YEATS AND THE BIBLE

 Although the Nobel Prize winning Irish poet Yeats was raised in a Christian background, critics note that he turned for inspiration rather to tales of pagan Ireland “before Christianity destroyed it.” That may be true, but Yeats was often characterized as a Christian mystic, and his own Christian roots were always there. One evidence, I feel, is his deservedly famous poem shown below. It was based very loosely on one of the many exploits of the semi-divine character Aengus who figures in several ancient Irish and Scottish tales, but Yeats has knowingly or unconsciously infused it with biblical references as well.

To really appreciate the haunting beauty of Yeats' poem, I would suggest listening to it in the musical setting provided by the folk-singing duo Bud and Travis. It has been covered by a number of later artists, but it is hard to see how anyone could improve on Bud and Travis' original version, which can be heard on-line.

“The Song of Wandering Aengus” by William Butler Yeats

                I went out to the hazel wood,

                                Because a fire was in my head

                And cut and peeled a hazel wand,

                                And hooked a berry to a thread;

                And when white moths were on the wing,

                                And moth-like stars were flickering out,

                I dropped the berry in a stream

                                And caught a little silver trout.

----------------------

                When I had laid it on the floor

                                And went to blow the fire a-flame,

                But something rustled on the floor,

                                And someone called me by my name:

                It had become a glimmering girl

                                With apple blossom in her hair

                Who called me by my name and ran

                                And faded through the brightening air.

---------------------

                Though I am old with wandering

                                Through hollow lands and hilly lands,

                                           I will find out where she has gone,

                                And kiss her lips and take her hands;

                And walk among long dappled grass,

                                            And pluck till time and times are done,

                The silver apples of the moon,

                                            The golden apples of the sun.

An analysis of this poem should probably start with the way in which it is constructed. As an aid, I have indented those lines which contain an end rhyme, underlined those words and phrases which are exactly repeated within the same section, and placed in bold those cases in which a word is recurs in a different sections. So the poem is tied together in several complex ways:

It employs the sorts of rhyme patterns we are accustomed to in much of English poetry. But the repeated rhyme scheme of the first two sections becomes more complex in the final one, indicating a sort of consummation.

This rhyme pattern is supplemented by repetition of the same word not only within a given section, but also between sections. Thus, we have to wait until the final segment to come to repetitions of the “silver” of Part 1 and “apple” of Part 2. And in addition, the first and last sections contain three word pairs instead of only two as in the second section of the poem. This also indicates a sort of return to the idyllic setting of the opening section. So Yeats' has actually employed several of the types of repeated word patterns that we encounter in biblical poetry and prose (see my post on “repetitions and duplications”).

Despite these complicated literary devices, the poem manages to tell a coherent story in chronological order. Thus, the time frame moves forward between the three parts as indicated by the position of the sun: the breaking of dawn in Part 1(“ stars were flickering out”), early morning in Part 2 (“the brightening air”), and finally we arrive at full sun in the final line of the poem. This matches the past tenses in 1 and 2 moving on to the future tense in Part 3.

The first movement of the poem evokes the idyllic outdoor existence in the Garden of Eden of mankind. Adam and Eve are allowed to eat the fruit of any tree in the garden but one. Thus, we see Aengus plucking a berry. However, instead of eating it, he uses it as bait to catch a fish. This is a possible prohibition of God's command since no eating of animal flesh is mentioned in Genesis 1-2, only plant matter.

Thus, it is not surprising that in the second movement of the poem, Aengus suffers the loss of intimacy with all he loves. There is an interesting twist here in that it is the glimmering girl who calls Aengus by his name. This is the exact reverse of the Genesis story in which it is Adam who first names all the animals, indicating his mastery over them, and after the fall he gives Eve a name also (Genesis 3:20). In addition, Genesis 3:9 has God calling to Adam, just as the glimmering girl called Aengus by his name. This reversal of the biblical story indicates that it is the glimmering girl who is the dominant partner of the two. And since she is pictured as a fish, that could easily be an image of Christ himself, the holy ichthys.

Finally we come to the last major portion of the poem in which we learn that Aengus has been condemned to spend his whole life wandering, just as Cain was condemned to wander the earth after his sin and mankind was told to fill the earth after the Flood. Although his quest to recapture what he once had seems endless and fruitless (no pun intended), just as the bulk of the Bible teaches us, there is a final reward for those who persevere. So in the final lines, the hero expresses his confidence that he will once again be united with his absent love.

At this point there are several echoes of themes in the Book of Revelation. This time around, he will not only be allowed to pluck fruit from a natural tree, but will have access to the Tree of Life (Revelation 22:2); see his Beloved's face (Revelation 22:4a); have a brand new name to replace the old one by which he was once was known (Revelation 1:17; 22:4b); and even the sun itself will be replaced with God Himself (Revelation 22:5).

As to when this consummation will take place, the poem states, “till time and times are done.” Most literary critics feel this refers to Aengus' eventual death. However, the repetition of “time” in the plural has the effect of extending this reference not only to his own death, but the end of time itself. If so, then we have another allusion to Revelation, this time from 10:6, in which we read, at least in the KJV with which Yeats would have been most familiar, “there should be time no longer.”

Parenthetically, this is actually a misleading translation. For an explanation, see my post “Revelation 10:6: The End of Time?”

In addition, assuming I heard correctly, the Bud and Travis version makes one subtle change to the original poem. In place of “kiss her lips” near the end, they have substituted “know her lips.” It seems to me that this alteration not only scans a little better, but it also accomplishes two other things. For one, the word “know” has a much more intimate connotation, especially in light of the biblical reference in Genesis 4:1 to the man “knowing” Eve. In addition, Paul talks about the time to come when “I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

 

PERSPECTIVES ON I SAMUEL 25

First, we should note how God orders historical events and the way they are narrated in the Bible in a very orderly manner.
                                                   Figure 1: The Structure of I Samuel 25  
Introduction (1)

    A. David sends messengers to Nabal (2-8)
        B. Nabal refuses him (9-11)

            C. David vows to kill Nabal (12-13)
                D. Abigail learns of events and acts (14-20)
            C'. David vows to kill Nabal (21-22)

                    E. Abigail's speech (23-31)
                        1. Let the guilt be on me (23-25)
                            2. Blessing and prophecy (26-31a)
                        1'. Remember me (31b)

            C''. David repents of his anger toward Nabal (32-35)
                D'. Abigail tells Nabal of events (36-37a)
            C''''. Nabal dies, but not by David's hand (37b)

    A'. David sends messengers to Abigail (39-40)
        B'. Abigail accepts him (41-42)

Conclusion (43-44)

The highlighted passage within this chapter is thus seen to be found at I Samuel 25:26-31a. But that central passage itself possesses its own internal symmetry:

                                             Figure 2: The Structure of I Samuel 25:26-31a

    1. God has kept David from unnecessary bloodshed (26a)

        2. A curse is pronounced on David's enemies (26b)
            3. She asks for forgiveness for Nabal (27-28a)
                4. Prophecy of David's future kingship (28b)

        2'. God will protect David from his enemies (29)
            3'. God will deal with Nabal (30a)
                4'. Prophecy of David's future kingship (30b)

    1. David has not shed blood without cause (31a)

McKenzie says regarding verses 30-31, “Abigail points out that shedding innocent blood would be an obstacle to David's kingship.” The structure of Figure 2 confirms that observation in that it contains two points of natural emphasis, 1 and 1' regarding David sparing Nabal's life as well as the conclusion of the two parallel cycles at 4 and 4' in which the prophecy of David's rise to power is made.

However, McKenzie is off-base in suggesting elsewhere that verse 26, hinting at Nabal's upcoming death “may be out of place.” That sort of comment betrays a basic lack of belief in predictive prophecy. And Abigail not only belongs in the ranks of other OT prophets, but also is a prime example of the other “wise women” who appear in the Bible.

Abigail says in the remainder of verse 31 directly after the speech in Figure 2: “And when the LORD has dealt well with my lord, then remember your servant.” as McKenzie notes, there is some ambiguity as to the identity of the “lord” to whom Abigail is alluding. Is it her husband Nabal, in which case she is predicting his death, which will soon after take place, presumably at God's hand? Or is she talking about some future time after God has established David as king? In either case, it is obvious that she is actually making David a sort of marriage proposal just as Ruth had earlier been the initiating party in getting David's ancestor Boaz to marry her. 

And we learn at the end of the chapter that David will take her up on her offer after Nabal had died of “natural causes.” It is the final verses in I Samuel 25 that I chose to illustrate in the collage below

                            I Samuel 25 (1992, 3-1/2'' x 5'')

"HEART" IN ECCLESIASTES

In a companion post (“Translating II Samuel 3”), I elaborated on George Hammond's observation that a literal rendering of the Hebrew language, such as the KJV often does, can be very helpful in cases where the same repeated phrase is suddenly and purposely turned on its head. Hammond also highlights the occurrences of the Hebrew word leb (“heart”), which are so many that “the speaker's leb becomes a character, and the idiom takes on a new life.” The various cliches containing this word thereby “lose their staleness because of the way leb is used in more imaginative contexts throughout the book.” By contrast, Hammond says “the modern versions do not allow their readers such an insight. Partly it is a matter of not wishing to sound archaic, partly a wish to avoid redundancies.”

Regarding the meaning of leb, which I will lump together with its variant lebab, here is what several commentators have to say:

    Longman: “As is well known, leb refers not to the emotions, as in English, but to the mind and will, or even the core of one's personality.”

    Luc: In the OT, the words [leb and lebab] have a dominant metaphorical use in reference to the center of human psychical and spiritual life, to the entire life of a person.”

    Sorg: “Viewed as a bodily organ, the heart is the seat of strength and of physical life...In the metaphorical sense leb is the seat of man's spiritual and intellectual life, the inner nature of man. Here the close connection between spiritual and intellectual processes and the functional reactions of the heart's activity is particularly clear...In the OT leb is also the seat of man's feeling, thinking and willing.”

For those who are interested in statistics, by my best count, leb appears 39 times in Ecclesiastes.

    A. Of those occurrences, twenty are closely associated with “wise” or “wisdom.”

    B. Roughly thirteen times leb is found within a proverbial statement.

    C. Seow lists nine times within the book in which the word functions as an independent entity.

    D. Six times the author states that he “applied my mind to know.”

Recognizing that there is some uncertainty in the above numbers, it is still intriguing to me that in each case, the number of of occurrences falls just short of numbers frequently standing for perfection or completion in biblical symbolism. These “perfect” numbers include seven and its multiples, ten, and 40. Thus, these statistics drive home to the reader, at least on a subliminal level, the fact that, as the Teacher in the book realizes, our unaided human mind will always fall short of totally comprehending the truth of existence. If this is a valid observation, then the reader would only be able to pick up on that fact by a consistent translation of leb/lebab as “heart.”

Here are some additional comments regarding the four sub-categories of use given above:

Category A: It is first necessary to understand the meaning of the word "wisdom" in the Bible. To that end, here is what Estes has to say: “The underlying sense of wisdom in the Hebrew Bible is skill in a variety of context. In the Old Testament wisdom books wisdom is defined especially in the moral sense of skill in living. More specifically, wisdom is skill in living according to Yahweh's moral order.”

Enns, in an essay, provided a list of recurring words in Ecclesiastes, two of which are heart and wise/wisdom. He feels that the use of these key terms has utility in “alerting the reader to conceptual interconnections...observing such interconnections will force the reader to allow Qohelet (the Teacher) himself to set the agenda for how he wishes to be understood.” So with that in mind, here are the texts in which these key words intersect. I will leave it as a homework assignment to let Qohelet speak to you through these passages: Ecclesiastes 1:13,16-17: 2:3,9,14,16,19,21; 7:4,7,23,25; 8:5,16-17; 9:1; 10:1-2.

Category B: The proverbial occurrences of “heart” in Ecclesiastes are often divided into two sub-categories, those pertaining to those who are wise and those characteristic of the foolish. Thus, the wise man (or woman) has a heart which always keeps foremost in mind its mortality (7:2,3,4a), knows when and how to obey a command (8:5), and inclines to the right (10:2a). Conversely, the foolish heart is only concerned with pleasure (7:4b), is set to do evil (8:11; 9:3), and inclines to the left (10:2b).

Category C: Consider some of the things that the heart does in some of these passages:

        2:10      finds pleasure in toil

        2:23      cannot rest at night

        5:2        utters words before God

        7:22      knows what you have said in secret

        11:9      cheers you when you are young

Category D: Longman says, “'I devoted myself' occurs in 1:17; 8:9,16. It is formed from the verb natan with leb 'heart' as the direct object. Natan is a frequently occurring verb with the basic meaning of 'to give,' but in the present idiom it means 'to set' or 'to determine'...Qohelet thus uses the idiom to indicate his focused, deeply personal, disciplined pursuit of the object of his study.” Similarly, Grisanti states, “In connection with leb/lebab, ntn lebbe describes a person's great devotion (or lack of it) to a given task/person/truth.”

Longman also mentions that some scholars suggest emending 7:25 to also include a form of this idiom. And in the same category, 1:13 and 2:3 should also be placed even though the idiomatic forms used there are somewhat different. In each case, the Teacher is carefully attempting experiments involving wisdom, labor, or pleasure to see if any of them have any lasting worth for man during his brief time on earth.

One of the strangest of these experiments occurs in the somewhat difficult Ecclesiastes 2:3 with its two-fold use of “heart” in the context of wine drinking. Seow says that “the author followed his heart and the heart led him wisely...The point of the verse is probably to assert the rationality of the action. The indulgence in pleasure did not stem from an inexplicable impulse, nor did it originate from wisdom. The action of the heart was deliberate and thoughtful.”

Qohelet's conclusion from all these scientific experiments is capsulized in the last two appearances of the idiom in Ecclesiastes 8:9,16. Basically he “saw all the work of God, that no one can find out what is happening under the sun (8:17)” and resigns himself to that reality. I have personally witnessed a series of such “experiments” carried out by a young fellow chemist at work who in turn devoted himself to photography, wine drinking, bow and arrow shooting, stamp collecting, antique bottle digging, and who knows how many other hobbies until he went to a Christian retreat and became saved. At that point, his futile search for meaning in the physical world stopped forever.

 

THE BORDERS OF THE GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE (MARK 14:41; lUKE 22:38)

In another post titled “Why are there so many duplications and repetitions in the Bible?” I explained some of the reasons for repeated words and phrases being used by the authors of the Bible to highlight certain sections or ideas. When such duplication appears in one of the books of poetry, wisdom, or epistles it is well accepted as a literary device. But when it occurs in one of the history books of the Old or New Testament, it can cause some controversy.

For example, consider the literary technique called an inclusio, or inclusion, in which repeated words or phrases are used to indicate the beginning and end of a book or section of a book to better define its limits and perhaps make some overriding comment on the whole unit. One example would be Paul's frequent use of “grace and peace” to begin a letter while concluding with the same two nouns, but listed in the opposite order “peace and grace.” As I explained elsewhere, this may be Paul's way of saying that grace is the beginning and conclusion of our faith, or perhaps that you can't have true peace without accompanying grace from God. So far, so good. But what about the use of the same technique in one of the historical books in the OT?

Another example I gave in the post mentioned above was that of the rare appearances of a “tamarisk tree” located at the start and conclusion of the extended narrative concerning Saul's several unsuccessful attempts to capture and kill David. The question that might be brought up by critical scholars of the Bible is whether the author made up this detail in one or both of these locations for solely literary purposes without any concern for historical accuracy.

My own thought has always been that when such repeated patterns are found in the narrative portions of the Bible we shouldn't question their accuracy since God as the author of the universe can create such patterns in history itself. But I must admit that I adopt that position on a certain amount of faith since it is also possible that the pattern has been totally fabricated by the human authors of the text, a thesis also based on faith, or a lack thereof, rather than any facts.

All of the above rambling is to turn to a possible example in which a repeated pattern appears to have occurred in biblical history even though it is not found in any one book by a single author. I am speaking about the Garden of Gethsemane episode recorded by several of the Gospel writers, specifically Mark and Luke.

Luke 22:38

In Luke's account, directly before they go to the Mount of Olives, we are given an exchange between Jesus and his apostles in which he warns them of the dangers they will face after He is gone. And so he uses figurative language to say that from now on they will have to go around with a purse full of money and a sword. True to form, the obtuse followers respond by producing two swords. At this point, in a somewhat disgusted reply, Jesus says in Luke 22:38, “It is enough.”

There is not much doubt as to meaning of Jesus' word hikanos here. Vine says that when this word is “said of things it signifies enough.” Soards calls Luke 22:38 a “gentle rebuke” of the disciples. NRSV translates it as “No more of this!” And F.F. Bruce adds, “Luke certainly does not intend his readers to understand the words literally” as if two swords are sufficient. Instead it Jesus' way of shutting off this futile exchange.

Mark 14:41

Now, for a change, turn over to Mark's version of the story to what happens directly after the prayer in Gethsemane and the disciples' failure to stay awake with Jesus. We get a rather long verse, Mark 14:41 in which Jesus makes these following comments to his followers in order:

        a. “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest?”

        b. “Enough!”

        c. “The hour has come.”

        d. “The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.”

The word in bold should look familiar since it is the same English word that appeared right before the scene in the garden. However, appearances may be deceiving since in this second case it translates a completely different Greek word: apechei. Not only that, but unlike the similarly rendered word in Luke 22:38, there is quite a bit of controversy concerning what “enough” refers to here. H. Anderson says that the word “is obscure and is variously explained.” Lane calls it “enigmatic.” NEB notes, “The Greek is obscure.” In fact, there have been at least three different interpretations of this single word.

The first difficulty is to determine whether 41b refers to what has preceded or what follows. Lane is quite definite on this point: “The opening words of verse 41 [i.e. 41a] are to be taken as an ironical demand or a reproachful question.” By contrast, “'it is settled' [41b] is to be interpreted by the two statements which immediately follow [41c and d].” But even if that is true, there are still several shades of meaning possible:

    1. Metzger notes, “the difficulty of interpreting the impersonal use of apechei in the context led copyists to introduce ameliorations. Several Western and Caesarean witnesses [i.e. manuscripts] add to telos (meaning perhaps, 'the end has fully come') a gloss that may have been suggested by Lk 22:37.”

    2. Along the same lines, Marcus translates apechein by invoking another meaning of the verb, namely “to be distant.” Thus, he feels that Luke 14:b-c should be rendered “Is it far away? The hour has come.”

    3. Vine says that apecho may here refer, in its commercial significance to Judas (who is mentioned immediately afterwards), with the meaning 'he hath received' (his payment).” In the same vein, NEB notes that “a possible meaning is 'The money has been paid', 'The account is settled.'” However, Marcus doubts that there is any reference at all to Judas. After all, nowhere in Mark's account does he mention that Judas was paid for betraying Jesus. We need to go to Matthew 27 to learn that information.

    4. However, what if Lane and others are entirely mistaken and “enough” refers instead to what has happened immediately preceding 41b? In fact, that is the implication given in the majority of English translations. And many commentators agree with this understanding.

    Short says, “Having found them [the apostles] sleeping three times (40,41), waking them up finally, Jesus said to them 'Enough!' i.e. “'Enough of this!'”.

    Grassmick: “Jesus' word Enough! (i.e. of sleeping) aroused the disciples.”

    Living Bible: “The time for sleep has ended.”

    The Message: “You've slept long enough.”

    Latin Vulgate: “It is enough.”

One rebuttal comes from Mann who says, “But is this an ironic comment about the disciples' sleeping? This seems unlikely, for there is very little evidence for an impersonal use of the word.” However, that supposed problem is countered by the further suggestion that the Greek word apechein is a poor rendering of the Aramaic word kaddo, definitely meaning “enough.” Keep in mind that Jesus most probably spoke in Aramaic, not Greek.

Anderson says, “Fortunately a final decision on the matter is not essential to an understanding of the words that follow.” However, it does impact the point I am hoping to make in this short essay. And for that, I will go with the last of the four options above as the most probable understanding.

So if we take a harmonizing approach to the historical narrative centered around the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, we can put together the following combined narrative from Mark and Luke:

        A. The apostles are gently rebuked by Jesus' “Enough (of this)” for misunderstanding His teaching             on being prepared. [Mark]

                    B. The apostles fail to stay awake with Jesus in the Garden. [Mark and Luke]

        A'. The apostles are gently rebuked by Jesus' “Enough (of this)” for their sleeping. [Luke]

We thus have a case in which no one Gospel writer can be accused of creating a literary pattern by purposely inventing incidents. The improbability of this is strengthened by the use of entirely different Greek words for “enough” in A and A'. Instead we have a symmetrical historical pattern created by God Himself, who orders the events of human history.

 

NEW INSIGHTS INTO MARK 14:30-72

New Insights into Mark 14:30-72

I will call the thoughts below “new” insights even though some of them may be old to you. However, even at my own advanced age and supposed familiarity with most of the Bible, I was powerfully reminded today from a sermon on the Garden of Gethsemane that there are still so many more gems hidden in the text that remain yet to be discovered. Below are a few insights that I had picked up on earlier as well as new ones that I become acquainted with this Sunday.

1. The pastor pointed out that there was a possible connection between the events in Mark 14:32-52 and those in Genesis 3. In that earlier passage, mankind was removed from intimate contact with God due to Adam and Eve's failure to heed His command. Similarly, after the failure of the disciples to stay awake in the garden, they are scattered by fleeing from Jesus (verses 50-51). So restoration of that union needed to wait until the perfect man, Jesus Christ, came to provide for us what we could not do for ourselves. Some specific details connecting both stories include the fact that both events happened in gardens; it is here that both the original pair and Jesus are subjected to the greatest tests of their lives; and both involve people who become naked (Mark 14:52) or realize that they are naked (Genesis 3:7).

2. There are two anonymous personages in Mark 14: the follower who cuts off Malchus' ear and the young follower who fled, leaving his cloak behind. Supposition as to their identity leads most scholars to feel that Peter was the first person. There is no definite proof of that fact, but it certainly would fit his reputation as one who charged ahead without really considering the consequences or the correctness of his actions. And the strange story of the man who fled naked best fits Mark himself.

Neither person's identity is spelled out, perhaps in the case of Mark because of his shame over his conduct, and in the case of the knife-wielding apostle to protect him from possible reprisals from the Jewish authorities. We should additionally point out the two types of failure demonstrated by these examples. We can either fail Christ by refusing to stand with him (as did the fleeing young man) or by going ahead of Christ in actions against His express will (by maiming Malchus). These represent in a way the respective sins of omission and commission.

3. This chapter has been cited before as another example of Mark's tendency to sometimes arrange his narrative in a “sandwich” manner in which a certain initial narrative A is continued later as A' but only after an intervening incident B which has some thematic parallel or contrast to A-A'. If this analysis is correct, then Mark 14 actually contains a sort of double-decker sandwich, as pictured below:

        A. Peter swears he will never deny his Lord (Mark 14:14-31)

                B. Gethsemane and the arrest (Mark 14:32-53)

        A'. Peter follows at a distance and stays with the guards (Mark 14:54)

                B. Jesus' trial (Mark 14:55-65)

        A''. Peter denies Christ three times (Mark 14:66-72)

We thus see that two trials are placed side-by-side, that of Peter which he fails (the “A” sections) and that of Jesus which he passes (the “B” sections). The difference between the two is more specifically pointed out by the specific contrast between Jesus' admission in verse 62 (“I am”) and Peter's repeated denials that he isn't His follower.

4. Another ironic touch is provided in the fact that Jesus is mocked as being a false prophet in verse 65 whereas His two prophecies in verses 27 and 29-30 come true in verses 50-52 and 66-72, respectively.

5. Finally, there is a very subtle point that can only be seen by comparing this chapter with the parallel account in Luke's Gospel. It is so subtle that it may exist only in my imagination. But I will save it for the next post.

 

MODERN CLASSICAL MUSIC AND THE BIBLE

Among all the various genres of music, probably one of the narrowest niches in terms of both rarity and listener interest is found in the conjunction between 20th century classical orchestral and vocal music and biblical subject matter. I must admit that even I, with my admittedly elitist artistic tastes, do not even enjoy listening to some of the pieces listed below.

However, look at it this way, if you can manage to sit through many of the “praise” band presentations of today's typical church services without falling asleep or into a coma, then some of the pieces below can't be much worse. Fortunately, on your computer you can experience streaming at least selections from most of the compositions I have highlighted for free or a nominal fee just to see if you are interested in hearing more.

Paul McCartney – Liverpool Oratorio

    Yes, even one of the Beatles has tried his hand at the ancient church form of the oratorio. But I probably shouldn't have mentioned this piece at all. Although it is meant to be sung in church with a choir, organ, and other musical accompaniment, the subject matter is strictly secular. In addition, it is not really a very successful piece of music, unlike the other pieces below.

The Genesis Suite

    This might be a much better place to begin your musical journey since it consists of short offerings from a variety of composers ranging from giants of 20^th century music such as Stravinsky and Schoenberg to popular producers of Hollywood film scores. If you want to learn more about the background to this unique composition, read my blog titled “The Genesis Suite.”

Leonard Bernstein – Symphony #1: Jeremiah; Chichester Psalms

    Even this very popular American composer turned his great talents back to his Jewish roots for his first of three symphonies and Chichester Psalms, “reflecting on man's closeness to God.” When asked once regarding his religious beliefs, he replied, “Music is my religion.” This is a good illustration of the fact that just because a composer chooses a biblical story or theme for a work, that does not necessarily mean that he treats the Bible as sacred.

Lee Holdridge – Lazarus and His Beloved

    This is another rather accessible piece by a sometime film composer.

Arthur Honegger – King David

    This piece for narrator, choir, and orchestra goes through all the highlights and low points in David's career. The Swiss composer showed his interest in other biblical themes in pieces such as Symphonie Liturgique and A Christmas Cantata.

Alan Hovhaness

    This somewhat mystical composer comes from an Eastern Orthodox Church tradition, and his faith is expressed in various ways through most of his pieces, such as Mysterious Mountain, God Created Great Whales (which includes recorded sounds of actual whale songs), Prayer of St. Gregory, Alleluia and Fugue, and Celestial Fantasy.

Russian composers are well represented in this category due to the powerful association of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Russian identity:

Modesky Moussorgsky – Night on Bald Mountain

    This very popular composition contrasts the forces of the evil which are portrayed through most of the piece being defeated at the end by God's power, symbolized by the church bells heard as day approaches. Leopold Stokowski did a reasonably good job in the Disney film “Fantasia” of blending the end of this composition with a rendering of Schubert's Ave Maria.

Prokofiev – The Prodigal Son

    Even during the Soviet Era in Russia, this composer produced this opera, also accessible through the orchestral suite derived from it. He was reportedly an adherent of the Christian Science belief.

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov – The Russian Easter Overture

    This is the earliest of the composers listed here. His music had a great influence over later composers, especially in Russia. The Overture is an other popular concert piece expressing the joy of celebrating the conquest of Christ over the tomb.

Igor Stravinsky

    This Russian emigre, who ended up in my old stomping ground of Southern California, is a personal favorite of mine. Stravinsky changed his musical style about as often as Pablo Picasso varied his modes of artistic expression. And some of his compositions are more obvious than others in reflecting his sincere Russian Orthodox faith. These include Symphony of Psalms, Threni (based on the book of Lamentations), and Canticum Sacrum.

Several other composers should be added who turned to biblical subjects for their musical compositions even though the composers themselves may or may not have been particularly religious:

Arnold Schoenberg – Moses and Aaron

    This is an unfinished opera recounting incidents from the Book of Exodus.Schoenberg himself was raised a Jew, but later converted and joined the Lutheran Church, finally returning completely to his Jewish roots.

Richard Strauss – Salome; Death and Transfiguration

    The most known selection from the first of these pieces is the sensuous Dance of the Seven Veils. It should also be pointed out that the second of Strauss' compositions listed above is a tone poem that does not directly refer to Christ's death and resurrection, but the hope of an individual sufferer for a happier afterlife.

William Walton – Belshazzar's Feast

    Listed last alphabetically, but high on my personal list, is a composer with definitely Christian credentials since he was chorister of Christ Church Cathedral in Oxford. As the title of this exciting piece indicates, the subject matter is drawn directly from Daniel 5.

 

TRANSLATING II SAMUEL 3

Accurately rendering the Hebrew or Greek language of the Bible into English is an enterprise that is not the easiest to accomplish. On the one hand are scholars who have attempted to produce a completely literal translation and tout it as the only true way to understand the original wording. One such example is Young's Literal Translation. On the opposite side of the spectrum are those who feel quite free to translate the same word completely differently depending on the way it is used in each particular context, resulting in loose paraphrases such as The Message or The Living Bible. In fact, neither extreme is entirely successful in completely conveying the often subtle details that were put into the text by the authors.

As but one example of the difficulties translators face, Robert Alter points to a repeated phrase that appears in II Samuel 3. This chapter recounts how a feud broke out between two powerful generals, Abner and Joab, when the former killed the brother of the latter. Abner approaches David with an offer of peace and a covenant between the two of them. The King James Version renders a particular repeated phrase that later follows as:

    “David sent Abner away; and he went in peace.” (v. 21)

    “Abner was not with David in Hebron, for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace.” (v. 22)

    “they told Joab, saying....'he [the king] hath he sent him away, and he is gone in peace.'” (v. 23)

    “Then Joab came to the king, and said...'why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone.'” (v. 24)

The first three appearances of the phrase are simple statements of the facts in the case. However, you can clearly see from the fairly literal KJV translation of the fourth telling from Abner's mouth that there are two subtle changes in wording. In the first place, “peace” is pointedly missing, and secondly, KJV accurately renders the final repetition of the verb “gone” as an intensive variation “quite gone.” In other words, Abner is questioning the wisdom of David letting him go in peace as well as expressing his frustration that his enemy is now completely out of his own reach.

George Hubbard calls attention to this “sophisticated narrative technique, in which a pattern of repetition is suddenly subverted by an ominous variant of a familiar phrase...With such formulaic narrative the Authorized Version translators are entirely happy, and the reader of their English rendering will, just like the reader of the Hebrew original, first become accustomed to the pattern and then find it suddenly subverted.”

The Revised Standard Version, as usual, follows the KJV fairly closely with one exception, the last part of the fourth occurrence of the key phrase is even closer to the wording in the first three, simply reading “he is gone.” This version does a good job of highlighting the absence of “peace” in v. 24 but fails to convey the intensive or superlative form of the verb “gone” that is in the Hebrew original.

Moving forward in time to an even more recent translation within the same tradition, NRSV uses the English word “dismiss” in all four verses in place of “sent away” so that we can still clearly note the similarity between the repetitions. However, it departs even further from the Hebrew in II Samuel 3:24 by using “got away” in place of “quite gone.” This does have the advantage of expressing Joab's frustration that his enemy is safely out of his reach, but conveys that idea by substituting a completely different Hebrew verb than is in the original text. As you can see, it is really a subtle balancing act that the translators are forced to walk with no one completely successful way to accomplish it.

Next, let's consider how other modern translations attempt to cope with the problem.

NIV has “sent him away” and “gone in peace” in the first three appearances of the phrase. However, in the final case, it says “let him go” and “is gone.” Thus, just like NRSV, this translation resorts to use of a different verb in an attempt to better convey Joab's frame of mind. The only difference from NRSV, however, is that it accomplishes this by using a substitute for the verb “let go” instead of finding a replacement for “gone.”

Even further from the original Hebrew is the New English Bible, which uses the following paired expressions in verses 21-24:

    “dismissed / granting his safe conduct”

    “dismissal / was no longer with David”

    “departed under safe conduct”

    “How could you let him go? He has got clean away”

In this case, there is no attempt made to adhere to the original wording. Thus, the reader might certainly comprehend what is going one but would do so at the expense of having no idea how the author originally conveyed the meaning.

The Jerusalem Bible goes to the opposite extreme by translating all four appearances the same: “allow to go unmolested.” This shows a total lack of understanding of the original Hebrew, as Hammond notes.

Finally, let's turn to some modern paraphrases, beginning with The Message by Eugene Peterson. The four appearances of the key phrase are rendered as follows:

    “sent off with David's blessing”

    “dismissed with David's blessing”

    “sent off with David's blessing”

    “you let him walk away scot-free”

As with the NEB, we have a very readable and understandable rendering here, with even a little gratuitous variation in the second appearance of the identical Hebrew wording thrown in. But in the final appearance, there is no vestige left of the wording in the first three occasions.

The Living Bible takes even more liberties with the text by removing one of the four times the phrase is used entirely so that we are left with:

    “David let Abner return in safety”

    “Abner...had been sent away in peace.”

    “What do you mean by letting him go?”

So the unaware reader would have not have the slightest hint that there was a carefully prepared literary pattern built up by the author in the first place.

Now I realize that the average reader of the narrative portions of the Bible is generally only interested in the bare bones of the plot with possible some moral or application thrown in. But every once in a while it is good to point out what hidden riches the Scripture also holds for those who are interested in delving a little deeper into the text.

 

PERSPECTIVES ON I SAMUEL 21

This chapter actually contains the first two episodes in David's life when he begins fleeing Saul's wrath. They are separate but also somewhat related, at least structurally. Here is how they may be diagrammed:

                                                            Organization of I Samuel 21

                A. David gets the sacred bread from Ahimelech

                                B. Doeg the Edomite is present.

                A'. David gets sword from Ahimelech

                                --------------------------------

                A''. David goes for shelter with King Achish of Gath

                                B'. Achish's servants recognize David's identity

                A'''. David is afraid of King Achish

David uses subterfuge in all four “A” sections in order to get help from others. However, Evans suggests that David may have had a noble motive in fibbing to Ahimelech in order to provide him with “plausible deniability” if he should be questioned by Saul. If so, that ploy was obviously unsuccessful, as subsequent event demonstrate.

And in both “B” sections there is someone present who recognizes David and informs to a superior regarding him. We see a reversal between the situations in A and A''' in that it is Ahimelech who is afraid of David (thus his “trembling” when David approaches him alone) whereas later it is David who is afraid of King Achish.

This chapter cannot truly be appreciated when treated in a vacuum since it not only echoes earlier biblical passages, it also serves as a foreshadowing of later episodes.

Starting with a backward look, note that the song “Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands” first appears in 18:7 as part of a victory celebration in honor of a defeat of the Philistine forces. Thus, when King Achish's people repeat it to him in 21:11, David knows that he has been recognized as one of their historical enemies. No wonder David becomes afraid and has to resort to playing the madman in order to escape their wrath. The reason behind this action is due to the superstitious attitude many ancient peoples felt toward those “touched” in such a manner, so that they were often considered taboo.

To make things even worse, David has had the gall to march into the Philistine camp in Gath wearing the very sword he had used earlier to decapitate Goliath, the warrior from Gath. I am sure that would have really raised their ire if they had recognized it.

Going further back in the biblical accounts, there is significance in the request of David for some of the sacred bread to eat. Watts detects a double meaning to David's words concerning a “king” (God) who is sending him and “his men” (as the true king himself) on a “secret mission” (fleeing Saul). And the validity of such a request is also in question since Leviticus 24:5-9 states that only the priests could partake of that bread. Watts says, “The question then becomes not only what constitutes a legitimate exception [to the levitical law], but also whose interpretation is valid” since there was actually some leeway in understanding the OT law concerning non-priests eating the sacred bread.

This is a good place to start looking forward in time to Jesus' interaction with the Jewish authorities in Matthew 12:1-8 regarding his plucking and eating grain on the Sabbath along with his followers. Jesus replies by citing I Samuel 21:1-6 and making the argument that if David was allowed to do this, then how much more should He (the Son of David) have that right.

But the most immediate result arising from I Samuel 21 is that Doeg informs on David to Saul in 22:9 and then goes even further by volunteering to kill the priests in 22:18-19.

The foreshadowing present in Doeg's actions in I Samuel 21 also prepares us for the aftermath of the David and Bathsheba story in II Samuel, but with a twist. Whereas in I Samuel 21 it is an unscrupulous non-Israelite who does King Saul's dirty work by executing a number of innocent Jewish priests and their families, in II Samuel 12 it is an unscrupulous Israelite, Joab, who does King David's dirty work by luring the innocent Hittite Uriah to his death. It is a sad reversal, but may prepare us in a strange and subtle way for the later betrayal and killing of Jesus and accompanying persecution by the Jews of the early Christians while, in contrast, the Gentiles began to embrace Christianity.

Another echo of I Samuel 21 is seen in Uriah's absolute refusal to cohabit with his wife Bathsheba since he feels he is still on military duty. This harks back to David's earlier testimony to Ahimelech that his soldiers had abstained from any sexual relationships since they were on duty (which may or may not have been another lie on David's part).

Finally, there is even a closer parallel to the events in I Samuel 21 found in I Samuel 27 when David approaches King Achish for a second time. Unlike the previous occasion, David is accepted as an ally and serves over a year as Achish's vassal. However, true to form David again fools the king by lying about the nations he has attacked during this time period. At last, Achish's other allies again recite the old ditty about David killing his ten thousands, and David is forced to leave Achish's protection one more time.

I will close with an illustration of I Samuel 21 I created years ago. You can decide for yourself which episode in this chapter is being pictured:

 

MIRACULOUS FEEDINGS, THE EUCHARIST, AND EPIPHANIES

I would like to highlight here an observation that Edmund Leach made in an essay in Alter and Kermode's The Literary Guide to the Bible. He describes seven places in the gospels in which Jesus performs a miraculous feeding involving bread and fish. “Each of these seven feedings is linked with an epiphany in which Jesus reveals himself as a supernatural being.” In addition, he states that “these stories...have always been seen as providing a model for the Eucharist. They reflect the fact that in early Christianity the Eucharist food consisted of bread and fish rather than bread and wine.” Here are those seven occurrences, the number seven perhaps indicating a form of completeness or perfection, although Leach does not specifically point out that possibility: Matthew 14:15-21; 15:32-38; Mark 6:30-44; 8:1-9; Luke 9:12-17; John 6:8-13; and John 21:9-13.

Now I am probably more prone than most readers of the Bible to look for hidden literary phenomena in Scripture, but in this case I really wonder if Leach has actually discovered any pervasive pattern at all. For one thing, he has prejudiced the reader highly in his favor by implying that these represent seven different miraculous feedings. But if you compare his examples with one another you can readily see that Mark's account in 6:30-44 concerning the feeding of the 5,000 is closely followed in Matthew 14:15-21, Luke 9:12-17 and John 6:8-13 with all of them describing but one event. Thus, we are now down to only four different miraculous feedings, not seven. And if we further consider that the feeding of the 4,000 in Matthew 15:32-38 is simply a retelling of Mark 8:1-9, that leaves us with only three such occasions, hardly enough times to establish any sort of consistent trend.

In addition, note that in John 21 Jesus already has fish grilling on the fire even before the apostles have hauled in their miraculous catch. So although one can certainly say that a fish meal was associated with the miracle, it is not made crystal clear in the text that whether any of the fish they ate actually came from the catch.

Leach's next point is that each of the seven events is associated with an epiphany. So the next thing to do is look at the parallel passages pointed out above and see if again we have a mere duplication of the same events or whether some of the parallels follow the feedings with a different epiphany. And as Leach stated, all the Gospel writers agree that following each of the four accounts of the feeding of the 5,000, the same epiphany occurs – Jesus' walking on the Sea of Galilee.

The next pair of miraculous feedings is recorded in Mark and Matthew only. Leach says that the associated epiphany in each case consists of the Transfiguration. But it is really stretching a point to say that the two events are “linked.” The reason I say this is that between the two events in Matthew's account we have a number of intervening happenings such as a visit to Magadan where the Pharisees and Sadducees tempt Jesus, the disciples crossing the lake and forgetting to bring any bread, Peter making the Great Confession in Caesarea Philippi, and Peter being later rebuked by Jesus, who then teaches the apostles regarding his Second Coming. Turning to Mark's account of the miraculous feeding, we see not only the above intervening events, but also a healing of a blind man before we at last come to the epiphany of the Transfiguration.

That only leaves the feeding, which may or not be considered as miraculous, which closes John's Gospel. In this case, it is associated with the resurrected Jesus' appearance to the apostles, which can certainly be considered as an epiphany.

In conclusion, regarding Leach's contention that there are seven separate miraculous feeding--epiphany associations in the Gospels, we are only left with one definite and one possible occasion on which this happened.

But Leach makes an even bolder statement next: “Because of the very explicit elaboration in John 6:26-58, these stories, along with the more intimate miraculous feeding of the disciples in John 21:9-13, have always been seen as providing a model for the Eucharist. They reflect the fact than in early Christianity the Eucharist food consisted of bread and fish rather than bread and wine.”

There are several problems with Leach's argument here:

In the first place, the “explicit elaboration” in John 6 does not once mention fish, but it does certainly allude to wine in the emphasis on Christ's blood.

Secondly, John is not elaborating on “these stories,” but only a single one.

Thirdly, the only real historical evidence we have of fish in association with the Eucharist in the early church comes from one catacomb fresco dating to about AD 100 which pictures a group of men at a table on which are placed a jug of wine, many loaves of bread, and two fish. Even early church documents such as Didache fail to mention the presence of fish at a communion service.

And Sandra Silver says regarding the early fresco that “it is moot whether they ate the fish with the sacrament or included the fish as symbol of the totality of the bread and wine, Christ’s Body, Ichthus. Perhaps the fish depicted on communion tables in the catacombs has a meaning yet to be comprehended by modern Christians.”

Next, Leach completely ignores the very passage in the Gospels describing the actual institution of the Lord's Supper the night before he was betrayed. Since almost every scholar agrees, this was a Passover observance or something closely akin to one, at that meal the only possible protein present was lamb, certainly not fish. Paul confirms that fact in his discussion in I Corinthians 11 in which there is no mention of fish, only bread and wine. Only the most skeptical critic would claim that all of the Gospel accounts and Paul's letter post-date the AD 100 fresco.

In conclusion, it is best to be skeptical of writings by those such as Leach who preface their remarks by admitting that they are anthropologists who owe their general biblical approach to the structuralist methodology of Levi-Strauss applied only to “the oral mythology of preliterate peoples,” as well as stating that he lacks “most of the qualifications of an ordinary biblical scholar.” And in the name of fairness, I would say that the same caution should be applied to any comments by a similarly untrained person such as myself.

 

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY DUPLICATIONS AND REPETITIONS IN THE BIBLE?

Those who are at all familiar with the Bible may rightfully come to the point where they ask: "Why is there so much repetition in the Bible?" It is an excellent question and actually can be answered in a number of ways depending on what kind of duplication one is talking about. On occasion, my tendency to organize and categorize comes to the forefront, and this is one of them. Here is my own attempt to classify some of the more common types of repetition found in the Bible with examples and comments as to the possible function such duplications perform in the service of the text.

A. Contiguous Repetition

    1. Of words

    2. Within the same verse

    3. Between adjacent paragraphs

    4. Between adjacent chapters

    5. Between adjacent books

B. More Remote Repetition

    1. In service of all the above types of duplication

    2. Inclusios

    3. Significant numbers

    4. Mark's Gospel

Type A1: This first type is probably the only one that the biblical authors share in common with us. It merely consists of those occasions where the same word is stated twice in a row. One example would be Jesus' prefacing some of his statements with “verily, verily I say to you.” It would be the same as our asserting “in all truth” or “really truly.”

But a slight variation on this method of expression in the Bible is likely to be misunderstood today. It occurs with biblical phrases such as “Lord of lords,” “king of kings,” or “Song of Songs.” We would probable understand these as saying “Lord over other lords,” “king to whom other kings report,” or “a song consisting of other songs.” Some of these interpretations are not that far off from the truth, but we must understand that these are all Hebraic idioms used to express superlatives. Thus, it is better to read them as “the highest Lord,” “the most powerful king,” and “the most excellent song, etc.”

Type A2: Moving on to a slightly larger literary segment, the individual verse, we quite often encounter adjacent statements which appear to say the very same thing. This appears especially in the poetic passages and even has the technical name of poetic parallelism. Here are a couple of examples:

                “Enter  his gates   with    thanksgiving,

                and      his courts with     praise.” (Psalm 100:4a)

Note how two sets of synonyms tie together these adjacent stanzas occurring within the same verse.

Even more common are those occasions when the second line repeats the elements of the first line, but in reverse order. This is called a chiasm.

“For I know         my transgressions,

                     X

and my sin          is ever before me.” (Psalm 51:3)

But this sort of duplication is not a simple case of overkill. Instead, the use of synonyms helps the reader clarify the meaning of a word which, by itself, might be incomprehensible or capable of many different nuances. Secondly, there is often a heightening of the idea which occurs in the second line. Thus, in Psalm 51:3 we see in the second stanza that the author is not only aware of his faults, but he actually is constantly reminded of them.

Type A3: Here we see some of the same sort of repetition on a larger scale. And it is actually encountered quite early in the Bible, as you can see below:

                                        Table 1: The Parallel Structure of Genesis 1:2-31

    Light created; light and darkness separated (1:3-5)

        Dome of the sky created; waters above and below separated (1:6-8)

            Land and seas created when they are separated from one another (1:9-10)

                Plants are brought forth from the land (1:11-13)

    Lights in the sky separate night and day (1:14-19)

        Birds inhabit the sky, and the water brings forth living creatures (1:20-23)

            Land brings forth living creatures, including man (1:24-28)

                Plants are designated as food for creatures and man (1:29-31)

In this case, the intensification of ideas appears between the first and second parallel cycles so that the regions that are created in the first cycle are now populated in the same order in the second one. And to confirm that the two sets are to be considered as literary parallels, both conclude with the mention of the all-important role plants play in the overall food cycle.

Another probable example is found in the last book of the Bible where Revelation 6:4-8 describes the 144,000 sealed out of the tribes of Israel. This is immediately followed by a vision in verses 9-10 of a great multitude no one could count. There are a number of scholars who feel that both paragraphs describe the exact same group of people, just described in alternative ways.

Type A4: We see the same sort of phenomenon on an even larger scale when considering adjacent chapters. The prime example of this type is Judges 4-5 in which a battle between Israel and Canaan is described in chapter 4 in literal terms, followed by a poetic account of the same action in chapter 5. Both accounts complement one another.

And in the NT, both John's Gospel and Revelation close with two adjacent chapters which in many ways repeat the same material. It is instructive to compare each pair in order to see which details are duplicated (perhaps using different imagery) and which ones are new in the second chapter of the pair.

Type A5: In one respect this type of duplication is somewhat an artifact of the way our Christian Bible has been organized over the years, and we have to realize that the groupings of OT books in the Hebrew Scripture are quite different from the order of books in our Bible. But even with this caveat, certain examples of duplication are quite obvious, even to those who are not very acquainted with the Bible.

The prime example in the OT occurs in what we would call the Historical Books. Thus, the adjacent books of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles contain much of the same material. However, through this duplication we are allowed to see how different authors view the exact same historical annals through different lenses instead of just having one perspective. So much of the value in these books can only be gained by comparing the two parallel accounts side-by-side to see where they are in total agreement and where they differ, especially in regard to their choice of which details and events to emphasize and which ones to omit entirely.

The very same sort of duplication is seen with the four Gospel accounts in the New Testament. Note that those who put together the Christian canon purposely separated Luke and Acts, even though they are really parts 1 and 2 of the same composition. But the intent was to position all four of the Gospels next to one another to indicate that they all belonged together. Much has been written concerning the particular theological slants, intended audiences, and historical settings of these four compositions in order to account for the differences we often detect in parallel narratives of the same events. But it is only by comparing all four with one another that we can pick up on these nuances.

For both the OT and NT examples above, one very helpful aid to studying the parallel accounts is by the use of “harmonies” which place the parallel accounts side-by-side for easy comparison. For study purposes, this is far more useful than merely reading a book like The Chronological Bible which takes all the different accounts of each event and attempts to blend them together as if it is a single story by a single author. That approach may make for fast and easy reading, but in the process the individuality present in each parallel account is totally lost.

All of the above types of repetition are relatively easy to detect since the repeated units are placed right next to one another. But in other cases, such duplicates may be widely separated and are not so readily seen on first reading.

Type B1: First, there are repetitions that may not be located right next to one another, but they are actually used to help the reader detect some of the Type A examples above. As a simple example, look at Figure 1 again and note that both parallel cycles end with a mention of plant life (Genesis 1:11-12; 29-30) even though a cursory reading through chapter 1 might not pick up on that fact. Even more obvious division markers, however, are provided by the fact that each of the units in Figure 1 begins with “and God said” and ends with “there was evening and morning, the nth day.”

A similar literary technique can be seen many times in the Bible such as the use of “these are the generations of” to indicate the beginnings of the units throughout Genesis or “and the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” at the beginning of some of the stories in Judges.

Type B2: A variation on the above purpose of duplicates to act as demarcation points is called inclusio, or an inclusion. This is the phenomenon in which the limits of a given literary unit, whether it be an individual paragraph or a whole book, are clearly indicated by the repetition of a key word, phrase, or event. And there may be additional reasons behind the usage of inclusios in the biblical text. Let me illustrate with two concrete examples.

King Saul begins his long quest to find the fleeing David and kill him in I Samuel 22:6. There we are given the strangely specific detail that Saul was sitting underneath a tamarisk tree with his spear in his hand. That chapter continues with Saul taking out his vengeance on the priest Ahimelech who had provided help to David. In this most horrific deed of Saul's career, he commands his guard to kill 85 priests of the LORD along will all their family. His Israelite guard refuses to carry out his command and so Saul has an Edomite do the deed instead.

I relate this story in so much detail because we see some very strong echoes of these events at the very end of Saul's life. Fast forward to I Samuel 31 in which the following events occur: Saul is mortally wounded by the Philistines and so he commands his armor-bearer to finish him off with a sword. The armor-bearer refuses to do it and so Saul takes his own life. The inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead hear of this and set off to recover his body, which they bury beneath a tamarisk tree. Look at how this whole large literary unit is neatly capped off at either end:

    Saul is under a tamarisk tree

                His guard refuses to kill the priests and so he gets someone else to do it

                                   -------------------------

                Saul's armor-bearer refuses to kill him and so Saul does it himself

    Saul is buried under a tamarisk tree

This duplication is surely no mere accident, especially since these are the only occurrences of a “tamarisk tree” in the whole Bible. And the meaning being pointed out here is rather obvious. The circumstances of Saul's death are no mere quirks of history. Instead they highlight the fact that it is a case of natural consequence directed by God as appropriate judgment on Saul for the slaughter of His priests.

For a NT example of type B2, we need only consider the epistles of Paul and the way they open and close. The most common pattern is shown below:

            Grace and

                    Peace

------------

                    Peace

        and Grace

In this case, I would interpret the reason for the repetition in reverse order to convey the subtle message that “grace” is the beginning and end of our faith, the alpha and omega. Notice the mirror-image arrangement here and with the story of Saul above. Both tend to give closure to the section of text in between.

Type B3: We now progress to an even more subtle example of repetition in which it is neither the meaning of the repeated word or phrase is important nor its exact location in the text. Instead the importance lies merely in the number of times that the word or phrase is repeated.

It is a well-established understanding among Bible scholars that the actual presence of the numbers 7, 10, 12, and their multiples takes on special symbolic or figurative significance when it appears in the biblical writings with, for example, “7” indicating or completion and “12” standing for the chosen people of God. For example, the number “7” appears appropriately numerous times in the final book of the Bible. And of course we have the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles.

Not as widely recognized, however, is the fact that sometimes a particular word or phrase will appear one of those same number of times in a certain portion of the Bible. And often when it occurs, this technique functions to mark off the limits of that literary unit. Again, this could be looked on as a mere accident, but there are some instances where it is clearly intended since the author will even purposely substitute a synonym for a particular Greek or Hebrew word in a passage so as not to exceed the requisite symbolic number of repetitions.

Just to indicate how pervasive this phenomenon can be, consider the following words and phrases which occur exactly seven times or multiples of seven in the Book of Revelation:

“who was, who is, and who is to come,” “hear what the Spirit says,” “spirits,” “prophecy,” “candlestick,” “cloud,” “trumpet(er),” “worthy,” “bottomless pit,” seven lists with four related elements such as “kindred, tongue, people, tribe, etc.,” “the prophets,” “kingdom,” “wonder/miracle,” “earthquake,” “reign,” slave,” “seal (noun and verb),” “(God's) wrath,” “Almighty God,” “Jesus Christ,” seven blessings, seven doxologies coupling “glory” and “honor” (if one includes the textual variant at 19:1), sarx applied to the human body, hymns directed to God, antiphonal hymnic units, seven references to Jesus coming “quickly.” In addition, “servant,” “woe,” “for ever and ever,” “them that dwell on earth” and “patience” appear 14 times in the Revelation as well as references to the four living creatures. “Lord,” “power,” “king (or King of kings),” “book” and “day” occur 21 times each. “Lamb” is applied to Christ 28 times, and God's “throne” appears 42 times. “Angel” appears 77 times in Revelation.

Type 4: This final example of remote duplication is the most subtle of all, and so hard to detect that I have yet heard of any scholar even noting its existence. Thus, I admit that it may all be due to my overactive imagination, but I don't think so.

This type of repetition appears, as far as I am aware, only in the Gospel of Mark, where it serves at least two functions. The first is to give the lie to those many commentators who are dismissive of Mark's literary abilities and feel that he dashed off his book without thinking much about what he was writing. I will only buy that explanation if it includes the fact that the Holy Spirit was guiding him carefully throughout his task. And actually, the end result that we see in Mark's Gospel actually prompts us to proclaim that it is by far the most highly organized book in the whole Bible.

This all must sound like a lot of hype for a literary technique I haven't even described yet. So here it is in a nutshell. If you plot all the appearances in Mark of certain given words in order, they will form a symmetrical pattern if you take into account the context in which each word appears. Here are two simple examples:

                “generation”         no sign given from heaven (8:12 – 2x)

                                                        adulterous and sinful generation (8:38)

                                                        faithless generation (9:19)

                                            signs in heaven given (13:30)

            “daughter”             healing due to woman's faith (5:34)

                                                    daughter lying as if dead (5:35)

                                                            daughter's request on behalf of her mother (6:22)

                                                            mother's request on behalf of her daughter (7:26)

                                            healing due to woman's saying (7:29)

                                                    daughter lying on bed (7:30)

And so far I have discovered numerous examples of such symmetries hidden within Mark's Gospel including one in which all 23 occurrences of a particular Greek word for “come” forms one giant symmetrical organization.

But the utility of this form of repetition does not stop with a mere demonstration of the unbelievable order found within Mark's Gospel. In addition, there are a number of such word patterns which stop short of complete symmetry and need one or two more occurrences of the same word at the end to achieve it. And it turns out that in each case, such occurrences do appear at the end of the Gospel of Luke and/or the Gospel of John. The theory most likely to account for this phenomenon is that the original ending of Mark's Gospel was accidentally lost sometime very early in the process of it being copied and distributed to various parts of the Christian world at the time. But before that happened, Matthew and John had the complete form of the document and utilized it closely in formulating their own versions of Christ's life.

If you are really serious about knowing more concerning these “hidden” correspondences within the Gospel of Mark, you may want to read my post titled “The Ending of the Gospel of Mark” or contact me and I will forward my complete 33-page essay on the subject, assuming you have a lot of time on your hands.