Skip to main content
Well, I told you I'd tell the story of how I'm going to remember the Old Testament books. For some of you, the list may be painful, since you only recognize 66 books in the Bible. The first and best reason you're wrong is because Mother Church says there are 73. This may not be fair, but it seems like people said, "Let's come up with a completely arbitrary number less than 73, and blame the difference on Catholics and their weird doctrines." I digress. Sorry. Without further ado, the JK Story of The Old Testament: The first 5 books of the Old Testament are called the Pentateuch--Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Moses died and left Joshua in charge. After that, "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" because Israel had no king. So God raised up the Judges. It was a sucky time in general, though highlighted by the story of Ruth. Well, Israel begged for a king, though God already was, so God gave them one with an assist by the prophet Samuel (1 Sam and 2 Sam). Their first King, Saul, started off good, but blew it, so God raised up David. The books of the Kings (1 Kings and 2 Kings) are about David, his son Solomon, and the aftermath when it all fell apart. In case you didn't get how bad it was, with God's people breaking apart and ruled on both sides by mostly bad dudes, there's 1 and 2 Chronicles to remind you. The David montage toward the end doesn't really make you feel any better. And this concludes what I've loosely called the Narrative Portion, though that isn't strictly the case.
 I got stuck here many times until the great Donnie Bungum reminded me that the next two parts should be "EZ to RA-member." Ezra-Nehemiah is regarded by many scholars as one book, so that's all I needed. The next three books I call "The Women," even though Tobit is a guy. Because all I can think of is that she must've been pretty foxy for dudes to try to marry her seven times. And oh yeah, if these dudes keep dying for no reason, fair to say a demon seems likely. Why'd it take so long to figure that one out? I digress. Judith and Esther belong in this section, because the Bible doesn't even mince words: they were pleasing to the eyes. I said to Donnie's wife Alicia that I always remember the names of the pretty girls. [There's something obviously wrong with you.--ed] And now we're in the Wisdom Section, which starts with Job. We're Catholic, so we're always singing Psalms and quoting Proverbs in this ekklesia, which deserves its own book, Ecclesiastes. Just when you think you're getting comfortable, the Catholic Church likes to switch it up and talk about sex (sort of) in the Song of Songs. After all that immoral behavior, Solomon asked for Wisdom. Speaking of wisdom, we all know it wasn't wise to go into Sirach. Get it? OK. Now, major prophets. You've got to pack all that wisdom into a big gun, which is Isaiah. Jeremiah's always crying Lamentations. Now, at this point, I'd get stuck, until Donnie told this nutso story of a bar where you get served lamb. Every time I couldn't remember Baruch, I'd see Donnie yell, "Lamb-bar!" The next little part, it helped me to call the "Trippy Dreams Section," with Ezekiel and Daniel. We're into the next part, the minor prophets, with Hosea. He's followed by Joel, (no stranger to trippy dreams himself) who's quoted rather famously in the NT book of Acts, and that mysteriously reminds us that Amos is next. It'd be good to be an obedient sevant like Obadiah was, but even more obedient (eventually) to be swallowed by a whale, like Jonah was. Whilst there, Jonah was surprised to find for-Micah countertops in the whale/fish. After this, the Count (yes, that Count) opines that without formica countertops, it is "No home!!!" which in his accent, sounds like Nahum. After you are "No home!!!" for awhile, you have to come Habbakuk. And it's more fun to come habbakuk in a "Zephlin" with Zephaniah. Well, some fool was hanging out the window of the Zephlin, yelling, "Haggai!!!" for no good reason. We thought he got Haggai's attention, but it was Zechariah. Malachi called to remind us we're almost done, and we read 1 and 2 Maccabees on the way to Red Robin. Because the prophets especially agree with me: that place is awesome.
So there you go; RSV Old Testament. I know the Vatican or EWTN varies the order slightly, but it's all there.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un