I guess you like apocalyptic visions, then. The Book of Nahum is an interesting take on that sort of vision. Its style is that of the earlier prophets, but the substance of his prophecies seem pretty apocalyptic to me. If there was one chapter of the Bible I'd get to read before going to battle it would be the 1st chapter of Nahum.
If you pay close attention to the characters in Samuel (I and II), it reads almost like a novel. Kings has the large scale events, while Samuel has all the court intrigues.
I really like that "political" part of the Old Testament (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles). It is fun to read about the Israelite invasion of Canaan, their wars with the neighbouring peoples etc. It is also interesting to note just how many times the Israelites actually lose in the Bible. The number is higher than expected.
The way I see it is because, contra some "experts", the Bible is not intended to be primarily nationalistic. It's religious, and the theme of the Israelites being defeated when they don't follow God's will is ubiquitous. It's really everywhere in the Bible, but nowhere as explicitly as the Book of Judges, with its cyclical sin-defeat-repentance-victory-sin narrative. Similar to what you're saying, I believe the most striking feature of these books is how harshly the failings of the heroes are treated. Think of Jacob's sons and their sale of Joseph, Moses with striking the rock, Aaron with the Golden Calf, David with Bathsheba, Solomon with his wives, etc. And there are so many more. The Bible is truly unique among ancient religious (or indeed, political) texts for the harshness with which it criticizes its presumed heroes.
| Similar History Discussions | History Forum | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Favourite films of the 1950s | Movies / Television | |
| Your favourite comedy sketches | Movies / Television | |
| Your Favourite Historians? | General History | |
| What are your Favourite Quotes from History? | General History |
