has already strayed significantly from the rather tame themes of the previous books. Anyway, the apparently put the Legos together, for they wake up the next morning in bed together.
And Bella is covered in bruises. Though she doesn't remember it, apparently Edward got pretty violent. Hey, Eddie, this isn't the beginning of the 1900's anymore. You can't just smack your wife around as you please. Women are not property. In some places, I hear they can even vote.
Bella claims it's all ok, but Edward is all mopey for hurting her. So he pledges never to sleep with her again while she's still human. I think we've all heard that line before.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Adventures in SD
We've got a lot of wild animals out here in the middle of nowhere, South Dakota. Here's some deer. 
Woke up one morning to this deer resting outside my window. Better be careful, deer, velociraptors live in those woods.
This past weekend, Alanna came to visit me. Good times were had by all. On Friday we traveled on down to Yankton for a little picnic.
At a park in Yankton.
Our picnic consisted of Taco Bell.
Alanna and her delicious nachos.
Alanna reading up on Lewis and Clark.
Me by some...um..."art."
There was a long trail kind of along the river that bears the name of Yankton's own Tom Brokaw.
I said "kind of along the river" because a good portion of it circles the water treatment plant and takes you quite far from the river. Not the most scenic trail.
There was also this beehive right by the trail. Yikes.Check out Smitch Loves Movies for a recap of all the movies we watched over the weekend.
Breaking Dawn 1-50
Anybody coming here looking for another Bible summary will be greatly disappointed. And probably pretty weirded out. My apologies.
Ok, so there's a Twilight blog out there about this dude reading through Twilight for the first time and writing down his humorous comments. It's quite good. Anyway, Alanna insists that I should do the same thing with the 4th book in the series, Breaking Dawn. So this is my attempt and it's a complete ripoff of the comedic genius of Dan Bergstein and his blog.
And you're all thinking, "Wait, the 4th one? This leads us to believe you've read the prior 3! Say it ain't so, Smitch!" Well, it is so. It's not always a pretty sight, the things The Smitch will do for girls. But, seeing as how Alanna has read the likes of Ender's Game, Watchmen, Kingdom Come, Mad Love (holy crap! The version I have is selling new on Amazon for $70!), and Neil Gaiman's recent Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader? (I've yet to make sure she didn't bend any pages, but believe me, I will), I figured I could at least indulge her and read some of her own guilty pleasures.
I'm guessing the majority of my readers (Matt and AJ) have not read any of the Twilight books. Lucky you. But, for your benefit, here's a quick recap:
Book One (Twilight): Bella moves to small town Washington. She falls for a kid named Edward who turns out to be a vampire. This is a complete shock to no one at all except Bella. We find out that vampires are sparkly. The end.
Book Two (New Moon): Edward dumps Bella and runs away. Bella becomes near-suicidal in her ensuing depression because her boyfriend broke up with her(this is such a positive book for impressionable teenage girls to read). She starts hanging out with a Native American boy named Jacob. Jacob and his reservation buddies turn into werewolves, which are so cooler than vampires in this series. Edward can't live without Bella and goes to Vampire City in Europe to end it all. Bella stops him just in time and they get back together. Werewolf Jacob no likey.
Book Three (Eclipse): Nothing happens. Seriously, for hundreds and hundreds of pages nothing freaking happens. Then the werewolves and vampires (sworn enemies) set aside their differences and team up to fight an oncoming army of vampires. This ends up being no where near as cool as you think it would be. You're maybe thinking that it'll be kinda sweet, like Underworld for teens. But no, it's not. It's so not sweet like that at all. Then Bella and Edward get engaged, or something.
Now, we get to this book. Bella is the most negative person I've ever seen, and she maintains this trait in the 4th book. Her thought life consists of nothing but constant complaining. Edward could give her a brand new car and all she would do is complain about it. Oh wait, he did, and she does. That's how this book opens: Bella complaining incessantly about her brand new Mercedes. Ingrate.
Then she complains incessantly about her upcoming wedding to Edward. I thought teenage girls were supposed to be all about weddings and planning their big day. Instead, she dreads it like it was a marathon of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Oh, man, is that a horrible show.
Obviously, she doesn't want to do the whole wedding thing and marry Edward. This is all the big Ed's idea. Bella's just going along with it because she made a deal that afterward Edward will have sex with her and turn her into a vampire (no, those two aren't directly related, but that would be one heck of an STD). Then she can be immortal like Edward and the two of them can live together forever. Or be undead together forever. Whatever.
Bella seems like the manipulative, seductive villainess from an Indiana Jones movie. She's tagging along on Indy's adventure (the wedding) just so she can get into his pants and also obtain immortality from the ancient relic the famed archaeologist seeks/possesses (vampirism). Think of Elsa from The Last Crusade and you'll see what I mean.
Anyway, she keeps complaining and is only thankful that Edward can't read her thoughts. Edward can read everyone's mind, except for Bella's, for some reason. Edward should be thankful for this, too. If he could read her thoughts, he'd be so appalled by the unrelenting pessimism that he'd shoot himself in the head. Granted, he's a vampire so that wouldn't harm him, but he'd still go through the motions just because Bella's whining is so interminable.
Then the wedding happens. It's covered in like a page or two. The rest of the 48 pages leading up to it is Bella complaining. Shut up, Bella. Please, please, just shut up.
Ok, so there's a Twilight blog out there about this dude reading through Twilight for the first time and writing down his humorous comments. It's quite good. Anyway, Alanna insists that I should do the same thing with the 4th book in the series, Breaking Dawn. So this is my attempt and it's a complete ripoff of the comedic genius of Dan Bergstein and his blog.
And you're all thinking, "Wait, the 4th one? This leads us to believe you've read the prior 3! Say it ain't so, Smitch!" Well, it is so. It's not always a pretty sight, the things The Smitch will do for girls. But, seeing as how Alanna has read the likes of Ender's Game, Watchmen, Kingdom Come, Mad Love (holy crap! The version I have is selling new on Amazon for $70!), and Neil Gaiman's recent Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader? (I've yet to make sure she didn't bend any pages, but believe me, I will), I figured I could at least indulge her and read some of her own guilty pleasures.
I'm guessing the majority of my readers (Matt and AJ) have not read any of the Twilight books. Lucky you. But, for your benefit, here's a quick recap:
Book One (Twilight): Bella moves to small town Washington. She falls for a kid named Edward who turns out to be a vampire. This is a complete shock to no one at all except Bella. We find out that vampires are sparkly. The end.
Book Two (New Moon): Edward dumps Bella and runs away. Bella becomes near-suicidal in her ensuing depression because her boyfriend broke up with her(this is such a positive book for impressionable teenage girls to read). She starts hanging out with a Native American boy named Jacob. Jacob and his reservation buddies turn into werewolves, which are so cooler than vampires in this series. Edward can't live without Bella and goes to Vampire City in Europe to end it all. Bella stops him just in time and they get back together. Werewolf Jacob no likey.
Book Three (Eclipse): Nothing happens. Seriously, for hundreds and hundreds of pages nothing freaking happens. Then the werewolves and vampires (sworn enemies) set aside their differences and team up to fight an oncoming army of vampires. This ends up being no where near as cool as you think it would be. You're maybe thinking that it'll be kinda sweet, like Underworld for teens. But no, it's not. It's so not sweet like that at all. Then Bella and Edward get engaged, or something.
Now, we get to this book. Bella is the most negative person I've ever seen, and she maintains this trait in the 4th book. Her thought life consists of nothing but constant complaining. Edward could give her a brand new car and all she would do is complain about it. Oh wait, he did, and she does. That's how this book opens: Bella complaining incessantly about her brand new Mercedes. Ingrate.
Then she complains incessantly about her upcoming wedding to Edward. I thought teenage girls were supposed to be all about weddings and planning their big day. Instead, she dreads it like it was a marathon of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Oh, man, is that a horrible show.
Obviously, she doesn't want to do the whole wedding thing and marry Edward. This is all the big Ed's idea. Bella's just going along with it because she made a deal that afterward Edward will have sex with her and turn her into a vampire (no, those two aren't directly related, but that would be one heck of an STD). Then she can be immortal like Edward and the two of them can live together forever. Or be undead together forever. Whatever.
Bella seems like the manipulative, seductive villainess from an Indiana Jones movie. She's tagging along on Indy's adventure (the wedding) just so she can get into his pants and also obtain immortality from the ancient relic the famed archaeologist seeks/possesses (vampirism). Think of Elsa from The Last Crusade and you'll see what I mean.
Anyway, she keeps complaining and is only thankful that Edward can't read her thoughts. Edward can read everyone's mind, except for Bella's, for some reason. Edward should be thankful for this, too. If he could read her thoughts, he'd be so appalled by the unrelenting pessimism that he'd shoot himself in the head. Granted, he's a vampire so that wouldn't harm him, but he'd still go through the motions just because Bella's whining is so interminable.
Then the wedding happens. It's covered in like a page or two. The rest of the 48 pages leading up to it is Bella complaining. Shut up, Bella. Please, please, just shut up.
2 Chronicles 1-9
Poor Chronicler. Awesome David is now dead. Boo. But his awesome legacy lives on!
This section starts off with God offering King Solomon whatever he asks for. Solomon, being nearly as awesome as his dad, asks for wisdom so that he might better rule over his people. God grants him this and, because Solomon wasn't selfish and asked for power and wealth, God is going to give him all those worldly pleasures anyway! That's like the super jackpot right there.
Indeed, Israel was so prosperous under Solomon that silver and gold were "as common in Jerusalem as stone (1:15)." Now, it seems very unlikely that the Chronicler took an accurate tally of the number of stones in the city and compared it with an accurate tally of the gold and silver. This is a generalization, people! The Chronicler is saying that Israel was stinking rich during this time. It's fluid, poetic language. Don't take it all so literally, as you are oft instructed to do. For if you did take this literally, basic economics and inflation would seem to imply that, because there's so much gold in Jerusalem, gold within the city is practically worthless (as worthless as a stone, even!). And this would be the exact opposite of the point the verse is trying to convey.
Moving along, Solomon begins to build the Temple, as his father previously instructed. Solomon takes the foreigners living in Israel and conscripts them into forced labor to construct the Temple. Nice way to exploit immigrants. The king also recruits Huram-abi, a skilled artisan from Tyre to work on some of the finer attributes of the Temple.
We then get a detailed description of the schematics and decor of the Temple. While it's mostly similar to the details we get in Kings, there are some discrepancies. Where these occur, the Chronicler's version tends to make the Temple larger and grander than the author of Kings does. Anyone else noticing a pattern in the Chronicler's agenda?
Solomon brings the Ark into the Temple, gathers the people, and says a dedication prayer. God responds by sending down fire to ignite the burnt offerings and a cloud (the presence of the Lord) then occupies the Inner Sanctuary. Then the people party! A festival is held for 7 days to celebrate the finishing of the Temple.
Later the famous queen of Sheba comes to test Solomon's wisdom and is thoroughly impressed by the dude. Then King Solomon dies and his son Rehoboam succeeds him. The end.
Wait! What about....?
Yes, yes, I know. The Chronicler takes the same route he did with David and omits any negative aspects of Solomon. So, no, there's no mention of the multitude of foreign wives and Solomon's tendency to worship their gods in his later life. Sorry, you'll just have to go back to Kings again for that part as well.
This section starts off with God offering King Solomon whatever he asks for. Solomon, being nearly as awesome as his dad, asks for wisdom so that he might better rule over his people. God grants him this and, because Solomon wasn't selfish and asked for power and wealth, God is going to give him all those worldly pleasures anyway! That's like the super jackpot right there.
Indeed, Israel was so prosperous under Solomon that silver and gold were "as common in Jerusalem as stone (1:15)." Now, it seems very unlikely that the Chronicler took an accurate tally of the number of stones in the city and compared it with an accurate tally of the gold and silver. This is a generalization, people! The Chronicler is saying that Israel was stinking rich during this time. It's fluid, poetic language. Don't take it all so literally, as you are oft instructed to do. For if you did take this literally, basic economics and inflation would seem to imply that, because there's so much gold in Jerusalem, gold within the city is practically worthless (as worthless as a stone, even!). And this would be the exact opposite of the point the verse is trying to convey.
Moving along, Solomon begins to build the Temple, as his father previously instructed. Solomon takes the foreigners living in Israel and conscripts them into forced labor to construct the Temple. Nice way to exploit immigrants. The king also recruits Huram-abi, a skilled artisan from Tyre to work on some of the finer attributes of the Temple.
We then get a detailed description of the schematics and decor of the Temple. While it's mostly similar to the details we get in Kings, there are some discrepancies. Where these occur, the Chronicler's version tends to make the Temple larger and grander than the author of Kings does. Anyone else noticing a pattern in the Chronicler's agenda?
Solomon brings the Ark into the Temple, gathers the people, and says a dedication prayer. God responds by sending down fire to ignite the burnt offerings and a cloud (the presence of the Lord) then occupies the Inner Sanctuary. Then the people party! A festival is held for 7 days to celebrate the finishing of the Temple.Later the famous queen of Sheba comes to test Solomon's wisdom and is thoroughly impressed by the dude. Then King Solomon dies and his son Rehoboam succeeds him. The end.
Wait! What about....?
Yes, yes, I know. The Chronicler takes the same route he did with David and omits any negative aspects of Solomon. So, no, there's no mention of the multitude of foreign wives and Solomon's tendency to worship their gods in his later life. Sorry, you'll just have to go back to Kings again for that part as well.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
1 Chronicles 21-29
With these last chapters of 1 Chronicles, the Chronicler concludes his account of the reign of King David. And oh, it is awesome.
But it starts out with David being not so awesome! What? Chronicler, what hath thou done???
David decides to go against the will of the Lord and take a census of all the people.* Joab, the voice of reason, tries to dissuade David from this act. But David insists, and the census commences. The Lord gets angry and tells Gad, David's seer, that Israel shall be punished. David must choose between three years of famine, three months of military failures, or three days of pestilence. David chooses door number 3, and God sends a pestilence that reportedly kills 70,000 people. Dang!
But then God also sends an Angel to utterly destroy Jerusalem. But David sees the angel and cries out to God to punish him instead of the people, for this was all his fault. Way to take responsibility for your actions and offer yourself to save your people, David. You know what this makes David? AWESOME!
So God tells David to make an altar at the house of some dude named Ornan. Ornan, being an awesome fellow himself, offers his place (in particular, the threshing floor the altar will be built upon) to David for free. David refuses the offer and insists that he must pay full price for it, for he will not give to God burnt offerings that cost him nothing (21:24)** God sends down fire from heaven to burn the offering on the altar and David declares that it will be the future sight of the Temple.
But David says his eventual successor, Solomon, is young and inexperienced, so David makes all the plans and arrangements for the building of the Temple. According to the Chronicler, David got everything ready and just sort of handed the plans over to Solomon to build, since the kid would be too inept to do it on his own. Never mind that Solomon is now remembered as being the wisest of the wise. This, in a way, robs Solomon of perhaps the greatest part of his legacy: the construction of the Temple. Instead, it was all daddy David's doing. Solomon just told the building crews to follow David's plan. Nice one, Chronicler. Way to make David seem even more awesome at the expense of Solomon.
Then David, being awesome, sets up the organization for the priests and Levites and gives them orders on how they will eventually care for the Temple. My commentary states that these arrangements don't appear in other pre-exilic texts, but was the norm for the 2nd Temple after the return from exile. If this is so, then perhaps the Chronicler had David institute such arrangements so as to help legitimize the current Temple order of his day. Think about it. It could be possible.
Anyway, the Chronicler's love affair with David ends with the awesome king overseeing the anointing of Solomon as king. Then David dies. The end.
Wait a minute! Are you serious? That's it? That's all you have to say about David, oh Chronicler? You completely skipped the most exciting part of David's reign from 2 Samuel: Absalom's Revolt! Sure, it's another negative aspect of David that the Chronicler probably deemed not awesome. But, come on! It's a great story of political intrigue! Oh well, guess you'll just have to check out 2 Samuel 13-18 for it.
*The parallel to this story is in 2 Samuel 24. However, here it says Satan (adversary) incites David to order the census, while in 2 Samuel it's God, upset with Israel, who puts it in David's head to have a census. Why is taking a census bad? I don't rightly know. Maybe it was a sign of pride? "Ooo, look at me! I'm Israel, and I'm so cool because I have this many people!" Maybe? Whatever. In any case, God gets mighty upset over it.
**Following David's lead, shouldn't our offerings to God, in whatever form they may take, also cost us? If we give to God only that which we won't miss (loose change, personal budget surplus, etc.) does it really mean anything? Maybe David was on to something. Maybe our offerings should come at great personal sacrifice to ourselves, instead of just whatever extra we can afford. This verse always reminds me of the poor widow who could *only* give two coins. While it seemed a small, unimpressive amount (especially compared to the riches that the wealthy were offering), Jesus said that the widow had given the most, for it cost her everything (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4).
But it starts out with David being not so awesome! What? Chronicler, what hath thou done???
David decides to go against the will of the Lord and take a census of all the people.* Joab, the voice of reason, tries to dissuade David from this act. But David insists, and the census commences. The Lord gets angry and tells Gad, David's seer, that Israel shall be punished. David must choose between three years of famine, three months of military failures, or three days of pestilence. David chooses door number 3, and God sends a pestilence that reportedly kills 70,000 people. Dang!
But then God also sends an Angel to utterly destroy Jerusalem. But David sees the angel and cries out to God to punish him instead of the people, for this was all his fault. Way to take responsibility for your actions and offer yourself to save your people, David. You know what this makes David? AWESOME!
So God tells David to make an altar at the house of some dude named Ornan. Ornan, being an awesome fellow himself, offers his place (in particular, the threshing floor the altar will be built upon) to David for free. David refuses the offer and insists that he must pay full price for it, for he will not give to God burnt offerings that cost him nothing (21:24)** God sends down fire from heaven to burn the offering on the altar and David declares that it will be the future sight of the Temple.
But David says his eventual successor, Solomon, is young and inexperienced, so David makes all the plans and arrangements for the building of the Temple. According to the Chronicler, David got everything ready and just sort of handed the plans over to Solomon to build, since the kid would be too inept to do it on his own. Never mind that Solomon is now remembered as being the wisest of the wise. This, in a way, robs Solomon of perhaps the greatest part of his legacy: the construction of the Temple. Instead, it was all daddy David's doing. Solomon just told the building crews to follow David's plan. Nice one, Chronicler. Way to make David seem even more awesome at the expense of Solomon.
Then David, being awesome, sets up the organization for the priests and Levites and gives them orders on how they will eventually care for the Temple. My commentary states that these arrangements don't appear in other pre-exilic texts, but was the norm for the 2nd Temple after the return from exile. If this is so, then perhaps the Chronicler had David institute such arrangements so as to help legitimize the current Temple order of his day. Think about it. It could be possible.
Anyway, the Chronicler's love affair with David ends with the awesome king overseeing the anointing of Solomon as king. Then David dies. The end.
Wait a minute! Are you serious? That's it? That's all you have to say about David, oh Chronicler? You completely skipped the most exciting part of David's reign from 2 Samuel: Absalom's Revolt! Sure, it's another negative aspect of David that the Chronicler probably deemed not awesome. But, come on! It's a great story of political intrigue! Oh well, guess you'll just have to check out 2 Samuel 13-18 for it.
*The parallel to this story is in 2 Samuel 24. However, here it says Satan (adversary) incites David to order the census, while in 2 Samuel it's God, upset with Israel, who puts it in David's head to have a census. Why is taking a census bad? I don't rightly know. Maybe it was a sign of pride? "Ooo, look at me! I'm Israel, and I'm so cool because I have this many people!" Maybe? Whatever. In any case, God gets mighty upset over it.
**Following David's lead, shouldn't our offerings to God, in whatever form they may take, also cost us? If we give to God only that which we won't miss (loose change, personal budget surplus, etc.) does it really mean anything? Maybe David was on to something. Maybe our offerings should come at great personal sacrifice to ourselves, instead of just whatever extra we can afford. This verse always reminds me of the poor widow who could *only* give two coins. While it seemed a small, unimpressive amount (especially compared to the riches that the wealthy were offering), Jesus said that the widow had given the most, for it cost her everything (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4).
Sunday, July 5, 2009
1 Chronicles 16-20
More awesomeness of David! Woohoo!
After the celebration of bringing the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem, David gives every person in Israel some bread, meat, and raisin cake. Not quite a chicken in every pot, but it will do! Way to be awesome, David.
Though the Ark is now in Jerusalem, there's still no house for it. Here, the Chronicler gives us an explanation for why David never got around to building the Temple. It wasn't David's fault, for David is awesome and totally wanted to build the Temple. But, the prophet Nathan had a dream where God said that David shouldn't build the Temple. Instead, David should work on consolidating power across the land, establishing a greater peace and stability, and obtaining riches from the spoils of war that will later be used for the construction of the Temple. God says that one of David's sons will eventually build the Temple instead.
So, David sets aside the idea of building the Temple and goes off to war, winning many battles against Israel's neighbors, such as the Philistines, Moabites, Arameans, and the Edomites. Interestingly, in 2 Sameul 8:13, this particular victory over Edom is attributed directly to David. But here, in 1 Chronicles 18:12, the Chronicler credits Abishai as the victor. Why, Chronicler? Why take the glory away from David? That seems to go against your modus operandi of writing about how awesome David is. Did you want to distance David from that battle for some reason? Though it was a victory, did some nastiness occur that you'd rather not be associated with David? In fact, I have absolutely no real idea why this possible discrepancy occurs, and all I have to say on it is mere conjecture. Remember that, you impressionable readers, you.
Perhaps 2 Samuel just generalizes that the battle was won by David since he is the king and, therefore, leader over all the Israelite forces. Maybe the Chronicler gets more specific and recognizes that Abishai was the direct commander at that particular battle. This seems plausible, since Abishai was the brother of Joab, commander of the entire army, second only to David.* Indeed, in the very next chapter, Israel faces an alliance between the Arameans and Ammonites. Joab split up the Israelite forces and gave half to Abishai's command to battle the Ammonites while he led the other group against the Arameans. Of course, Israel totally won this battle.
More battles ensue** and this time there's giants! Lahmi, the brother of none other than Goliath enters the fray. Like his better known brother, Lahmi is also killed, this time by Elhanan.*** David's brother Jonathan is also credited with killing a twelve fingered, twelve toed giant from Gath. Apparently there were a lot of giants in Gath. Good for them.
*Isn't context fun? CIE!
**David stayed home in Jerusalem during this period of battles. Although this occurs completely without incident in Chronicles, in Samuel this results in David viewing Bathsheba from afar, sleeping with her, and hastily trying to cover up his tracks which leads to the death of Bathsheba's husband, Uriah the Hittite. Now, the Chronicler isn't specifically saying that this incident never occurred, he's just omitting it and focusing, rather, on the awesomeness of David. Apparently the Chronicler doesn't deem adultery and indirect murder as awesome.
***Here we run into troubled waters, my friend. In 1 Samuel 17:50, it says that David does indeed kill the giant Goliath of Gath. In 2 Samuel 12:19, though, it says Elhanan kills the giant Goliath the Gittite. Are these two takes on the same story, or were their several giants at the time named Goliath? Well, as we've seen with the kings of Israel and Judah, certain names of the time were certainly very common. However, to help smooth this problem out, the Chronicler changes the name of the second Goliath to Lahmi and makes him the brother of David's Goliath.
But what of this Elhanan fellow? In Samuel he's the son of Jaare-oregim, while in Chronicles he's the son of Jair. Is Jaare equivalent to Jair? I don't know, but since the two events are otherwise similar, it would be safe to assume that they describe the same Elhanan. Now, there is a member of the elite Thirty named Elhanan, but he's the son of Dodo of Bethlehem. However, in 2 Samuel it says that Elhanan of Jaare-oregim is also of Bethlehem.
Could these two Elhanans be the same warrior? I can't say for sure. But if they were, it would make sense that an enemy giant would be felled by one of Israel's most elite warriors. It certainly seems more feasible that Elhanan, one of the top soldiers in all of Israel, could kill a giant rather than, say, a young, untrained boy with but a sling. Seeing as how Elhanan was a soldier for David and many, if not most, battles were credited almost exclusively to David by name, it seems plausible that eventually the tale could have been turned into how David personally killed Goliath. Maybe, after more time still, the story developed into how David, as a young boy, killed the mighty Goliath. David was a popular and iconic figure of Israel's greatness, and the people of ensuing generations adored him, such as the Chronicler himself. Is it really that far fetched that they might have clung to legendary, and perhaps exaggerated, stories of the awesomeness of their great king?
Wait, wait, wait. Are you telling us that David didn't kill Goliath? Well...no. I'm not saying that. I am saying that when one takes into account the context, history, and nature of humans, the preceding explanation could be considered possible. But, on the other hand, David very well could have literally killed Goliath personally as a young lad. Maybe by the time Elhanan met up with Lahmi, the name Goliath had become so synonymous with a giant (as it is in our culture today) that the author of Samuel could have mislabeled Lahmi as his brother Goliath. The Chronicler, in turn, clarifies this and helps correct the problem.
In either case, though, the message remains the same. Even if David didn't actually kill Goliath, we still have the message that, though we may be small, God will help us conquer our biggest problems. Sometimes the message is more important than the historical "truth." Did George Washington actually cut down a cherry tree as a young lad? Probably not. But we still teach our kids this story in kindergarten because its a good moral lesson. Remember, these are not objective histories, but theological narratives. They're meant to teach us truths about God as much as (or more than) recount the history of God's people.
After the celebration of bringing the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem, David gives every person in Israel some bread, meat, and raisin cake. Not quite a chicken in every pot, but it will do! Way to be awesome, David.
Though the Ark is now in Jerusalem, there's still no house for it. Here, the Chronicler gives us an explanation for why David never got around to building the Temple. It wasn't David's fault, for David is awesome and totally wanted to build the Temple. But, the prophet Nathan had a dream where God said that David shouldn't build the Temple. Instead, David should work on consolidating power across the land, establishing a greater peace and stability, and obtaining riches from the spoils of war that will later be used for the construction of the Temple. God says that one of David's sons will eventually build the Temple instead.
So, David sets aside the idea of building the Temple and goes off to war, winning many battles against Israel's neighbors, such as the Philistines, Moabites, Arameans, and the Edomites. Interestingly, in 2 Sameul 8:13, this particular victory over Edom is attributed directly to David. But here, in 1 Chronicles 18:12, the Chronicler credits Abishai as the victor. Why, Chronicler? Why take the glory away from David? That seems to go against your modus operandi of writing about how awesome David is. Did you want to distance David from that battle for some reason? Though it was a victory, did some nastiness occur that you'd rather not be associated with David? In fact, I have absolutely no real idea why this possible discrepancy occurs, and all I have to say on it is mere conjecture. Remember that, you impressionable readers, you.
Perhaps 2 Samuel just generalizes that the battle was won by David since he is the king and, therefore, leader over all the Israelite forces. Maybe the Chronicler gets more specific and recognizes that Abishai was the direct commander at that particular battle. This seems plausible, since Abishai was the brother of Joab, commander of the entire army, second only to David.* Indeed, in the very next chapter, Israel faces an alliance between the Arameans and Ammonites. Joab split up the Israelite forces and gave half to Abishai's command to battle the Ammonites while he led the other group against the Arameans. Of course, Israel totally won this battle.
More battles ensue** and this time there's giants! Lahmi, the brother of none other than Goliath enters the fray. Like his better known brother, Lahmi is also killed, this time by Elhanan.*** David's brother Jonathan is also credited with killing a twelve fingered, twelve toed giant from Gath. Apparently there were a lot of giants in Gath. Good for them.
*Isn't context fun? CIE!
**David stayed home in Jerusalem during this period of battles. Although this occurs completely without incident in Chronicles, in Samuel this results in David viewing Bathsheba from afar, sleeping with her, and hastily trying to cover up his tracks which leads to the death of Bathsheba's husband, Uriah the Hittite. Now, the Chronicler isn't specifically saying that this incident never occurred, he's just omitting it and focusing, rather, on the awesomeness of David. Apparently the Chronicler doesn't deem adultery and indirect murder as awesome.
***Here we run into troubled waters, my friend. In 1 Samuel 17:50, it says that David does indeed kill the giant Goliath of Gath. In 2 Samuel 12:19, though, it says Elhanan kills the giant Goliath the Gittite. Are these two takes on the same story, or were their several giants at the time named Goliath? Well, as we've seen with the kings of Israel and Judah, certain names of the time were certainly very common. However, to help smooth this problem out, the Chronicler changes the name of the second Goliath to Lahmi and makes him the brother of David's Goliath.
But what of this Elhanan fellow? In Samuel he's the son of Jaare-oregim, while in Chronicles he's the son of Jair. Is Jaare equivalent to Jair? I don't know, but since the two events are otherwise similar, it would be safe to assume that they describe the same Elhanan. Now, there is a member of the elite Thirty named Elhanan, but he's the son of Dodo of Bethlehem. However, in 2 Samuel it says that Elhanan of Jaare-oregim is also of Bethlehem.
Could these two Elhanans be the same warrior? I can't say for sure. But if they were, it would make sense that an enemy giant would be felled by one of Israel's most elite warriors. It certainly seems more feasible that Elhanan, one of the top soldiers in all of Israel, could kill a giant rather than, say, a young, untrained boy with but a sling. Seeing as how Elhanan was a soldier for David and many, if not most, battles were credited almost exclusively to David by name, it seems plausible that eventually the tale could have been turned into how David personally killed Goliath. Maybe, after more time still, the story developed into how David, as a young boy, killed the mighty Goliath. David was a popular and iconic figure of Israel's greatness, and the people of ensuing generations adored him, such as the Chronicler himself. Is it really that far fetched that they might have clung to legendary, and perhaps exaggerated, stories of the awesomeness of their great king?
Wait, wait, wait. Are you telling us that David didn't kill Goliath? Well...no. I'm not saying that. I am saying that when one takes into account the context, history, and nature of humans, the preceding explanation could be considered possible. But, on the other hand, David very well could have literally killed Goliath personally as a young lad. Maybe by the time Elhanan met up with Lahmi, the name Goliath had become so synonymous with a giant (as it is in our culture today) that the author of Samuel could have mislabeled Lahmi as his brother Goliath. The Chronicler, in turn, clarifies this and helps correct the problem.
In either case, though, the message remains the same. Even if David didn't actually kill Goliath, we still have the message that, though we may be small, God will help us conquer our biggest problems. Sometimes the message is more important than the historical "truth." Did George Washington actually cut down a cherry tree as a young lad? Probably not. But we still teach our kids this story in kindergarten because its a good moral lesson. Remember, these are not objective histories, but theological narratives. They're meant to teach us truths about God as much as (or more than) recount the history of God's people.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
1 Chronicles 10-15
All right, after all that genealogy goodness, we now get into the heart of the Chronicler's narrative of the monarchy. And how, for him, does the monarchy begin? Why, with the death of Saul, of course! For sooth, all we get of Saul is his last battle and suicide by falling on his sword. The Philistines then desecrate his body and steal his armor and head.
The rest of these chapters is a gushing glorification of all things David, akin to a trekkie explaining the greatness of Captain Kirk (particularly over, say, Picard). Here, all the tribes of Israel immediately follow David as king while the parallel in 2 Samuel sees it as a more gradual process to consolidate power. This furthers the sense that the Chronicler is an unabashed David fanboy and thinks David is just, like, awesome!
We get a list of some of the top warriors in David's army. The top three are in a super elite squad known as the Three (that's a hundred times more awesome than Sparta's 300!). The next group consists of thirty elite warriors and is known as the Thirty (which is still 10 times more awesome than 300!). Of particular note, one of the Thirty is Uriah the Hittite. Anyone who's read 2 Samuel should remember that Uriah was the husband of Bathsheba, the woman David had an affair with and impregnated. Remember what happened to Uriah after that? David sent him to the frontlines to be intentionally killed! Dang, David! You killed one of you're best soldiers over a woman! A woman! (Try to imagine Al Pacino from Dick Tracy saying that last part).
So, as David continues to consolidate his kingdom, he tries to bring the Ark of the Covenant (you know, the MacGuffin* from the first Indiana Jones movie? Man, what is it with me and movie references today?) to his new headquarters in Jerusalem. As it's in transit, the Ark tips on the cart, so a man named Uzzah tries to steady it with his hand. This impurity touching the Ark angers God, and Uzzah is struck dead on the spot. In light of this, David postpones the Ark's move to Jerusalem. Poor Uzzah.
David then fights off some Philistine intrusions on his territory. He conquers them at Baal-perazim and burns all the idols that the Philistines left behind. However, as 2 Samuel 5:21 recounts this event, David takes all of the idols back with him.** The Chronicler's version matches Davids actions up with Mosaic Law***, thereby making David even more awesome.
After these battles, David starts up some building projects in Jerusalem. Then he turns his attention back to the Ark. This time, to transport the Ark, he returns to Mosaic law and has the Levite priests carry the sacred object on poles. A big parade filled with music and dancing joins the Ark as it's carried into Jerusalem. Saul's daughter Michal looks out from her window, sees all this, and despises David. But who cares? She's dumb and David is AWESOME!
*Alfred Hitchcock coined the term "MacGuffin" to refer to the mechanism in a movie that drives the story. In heist and spy movies, it's whatever the criminals/spies are seeking after. For the Indiana Jones movies, the MacGuffins would be the Ark of the Covenant, the Sankara Stones, the Holy Grail, and the Crystal Skull. But most people try to forget that last one.
**Once again, this make divine dictation seem suspect. Did David burn the idols there or did he take them with? If divine dictation follows, then God is contradicting himself. If human authorship is more at play, then this discrepancy is of little consequence. The Chronicler is just trying to portray David in an all around better light. It has little, if any, effect on the larger themes presented.
***For example, Deuteronomy 7:25, which starts out "The images of their gods you shall burn with fire."
The rest of these chapters is a gushing glorification of all things David, akin to a trekkie explaining the greatness of Captain Kirk (particularly over, say, Picard). Here, all the tribes of Israel immediately follow David as king while the parallel in 2 Samuel sees it as a more gradual process to consolidate power. This furthers the sense that the Chronicler is an unabashed David fanboy and thinks David is just, like, awesome!
We get a list of some of the top warriors in David's army. The top three are in a super elite squad known as the Three (that's a hundred times more awesome than Sparta's 300!). The next group consists of thirty elite warriors and is known as the Thirty (which is still 10 times more awesome than 300!). Of particular note, one of the Thirty is Uriah the Hittite. Anyone who's read 2 Samuel should remember that Uriah was the husband of Bathsheba, the woman David had an affair with and impregnated. Remember what happened to Uriah after that? David sent him to the frontlines to be intentionally killed! Dang, David! You killed one of you're best soldiers over a woman! A woman! (Try to imagine Al Pacino from Dick Tracy saying that last part).
So, as David continues to consolidate his kingdom, he tries to bring the Ark of the Covenant (you know, the MacGuffin* from the first Indiana Jones movie? Man, what is it with me and movie references today?) to his new headquarters in Jerusalem. As it's in transit, the Ark tips on the cart, so a man named Uzzah tries to steady it with his hand. This impurity touching the Ark angers God, and Uzzah is struck dead on the spot. In light of this, David postpones the Ark's move to Jerusalem. Poor Uzzah.
David then fights off some Philistine intrusions on his territory. He conquers them at Baal-perazim and burns all the idols that the Philistines left behind. However, as 2 Samuel 5:21 recounts this event, David takes all of the idols back with him.** The Chronicler's version matches Davids actions up with Mosaic Law***, thereby making David even more awesome.
After these battles, David starts up some building projects in Jerusalem. Then he turns his attention back to the Ark. This time, to transport the Ark, he returns to Mosaic law and has the Levite priests carry the sacred object on poles. A big parade filled with music and dancing joins the Ark as it's carried into Jerusalem. Saul's daughter Michal looks out from her window, sees all this, and despises David. But who cares? She's dumb and David is AWESOME!*Alfred Hitchcock coined the term "MacGuffin" to refer to the mechanism in a movie that drives the story. In heist and spy movies, it's whatever the criminals/spies are seeking after. For the Indiana Jones movies, the MacGuffins would be the Ark of the Covenant, the Sankara Stones, the Holy Grail, and the Crystal Skull. But most people try to forget that last one.
**Once again, this make divine dictation seem suspect. Did David burn the idols there or did he take them with? If divine dictation follows, then God is contradicting himself. If human authorship is more at play, then this discrepancy is of little consequence. The Chronicler is just trying to portray David in an all around better light. It has little, if any, effect on the larger themes presented.
***For example, Deuteronomy 7:25, which starts out "The images of their gods you shall burn with fire."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
