Reading The Bible

[poliphilo]

I used to own a copy of Peake's Bible Commentary. It's not a book you want to wrangle without a lectern. Also the text is printed in two columns- which is unfriendly. Did I use it much when I was in training for the Ministry? I doubt that I did- though a fairly thick veil has been drawn across my memories of that time. The Meeting House has a copy- of the same vintage (1962) as mine- and I suggested Ailz might want to borrow it. She recoiled.

How ought one to read the Bible?

Where should one start?

Does one need a commentary?

Which translation should one use?

I find I can't answer any of those questions.

While we were at the Meeting House I picked up a copy of J.B. Philips' translation of the Four Gospels. I'd never really looked at it before- though it had some currency in its day- which was also my day as a clergyperson- and maybe it still does. I picked out a passage here and there and came to the conclusion that it was Phillips' aim to make his text as pedestrian as possible- on the theory that pedestrian equals accessible.

So for the ultimate test; how does he render the magisterial opening of John's Gospel?

"In the beginning God expressed himself...."

No, no, no, no....

As Ailz said when I read it to her, "Expressing is what nursing mothers do with their milk..."

I'll admit I know the Bible pretty well. Several decades of church going will do this for you. Being a literary type who also knows Shakespeare pretty well I favour the King James version. I like obscurities and archaisms. I like poetry.

My way with the Bible these days is to riffle through it- as I might with a pack of Tarot cards- and wait for something to catch my eye.

Comments

[cmcmck]

Given how few Quakers bother much with the Book, I wouldn't overdo it.

So you do the sortes? Very medieval of you! :o)

[heleninwales]

Our Local Meeting used to meet in someone's home. Some years ago, for various reasons, we changed to hiring a room in a local village hall. It was only a week or so ago that we realised that we don't have a Bible on the table during meeting. We have: Quaker Faith & Practice; a book containing selected readings from different world religions; and a copy of "Jesus untouched by the church: His teachings in the gospel of Thomas".

I think only one of us would claim to be a traditional Bible using Christian. I'm a non-theist sort of Zen Buddhist and I'm not sure what the others believe (or don't believe), but I don't think they have much time for the Bible. Now we're not a typical Local Meeting by any means, but you don't even have to be a Christian to be a Quaker and I came to Quakers via a friend who is Jewish.

[poliphilo]

I hesitate to call myself a Christian (because of all the baggage) but the Bible is the "sacred" book I know best.

[cmcmck]

Now isn't that odd! I came to Quakers via Harvey Gillman (you may recall the name as he was fairly senior in Friends- the outreach secretary- before his retirement) a gay,Jewish Quaker. He taught me for a while and was one of the few empathetic teachers I ever met- it's also his fault I'm a poet. :o)

I suppose I'd call myself a Universalist.

None of the meetings I have attended over the years ever had a Bible in the Meeting Room.

[poliphilo]

That's me, medieval to my fingertips.

[mallorys_camera]

I favor the King James version, too.

It's the most poetic.

[poliphilo]

The last story Kipling published in his lifetime- "Proofs of Holy Writ" has Shakespeare being consulted by the King James people on the final version of a passage in Isaiah. It's an agreeable fantasy- and not entirely implausible.

[mtbc]

I'm sure everybody has their own, different thoughts here. (-: Personally, I am rather partial to the standard edition of the New Jerusalem Bible: it balances readability with accuracy nicely, has helpful intros and notes, and includes Tobit and whatnot. But, it also misses out on recent decades of research.

Definitely good to have some kind of commentary and also some more general background on the sociopolitical history that might help with judging what to believe about what (e.g., with the Apostolic Council and whatnot): what's plausible, what later people needed it to say, etc. That question of context applies through so much of Scripture; people may reasonably read everything from the history of Israel to the divinity of Jesus with a considerable pinch of salt. I wouldn't say that supplementary materials are urgently required if one's Bible has some decent notes. Frankly, even just a children's Bible can be a good start, in highlighting the more important passages. If I were to read just some of it, maybe Genesis, Exodus, Matthew, Luke, Acts, might be a good focus. With a bit more time, I might broaden that to include the former prophets and a couple of letters from Peter and Paul.

Were I a Friend, I'd probably be looking for what useful lessons, guidance, inspiration to take from Scripture, and be trying to listen for pointers to which those should be, watching out for self-bias toward the ones I'd prefer, rather than trying to study it comprehensively. Maybe much of the Bible is like the tarot anyway in that something can be gotten from just about any part. I'd wonder if maybe being overly academic in my study might stop me noticing the inner light more efficiently and accurately shining my way through what the mists of time are shrouding. It would be nice to think that God will probably help us along the path we should be on.

That all might be a bit opinionated and off-point, I'm just thinking aloud and maybe there's something useful there.

[poliphilo]

I think it's good to have some idea of how the Bible was assembled and of the historical, theological and literary context of the various texts that make it up- but in the end- as with any text- one should let it speak for itself and if it doesn't engage one go read the Gita or Das Kapital instead...