Category Archives: Old Testament

Book Release Day: Perpetual Fire

Leave a reply

Today, my new book is being released! The title is “Perpetual Fire: Temple, Ritual, and Biblical Theology.”

What is Perpetual Fire about?

I am proposing the book as a motif study in biblical theology. It seeks to answer “What is the ritual and theological meaning of the perpetual fire on altar?” It focuses on the ever-burning fire on the altar of sacrifice at the heart of the Temple. The story of the fire is a long story–from the theophany experiences of God-as-fire in the story of Abraham and the Burning Bush scene in the life Moses to the fire that descends on Mount Sinai at the giving of the Law to the fire that comes forth from the sanctuary of the Tabernacle in Leviticus 9:24. God reveals himself as “a consuming fire” (Deut 12:29). In Leviticus 6, the priests are charged by God with keeping the fire on the altar of sacrifice perpetually burning: “it shall not go out.” But why? I take a winding tour through the early cultic legislation, prophetic metaphors for divinity as brightness, through the meaning of the Wood Offering, the significance of darkness as shrouding the brightness of divine light and the cultic meaning of radiance. As the book comes to identify the ritual significance of ever-burning fire as representing the dynamism of God, truly being a “cult image” of the Lord, it then moves onto theological considerations. If “brightness” characterizes God, then what should we make of the legends that portray Adam and Eve as “bright” or “glorious” before the Fall? How do these themes come together in the New Testament where John the Baptist promises that “one is coming who will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire”? I examine the Transfiguration scene alongside the scenes of Uzziah’s failed offering of incense in the Temple and Herod Agrippa’s failed apotheosis (reported both by Acts and by Josephus). I argue that the Transfiguration scene presents Jesus as a “restored radiant Adam” that becomes the archetype for the new creation and for resurrected humanity in Christ. Eventually, the book gets into the dual nature of the fire of God–as both a source of purification for the righteous and of destruction for the unworthy, the fire is cultic and centered in the Temple sanctuary, but it also consumes the enemies of God and burns up what is worthless (wood, hay, stubble). The book works with these themes to make sense of the New Testament’s theology of fire, or at least, its fiery theological themes that have to do with both divine presence and divine judgment.

Who endorsed it and what did they say?

I am very grateful to the two scholars who offered their endorsement of the book. Check out what they have to say:

“The ritual laws that are at the heart of the Pentateuch are a puzzle for many readers of the Bible. Despite their importance, they often play little role in biblical theologies. Mark Giszczak’s stimulating study of the perpetual sacred fire challenges the marginalisation of biblical ritual that has characterised much theological reflection. Tracing the unquenchable fire across Old and New Testaments, his book will help readers see fresh and under-appreciated connections across the canon.”
— Nathan MacDonald, Professor of the Interpretation of the Old Testament and Fellow of St John’s College

“In this innovative book we see biblical theology at its finest, solidly anchored in rigorous historical scholarship and providing clarifying insight into one of the most important ways God revealed himself to Israel and to the world. Mark Giszczak?s wide learning, sound judgement and balanced scholarship shine through on every page as he reveals the central importance of the sacred, ever-burning altar fire at the heart of Israelite sacrificial worship. The fire on the altar constituted a continuous theophany, effected the transfer of sacrificial gifts from the earthly to the heavenly realm, and served as an image of testing, purifying and sanctifying God?s people. Christian readers will find here the biblical background of the promised one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire and who came to cast fire upon the earth and wished it were already ablaze.”
— Stephen D. Ryan, O.P., Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies

What are some other books about fire in the Bible?

In my research, I was inspired by a handful of other books that treat fire in the Bible. One older book that is hard to find now is The Fire Upon the Altar by Julian Morgenstern (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1963). Morgenstern was a fascinating mid-century Jewish thinker–very creative and boundary-breaking in his own way. No, not all of his theories are convincing, but he has a way of seeing things that pulls together. From my own water-damaged copy of the book, check out his interpretation of the relighting of the altar in the time of Nehemiah as reported by 2 Maccabees: Morgenstern writes, “The legend implies further that the sacred fire was latent in the liquid, and that it needed only the application to it of a proper kindling force or essence to burst again into the sacred flame. Here this kindling force was supplied by the rays of the sun, bursting forth from the enveloping cloud and falling upon the wood upon the altar upon which the thick liquid had been poured” (p. 63). I love this episode and interpret it in detail in my book.

Two relatively recent books also treat the sacred fire. The first is Daniel Frayer-Griggs dissertation-turned-book: Saved Through Fire: The Fiery Ordeal in New Testament Eschatology (Pickwick, 2016). While Frayer-Griggs, a Protestant thinker, is primarily interested in how to interpret Paul’s cryptic saying that Catholic tradition regards as indicating the existence of purgatory, he ranges far and wide not only in biblical literature but in contemporaneous apocryphal literature as well. Here is a quote from his discussion of the River of Fire in apocryphal literature, “in many of the later Jewish and Christian apocalyptic visions the river of fire performs a dual function. It is an ordeal that must be endured, and those who are righteous will be saved while the wicked will be destroyed” (p. 141). By the end of the book, we find him saying some pretty compelling things that sound like exciting (and quasi-Catholic?) developments in his thought. For example, he says, “While our exegesis in no way confirms the doctrine of purgatory, it may open avenues for discussion of the origins of this doctrine and facilitate a Protestant reevaluation of the purificatory function of fire in New Testament eschatology” (p. 246).

The other recent book that examines the divine fire is “Your God is a Devouring Fire”: Fire as a Motif of Divine Presence and Agency in the Hebrew Bible (CBQMS 57; 2019) by Michael R. Simone, SJ. This book is deep and detailed study of the Hebrew passages that discuss the fire on the altar. Simone himself regards his main inspirations as Benjamin Sommer’s famous book Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge, 2008) and Shawn Zelig Aster, Unbeatable Light (Ugarit-Verlag, 2012). He works through passages, translating from the Hebrew, interpreting carefully and drawing from contemporary scholarly discourse. One of his main conclusions is that “Cultic fire did not represent a divine body, but it did represent divine agency sent out from Yhwh to accomplish his divine will. The primary purpose of cultic fire was the transmission of offerings to the divine realm” (p. 96). I interact with Simone’s work in my book, but Frayer-Griggs gets mentioned a bit more. Both of these books are important contributions to this scholarly discussion.

Where can I buy a copy of the book?

You can find my new book, Perpetual Fire: Temple, Ritual, and Biblical Theology at the Baylor University Press website: https://www.baylorpress.com/9781481323222/perpetual-fire/

It is also available at

Of course, I hope that you read my new book and I hope you enjoy what you read, learn something new about the ancient Temple, the worship of the Lord, and the power of fire as a sacramental symbol for divinity.

My New Book – Perpetual Fire: Temple, Ritual, and Biblical Theology

Leave a reply

Mark Giszczak - Perpetual Fire: Temple, Ritual, and BIblical Theology book coverI am very happy to announce the release of my new book: Perpetual Fire: Temple, Ritual, and Biblical Theology.

Ten Years in the Making

Years ago, I found myself intrigued by the many mentions of fire in the Bible, but most of all by the strange law mandating the maintenance of a perpetual fire on the altar of sacrifice: “it shall no go out!” (Lev 6:12). But why not? This question led me on a winding journey through many corners of ritual theory, biblical theology, temple history and even eschatology to produce this book. Why does Levitical law mandate that altar-fire be kept always burning? What does the fire symbolize? How was it understood in biblical times?

A Ritual Question with Theological Consequences

The book addresses two main ideas: 1) What is the ritual meaning of the ever-burning fire on the altar of sacrifice? and 2) What is the enduring theological significance of this fire? The first half of the book explores the ritual question, while the second half works toward a constructive biblical theology of the sacred fire. It turns out that a long and complex development of ritual symbols undergirds the Transfiguration scene, Jesus’ words about fiery judgment and fiery assimilation to divine life, but also St. Paul’s theology of resurrection. The perpetual fire on the altar has a significant theological afterlife in the New Testament.

Table of Contents

I wanted to give you a sneak preview of what’s in the book, so here’s the Table of Contents as you will find it

  • Acknowledgements
  • Abbreviations
  • Introduction: A Fire Moving Through Time
  • Part I – Ritual Fire
    • 1 The Fire and the Second Temple: A Crisis of Legitimacy
    • 2 The Origin of the Fire on the Altar: Law and Tabernacle, Tradition and Influence
    • 3 The Cultic Fire: Function and Representation
    • 4 The Wood Offering: Maintaining the Unquenchable Fire
    • 5 The Sin of Kindling Fire: Violating the Boundaries of Cult
    • Kindling: Preliminary Conclusions
  • Part II – Theological Fire
    • 6 The Brightness of God’s Body of Fire: Darkness, Theophany, Radiance
    • 7 The Fiery Son of God: Jesus and the Restoration of Adam
    • 8 The Body of Glory: Paul and the Transformation of Believers
    • 9 The Fire of the Word: Torah and Revelation
    • 10 The Fire of Encounter: Purification, Punishment, Vision
    • Conflagration: Final Conclusions
  • Bibliography
  • Index

When Will the Book Be Released?

The book will come out on September 1, 2026 from Baylor University Press. I am grateful for BUP’s partnership in putting this together. Their editorial guidance and production process has improved the book and prepared it for this moment. You can pre-order the book now from these sites:

My Hopes for the Book

I hope that you will enjoy reading Perpetual Fire! Beyond that, I hope that it will give scholars and serious Bible students alike a new appreciation for the depth of ritual symbolism, the centrality of the altar fire in the cultic thinking of the Old Testament and the theological thought of the New. I hope that it will bring about a reappraisal of certain stock images from biblical vocabulary–whether fire, brightness, “unquenchableness,” radiance, darkness, and the meaning of biblical metaphors for punishment. It draws lines of connection from Levitical law all the way through to the final resurrection of the dead.

Does Job Say What He Means?

Leave a reply

The Book of Job can be a frustrating read for many avid Bible readers, especially in translation. What should we make of such confusing contradictions as this?:

“Behold, he will slay me; I have no hope” (Job 13:15 RSV)
“Though he slay me, I will hope in him” (Job 13:15 ESV)

So which is it? Is Job declaring that he has hope or that he has no hope?

Curse God or Bless God?

Elsewhere in Job is the famous line that his wife declaims in the face of his terrible sufferings:

“Curse God and die” (Job 2:9 ESV)
“Bless God and die” (Job 2:9, literally)

This is confusing because the Hebrew [barek] actually says the opposite of what it means. It literally says “Bless God and die,” but it means the opposite. Why? The scribes would consider it impious to tell someone to curse God, so they use a euphemism so it doesn’t sound directly bad.  The negative meaning, “curse,” would be understood but left unstated. The same thing happens in Job 1:5. The early Septuagint translators handle the problem slightly differently:

“Say some word to the Lord, and die” (Job 2:9 NETS – LXX)

While they do not translate literally (“bless”), nor do they render the euphemism’s meaning (“curse”), they offer an ambiguous translation that gets the meaning across.

 

The Problem of Translation

While it is possible that the writer of Job is deliberately using double-meanings and ambiguities to keep the reader guessing, struggling to read the poetry well––“It’s a feature, not a bug,” as they say––that poetic prowess does not come across in translation. Translators must pick a meaning among the various possible meanings and deliver it to their audiences unvarnished. That leads to problems. As. C.L. Seow says, “Visual poetry in Job constantly demands interpretive decisions on the part of the reader––decisions that, once made, may yet be questioned again and revised. Translations inevitably limit the expression of such poetry, for every translation commits one to a single interpretation, usually at the expense of whatever ambiguities may indeed be part and parcel of poetry. Translations do not accommodate retrospective adjustments” (Seow, “Orthography,” p. 84).

So the answer is “no,” Job does not always say what he means. In fact, sometimes he says the exact opposite. If the poetry works the way that Seow describes, then it is inviting us into a kind of literary wrestling match, where as we read, we must keep struggling to understand, developing opinions and then revising them as the reading continues.

Two Articles Treat These Matters in Job:

  • McGrew, Israel. “The Hermeneutics of ברך: Septimal Structures, Alien Significations, and the Meaning of Creation in the Book of Job.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 87 (2025): 265–88. This article focuses on the use of barak in Job, revealing a sevenfold pattern, and explores the euphemistic use of the verb.
  • Seow, C. L. “Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2011): 63–85. This article is more comprehensive in scope, presenting lots of textual evidence for archaic spellings in Job, investigating particular cases to develop a theory of how the poetry deploys ambiguity in orthography (spelling) to delight/frustrate/bewilder its readers.

What About That Dog in Tobit?

Leave a reply

For anyone who cares to look, the textual history of Tobit is more than a little confusing. For a long time we only had two Greek texts (ok, and a middle-way third Greek), but then we found significant fragments of Tobit in the Dead Sea Scrolls and now we have three languages of record: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Fortunately, scholars have delved deep into all the material and come up with significant results. (I have covered it a bit before.) Oh yeah, and then there’s that dog—he’s part of the story too!

 

First Things First: A Chart

How many texts of Tobit are there? What are we really looking at?

Greek I Shorter recension
Greek II Longer recension; 1700 words longer; text in Sinaiticus
Greek III Only Tobit 6:8–13:6; mediates between Greek I and Greek II
Aramaic 4Q196 Tob 1:17, 1:19–2:2, 3:9–15, 6:14–17, 6:19–7:3, 13:6–12, 13:12–14:3
Aramaic 4Q197 Tob 4:21–5:1, 5:12–14, 5:19–6:12, 6:12–19, 6:19–7:10, 8:21–9:4
Aramaic 4Q198 Tob 14:2–6, 14:10
Aramaic 4Q199 Tob 7:12
Hebrew 4Q200 Tob 3:6, 3:10–11, 4:3–9, 10:7–9, 11:10–12, 12:20–13:4, 13:13–14, 13:18–14:2

OK, But Tell Me About the Dog

The dog appears in Tobit twice, at 6:1–2 and 11:4. Here I’m quoting the NRSV-CE of Tobit:

  • So she stopped weeping. The young man went out and the angel went with him; and the dog came out with him and went along with them. So they both journeyed along, and when the first night overtook them they camped by the Tigris river. (Tob 6:1–2 NRSVCE)
  • As they went on together Raphael said to him, “Have the gall ready.” And the dog went along behind them. (Tob 11:4 NRSVCE)

Now, go flip open your Bible. If you have the NABRE, you can find the dog in 6:2, but if you have the RSVCE, there’s no dog there. Why not?

 

Dogs Tell No Tales (About the Text of Tobit)

The dog is the key! Well, not quite, but the dog is a great indicator that our text of Tobit is inherited in multiple forms. Greek I is shorter, so most scholars thought it was better, according to the text-critical principle, lectio brevior potior, “shorter reading is better.” They were wrong. The longer Greek II is more original, as confirmed by those Dead Sea Scroll fragments. As I have explained before when considering the differences between the RSV-2CE and the ESV-CE, Tobit is crucial:

The RSV-2CE of Tobit relies on the 1957 RSV Apocrypha translation, which was based on the shorter Greek text of Tobit (Greek I represented in Vaticanus and Alexandrinus), while all modern translations of Tobit, like the ESV-CE, rely on the longer Greek text (Greek II represented by Sinaiticus). Greek II is about 1700 words longer than Greek I and it serves as the basis for the Nova Vulgata rendition of Tobit in Latin. Greek II is also confirmed as the best text of Tobit by the 1995 publication of long fragments of Tobit from the Dead Sea Scrolls in Hebrew and Aramaic by Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, SJ.

Why does 1957 matter to us? Up until the early 1960s, scholars maintained preference for Greek I. However, scholarly opinion changed and it became clear from careful study that Greek II was more original. This opinion was confirmed by the 1995 publication by Fitzmyer of the Dead Sea fragments. All contemporary translations are based on Greek II with the help of the fragments.

 

But Where Is the Dog?

The dog appears only once in the shorter Greek I recension—hence, why it shows up only once in the RSV (11:4). But the dog appears two times in the Greek II, so it shows up two times in more contemporary translations (6:2 and 11:4 in NRSV, ESV-CE, NABRE). But does the dog appear in Hebrew or Aramaic? If you carefully comb through all those references in my chart, you’ll notice that 11:4 does not appear in any of the five fragments, but since the Greek texts agree on the dog there, everyone finds the dog at 11:4—the fragments are simply incomplete. But one of the fragments, 4Q197 does include 6:2—so does it have the dog? More on that in a second, but first, the often-overlooked NABRE Textual Notes also include this tidbit:

6:2: The dog . . . with them: so GII; VL: et canis secutus est eos; similarly Vg. GI and P omit.

So that means, Greek II and the Old Latin (VL=Vetus Latina) include the dog at 6:2, but the Vulgate, Greek I and Peshitta (Syriac edition) omit the dog at 6:2.

Well, Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer did the hard work of reconstructing the text of Tobit 6:2 from a fragment riddled with holes and gives us this:

[2 and] the [ange]l (was) with him, and [the dog wen]t [along, and] together [they traveled.] And there followed for them (quoted by Carey Moore, Tobit, Anchor Bible 40A [Doubleday, 1996] p. 210).

Does the dog appear in the Aramaic? So, yes and no. The Aramaic word for dog, kelev, does not appear, but from the spacing of the letters and losses in the fragment, it seems that there is just enough space for it as reconstructed. So the 4Q197 fragment included the dog originally, but the actual word on the page has been lost to the ravages of time.

It might take a lot of scholarly headaches to arrive at a solution, but the story of the dog in Tobit helps us see the value of textual criticism. If it weren’t for the dog, we might not have bothered to notice that there are two different versions of the Greek, that the longer one is better and that the original Aramaic text included two appearances for the dog. So, for dog-lovers everywhere, Tobit is the book for you!

Shout-out to one of my professors, Dr. Edward Cook, for collecting references in literature to Tobit’s Dog: https://ralphriver.blogspot.com/2005/04/tobits-dog.html

Have You Been Reading the Wrong Version of Jeremiah?

1 Reply

Here’s a mind-bending thought about Jeremiah from Michael B. Shepherd: What if the Masoretic Text version of Jeremiah is not in agreement with the canon’s own interpretation of Jeremiah as represented by Ezekiel and Daniel?

Greek, Hebrew and Divine Inspiration

In his new commentary, where he backtranslates from the Greek Septuagint text of Jeremiah to Hebrew, he struggles with the problem of divine inspiration. He says,

“A biblical doctrine of inspiration, not to mention the exigencies of making a translation and commentary, requires a careful text-critical decision about which edition of Jeremiah is God-breathed and superintended by the Spirit” (p. 18).

The version of Jeremiah in our modern Bibles is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text. It’s the gold standard for the Old Testament in general. However, we have always had an alternate Greek version of Jeremiah that comes in a different order, has certain “pluses” and “minuses” versus the Hebrew text and generally reads differently. The Greek text is about one seventh shorter than the Hebrew text, according to computerized analyses.

Hebraica Veritas

Now normally, you’d be thinking: “Why does this matter? The ancient Israelites spoke Hebrew, not Greek, so the Hebrew text must be better.” Often this is the case and goes with St. Jerome’s dictum, Hebraica veritas. But in this case, things get really dicey. While the Dead Sea Scrolls contained a small handful of fragmentary Jeremiah manuscripts, two fragments are of great interest here: 4QJerb (9:22–10:18) and 4QJerd (43:3–9). These two fragments, dated to about 200 BC, agree with the Septuagint version against the Hebrew Masoretic text!

Two Significant Changes in Jeremiah’s Message

Again, normally you’d think: “Ah, no big deal. It’s probably just minor spelling variations and a few pronouns.” But again, not correct. If these two fragments are definitive, they show that the “proto-Masoretic” Hebrew Vorlage of Septuagint Jeremiah is more ancient than the Hebrew. And remember that the earlier edition of Jeremiah is substantially shorter—one seventh shorter than MT Jeremiah. Beyond that, Shepherd argues, that the “theological message” of the book changes dramatically from the original version to the MT version in two ways:

  1. He says, “In the first edition, the mysterious enemy from the north (Jer. 1:13–15; LXX 25:1–13; et al.) is never identified with a historical enemy. This leaves open the possibility of an eschatological enemy, which is the way Ezekiel reads the prophecy (Ezek. 38:14–17; cf. LXX Num 24:7; Rev 20:8). In the section edition [MT], the enemy from the north is identified with Babylon (e.g. MT Jer. 25:1–13).” (pp. 16-17)
  2. The second difference is more subtle—that the first edition of Jeremiah leaves the interpretation of the prophecy of the seventy years (25:11; 29:10) open-ended, so that it could be about a literal historical fulfillment (as Daniel 9:1–19 understands it) or “symbolic of a complete indefinite period (cf. Gen 4:24; Matt. 18:22)” as in Daniel 9:24–27 (p. 17). But the second edition of Jeremiah 25:11, presented in the MT, “limits the prophecy to a historical fulfillment” because it identifies the enemy as Babylon.

What Shepherd is arguing is profound, though the details are subtle. He is saying that the earlier edition of Jeremiah, the proto-Masoretic Hebrew represented by the Septuagint Greek translation, is the “earlier, shorter edition…the open-ended, potentially eschatological edition read by Ezekiel and Daniel” (p. 17). He is saying that the books of Ezekiel and Daniel show familiarity with the first edition of Jeremiah and interpret it in an eschatological way that is closed off by the Masoretic second edition. If he is right about this, then this is a marvelous example of Scripture interpreting Scripture to correct the tradition. We’ve been reading the wrong version of Jeremiah for centuries!

Comparing MT and LXX Passages in Jeremiah

You can see the difference he’s talking about pretty clearly in Jeremiah 25:9

MT

LXX
…behold, I will send for all the tribes of the north, declares the Lord, and for Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction, and make them a horror, a hissing, and an everlasting desolation. (Jer 25:9 ESV-CE) …behold, I am sending for and I will take a paternal family from the north, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all nations around it, and I will utterly devastate them and render them into an annihilation and into a hissing and into an everlasting disgrace. (Jer 25:9 NETS (Primary Texts))

The prophecy of the seventy years is likewise quite distinct:

MT

LXX
This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. (Jer 25:11 ESV-CE) And the whole land shall become an annihilation, and they shall be slaves amongst the nations seventy years. (Jer 25:11 NETS (Primary Texts))

Why Write a Commentary on a Text that Does Not Exist?

It’s easy to see why Shepherd felt compelled to write such a seemingly strange commentary—backtranslating the Greek to the Hebrew, then commenting on this theoretical text that does not exist in any manuscript. Why would he do it? He’s recovering the text of Jeremiah that we should be reading, the text that corresponds with the most ancient fragments of the book that we have discovered, the text that is closest to the life of the prophet himself, the text that other biblical prophets were reading and interpreting, the text that stands behind the Greek version that we do have.

Do I think that we’ll see new Bible translations coming out that work from Shepherd’s backtranslation to present the text of Jeremiah? No, the MT is firmly entrenched as the standard biblical text for the Hebrew Bible, but text criticism sure does uncover some thorny problems that take a lot of work to sort out! Shepherd demonstrates the importance of this kind of work, the perennial value of the Septuagint witness and how careful textual study can lead to amazing results.

Interview with Bryan from Across the Canon

Leave a reply

Bryan, host of the new “Across the Canon” program on YouTube, and I talked about Pope Francis’ biblical initiatives, the Wisdom of Solomon and how biblical wisdom literature applies to Christian life. I hope you enjoy this conversation!

It’s available on video:

And you can find an audio version here:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-11-pope-francis-wisdom-literature-and-the/id1810192752?i=1000705544349

Two Interviews from the Augustine Institute

1 Reply

Recently, I was interviewed by the Augustine Institute about my two new books. We got to record these interviews in the studios here at the A.I. and both of them have been produced as YouTube videos for you. I hope you enjoy them.

In the first video, I was interviewed by my colleague, Dr. Michael Patrick Barber, regarding my commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon:

In the second video, I was interviewed by our Admissions Counselor, Anna Wessel:

Two Interviews: Suffering Video and Wisdom Radio

Leave a reply

Last week, I got to speak with Bob Krebs on “Catholic Forum” out of the Diocese of Wilmington about my book on Suffering. It aired on Relevant Radio and Bob recorded it as video and put it on YouTube for you:

Yesterday morning, I appeared on Spirit Mornings Catholic Radio out of Omaha with my friends Bruce and Jen. We got to talk about the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series and my new volume on Wisdom of Solomon. It was early and it was a fun conversation. Check it out: