I'm re-reading the Bible for the first time in many years, and it is an astounding experience. The last time I read the Bible straight through was on my LDS mission in the late '90s. This time I've got a new edition/translation, and a whole different set of reference materials (although I still have my old LDS KJV and supplemental materials to compare from last time).
I'm not starting this thread explicitly to talk theology, so I won't tell you what conclusions I'm reaching this time, or how they compare/contrast with the last time.
But one of the most surprising things about this experience is how few people can relate to it. I've talked to scores of people, of various academic and religious backgrounds, and I've only found one person who's ever read the Bible straight through. And he's got a Ph.D. in the subject. I've spoken with dozens of Mormon missionaries over the last few years, and haven't met a single one who even intends to read the Bible all the way through.
Since Hatrack has, historically, been made up of people who seem to be intellectually above-average, I thought I'd see if it's any different around here. So here's some questions I have for you all:
Have you ever read the Bible (however your culture defines that term) cover-to-cover?
How many times have you completed it, and when was the last time?
What version/translation/edition(s) do you use?
What supplemental materials do you use, and why?
If you like, what is your religious background?
If you like, describe the experience of reading the Bible, anything that surprised you, and any ways it affected your life and religious/philosophical viewpoints.
Thanks.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
1) Yes
2) Once. Like you, on my mission. Which was finished... 6 years ago. Eek.
3) KJV
4) I used no supplemental material consecutively (minus the aids found in the LDS version). However, for part of the Old Testament I did spend some time with the LDS Institute manuals (as distinct from the myriad of other manuals the Church puts out, most of which I haven't thought to be very helpful) which I found to be incredibly helpful, concise and well written. They are hardly complete, so they wont answer every question or discuss every verse, but they really do shine a light on a lot of different material as well as help you understand the context of the writing a lot better. I should note that I have no idea how well they translate to other denominations. Certainly some of it LDS specific.
5) It was an important journey for me because while I was at the time, and am now LDS, I was raised atheist.
6) It took a while. I didn't read it to the exclusion of anything else. i.e. I read the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants at the same time, as well as other material. But I did read straight through. Well actually, I read the New Testament and the Old Testament simultaneously but I would imagine that still counts. It was a little under a year from when I started to when I finished; I'm happy I did it but I have no drive or desire to repeat.
What it gave me was a knowledge of what's in there. Not that I have total recall of what I read, but that I can remember that certain things exist and about where they are. Rather like learning the existence of an equation, or a branch on analysis. I may not remember precisely what it is or how to use it, but should that problem crop up later in life I know there's a solution and I know where to look. This was particularly true of some of the earlier books of the OT (I still don't know what's in Ezekiel, despite having read it).
Of course it also gave me the ability to say I've read the Bible all the way through. Which is partly a pride thing I suppose, but I thought it was pretty important since I was and am claiming to believe this stuff. Seems disingenuous to do so without having read it. I admit that the spiritual experience was not that overwhelming for me. Certainly parts of it were quite moving. Some to expected and some not. But while individual parts would speak to me, I can't say that when I closed the book on my final section of reading I felt anything special.
Which is why I have no desire to do it again. Reading the lists in the OT, for example, did nothing for me. I'm not saying they can't or that no one can learn and grow from them. But I am saying that for me it was just a question of will power and forcing myself to read through each line. I felt no spiritual connection having done so, and now that I've done it, no reason at all to repeat the process.
So I guess any special insights or experiences or change in viewpoints I related wouldn't really be from reading the Bible cover to cover: it would be from reading this or that individual passage or book. Reading the Gospel of St. John through in a single sitting was a very powerful and meaningful experience for me (something I'm happy to recommend to any Christian ). The stories of faith in the Pentateuch really hit me; I ended up sharing many small stories from early in the OT later in my mission at missionary meetings and those were typically met with quite a bit of enthusiasm from my fellows who typically didn't have a good handle on some of the smaller bits from the OT.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For me, reading the Bible straight through would be like reading a (small) library in the order that things are shelved. I don't think it is necessarily a useful way to approach the Bible.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
1) Yes. 2) I've completed the 5 books of Moses 7 times. Yearly, I'm on a 52-week cycle. Last time was Octoberish. I've only completed the Hebrew Bible once. 3) I used to use the Art Scroll Chumash, but I read it in the Hebrew the last 3 times. 4) I used to use the commentator Rashi, he examined some of the basic questions that come up and provided rabbinic commentary. Now I use Nachmanidies and sometimes Rabbi Samson Raphael's Hirsch's commentary. Generally, I only use them to ask major questions that I have because I can tell something crazy is going on in the verses and the meaning isn't stunningly obvious to me. 5) Orthodox Jew 6) I grew up reading it like it was a fairy-tale, despite the fact that I believed it was true. What I mean by this is that the stories of the Bible occupy the same space in my brain that Lord of the Rings occupies.
5 years ago, I started to read it, and to deconstruct my childhood understanding of it. Basically, I went into the Bible stories trying to relate to the characters I previously never related to. I realized that there were connections between stories from opposite ends of the Bible, similar words and themes being used, things I thought were absurd became clear, and things I took for granted became absurd. In that last instance, it forced me to sit, learn, and clarify.
I think, ultimately, it made the Bible less doctrinal and infinitely more relevant.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Nicely said, Hobbes and Armoth. Thanks.
Kmbboots: Cover-to-cover doesn't necessarily mean in order. Have you ever read every word? If not, how do you decide which words are worth reading and which aren't? Do you have a system of sifting the wheat from the chaff?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For me, reading the Bible straight through would be like reading a (small) library in the order that things are shelved. I don't think it is necessarily a useful way to approach the Bible.
Interesting. There is a lot of study on the significance of the ordering of the Bible. I think there is a lot of meaning laden in the structure of the Bible, and I have never read it as encyclopedic entries in a big tome.
Posted by cloark (Member # 12400) on :
1) Yes 2) Once. 2002-2003. 3) LDS KJV 4) For the cover-to-cover reading in question, I used no other study materials beyond those provided in the LDS KJV (bible dictionary, footnotes, etc.) 5) Lifelong member of the LDS church. 6) The general sentiment expressed by Hobbes so nearly matches my own, that I'll just give his comments a +1, and save us all some time.
ETA: If we're not limiting this to just cover-to-cover reading, I've read the NT through a few times, and the gospels through a few times more than that. I mostly consume the Bible as my interests and needs require. How do I pick what to read? Well, having read it all at least once is a start, but also, the frequency with which others refer to scriptures is a good general indicator of how valuable I have found different books of scripture to be. In church I hear a lot about the gospels, and comparatively very little about the book of Numbers. The wisdom of crowds is useful in this case. (Which is not to say that the crowds, myself included, are not missing out on good things in lesser read areas of the Bible.)
[ April 15, 2013, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: cloark ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
For those that have read it cover to cover, how accurate do you have faith the bible is? Do you believe it is the literal work of a god? Do you believe it was written by people divinely inspired but still flawed (my take on it before becoming an atheist)? Or something else entirely?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't have faith that it is accurate. I have evidence that leads me to conclude that it is accurate.
I believe the 5 books were written by Moses, dictated by God. The second major portion of the Hebrew Bible - Prophets - I believe was written by prophets recording their interpretations of prophecies they had received. I believe the third major portion of the Hebrew Bible - Writings - was written through divine inspiration (but is not direct prophecy from God).
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Stephan: I wonder if you'd mind answering the original questions before posing your own? Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Only read the first 5 books cover to cover. Not sure what the version was called, I still have it. My mom's copy of the translated Hebrew Scriptures from when she went to Hebrew school.
Raised in a Jewish congregation. It wasn't reform, conservative, or orthodox. The Rabbi was orthodox, but he came to Maryland from New York to start something different. The rabbi himself was orthodox. But he did not run the congregation that way.
Now I am an atheist. But unlike many, I respect religion.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I read the Bible cover to cover one time, over a period of about six months. I was fourteen. It was a King James edition. My parents professed belief in a god, but we never as a family went to church. Mother Anglican, Father Catholic. I had already taken a science class at this point, so I started out thoroughly unimpressed and it didn't get that much better from there. Overall it struck me as a book of myths and fairytales, with perhaps a few vaguely historical tales thrown in about the history of a tribe who sucessfully genocided their neighbors at one point, and then faceslammed into the Roman Empire. Followed by the tales of a wandering preacher who may or may not have existed, followed by the tales of his followers desperately trying to build a powerbase after his death.
Posted by cloark (Member # 12400) on :
I believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. I believe the Bible is a collection of writings by or about prophets who really did communicate directly with God. I believe that the primary purpose of the Bible is to teach about the nature of God and His will for us, and not to teach history, science or other things. As such, I believe that while God created the universe, he took billions of years to do it, and while Noah was involved in a massive flood, it did not literally cover the entire earth.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I like the cut of your jib, Cloark. I hope you stick around.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
1) Yes. 2) I've read the Bible eight times, most recently about six years ago. 3) The King James, the NIV, and the NAS. 4) None. 5) I was born Catholic, converted to the Baha'i Faith when I was 12, and left religion at 18. 6) I'll wait on this one, because it's not as positive as it could be.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
1) Yes. 2) Haven't kept track. 3) NRSV, mostly. 4) When reading for personal devotion, none. For work/school/writing, lots of commentaries. 5) United Methodist. 6) I'm not sure that reading cover to cover adds anything that a disciplined study which eventually covered all the major sections wouldn't also give. I do think that reading individual books straight through, in one sitting if possible, gives a different perspective than a more choppy study.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
To finish answering the final question, here's how reading the Bible affected me.
Huge disappointment. My whole life I had heard and been told that this book had the Answers. That all you had to do was read it, and the Truth within would be self evident. I was a proto-skeptic before, but I can honestly say that after reading, I became a lifelong and full on skeptic.
It also lessoned my opinion of most of my fellow human beings. Not that this was the best they could come up with, (in the Bronze Age you take what you can get, I suppose) but that even when better things came along, most everyone decides to put their fingers in their ears and say that the Bible still makes the most sense.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I read it once when I was nine and I was ill for a few weeks. I'd read the abridged kid version and decided to get stuck into the ´grown up´ one. It was the Good News version. As an atheist, it didn't really change my mind, although I was rather hoping it would.
I remember explaining to a religious friend of the same age what rape was by telling her about what happened to Dinah - I don't think her mother was very pleased with me!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
1) Yes.
2) Four times. Last time was maybe 5 years ago.
3) King James Version
4) No supplementary materials while I study, though I have read the Bible Dictionary that accompanies the LDS version. I also tried reading through Asimov's Bible Dictionary, but never completed it.
5) LDS.
6) I have found it very surprising just how little I know of what can be known about the Bible. Every time I read it I notice things I did not notice before. All the other things I've learned seem to keep coloring it.
I always skip the lists of genealogy and who sacrificed how many animals in the Book of Numbers. I also read Isaiah in my mind with a Shakespearean actor reading the lines aloud.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
1) Nope, currently working my way through it.
2) 0, I've read the five books of Moses twice.
3) Working on a beautiful KJV
4) None! Aside from also reading The Confessions over and over and over again.
5) Well I'd describe myself as Catholic despite never being baptized or ever going to mass.
6) Well I don't know yet.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I'm quite impressed with the replies here so far. I knew there was a reason I liked Hatrack people better than regular people.
Tom: I know you're trying to prevent an incident, but I'd love to hear your opinions if you ever feel up to writing them down.
If anyone's interested, this is the library I'm using. The Bible on the right is the one I'm currently reading. Half the books in the stack are the references I used on my LDS mission, the other half are the ones I bought for this go-round. See if you can tell the difference.
I'm currently in the middle of Ruth, which I'm enjoying. It's nice to finally be able to read a story that doesn't make me queasy and bug-eyed.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
1. No. I've read chunks of it here and there but never all the way through. I am, however, currently doing so.
2. See above.
3. I'm reading it right now in Koine.
4. None. But I happen to also be reading through the Summa right now if that counts (I'll be stopping soon and don't plan on finishing it).
5. Agnostic. Raised Jewish.
6. How loose the translations often are.
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
1. I have read every word of the Bible, though not straight through.
2. I sat down intentionally to do this about 5 years ago during Lent. However, between the readings that are chosen for Catholic mass (which I attend on an almost daily basis) and the readings that are used for the Liturgy of the Hours (which I seldom miss), I hear the entire Bible read to me at least every 3 years.
3. I read from the NAB most days for lectio divina (a form of praying with the scriptures) but study from the NRSV.
4. I typically only use the commentaries presented in the Bibles I use, unless studying for something explicit.
5. I am Roman Catholic and always have been.
6. For the past nine years, I have immersed myself in the Word in ways I never would have imagined. I don't know that it has affected my political or religious viewpoints, but it has helped to underline for me the fact that I believe that God acts in the lives of each of us.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by cloark: I believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. I believe the Bible is a collection of writings by or about prophets who really did communicate directly with God. I believe that the primary purpose of the Bible is to teach about the nature of God and His will for us, and not to teach history, science or other things. As such, I believe that while God created the universe, he took billions of years to do it, and while Noah was involved in a massive flood, it did not literally cover the entire earth.
Your first sentence makes you sound Mormon, and your last sentence makes you sound non-Mormon. Which is correct? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What has struck me about the Bible, every time I read it, even back when I had faith, is how much of a creative hodgepodge it is -- which is to be expected, of course, given the thousands of years and dozens of authors invested in it. There are Just-So stories, petty legalisms, bizarre rants, urban myths, histories (from hearsay to revisionism to honest attempts at documentation), adventure and science fiction, bureaucratic nonsense, love poems, inspirational slogans, and at least four serious if flawed attempts to come up with -- and defend, in places -- a coherent ethical framework. I'm especially fascinated by the relationship that self-identified Orthodox Jews have to the Bible, since it is a core cultural artifact in a way that I don't think we can possibly appreciate from outside; the closest analogy I can think of is perhaps what Star Wars means to some geeks, where the Phantom Menace is the New Testament and the Anakin of the prequels the protagonist that was promised. Arguments about canon and the demands of cosplay transfer over pretty well. And even though Lucas has tried to release new stuff that screws with continuity, the real fans know that even he doesn't get to do that.
As a guidebook, of course, as an instrument of epistemology meant to help people better perceive and reliably predict reality, the Bible strikes me as largely useless; its prescriptions are ridiculous or hopelessly atavistic where they are not trite, its openly supernatural elements are generally worthy of mockery where they aren't stolen altogether from older and generally more coherent myth, and its philosophies are horribly outmoded except where they intersect the general truths of "this sort of social behavior benefits humanity in general, and thus we think you should do it" that you see in almost all major religions (for obvious memetic reasons.) It's something like Who Moved My Cheese? And Why We Should Stone That Person. (And yes, I'm aware that stoning the person who moved your cheese requires a complete misunderstanding of the core tenet of that God-awful management book; that's what makes it a passable analogy.)
But -- unlike Who Moved My Cheese -- it's a fantastic read. There are so many little details, so colorfully painted, and it is so incredibly, accidentally nutty; centuries of accretion and revision and bizarre oral history produced something that can provide enormously useful semiotic callbacks and powerful allegories even among people with only a passing familiarity with the work. Heck, there are misquotes and mistranslations and out-of-context passages that are themselves so ingrained in our culture that they've become pseudo-scriptural themselves; that's a rare thing, and speaks not only to the quality of the work but to the passion and labor of the fan base. I mean, sure, Notre Dame was a political and economic statement, but it was first and foremost fan art. That's amazing to me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Your first sentence makes you sound Mormon, and your last sentence makes you sound non-Mormon.
Because it supports old earth/evolution? That's what they teach in biology at BYU so it's not exactly controversial for a Mormon to say it. Yes, there are YEC Mormons, but there is no official support for their position (or against it for that matter).
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I just mean, if there wasn't a worldwide flood, how did humanity get from Adam-Ondi-Ahman to the Middle East?
I know they've got a good, progressive science department at BYU, and I know that a lot of graduates are cool with evolution and an old earth. I've always wondered how they square that with D&C 77:6, though.
But that's a bit of a tangent...
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Tom: That's a great way of putting it. I find that I'm a lot more impressed with & inspired by certain elements of the Bible as a nonbeliever than I ever was when I was trying to accept it as fact.
And even the bits that are horrifying and stomach-turning are a lot easier to swallow when you read them as macabre fiction. There are some really shocking stories in there, and it's nice to be able to read them with a sense of humor, rather than awkwardly wedging a moral lesson somewhere it clearly doesn't belong.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
Have you ever read the Bible (however your culture defines that term) cover-to-cover?
How many times have you completed it, and when was the last time?
What version/translation/edition(s) do you use?
What supplemental materials do you use, and why?
If you like, what is your religious background?
If you like, describe the experience of reading the Bible, anything that surprised you, and any ways it affected your life and religious/philosophical viewpoints.
Thanks.
1) Yes
2) It's hard to say. I've read it through only once consecutively. I've kept a rough track of how many times I've read each book, though, and I would say I've read the bible through maybe 5 times? For example, I've read the Gospel of St. John over 20 times (at least) but only read through the book of Numbers twice. Like most people, I tend to re-read my favorite parts over and over while skipping the boring parts. Other than looking up quotes for a recent argument, the last time I read it was several weeks ago. (the show "Vikings" inspired me to reread I Corinthians and Ecclesiastes)
3) King James Version.
4) Strong's Concordance, as well as a Ryrie Study Bible. (which gives pretty exhaustive analysis, explanation, weights and measures, historical and cultural context, etc.) I've read maybe 20 books written about the Bible, including "The Bible As Literature" by Henn, which I strongly recommend.
5) I grew up in the IFB movement, which my parents left when I was 12. (due to the church we were attending starting to get a wee bit culty) I stopped attending church for a while, started again at a non-denominational church when I was 16-20. I've attended maybe 15 church services in the past 4 years since. I would say I'm nominally Christian, in that I greatly appreciate and am fond of the ceremonies, culture, and fellowship, but I think it's far too illogical and irrational for me to actually accept and live. (at least at this point in my life) I do believe in God. I also think my belief in God is irrational. *shrugs*
6) The Bible is so tied up with who I am as a person that I think it'd be impossible to fully extricate myself from it's influence. I began reading it when I was 5 years old (I was fairly bright), and even before that my earliest memories are of being told Bible stories (often with the aid of flannel board cutouts), hearing the Bible read at the dinner table, hearing it being quoted and sung and discussed.
I grew up attending a group called AWANA, which teaches young children scripture memorization. (Learning how to memorize things quickly is actually a very useful skill, and I'm pretty grateful for it today) I memorized several thousand verses, long passages of scripture, and several books of the Bible, including the entire Book of James, Book of I Timothy, and most of Matthew, and a large number of the Psalms. (when I was 19 I decided to memorize all the Psalms in a year, but failed) The scripture is always with me.
As far as how it's affected my life? Tremendously. The scripture is always with me, in the back of my head, and it's both comforting and a little disconcerting to realize how fundamentally our literature, culture, and art is based on it. I hear people quote it almost every day, and quite a few snatches of poetry or powerful phrases that are often used for emphasis in writing or conversation are taken from it. It gave me a very large (and antiquated) vocabulary as a child, and opened my mind to a vast and deep world of poetry, symbolism, philosophy, mythology, and story. It wasn't until later in life that the words "2000 years ago" had real contextual meaning for me... the Gospels had such an immediate presence about them that I could almost smell the fish and feel the breeze and hear the creaking wood at the Sea of Galilee.
There is a power and beauty to the words in some places (especially in the gospels and many of the epistles) that is hard to describe or quantify. The stories are especially interesting and quite unique - I'm often reminded of the Star Trek:TNG episode "Darmok" by how some believers I know can (and often do) describe different life stories or situations simply by referring to various Bible stories. You see this often in our stories, books, movies, songs... one could argue that the Bible acts as a repository for tropes that have become ubiquitous throughout Christian culture, since for many, many centuries it was the *only* common story book for all of Christian Europe.
To echo Blackblade, there are always new things I find in it that surprise me, and you could spend your entire life studying it and not have a complete understanding of all of the various meanings and implications possible. I wish I could remember one book I read that (something like "the Bible and Archeology") that gave a cursory overview of Hebrew society around the time the Bible was written, the different people groups referred to, the context that most of the authors were working within, and the intended audience of each book. I don't think it's really possible to fully understand the Bible just reading it on it's own, though.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Thanks for that. One of the things that surprises me most about these responses is how many non-LDS people still use the KJV. Not knocking it--I love the KJV, and that's still the translation most commonly used in adages and expressions. But I was under the impression that most non-Mormons had moved on to more modern translations for general study. Looks like the KJV isn't as dead as I'd assumed. Interesting.
Posted by cloark (Member # 12400) on :
Speed:
quote:Your first sentence makes you sound Mormon, and your last sentence makes you sound non-Mormon. Which is correct?
I am Mormon. As Matt mentioned, there is no official support from the LDS church for or against old-earth creationism, evolution, or a local flood. (There are certainly a variety of opinions from notable church leaders, however.)
quote:I know they've got a good, progressive science department at BYU, and I know that a lot of graduates are cool with evolution and an old earth. I've always wondered how they square that with D&C 77:6, though.
The 1,000 year periods in Revelation/D&C 77 are post-creation. The earth was already really, really old by the time Adam and Eve showed up.
quote:if there wasn't a worldwide flood, how did humanity get from Adam-Ondi-Ahman to the Middle East?
There is lots of time between Adam and Noah. Plenty of time for someone to build a boat, or go on some really long walks. Noah himself built a boat and spent a long time on it. A local flood could have been a nice way to kick off a long boat ride that could end in the Middle East.
I'll be honest, things like this (particularly the flood) aren't things that I consider the highest priority to work out; for some people, possible conflicts like these are extremely important. Once I've learned everything I need to know about the divinity of Christ, and mastered things like loving my neighbor and not ignoring my kids to spend time with the internet, I'll be able to turn more of my focus to things like this. Now, I'm off to read a book about a baby penguin named Pip . . . .
Edit: Fixed quote tags.
[ April 16, 2013, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: cloark ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For me, reading the Bible straight through would be like reading a (small) library in the order that things are shelved. I don't think it is necessarily a useful way to approach the Bible.
Interesting. There is a lot of study on the significance of the ordering of the Bible. I think there is a lot of meaning laden in the structure of the Bible, and I have never read it as encyclopedic entries in a big tome.
Really? That is how most people, including the religion teachers I had in high school, approach it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For me, reading the Bible straight through would be like reading a (small) library in the order that things are shelved. I don't think it is necessarily a useful way to approach the Bible.
Interesting. There is a lot of study on the significance of the ordering of the Bible. I think there is a lot of meaning laden in the structure of the Bible, and I have never read it as encyclopedic entries in a big tome.
Really? That is how most people, including the religion teachers I had in high school, approach it.
Ya. A lot of rabbinic commentary points to the structure and meta-structure as one of the major drivers of interpretation.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Thanks for that. One of the things that surprises me most about these responses is how many non-LDS people still use the KJV. Not knocking it--I love the KJV, and that's still the translation most commonly used in adages and expressions. But I was under the impression that most non-Mormons had moved on to more modern translations for general study. Looks like the KJV isn't as dead as I'd assumed. Interesting.
There are quite simply no modern translations that match the beauty, poetry, and literary excellence of the King James Version. There are hyper literal translations (such as the NASB), simple and easy to read translations (such as the NIV), and awful Paraphrase translations (like The Message *shudder*), but, as far as I know, no attempts to translate the bible as a literary work. Which is a shame.
quote:Ya. A lot of rabbinic commentary points to the structure and meta-structure as one of the major drivers of interpretation.
Could you extrapolate on this? I understand that some books, such as Ecclesiastes, the Song of Song, and the Minor Prophets are focused around one major philosophical or theological point and ought to be read as a whole. But what of the Major Prophets who cover many different subjects, or the Books of History, or the Pentateuch? What impact does structure have on their interpretation?
This is a legitimate question, btw. It's a concept I haven't really heard of before.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Also, you should be aware that most Christian Bibles have a different order than the Hebrew Bible. Specifically (for Protestants):
The Pentateuch The Books of History (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther) The Books of Wisdom (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon) The Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel) The Minor Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yes. Christian Bible orders things chronologically. Hebrew Bible orders things thematically.
I currently work for an organization called Aleph beta Academy where we are teaching Judaism in a way where the relevance and applicability to one's personal life is a lot more clear. The following is a video from an unreleased course on the book of Joshua.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Could you extrapolate on this? I understand that some books, such as Ecclesiastes, the Song of Song, and the Minor Prophets are focused around one major philosophical or theological point and ought to be read as a whole. But what of the Major Prophets who cover many different subjects, or the Books of History, or the Pentateuch? What impact does structure have on their interpretation?
This is a legitimate question, btw. It's a concept I haven't really heard of before.
High school (and college) Bible teachers have to make choices, because there is a ton of material and not enough time. But there are also Christian theologians and Biblical scholars who write about canonical order.
For example, one birds-eye view is to see the whole structure of the Hebrew Bible as organized around crossings of the Jordan. Israel's 'primal narrative' is the Pentateuch and the former prophets, and it hinges at the river. The Pentateuch is primarily about the gift of the land, and ends at the point of crossing into it. The Jordan is a geographical, theological, and literary border. The former prophets begin with the entrance into the land, but then chronicle the slow decline and loss, ending with the exile. The third section of the canon, the writings, ends with 1&2 Chronicles, even though Ezra and Nehemiah are chronologically later. Which means that the writings end with Cyrus' proclamation allowing the return from exile. Into the land, out of the land, return to the land.
That would be one, grossly over-summarized, example of why the order of the books might matter. For a more in-depth analysis along the same lines, a book recommendation.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: For example, one birds-eye view is to see the whole structure of the Hebrew Bible as organized around crossings of the Jordan. Israel's 'primal narrative' is the Pentateuch and the former prophets, and it hinges at the river. The Pentateuch is primarily about the gift of the land, and ends at the point of crossing into it. The Jordan is a geographical, theological, and literary border.
"i looked over Jordan and what did I see comin' for to carry me home..."
Those lyrics make a lot more sense to me now, given all that. Truly your post is a veritable "river of wisdom". ROFL
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That song refers to the story of Elijah being taken into heaven.
quote:Fifty men of the company of prophets also went, and stood at some distance from them, as they both were standing by the Jordan. Then Elijah took his mantle and rolled it up, and struck the water; the water was parted to the one side and to the other, until the two of them crossed on dry ground.
When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, ‘Tell me what I may do for you, before I am taken from you.’ Elisha said, ‘Please let me inherit a double share of your spirit.’ He responded, ‘You have asked a hard thing; yet, if you see me as I am being taken from you, it will be granted you; if not, it will not.’ As they continued walking and talking, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them, and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind into heaven. Elisha kept watching and crying out, ‘Father, father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen!’ But when he could no longer see him, he grasped his own clothes and tore them in two pieces.
-- 2 Kings 2:7-12 (NRSV)
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
1) Cover-to-cover, admittedly not. I've read about 60-70% of the Old Testament (probably more from fragmented readings) and 100% of the New Testament. I've read everything from Adam to Solomon and some scattered passages from the Babylonian Exile and after. And all of Daniel. The biggest omission in my biblical literacy is the minor prophets.
2) I read the Bible recreationally, sometimes when I'm bored with homework, sometimes when the sermon in church is boring, and whenever the book happens to be there. Only once did I go for a complete cover-to-cover devotionals run, which lasted through Psalms and Proverbs and then tapered off. I read the New Testament (a much smaller commitment, not only because it's shorter, but because it's easier to understand) on separate occasions.
3) I use a Laridian Pocket Bible app that lets me compare versions, so I switch between them. I gravitate the most towards the NIV, because it is the version that my study Bible uses and it is written in plain English. I believe strongly in the appeal of the vernacular for religious texts.
4) Both my devotional study Bible and the aforementioned Bible app have commentaries and translation notes, which I have found to be useful to understanding the text.
5) I was raised as a Christian; my grandfather was a Lutheran pastor. I don't affiliate with any particular denomination, and I have some interpretations of Scripture that probably would offend some of my ultra-conservative fellow believers, but I do believe that Jesus is the Christ and that he paid for our sins.
6) I feel like I could go on forever about interesting experiences and insights I had reading the Bible, but I've been typing this for an hour and I need to study for an exam tomorrow. I look forward to continuing to read and hopefully post in this thread.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
1) Yes.
2) I've read the Bible cover-to-cover sequentially twice. Once for a class (The Bible as Literature) in college, and once for, I don't know, "personal edification" I guess, also during my college years (though it was in the summer). I've quite possibly read through all of it many more times, though piecemeal, having cycled through a "Bible in a Year" type schedule uncounted times, but never without missing parts here or there, so no guarantee I didn't miss the same part every time. I'm still going through such a cycle now, though I've only been doing the new testament readings most days.
3) The Bible as Lit class used King James. Most of my reading I do with NIV (1984), though for deeper study I have a parallel that also has NASB, KJV, and Amplified.
4) For personal reading I haven't used additional materials in a while (other than a reading schedule), but in various study groups I use what they provide. I used to keep a commentary nearby (well, I studied near where I could access it), and at one point worked through much of the "Through the Bible" series by J. Vernon McGee.
5) Raised slightly heretical Roman Catholic, been to several different protestant denomination churches over many years, currently at a non-affiliated formerly-American-Baptist (I think) church.
6) Hmm. That's a broad question. I guess what surprises me the most (but only to some degree) is how often it seems like I'm reading an entirely different thing than someone else who's reading the same thing. I attribute this difference to the Holy Spirit. Absent this Spirit, I think it's just words on a page (well-meaning words), where with the Spirit it's capital-T Truth. I also recognize that many consider that opinion/experience self-deluding and worthy of derision. So be it, I guess. In that vein, my reading experience was very flat when I took the Bible as lit class. Fuller when I read through the whole thing on my own, but much more meaningful taken in smaller chunks, where my goal has been more than "finish this."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You had to read the whole thing cover-to-cover for a semester class?
Do you think most of your class actually did? How much other reading was there?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
A quarter class, actually, yeah. There was no other reading. It was a seminar type class, so the discussion went wherever we took it, rather than following a particular topic. The professor reminded me of a cross between the coolness of Chris Knight and the oddness of Lazlo Hollyfeld. The class was maybe 8 people, and I'm pretty sure one or two didn't read everything, or at least not well enough to remember it when we talked about it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Upper level elective?
I wasn't thinking -- I was picturing trying to assign that much to my first-year GE class. It would be a disaster.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
It was in the "College of Creative Studies," which kinda treated all its classes as upper- or graduate-level. I don't think this course allowed freshmen. I took it as a sophomore, but I believe I was the youngest, and there were a couple graduate students.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
So did you actually study the literary aspects of the Bible, or did "Bible as Literature" just mean discussing the Bible from a non-confessional perspective?
(Sorry for the thread hijack. I'm very interested in syllabus development right now.)
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
These are great responses, thanks everybody. I want to go back and engage with some of the things that have been said when I get some time.
Meanwhile, Armoth, thanks for posting that link. That was a cool program. Made some interesting points, and gave me something to think about.
It also reminded me of some other sources I've been using while reading the Bible. In a previous post I attached a picture of the books I've been using as supplemental resources. But I've also found some online sources that have been very helpful. I'll link a few of the sites I've found most useful.
Bibledex has a video about each book in the Bible. They're short, but quite interesting and well made.
Mormon Stories: An Academic Introduction to the New Testament. This is sort of like a condensed version (if you can call 5-6 hours "condensed") of the Yale course. It was released by Mormon Stories, and Jared Anderson is a Mormon. But the actual content is very academic, and doesn't touch on Mormon theology very much at all.
I've got some others, but I've got to hang out with my 4-year-old, so I'll leave it at that.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Literary aspects. I don't remember it all that well, but we approached it the same way one might approach a novel (or collection of short stories, perhaps). Narrative, point-of-view, style, structure, character development... stuff like that. (Please remember this was over half my life ago, so my memory is far from fresh.)
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
Have you ever read the Bible (however your culture defines that term) cover-to-cover?
How many times have you completed it, and when was the last time?
What version/translation/edition(s) do you use?
What supplemental materials do you use, and why?
If you like, what is your religious background?
If you like, describe the experience of reading the Bible, anything that surprised you, and any ways it affected your life and religious/philosophical viewpoints.
Thanks.
1). Yes.
2). Six or seven times. Used to be a regular thing, and reading new translations when I was a teen. I don't think I've done it since I've been married, so at least 20 years.
3). KJV, NIV, ASV, and I studied koine Greek at Uni, specifically so I could read the New Testament in Greek. I do not recall the specific edition of Greek New testament, though.
4). I did it with Scofield's reference once, Strong's Concordance, and I relied rather heavily on my lexicons when I started the Greek one. Got better as I went and used it less, which was rather the point.
5). My family was Baptist, very religious. We attended church 3 times a week. I was the star of Sunday School memory work (because of childhood eidetic memory) and finished all Awana programs in 2 years. Then, when the Baptists stopped answering my questions (or even calling on me when I raised my hand), I started going to the church that supported my Christian school, which was Evangelical. Went to a Presbyterian school for my degree, where I attended services with many friends (Catholic, Pres. Lutheran and Anglican). Am now essentially an atheist (a six on the scale of agnosticism)
6). Was surprised, initially, by all the sex and how badly women were treated. Reading that stuff after being told all your life that this book holds the truths of existence is a bit confusing. I asked questions until my questions made people uncomfortable enough to avoid me, and then I found new people. My last stab was learning Greek. I finally decided that the Bible could only be a fallible, human document (with some profound ideas, to be sure) that did not deserve the unqualified reverence it was afforded, and gave up on it before deciding to learn Hebrew.
There is a lot in this fellow's journey that I identify with. The video sums up the philosophical violence of my experience fairly well:
[ April 19, 2013, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Olivet 2.0 ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
- Have you ever read the Bible (however your culture defines that term) cover-to-cover?
No, but I taught set of religious studies classes and read a good lot of it in the process, but not in order, as it were.
- How many times have you completed it, and when was the last time?
Once (see above).
- What version/translation/edition(s) do you use? - What supplemental materials do you use, and why?
NIV. I had some interpretive materials.
- If you like, what is your religious background?
"Non-religious"; now atheist simply because there is a word for it, even if my parents wouldn't necessarily chose to label themselves with it.
- If you like, describe the experience of reading the Bible, anything that surprised you, and any ways it affected your life and religious/philosophical viewpoints.
This is the only reason I am answering these questions. Before I taught these classes, I had a generally positive view of the Bible from a non-religious standpoint. I thought that the stories generally made sense. I was aware of the violence, of course (I had read the New Testament).
Studying the Bible with my classes was a very weird experience, partly because children ask questions. Children, of course, get a fairly extirpated version of the Bible* and yet, and yet there were some times when I had to think, "how the heck can I teach this without blowing my cover?". Not because it was violent, necessarily, but because it simply required an unbelievable amount of mental gymnastics to make it hang together with the interpretations that were commonly applied. Like I said, children ask questions. I absolutely do not believe in dismissing difficult questions as disrespectful or unanswerable and yet if a child pointed to something that obviously was morally abhorrent, or didn't make sense, I had to consult the books and stand up there and explain how it all supposedly worked even though in my brain I was shouting "you're right, small child, it doesn't make sense."
So I used to think that it held together, that it had earned its percieved worth from being coherent and meaningful to a certain group of people, even if it no longer did. Upon reading it, I was amazed that people presumably sat for generations and listened to these tales without their heads exploding and saying, "waaaaaait a second, this is kind of a stretch/awfully bizarre/morally abhorrent/incoherent/downright contradictory with that last bit we read."
Teaching the Bible from the Bible* to children in an explanatory way, even if you accommodate answers and take a respectfully questioning attitude (as I did) is antithetical to teaching them critical thinking skills. You can't champion critical thinking skills and then say, "okay, children, put that aside for a moment and come with me into a land of story where, actually, you have to do some mental gymnastics in order to have this work."
*Please note that for the most part, these children were directly experiencing the text from the Bible. We didn't do all the main OT stories, but we did a lot of them. Even the ones with prostitutes in. Yep.
*As we are all aware, lots of children's Bible stories are deliberately picked to cut out the stories with inconsistencies of one kind or another. Or, they're rendered with the cultural trappings that make them make sense (or simply flesh out the story) that have no source in the Bible.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: ... "how the heck can I teach this without blowing my cover?"...
This made me smile. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: but because it simply required an unbelievable amount of mental gymnastics to make it hang together with the interpretations that were commonly applied.
If it requires mental gymnastics to make a text hang together with a particular interpretation, perhaps it isn't the text that's the problem.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
*Nods*
The Bible certainly does make sense, but in the context it was written in and written for. And that context changes depending on the book. Trying to force it into a certain interpretation isn't going to work. Neither is assuming that, say, Jeremiah was written in the same culture and context as James. (or that either are written with *our* culture/values in mind)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:If it requires mental gymnastics to make a text hang together with a particular interpretation, perhaps it isn't the text that's the problem.
Let's go with... any interpretation that would make me want to use the Bible as a tool to guide my life or anyone's life in prehistory or in 2013.
quote:The Bible certainly does make sense, but in the context it was written in and written for. And that context changes depending on the book. Trying to force it into a certain interpretation isn't going to work.
Yeah, this is kind of what I'm getting at. As soon as you start saying, "well, it's not meant to" and "but the context!" that's the beginning of mental gymnastics.
It doesn't matter to me that it doesn't hang together, or wasn't meant to hang together, or be relevant to me any more than I would expect a set of 16th century navigational instruction manuals to hang together or be relevant to me. But people don't use compilations of sixteenth century navigational instruction manuals to decide how they and other people should live.
Also, you can't start with, "the Bible certainly does make sense". That's not the beginning of an argument, that's the conclusion. If you decide it makes sense, you're predisposed to find sense with it, like writing an essay that doesn't quite hang together but you're gonna make it, dammit, because you've only got limited time. (I know what that is like very well).
I was much more okay with the Bible before I read it. Now I think there's actually more sense in a set of sixteenth century navigational manuals.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Navigation manuals require much more preciseness than a set of ethical instructions. People are people regardless of the century. They love, they hate, they serve each other, they abuse each other.
Depending on what is happening in your life you can often find a partial or total analogue in the Bible. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes I think are fantastic codes of conduct. Yet there are some proverbs that say, "Do A lest this bad thing happen" and "Don't do A lest this bad thing happen."
It's not a contradiction. Depending on your situation A may or may not be a good thing. The trick is to learn all the good behaviors, ideas, examples in the Bible, and figure out which is appropriate for which situation.
Now I happen to believe the God of the Bible exists. So now I must also use it as a means of understanding him. Same principle, sometimes he's described as wrathful and merciful. I believe he is both, so I try to see past the biases and understand the underlying truths. I honestly believe God guides me in the effort.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Teshi: Where exactly am I telling you that you should use the Bible to decide how to live?
As far as context goes: I think most people who read the Bible earnestly are intelligent enough to understand that things like "don't beat your slaves on the Sabbath" or "practice crop rotation" or "how to properly construct a tent for your wife and daughters to menstruate in" might not really be directly applicable, whereas the *principles* behind those laws like "take care of those whom you are responsible for, respect the land, take care of your family" are still valid, and things like "love thy neighbor as thyself" or "blessed are the poor" or "turn the other cheek" are general enough that they are applicable as long as we have things like neighbors or poor people or cheeks. Whether or not you think those concepts "should" be applied or are good ideas in general is a different matter.
It's really people who pick and choose verses like "if a man lie with another man as with a woman, it is an abomination" or "happy is he who dashes his children upon the rocks" without looking at the context (a set of very specifc, mostly hygenic laws governing a close knit group of desert nomads or a hyperbolic poem) that annoy me. You can't pick and choose context and expect any sane result.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's really people who pick and choose verses like "if a man lie with another man as with a woman, it is an abomination" or "happy is he who dashes his children upon the rocks" without looking at the context....whereas the *principles* behind those laws ... are still valid
And therein lies the problem. What is the principle behind "happy is he who dashes your little ones upon the rocks" that remains consistent with the principle behind "turn the other cheek?"
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
That quote is from a poem of mourning. I don't think it's being given as advice. (I assume smashing one's children on rocks would *not* make most people feel happy)
But more broadly speaking, I don't think the Bible as a whole presents a consistent set of values. Nor do I believe it possible to exactly hold to all of those values at once, as some are mutually exclusive. The values seem to change with the progression of time, and also author by author. Paul and James have somewhat different beliefs about the importance and prescidence of faith and good works for example. Paul and Luke have very different ideas about the value, intelligence, and trustworthiness of women. As I said before, just because something is applicable to you doesn't mean you *should* apply it. I personally believe viewing the Bible to be moral authority is a disasterous mistake. I think doing so and not understanding it is even worse.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
OTOH, if you view it as a tool, guide, or inspiration, (subject to your own reasoning and understanding of morality, or the prompting of the Holy Spirit if you believe in that stuff) then yeah, there's a lot of good stuff there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As far as context goes: I think most people who read the Bible earnestly are intelligent enough to understand that things like "don't beat your slaves on the Sabbath" or "practice crop rotation" or "how to properly construct a tent for your wife and daughters to menstruate in" might not really be directly applicable, whereas the *principles* behind those laws like "take care of those whom you are responsible for, respect the land, take care of your family" are still valid, and things like "love thy neighbor as thyself" or "blessed are the poor" or "turn the other cheek" are general enough that they are applicable as long as we have things like neighbors or poor people or cheeks. Whether or not you think those concepts "should" be applied or are good ideas in general is a different matter.
For me, the problem here isn't that I don't think there can be kernels of genuine, honorable wisdom peppered throughout, because I think there are. For me the problem is twofold: one, it purports to be advice and even commands from the author of the universe on how to live and be good people and two, the very same source didn't hesitate to be very, very 'firm' on transgressions in other areas but it was for some reason more important to say 'here is what you can and cannot do on the Sabbath/acknowledge the Savior properly' rather than 'hey, guys, don't keep or tolerate the keeping of slaves, ever, under any circumstances!' Things like that.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Oh yeah, definitely.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That quote is from a poem of mourning.
It's not so much mourning as damnation, I'd think: "Hey, Babylon! God hates you and will destroy you for being bad!"
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
The last two verses, yeah. It's revenge fantasy, and a pretty brutal one at that. I guess the point I was making is that this should be viewed as a snapshot of the grief and rage of the Jews after they were enslaved in Babylon ("By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept..."), not as literal advice or as a commandment. Which is a possible interpretation if you just take that one verse divorced of context. (Though I've only seen it quoted as advice sarcastically by people trying to make the same point I am)
There are plenty of places (especially in Joshua, Samuel, and Kings) where God does explicitly command slaughtering lots of women and children, though.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: As soon as you start saying, "well, it's not meant to" and "but the context!" that's the beginning of mental gymnastics.
Suggesting that context should be taken into account when interpreting 2000+ year old literature is mental gymnastics? It sounds like a requirement for responsible scholarship to me.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
^+1
A good deal of the Bible is either partially or wholly unintelligible without understanding the surrounding culture. The Book of Jeremiah, for example, makes quite a few allusions to Babylonian religion and mythology. (10:12 is the example I can think of off the top of my head - Marduk was said to have "stretched out the sky" from some other God's carcass) There are numerous cases, especially in the prophets, where what might appear to a modern reader as a creative or rather bizarre literary device (if it's indeed intelligible at all) is actually an allusion or reference to the religion, mythology, and culture of Israel and the surrounding nations.
It does seem somewhat preposterous to claim the Bible makes no sense, and then dismiss people who tell you how to go about making sense of it. But perhaps there is a misunderstanding here?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Suggesting that context should be taken into account when interpreting 2000+ year old literature is mental gymnastics? It sounds like a requirement for responsible scholarship to me.
Certainly responsible scholarship for the reading and interpretation of human-written and human inspired accounts, yes? Responsible scholarship, too, to attempt to place the meaning of the texts in a spot appropriate to those they were written to, directly, I'll certainly agree.
But these books and particularly almost all who claim to speak for them don't quite put things that way. I hear you say responsible scholarship and for what little it's worth I listen and respect that point of view, but there are more than a few-quite a lot, actually-who don't propose the idea of treating the Bible that way. The Bible itself, at least until recently, didn't say it should be interpreted in such a way!
Far more often heard is talk of rejecting the wisdom of man or various ways of saying the same thing, of interpreting not the Bible but the present physical world and our places in it to be compatible with the Bible.
I read the Bible-which reminds me, I need to go back and answer the OP's questions before I forget-doing things such as openly condoning human slavery, for quite a lot of its length. Even the New Testament lacks a blunt, forceful rejection of the practice and comes close to indirect endorsement more than once. The Bible tells us God will kill children for the sake of the sins of their parents, whether it's because they transgressed against the wrong tribe or because they didn't have the fortune to be raised by the right believers. Over and over again, this happens. God will come down like a ton of bricks within the text on some offenses, offenses any human who was morally sane today would reject as meriting a death penalty.
Something like slavery, though, or massacring the population of an entire region and taking their women (for what possible purpose, who can say, right?), and God's wrath is conspicuously absent. Sometimes even when such things are done to his favored tribe!
By all means, apply responsible scholarship to the text, but unless we're going to rewrite the darned thing that will, as Teshi says, require a *lot* of mental gymnastics to view as a good and moral source of wisdom. Tolerance or even commandments for things such as slavery, genocide, misogyny, and theocracy aren't just washed away by however many parables that can be read with modern eyes and teach us worthwhile things.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Certainly responsible scholarship for the reading and interpretation of human-written and human inspired accounts, yes?
Responsible scholarship for any text.
quote:But these books and particularly almost all who claim to speak for them don't quite put things that way. I hear you say responsible scholarship and for what little it's worth I listen and respect that point of view, but there are more than a few-quite a lot, actually-who don't propose the idea of treating the Bible that way.
There are also quite a lot of people, apparently, who think the Czech Republic and Chechnya are the same place. That doesn't make them right.
quote: The Bible itself, at least until recently, didn't say it should be interpreted in such a way!
I don't have any idea what that statement is supposed to mean!
quote: By all means, apply responsible scholarship to the text, but unless we're going to rewrite the darned thing that will, as Teshi says, require a *lot* of mental gymnastics to view as a good and moral source of wisdom.
Then maybe it's not a book of moral instructions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Responsible scholarship for any text.
But supposedly, we are told, the Bible is in a class of text by itself, yes?
quote:There are also quite a lot of people, apparently, who think the Czech Republic and Chechnya are the same place. That doesn't make them right.
This isn't geography, and the Czech Republic doesn't speak for itself and say, "Hey! These are my coordinates!" I'm not sure you can claim the Bible makes no claims for itself.
quote:I don't have any idea what that statement is supposed to mean!
What I mean is that until fairly recently, the idea that the Bible should be read in a way similar to ordinary human texts wasn't just unusual but could even be quite dangerous.
quote:Then maybe it's not a book of moral instructions.
Well you certainly don't need to sell me on that. Shall we say instead 'a book whose teachings are considered moral'?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Rakeesh, absolutely no one would know you're a Mormon, from reading most of your posts, especially the ones in this thread.
I admit it, I don't get you. I may just be dense on this, but I really don't get you. What are you playing at? 12 years of devil's advocate has GOT to be getting boring.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Rakeesh: Here's something to think about... because I don't know if you're looking at this the right way, and I certainly know that "these people" you refer to aren't necessarily participating in this conversation. (BlackBlade may be a possible exception, but I think he may agree with some of what I say too)
What if the Bible isn't the Inspired Word of God? Easy to say, right. Now imagine you're talking to a bunch of people who *agree* with you. Because we do.
Let that sink in for a moment. Forget everything you've been told *about* the Bible. Think about what the Bible actually *is* with the "infallible" or "inspired" labels removed.
It's a series of books, sermons, letters, poems, and biographies written by persons who shared the same culture over 1500 (or 900) years and, without knowing it, shaped the religion they followed. Think about the reasons they actually wrote those books.
You have the Pentateuch written by Moses (or more likely, assembled by various clerics during the reign of King Josiah) designed to pretty much create a religion whole cloth - establishing the origin of the Chosen People from creation to the calling of Abraham to their slavery in Egypt and their exodus, establishing the rules to be followed (if you're interested in creating a *religion*, not a new socioeconomic structure and government, you're not going to mess with established rules like slavery or property) and rituals to be performed. Giving the people a common story, a common mythology, a common liturgy.
You have the Books of History, from Joshua to Nehemiah and Ezra, chronicling the history of the people from their bloody conquest of Canaan to the creation of the Monarchy, to the splitting of Israel and Judah, the conquest by Assyria and Babylon, and finally the rebuilding of the nation.
You have the books of wisdom, the poems and proverbs and philosophy of Ancient Israel.
And the Prophets. Men who preached righteousness and holy living and social justice. Who stood up to all the evil kings (many doing a lot of the raping and murdering and enslaving you talked about) and condemned them openly. Most of whom were tortured and killed for doing so. The Prophets, when they aren't taking too many psychedelic drugs like I suspect Ezekiel did, contain some of the most profound, compelling, powerful literature of the ancient world. And they have to say a lot about society, poverty, justice, fairness, and compassion that resonates just as strongly with modern society as ancient times.
And then you have the Gospels. Autobiographies written (or compiled) by members of the early church about Jesus, conveying his life, his words, and his message in the best way they knew how. And the epistles, letters sent by early church leaders on how to live and act as a community, how to treat one another, how to live in a Godly manner.
I suppose if you look at it as one book, one work, the Inspired Word of God, then of course it's going to seem incredibly inconsistent. Full of slavery and war and genocide and incest. If you look at as the narrative of a people, from their greatest rulers like David and Solomon to a poor immigrant woman like Ruth, all the great and terrible things they did, the literature and ideas they held sacred, the prophets that acted as a check on their transgressions... then it's something incredibly beautiful. And you can learn a lot from it.
FWIW, "the Bible" doesn't make any claims for itself. No one who wrote books of the Bible (except maybe the authors of the Pentateuch) knew their books would become books of the Bible. They were added after the fact, by consensus. The most that happens is some books (like Revelation) make claims for themselves, and some books make claims for earlier books. The "claims" you're talking about are those being made by religious people talking about the Bible.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Responsible scholarship for any text.
But supposedly, we are told, the Bible is in a class of text by itself, yes?
Told by who? And why do you care what they think?
The rest of your post pretty much makes my point -- mental gymnastics are required if you start with a preconceived notion of what the Bible is "supposed" to be, and try to force everything to fit that.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
As far as I can tell, this is what you are telling me.
The Bible is absolutely contradictory or incoherent. Much of it (although how much of it is presumably up to us) is inapplicable to human life today. The interpretations made of it by scholars may be wrong. The details and claims of it were made up by humans.
So... basically you agree with me, except you think that these stories describe actual or useful metaphorical events that are somehow better (or perhaps that gets mitigated down, too?) than actual and useful metaphorical events from other cultures that recorded their holy stories.
quote: then it's something incredibly beautiful. And you can learn a lot from it.
Yes. Like any set of holy or culturally useful stories that have been recorded and can teach us about the nature of belief in a historical society and something about human nature could, if you were really into them, be considered 'beautiful'. So why do you, in particular, chose to value these holy stories and not another set or-- and I guess this works with some kind of religions--all stories?
quote:The rest of your post pretty much makes my point -- mental gymnastics are required if you start with a preconceived notion of what the Bible is "supposed" to be, and try to force everything to fit that.
So the Bible isn't incoherent if you don't expect it to be coherent? I think we basically agree, except you think that aside from culture and humans making it important, it has some value or perhaps reference to reality that I do not think it has.
Unless you don't think this, in which case you believe that there is a God and I think it exceedingly unlikely and other than all bets are off as to what we should believe or use as source material, if we use anything at all.
Yes?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
In light of these, I'd like to state that since I think Religious Studies is only useful because it's useful to know the references to things, I'd have liked to teach a 'founding myth' class in which all stories are source material and we're not required to believe that the stories describe anything useful if we conclude that they do not.
Mmm, just think what you could include!
(I guess it would be basically literature-and-myth-in-history)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Teshi, were you require to teach the Bible from a particular faith perspective? I don't know how "religious studies" works in the UK. I know that Amira taught (teaches?) it, and she's Muslim, so I assume it's not required to be taught from a strict COE perpective. I suppose to an extent it depends on the school?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The Prophets, when they aren't taking too many psychedelic drugs like I suspect Ezekiel did, contain some of the most profound, compelling, powerful literature of the ancient world.
What parts are you talking about and what are you comparing this to? There are some pretty heavy hitters in that that I honestly don't think any part of the Old Testament could be said to even be in the same class as.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I wanted to get back to this . . .
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: As far as I can tell, this is what you are telling me.
The Bible is absolutely contradictory or incoherent. Much of it (although how much of it is presumably up to us) is inapplicable to human life today. The interpretations made of it by scholars may be wrong. The details and claims of it were made up by humans.
So... basically you agree with me, except you think that these stories describe actual or useful metaphorical events that are somehow better (or perhaps that gets mitigated down, too?) than actual and useful metaphorical events from other cultures that recorded their holy stories.
. . . Yes?
Not sure if I am the "you" in your post or not, but if I am, then no, that is not what I am telling you.
The Bible as we have it is (among other things) a collection of literature of multiple genres written over a period of somewhere between 600 and 1500 years. Imagine for a minute that you put together a collection of 66 (or 39 or 73) of your favorite things written in the last 500 years. Include fiction and non-fiction, poetry, lyrics, movie scripts, blog posts, etc. Arrange them in an order that makes sense to you. Does your collection have coherence? Yes. Does its coherence look the same as that of the Encyclopedia Britannica? No.
On your point "The interpretations made of it by scholars may be wrong," well, yeah. That's kind of a given in any scholarship, is it not? That doesn't mean people are pulling interpretations out of their left ear (although some probably are). It does mean that everything we think we know must be held lightly, and discarded, or at least reinterpreted, if better evidence presents itself.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
That sounds like what I was saying, only in slightly gentler language. I naively thought the Bible was more coherent and meaningful before I read it. Upon reading it, I was surprised to find it to be incoherent and contradictory.
You seem to agree but to a slightly gentler extent, which is to be expected from our different viewpoints.
Can I ask, in order to uncover further how we differ, whether there is a fixed point to which all or most the Biblical accounts/stories/lists/blog posts must--inspite of whatever their reason for being included, internal or external contradictions--adhere?
Would you expect that a collection of Greek myth would have the same, less or more coherence than a Bible (or, if you wish, another collection of stories emanating from the same tradition but perhaps not traditionally Biblical)?
Is there something different about the coherence of the Bible from the coherence of any given set of texts emanating from a single culture, or, indeed, the whole of humanity's literary output?
Is there something different about the usefulness of the Bible as opposed to another set of literary histories?
*
I realise you're a busy person, dkw. Feel free not to answer some or all of these questions and obviously these aren't only open to dkw.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Maybe the Wold Newton Family will end up as a bible of its own centuries from now.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Teshi: That's understandable. But it's not like the Bible has any single author or even an editor - it's pretty much just an anthology of texts that relate to one another. In other words, the Bible was never meant to be and isn't supposed to be coherent. There are some religions that probably give that impression, but even die hard "it's the literal word of God" fundies will give you the same description of it.
I guess since I grew up with it, I was never under the impression that it was a single coherent work. I understood the nature of it pretty much from the get go, so it's hard for me to relate to exactly what mistaken belief you're arguing against.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Dogbreath: If it helps to explain, I went to a Christian school in the UK, which isn't really about the Bible and more about Biblically-derivative stories, like the Christmas story and Noah's Ark. You almost never look at the source material and Jesus is always great, and God is rarely self-centred and vengeful. I knew that there were books written or compiled by various whom, most of whom probably weren't who they purported to be. It was more that I thought there would be more cohesion between books and also within them, and also that I thought more of the stories were... relevent. I thought it was a collection of great works of literature. I don't any more. I'm not saying I was right to believe that, only that's the story of my interaction with the Bible.
I took away from my primary school education that there was much more to the Bible than I think became obvious when I had to teach it, unedited, to children and children were having difficulty understanding why Cain's gift was not accepted, or why this person was killed, or why this war happened because it seemed like all the people had done wrong was be represented by the wrong leader. Children want to know if this is God-sanctioned or not, or just a historical story.
I have no trouble accepting that it's not coherent, but I had big trouble teaching it to 10-13 year olds as somehow helpful.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It's kind of like science always being depicted as awesome and accurate and monolithically amazing at knowing stuff, but in fact its complicated and uncertain. Only the Bible gets a more extreme reputation. The Bible is often presented to children and outsiders as a story of love and obviously you are aware that it is not, unless you read specifically looking for love and you ignore the fact that ending up on the wrong side of God is pretty easy.
"So Moses/Pharaoh and the deaths of the first born. Did that really happen?"
No, it's a metaphorical story from a different time? What is the metaphor we are intended to take away from it. Aside from it being a propagandistic story intended to assert the specialness of a group of people and by consequence denigrate the 'other', it also emphasises the importance of the first-born son. I doubt you would argue that it is a horrific tale, only carried off today in the idea that the Egyptians were slavers and that is a morally abhorrent crime etc.
Obviously, it was a different time when, in the Christmas story, Herod did a similar thing. Obviously?
I can see its historical use, but I don't see its modern use. Maybe there is no modern use aside from as a story?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I would like to see a movie version of Moses, but set in the modern world. It really world come off as horrific.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: [QB]Can I ask, in order to uncover further how we differ, whether there is a fixed point to which all or most the Biblical accounts/stories/lists/blog posts must--inspite of whatever their reason for being included, internal or external contradictions--adhere?
Are you asking about criteria for inclusion at the time the canon was decided on, or about similarities that can be seen in the canon as it stands? The answer to both is yes, but beyond that it would be different depending on which you're asking.
quote:Would you expect that a collection of Greek myth would have the same, less or more coherence than a Bible (or, if you wish, another collection of stories emanating from the same tradition but perhaps not traditionally Biblical)?
I would expect a similar level of coherence in a collection of Greek Myths, but more if the particular collection were told or re-told by a single author.
quote:
Is there something different about the coherence of the Bible from the coherence of any given set of texts emanating from a single culture, or, indeed, the whole of humanity's literary output?
Yes. The texts were deliberately chosen, and others emanating from the same culture were rejected. There is more intent involved in their choice and the in order they are presented in than a random collection from a single culture or time period.
quote:Is there something different about the usefulness of the Bible as opposed to another set of literary histories?
I'm not sure useful is a particularly useful word here. Useful for what?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: It's kind of like science always being depicted as awesome and accurate and monolithically amazing at knowing stuff, but in fact its complicated and uncertain.
There's another parallel too . . . both science and the Bible suffer from people speaking of them in awed tones as if they are infallible, but not knowing a whole lot about what they actually say. Biblical illiteracy and scientific illiteracy are both rampant.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Yes. The texts were deliberately chosen, and others emanating from the same culture were rejected. There is more intent involved in their choice and the in order they are presented in than a random collection from a single culture or time period.
You slightly misunderstand my question. I am aware that these texts were picked from a wider selection.
quote:I'm not sure useful is a particularly useful word here. Useful for what?
The Bible was selected for a purpose. What is that purpose?
If I selected a bunch of texts from a time period, would my Bible is as useful or as 'true'? If not, what is the thing that is different about the Bible from my Bible? Why should people use the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita as opposed to my selection?
Is there something inherently more useful/'true'/meaningful about these holy texts than any other collection of stories?
quote:There's another parallel too . . . both science and the Bible suffer from people speaking of them in awed tones as if they are infallible, but not knowing a whole lot about what they actually say. Biblical illiteracy and scientific illiteracy are both rampant.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). The stories of faith in the Pentateuch really hit me; I ended up sharing many small stories from early in the OT later in my mission at missionary meetings and those were typically met with quite a bit of enthusiasm from my fellows who typically didn't have a good handle on some of the smaller bits from the OT.