Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Temple >

Home Bible Study

Page: (1)2 3 4

15:25 / 04.03.07

Provoked by skimming through Revelations: Personal Responses to the Books of the Bible (the collected introductions by various luminaries, secular, Christian and otherwise, from the Pocket Canons some of you may be aware of), I was wondering whether there would be any interest in a Temple Book Club sort of affair where we pick out one of the Books from the Old or New Testaments, read it, gather thoughts, and try to offer a response to it as individuals and how it relates to our own systems of belief. I’d be quite interested in a Barbelith style response to what might seem an overly familiar text, in terms of methodologies of reading and interpretation, divergent ways of reading the symbolism, and really mainly how accessible and useful we find it currently as people coming from a variety of different viewpoints.

Not that I think it should be a thread for exhaustive commentary/annotation, or even fully constructed micro-biography anecdotes, but just a method of getting stuck into a monolithic work and exploring in an easily digestible form how easily we can relate a specific biblical episode to our own lives and how transferable the values are to our own belief systems, or indeed if the converse is true. Would anyone be interested in this sort of thing? If this is really, really stupid or unlikely to succeed then let me know. Similarly, after a quick search I don’t think anything like this has been done (here) before, but if it has then we can bin it as a non-starter.

This was mainly just an idle thought, so I don’t even have a particular Book in mind, and was going to wait and see how much interest there was and if anyone else had any suggestions. If it goes well we could do another Book(s) or pick out a section from another primary religious text in the future.

[To clarify my own interest in this: I’m not personally focused on pushing forward an overtly Christian reading of the Books (whatever that would mean), or in holding up scripture as the literal truth, but I probably have most contact and experience with elements of Christianity as a social phenomenon and religious institution and know relatively little about the core texts, and I was hoping, in company, to do something about that.]

*

16:46 / 04.03.07

I think it's a great idea, provided people do make the commitment to be reflective and critical about it, rather than reflexive in their accustomed direction. Comparing translations might also be instructive. I don't think there are any translations that haven't been digitized somewhere, so that's another plus.

17:59 / 04.03.07

I'd be into that, as I am terribly unfamiliar with the Book. I'd be most interested in Genesis.

20:47 / 04.03.07

Sure. I suppose the question is whether to go for the classic hits, as it were (Genesis, Mark, Luke, John, etc) or some of the more experimental material towards the end of each testament. Really though, I'd be happy enough to discuss either.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:00 / 04.03.07

I'd be well up for this, to be honest. Personally I'd prefer something from the New Testament, but I'm happy to go along with whatever everyone decides. Great fucking idea.

21:11 / 04.03.07

I'm game.

rovided people do make the commitment to be reflective and critical about it...

Seconded, with aplomb.

For what it's worth, to that end, it's more proper to refer to it as the Hebrew bible rather than "Old Testament."

I propose the Book of Job as the first reading. It's one of the oldest texts contained in the bible, is often one of the most commonly misunderstood of biblical stories, and provides an interesting examination of the usually simplistic good-evil dichotomy of monotheism.

21:16 / 04.03.07

Not Genesis then?

21:27 / 04.03.07

We actually had a Book of Job discussion way back when. It is an incredibly rich book. Anyone interested in reading secondary literature on it could do worse than Carol Newsom's The Book of Job: A contest of moral imaginations.

I would be happy to participate in an analysis any way I can.

Other interesting OT texts are the Song of Songs & Ecclesiastes. For NT stuff, though, I'd recommend John. That's the one most suited for the Temple.

22:09 / 04.03.07

I wouldlove some biblical discussion.
Tell me where to start and I'm all over it.

23:17 / 04.03.07

It's your idea, so I think your call, really, BH. I'd been inclined to start with Genesis though, and take it from there.

23:52 / 04.03.07

I'll second Genesis, then. I should spend some more time on that one, anyway.

00:35 / 05.03.07

Id: Absolutely, to everything you said.

Obviously there are multiple translations, but personally I wouldn’t expect people to go for anything other than the one closest to hand (though obviously it’s great if people want to go the extra length) and discuss the differences as they arise. I don’t know if that’s the most rigorous way to do it, but hopefully the basic meaning will out [insert glib quote about a divine message finding the way here].

calgodot: Thanks. I knew that they shared material, but I wasn’t aware that the term “Old Testament” by itself could be read as derogatory: Hebrew Bible it is. It’s simply the term I’m most familiar with – no other implication was intended. Even trying to address a definitive “The Bible” is doomed to failure, because clearly there are multiple Bibles depending on what you include and how you arrange it. If anything, I was trying to keep to a broadly Christian perspective on the material because I suspect that for most that will be the most familiar and accessible way of looking at it and talking about it, but obviously I’d hope the discussion includes other viewpoints.

Genesis is tempting because, as you say, well, it’s the start isn’t it? But I’d really like to look at some later and possibly less central Books as well if it goes ok. Let’s give it a couple of days to see who’s on board and what the majority want to do and then dive in.

01:19 / 05.03.07

The Hebrew Bible differs slightly from the Old Testament in two ways. First, the order of the books differs. The OT is ordered with the prophets at the end, so that the text is structured to point to the coming of Christ. The Hebrew Bible has the "writings" at the end, because they are, in some sense, less central to the overall narrative.

It might be better if Christians called them 1st and 2nd Testaments in order to prevent the dubious opinion that the coming of Christ made all that prior stuff irrelevant, but those terms may be frought with difficulties of their own.

The second difference has to do with the difference between Jewish and Christian scholarship. Christian scholars, so I am told, tend to try to reconstruct the texts to get at something like the kernel or the "original" text — what it means to find the original text of something that had multiple authors and editions before looking anything like what we have today is a little beyond me, but that's Protestantism's legacy.

So, very minor points, but, for our purposes, I think HB and OT are neither one more proper but nearly synonymous.

01:32 / 05.03.07

The terms I generally heard in liberal theological circles were Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and Greek Bible (New Testament).

If anything, I was trying to keep to a broadly Christian perspective on the material because I suspect that for most that will be the most familiar and accessible way of looking at it and talking about it, but obviously I’d hope the discussion includes other viewpoints.

I'd hope for a slightly broader perspective than "broadly Christian." And I think Genesis is a great place to start.

04:56 / 05.03.07

Eh, Ev G, I don't know how it sounded, and possibly through sleep deprived dopiness or just general ignorance I’m making a hash of things, but when I said "broadly Christian" I suppose I meant describing the texts within the broad remit of how they’ve been ordered within the Christian religion, so when I use broadly I’m meaning within the conventional Christian denominations - despite the fact that there are considerable differences between the versions used by Protestants and Catholics, for example. If we’re going to examine one book at a time it’s possible very little of that will be directly relevant, and while textual scholarship will hopefully add greatly to the discussion, I’m personally first and foremost interested in personal responses. I wasn’t at all trying to suggest that readings (mine or anybody else’s) should be circumscribed by a “broadly Christian” outlook, just that I’d like to initially be inclusive of both testaments and that we should utilise the terminology that the bulk of people will be familiar with. So if I say “biblical”, it’s generally understood that for our purposes here I’m referring to both testaments (or to the Greek and Hebrew Bibles if you prefer) and not excluding the New Testament as unbiblical, as, if I understand it correctly, a Jewish perspective would. Does that make sense? Am I going on at too great a length? Will I ever sleep again?

09:43 / 05.03.07

Wouldn't the best thing be to look at all the material?

Old Testament, New Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocryphal Books, Gnostic Gospels and whatever other things extant things didn't make it in to the canon.

jentacular dreams

09:51 / 05.03.07

I'd be up for this. If we do a seperate thread for each then any links between different texts can be discussed in the different threads. I'd also like to cover the non-canonical stuff.

Different people using different translations may be something of a strength too. It'll certainly generate more discussion.

16:15 / 05.03.07

Just to get things rolling, here's the first part of Genesis, from the classic King James translation:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

So what's happening here?

At the very beginning God is there, without any explanation. Things are formless, void, and dark, but there's water, and God moves over the "face of the water."

While the first sentence says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," he actually doesn't create them right away.

First comes light, which is separated from darkness and (along with darkness) given a name. So suddenly there's time, day and night, the first day.

Then God separates heaven from water (NOT earth). Strangely, the text suggests that there's water on BOTH sides of heaven -- "God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament . . . And God called the firmament Heaven."

Then, finally, the waters below heaven (but not above, it seems) gather, and dry land becomes earth, while the water becomes sea.

Wow -- there's a lot to work with there.

16:34 / 05.03.07

Just for comparison, here's a modern Jewish translation of that same section:

1 When God began to create heaven and earth --

2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the surface of the water --

3 God said "Let there be light;" and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.

6 God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the water, that it may separate water from water."

7 God made the expanse, and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse. And it was so.

8 God called the expanse Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 God said, "Let the water below the sky be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear." And it was so.

10 God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of waters He called Seas. And God saw that this was good.

16:50 / 05.03.07

Ooo, this looks interesting.

Wait till you get to the Jacob bits....

20:22 / 05.03.07

Note that the first day is evening then morning, rather than the reverse.

Observant Jews still follow this rule -- each new day starts at sunset, not midnight or sunrise. (This is why Jewish holidays start at sunset.)

If it was good enough for God . . .

00:39 / 06.03.07

From what I've read, the Ancient Egyptians also said the world began as water, chaotic water, out of which rose the sun, which then gave rise to the many things we see around us.

I'm curious where St. John got the idea of God being the Word when he retells this creation story -- the Word moving across the face of the waters.

00:45 / 06.03.07

(Oh, and as a technical note, my very favorite Bible study tool is Bible Gateway, which allows you to search for specific words and passages, and stick passages from different translations side by side. Its only flaw is that it doesn't have any Catholic translations -- you have to look elsewhere for yer Douay-Rheims or NAB, so if you're interested in looking up the war elephants of 1 Maccabees, you have to do it by hand.)

01:51 / 06.03.07

Grant, Look for Logos as Sophia. I believe Proverbs has some notion of Wisdom being in the beginning with God. That's not any kind of radical reading of it; it's pretty standard.

Kiltartan Cross

12:53 / 06.03.07

There's a site here with several translations into French, which might be of use. I'm finding it hard to pin down a "definitive" (in the loose sense that the KJB is definitive for English) French translation, although that of Louis Segond does seem to keep cropping up. Anyone know?

14:20 / 06.03.07

A few more thoughts on Genesis 1-10:

As John Day points out in "Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan" (good book!) there might be two earlier sources of this material:

First, the 14th century BCE Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten's Hymn to the Sun.

This Hymn eventually may have been reinterpreted as Psalm 104, which is an older and more poetic telling of the same story as Genesis.

(Notably, Psalm 104 talks about God battling with the waters (Psalm 104 6-9) rather than merely commanding the waters (Genesis 6-10).)

Second, it might be adapted from an earlier Canaanite myth about a god (Baal or Yahweh) battling with both the sea and a dragon (Lotan or Leviathan).

Signs of this show up in Job 38.8-11: "who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?" and Job 41:1-10: "Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? . . . . None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?"

16:31 / 06.03.07

How old is Psalm 104? How old is Genesis? I know (roughly) what was written when in the New Testament, but am a little in the dark with the OT.

Lemme see.... the intro to my NAB says the Pentateuch was probably written down during the reign of Solomon, while Psalms was traditionally said to be written by David (and probably comes from before the Babylonian Exile in 587 B.C., although some of the Psalms may have been composed during this period).

It also says the Pentateuch was likely compiled by four groups of authors: the Yahwist (who refer to God as YHWH or "Lord" and write concretely), the Elohist (who refer to God as Elohim, a plural, and who write moralistically), the Priestly ("severely theological" and into genealogies) and the Deuteronomic ("characterized by the intense hortatory style of Dt. 5-11" which I suppose means given to legalism - "hortatory" means "urging to fulfill commands").

I don't know exactly when this is, although obviously, if it's four groups, it's likely to be four different times.

-----
By the way, do people get lost when I refer to "the Pentateuch" or "extra" books in the Catholic Bible? I don't know where people are with this stuff.

17:34 / 06.03.07

In a quick web search, it looks like the earliest versions of Genesis 1-10 (part of the P Text) were written after the Babylonian exile in 597-586 BCE or so.

The Psalms supposedly started circulating orally around 1000 BCE (the time of David), and were written down around 600 BCE. Don't know any specifics about Psalm 104.

Time to get a good study bible . . .

jentacular dreams

17:52 / 06.03.07

I suppose you could also view it as a creation of the four elements, light (fire), land/earth, air (sky/heaven) and of course water. Or perhaps it is also built upon the mutability of water - that as ice it may be hard like earth, and as steam/vapour it is as intangible as air.

The waters above - heaven has to contain water, right? Especially for a people belonging to more arid regions, a heaven without water is surely unthinkable? Also, if heaven didn't contain water, then where did the rain (and indeed the flood)* come from?

Speaking of the flood, and obviously I'm getting ahead of myself, but in light of this passage, by submerging the earth in water once more it is much more striking as a effort to truly undo creation.

* which loops into the "global canopy of water" many creationists espouse.

18:02 / 06.03.07

I'm fascinated by the idea that water existed before anything else, and that the very first thing created (before the sun, moon, and stars, and before there was even an earth in any meaningful sense) was light.

I wonder to what extent this was intended -- consciously or unconsciously -- to recapitulate human birth. First floating in the waters of the womb, and then breaking out into the light of the world.

19:14 / 06.03.07

I'm fascinated by the idea that water existed before anything else

Me too. I find myself reading water(s) as a metaphor for the void of space.

But then I start thinking of God as the Silver Surfer ("And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters") and it's all over.

20:10 / 06.03.07

Thales of Miletus was big on water in the mid-500s BCE. As the origin for everything.

It was Empedocles, about 100 years later, who said it was really all four elements.

I have no idea what congress there may have been between the Miletians and the Jews -- I kinda doubt there was any, really, until much later. Still, interesting that the same idea would be bouncing around different places at the same time.

20:34 / 06.03.07

Thought I'd mention one other cool translation: The Schocken Bible.

It tries to focus on the rhythms of the original Biblical Hebrew as much as the sense. Powerful and tribal.

Here's a sample -- good ol' Genesis 1-10:

1 At the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth --

2 when the earth was wild and waste,
darkness over the face of Ocean,
rushing-spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters -–

3 God said: Let there be light! And there was light.

4 God saw the light: that it was good.
God separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light: Day! and the darkness he called: Night!
There was setting, there was dawning: one day.

6 God said
Let there be a dome among the waters,
and let it separate waters from waters!

7 God made the dome
and separated the waters that were below the dome from the waters that were above the dome.
It was so.

8 God called the dome: Heaven!
There was setting, there was dawning: second day.

9 God said:
Let the waters under the heavens be gathered to one place,
and let the dry land be seen!
It was so.

10 God called the dry land: Earth! and the gathering of the waters he called: Seas!
God saw that it was good.

21:02 / 06.03.07

In case you want to see what the Hebrew looks like and sounds like, here's a site with:

An English translation,

A Hebrew transliteration (looks like modern Sephardic pronunciation),

The Hebrew text with vowels (the start of each verse is shown by a change in color), and

The Hebrew text without vowels (but with cantellation, as you'd see it in a Torah).

21:09 / 06.03.07

What does "ha'arets" mean? It seems to be translated as "send forth" in the verses about trees sending forth fruits, but is also in the first verse, about creating the heavens & the earth.

It's also the big newspaper in Israel, which is why I noticed the word.

Page: (1)2 3 4