One of the things which we must admit is the unusual way in which some of the individual books of the Bible conclude. For example, we expect a biography to start with a person's birth and end with their death. A romance story should end with the couple living happily ever after. A comedy, in the literary sense of being the opposite of a tragedy, should similarly have a happy conclusion. An essay should state its main point in the first verses and recap it at the conclusion. But the Bible has a way of often dashing many of our preconceived notions regarding what it should be and forces us to accept it as what it is instead.
Here are a few examples, many of which have been treated in more detail in other posts. But I thought it might be helpful to look at them together in one place:
Deuteronomy
Let me first start out looking at what we would call a typical and expected conclusion so that you can compare it with the less typical books below. The last verses of Deuteronomy not only serve as an excellent way to wrap up the entire exodus journey from Egypt to the final wanderings in the wilderness, but they also provide a description of the death of the main character in the Pentateuch, Moses, with a summary of his accomplishments. And the book leaves us appropriately poised on the border of the Promised Land ready to conquer it with God's help.
Judges
Here is another of the history books that appears to have a very clear plan behind its composition. There are twelve repeated cycles which include all or some of the following: sin, servitude, supplication, savior, salvation and silence. The last cycle concerning the judge Samson would seem to be an excellent way to end the book because (1) of the large number of Philistines that he killed single-handedly and (2) it shows Samson's final redemption for his dissolute life when at last he turns to God for help.
However, that is not how the book ends. Instead we are treated to five horrific chapters in which a woman is gang-raped, her body cut into twelve pieces by her boyfriend, one tribe is almost wiped out by the other eleven, and a mass abduction of a group of women at a religious celebration is condoned. These last chapters are usually labeled as an “appendix” to the book since they seem to have little to do with the earlier chapters. And to make things even worse, most scholars agree that some or all of the events in Judges 17-21 actually occurred before those which were earlier described.
The solution to this strange situation is found, as are others, by considering the literary organization of the book. It is shown below, and more on the subject can be read in my post “Judges: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”
The Structure of the Book of Judges
I. Introduction (1:1-3:6)
A. Political Situation (1:1-2:5)
B. Religious Perspective (2:6-3:6)
II. Israel under the Judges (3:7-16:31)
I'. Conclusion (17:1-21:25)
B. Religious Perspective (chs. 17-18)
A. Political Situation (chs. 19-21)
Thus, there is a perfect match between the opening and closing chapters, demonstrating that the overall
book is arranged thematically rather than in strict chronological fashion.
II Kings
Then we come to a third history book which similarly serves as the conclusion to a large chunk of Israelite history, namely the whole of I Samuel through II Kings (see “Samuel-Kings: Introduction to the Literary Structure” for justification of that statement). In one way, it is appropriate to end the way it does with both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms subdued by the enemy as God's response to Israel's repeated disobedience and most of the people led off into captivity. But instead of a grand concluding statement stating that theological truth, we are treated to somewhat of an anticlimactic ending.
II Kings 25:27-30 concludes the book by describing how the Babylonian king takes the exiled King Jehoiachin of Judah out of prison and gives him a seat at the royal dining hall along with the other captured monarchs and he dines there every day. Is this supposed to somehow make up for the Babylonians' massive destruction of Jerusalem and captivity of most Judeans? Cogan and Tadmor see this fact as a problem and therefore state their belief that these final verses are “merely an epilogue by an exilic writer who brought the narrative of Jehoiachin's life up to date.” Parenthetically, this favorable treatment of King Jehoiachin has been confirmed by some Babylonian archival records.
But for those who believe that these verses were the intended ending to the book, it does serve to give the barest hint that bad times for the Jews may not last forever. This glimmer of hope has been variously expressed:
Some commentators just express the opinion that this final episode indicates that perhaps the treatment of the Jews by the Babylonians in exile will not be as bad as they anticipated.
LaSor says that it is “an indication of their faith that the Davidic covenant was still in Yahweh's care.”
And G. von Rad, in House's words, “argues that the prominence of God's covenant with David in 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings indicates that Jehoiachin's survival means God may raise up a house of David.”
Job
There have been two charges leveled against the “happy” ending of this book. The first is a theological point: “it seems to reestablish the doctrine of retribution, the very doctrine that Job's story had redefined.” (Hartley) Greenberg similarly words it by saying, “Critics have deemed this conclusion, yielding as it does to the instinct of natural justice, anti-climatic and a vulgar capitulation to convention.” And Clines says “that it appears to revert to the old nexus between guilt and punishment, righteousness and blessing, that the book sets out to destroy.”
In response to this, one can take the tack that Clines does in stressing that “the epilogue wants to affirm, when all due allowance has been given to God to do as he pleases, that God delights to shower blessings upon one who serves him faithfully. This is by way of a bonus, an act of grace and not of compulsion on God's part.” And Greenberg notes: “God forbids a conception of himself as a moral accountant.”
The second charge is the disturbing fact that Job's first set of children was killed off and the author seems to feel that this will be wholly compensated by a new set given to him. Any parent knows that parental love does not quite work that way. Here are three approaches to this problem:
1. One rabbinical explanation cited by Allen was that the purpose of the book of Job was to draw a parallel between Job's sufferings and those of the people of Israel. Thus, “both lost sons and daughters, both were robbed of silver and gold, both were cast upon a dung heap. The intention of this comparison is clear: Just as Job was comforted in his sufferings in the end, so also will be the case for suffering Israel.”
2. Another Jewish scholar named Nahmanides explains that it was in fact the original children being returned to Job in the end, a view which Greenberg calls “a laudably humane, if unpersuasive, piece of exegesis.”
3. I think that the most reasonable explanation is that of Thomas Aquinas, who took the following stance: “Because Job believes in the immortality of all souls, he is not constrained to perceive order in all human affairs; the eternal future world will sort out all historical injustices.” (Allen) Hartley endorses this general view when he asks the logical question: “Why were not Job's children doubled as his possessions were?...one could say that the belief that his first set of children continued to live in Sheol means that with his new family the number of his children did double.”
Song of Songs
Moving from the historical books to the wisdom literature of the Bible, we should not be surprised here to see a more literary approach than a chronological one to the material. However, in this particular book one can be forgiven for being confused with the way the story of the two lovers is portrayed.
The Song begins with the woman living with her brothers and asking her lover where he pastures his flock so that she can visit him. Then we have some rather rather passionate and explicit episodes of sexual love during which it appears that the lovers have married. However, the book closes with the woman again living with her brothers and urging her lover to visit her.
Is there a coherent flow of logic or discernible story line to the book? Many would adamantly reply, “no!” A few examples will suffice:
“I do not believe that the Song is meant to convey a story.”
“No apparent order governs the flow of its verse.”
“There is no 'story' in the Song... only a set of anecdotes.”
“There is simply no plot. The story does not go anywhere.”
“(T)here does not seem to be any clear movement and certainly not a plot.”
“It is extremely difficult to reconstruct the story line, if one was intended at all by the composer of the Song.”
“[There is] an overall coherence to the book, but not a strict narrative unity, that is, a plot.”
“The poem has only a slight plot structure, and the love relationship is as strong at the beginning as at the end.”
“There is no 'story' or plot to speak of, but a series of encounters...”
“The Song has virtually no plot or story-line; its poetic genre allows it to be cyclical, repetitive and somewhat rambling.”
The ending of the book is one problem that must be faced by anyone attempting to find a narrative flow to the Song. Longman III states that “the last poem...does not impart a distinct sense of closure.” Snaith similarly remarks that 8:13-14 is “a very odd conclusion to the Song!... we might expect some climax, some conclusion – and yet here we seem to have just more of the same.” He notes that scholars have attempted to resolve this perplexity by (a) assuming that the original ending to the book was lost during the early process of transmission or (b) taking it as an indication that true love itself never ends but just keeps on going. A more plausible explanation than either of these seems to be in order, and that is a literary one.
The Structure of the Song of Songs
A. Title (1:1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Lovers Dwell Apart (1:2-7)
II. A Make-Believe House for the Lovers (1:8-2:7)
III. He Invites Her to Come Away (2:8-17)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Dream: Seek and Find (3:1-5)
V. Solomon's Litter Described for the
Daughters of Jerusalem (3:6-11)
VI. The Lovers in a Garden of Delight (4:1-5:1a)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Benediction on the Lovers (5:1b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV'. Nightmare: Seek and Not Find (5:2-8)
V'. The Hero Described for the
Daughters of Jerusalem (5:9-16)
VI'. The Lovers in a Garden of Delight (6:1-10)
----------------------------------
III'. She Invites Him to Come Away (6:11-7:13)
II'. A Make-Believe House for the Lovers (8:1-4)
I'. The Lovers Dwell Apart (8:5-14)
According to this scheme there is a purposeful pairing of the sections with the only chronological way of reading it as from the ends toward the middle. In this way, the whole book starts to make sense and has its climax at the center when the two get married.
Lamentations
This rather gloomy series of poems centered on the destruction of Jerusalem begins: “How lonely sits the city that once was full of people!” and ends with a plea to God: “Restore us to yourself, O LORD, that we may be restored; renew our days as of old.” And strangely, the only mention of any hope whatsoever in these five chapters is found toward the center of the book whereas we would have expected to see it at the conclusion instead. But the answer to this unusual fact is found, as in the case of the Song of Songs, in its overall literary structure:
Symmetrical Structure of the Book of Lamentations
I. Chapter 1
II. Chapter 2
III. Chapter 3, part A
IV. Chapter 3, part B
III'. Chapter 3, part C
II'. Chapter 4
I'. Chapter 5
Defense for this analysis is found in my post “Lamentations: Introduction to the Literary Structure.” As in the case of Song of Songs, this chiastic structure points to the center unit as the location where one expects the concluding thoughts, not the ending.
The only real hopeful words in Lamentations are found in the middle of Chapter 3, although exactly where to define the exact limits of that section is widely disputed. Despite this range of opinions, it seems certain that Lamentations 3, and thus the book as a whole, possesses a center “passage of confidence, all the more precious and important because it is so rare in this book.” (Kent) This passage has been more poetically called “the peak of the mountain jutting out of the darkness into the sunlight.” (Bullock)
If the above mirror-image arrangement is thus recognized for this book, it would go a long way toward countering Child's statement that the “relation between the various chapters does not appear to establish any progression of thought.” It would also provide an answer to those who feel that the optimistic statements in the center of ch. 3 are more than counterbalanced by the final despairing words of that chapter and the book as a whole. In fact, the book moves systematically inward from expressions of grief and utter despair toward a center in which there is complete confidence in God's mercies.
Nahum and Jonah
The books of these two minor prophets have one thing in common: they both end in questions. Ending a book with a question has to be regarded as strange, however you look at it. But it can serve the rhetorical purpose of throwing the subject at hand back to the reader. In essence, the authors are saying, “Well, what do you think about the matter?”
Since I have dealt with these two conclusions in a recent post (see “Questions in Nahum and Jonah”), I will simply refer you to it instead of repeating my comments here.
Mark
If you are relying on the King James Version of the Bible, you may not detect anything unusual about the ending of Mark's Gospel other than its strange comments about handling snakes and drinking poison. But as almost all subsequent translations indicate, Chapter 16 of Mark does not end with v. 20, but with v. 8 instead. And in that verse, we read that the women at the tomb are told to tell the apostles to go to Galilee where the risen Christ will meet them. However, they are too scared to do so and merely flee away.
Not only is that ending more than a little abrupt, it also seems to contradict the other three gospel accounts entirely. However, there are still commentators who will defend it as the intended conclusion to Mark's Gospel. They feel that the intent is to confirm the generally negative portrait of Jesus' followers, their lack of understanding and faith. Others counter that such an intent might be found in modern novels, but is overly subtle in such an ancient document.
That leaves several possibilities for why Mark's Gospel ends the way it does. I have discussed these possibilities in some detail in my post titled “The Ending of the Gospel of Mark,” but the bottom line is that it seems very likely Mark did not end his work at v. 8, but that the original ending was accidentally lost soon after Mark wrote his manuscript. However, before that happened Luke and John were aware of Mark's whole gospel account and both utilized it in composing their own works. Thus, there was no information lost at all since it is captured in those two other gospels. An attempt to reconstruct Mark's original ending is also found in the post cited above.
John
If Mark seems to be missing a conclusion to his gospel, John makes up for it by having what look like two alternative endings in his account. To explain, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus are described in John 20-21. However, John 20:30-31 concludes with what appears to be very fitting last words: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.”
So far, so good. However, that is not where the John's Gospel ends. Instead we have one more chapter recording Jesus' appearance to some of the Apostles by the sea, concluding with an endorsement of the author's testimony as being true and the comment: “But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if they were all written down, I suppose the world itself would not contain the books that would have to be written.”
O.M. Hendricks echoes the stance of most liberal and some conservative scholars in saying, “Most scholars consider this section [John 21] a post-Johannine addendum.” Arguing against this dual-author view are several indications:
1. For one thing, note the similar way both concluding chapters state that what is written is only a fraction of all the things Jesus did on earth. If a second writer was responsible for John 21, why in the world would he have felt the need to state a fact which had just been stated a few verses earlier? On the other hand, such duplication would be right at home with John's literary style of repeating and repeating the same information as a way of purposely emphasizing certain points.
2. Another factor that even Hendricks notes is that the three-fold testing of Peter's loyalty in John 21:15-17 is a way Jesus has to “redeem” Peter for his three-fold denial recorded in John 18. This indicates that John 21 is right at home in the rest of John's Gospel.
3. Even more indicative is the way Chapter 21 echoes the first two chapters of the gospel:
Use of the first person plural 1:14,16 21:24
“bosom” 1:18 21:20
John/Peter questioned three times 1:20-21 21:15-17
Only designations “Simon son of John” 1:42 21:15-17
“Follow me” to the apostles 1:43 21:19,22
Presence of Nathaniel 1:47 21:2
Jesus reveals future fate of an apostle 1:51 21:18-19
Only appearances of word “third” 2:1 21:14,17
“Cana of Galilee” 2:1,11 21:2
Similar rhetorical questions 2:4 21:23
Christ “manifests” himself 2:11 21:1,14
John's “characteristic asides” 2:11, 21-22 21:19,23
“Sheep” outside of ch. 10 2:14-15 21:16-17
“He was raised from the dead” 2:22 21:14
4. Finally, note the way in which the final major section of the gospel is organized as a
demonstration of the purposefulness of John's plan intended for chapters 20-21:
1. The two disciples (20:1-18)
a. Mary Magdalene (20:1)
b. Simon Peter and the other disciple (20:2-10)
a'. Mary Magdalene (20:11-18)
2. Appearance to the Apostles (20:19-29)
a. Without Thomas (20:19-23) peace be with you (2x)
b. Thomas’ reaction (20:24-25)
a'. With Thomas (20:26-29) peace be with you
Conclusion (20:30-31)
2'. Appearance to the Apostles (21:1-14)
a. From shore to sea (21:1-3)
b. At sea (21:4-8)
a'. From sea to shore (21:9-14)
1'. The two disciples (21:15-23)
b. Simon Peter (21:15-19)
b'. The other disciple (21:20-23)
Conclusion (21:24-25)
Acts
The conclusion of this book poses a real mystery. We, as readers, can certainly be forgiven for being somewhat let down at the end when Luke leaves his hero Paul in jail in Rome with not a hint as to what his final fate is. We would probably agree with F.F. Bruce, who said, “No one can accept the ending of Acts as the conclusion of a rationally conceived history.”
Munck has summarized a number of proposed reasons for this abrupt ending:
(a) the time of writing coincided with last events narrated,
(b) Luke reached the end of his papyrus,
(c) a third volume was intended, or
(d) Luke had fulfilled his purpose – “the end of the earth” was reached.
Munck's own opinion was that
(e) Paul's execution would have been tactless to mention in view of the apologetic nature of the work or, as others have suggested,
(f) it would have given too gloomy an ending to the book.
Here are a few comments regarding some of these possibilities:
(a) That may very well be true, but why couldn't Luke have waited a little bit until the end of Paul's trial? One reason has been suggested, namely that Luke's immediate audience, Theophilus, was connected with the Roman court in one way or another and the main reason for Luke writing in the first place was to better inform him of the history behind the Christian faith so that Theophilus could act as Paul's defense attorney or a “friend of the court.”
(b) This is a pretty trivial reason for stopping the manuscript where Luke did and would indicate rather poor planning on his part. After all, he could have easily saved a lot of papyrus by drastically truncating the sea voyage to Rome in Acts 27-28 so as to bring his account to a more orderly conclusion.
(c) Some scholars have asserted that the language which begins the Book of Acts and refers to the “first” volume of Luke's writings indicates in the Greek “the first of three or more.” If that is true, and other commentators point out examples in secular Greek writings where it certainly is not true, then Luke planned a third volume of Luke-Acts which for one reason or another was never finished or was lost.
(d) This fourth explanation is the most popular one among a wide range of biblical scholars. We have to keep in mind that Luke was not writing a biography of Paul, but instead laid out his intent clearly in Acts 1:8 in quoting Jesus' words regarding the witness the apostles were to carry out even “to the ends of the [civilized] earth.” And that is precisely what Luke did in ending the book with Paul continuing his evangelistic efforts even while imprisoned in Rome.
(e & f) Munck's final two possibilities also deserve attention. One could, in fact, draw a close parallel between the endings of Samuel-Kings and Acts. In both cases, a positive spin is given to a unfortunate situation in which a leader of God's people is found in captivity. As to Paul's ultimate fate, what little we know about the facts of the case are found in my recent blog titled “Whatever Happened to Paul?”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments