RSS Feed
A Book We Love That Loves Us Back
For centuries the Good Book has seemed like a Closed Book to most people. Its archaic and often patriarchal language, its ancient paradigms and its assumption of faith seem far and distant from the average, modern reader. It intricacies seem to require the help of a basic translator (especially from the King James English) and a commentator or two, at least. Those of us who read it in the original Hebrew often find the English a lot harder. Few of us feel competent enough to make sense of the tangle of biblical names, stories and genealogy by ourselves.
But should we feel this way about a cornerstone text of Western literature? We should not. After all, doesn't Deuteronomy itself claim "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?'" (30:12)? It is as if the Bible itself understood the assumed distance between reader and text and invited its readers to comment. Don't think these words are so hard to understand that someone has to venture heavenward and bring it down to your level. Stretch up and grab these words and make of them what you will. If not, the text will never be yours. Someone else will always own it.
We are naturally interpretive beings. We interpret world events, local tragedies and our family clusters. Gossip itself has been considered a mode of social interpretation; we're always trying to figure people out, and we take our cues from reading. Expressions like "read between the lines" and I "misread the situation" are ways that we move from text to life and borrow the language of commentary. And reading people well is a lot harder than figuring out the Bible, in my humble estimation. We love the puzzle of making our way in the fog to understand that which eludes us. And that should apply to the Bible as well.
We only, however, take the time to interpret that which is valuable to us, be it a text or a relationship. And, sadly, the Bible feels too much like a relic to most to have contemporary relevance. In one of my academic Bible classes I came up with the following as an opener: "We will be spending a lot of intimate time with the Bible and you must have one for class. If you don't own a Bible, please go to a hotel this weekend." It usually got a laugh, but it also came with a reality. Fewer and fewer people even own a Bible, let alone feel themselves capable of interpreting its challenging language.
For me, one of the most powerful texts about the importance of our being interpreters of the Bible comes from the Zohar, a medieval commentary on the Bible and a central text of Kabbalah. The passage is called "The Old Man and the Ravishing Maiden," a wonderful name for a provocative read. A man loves a ravishing maiden who shutters herself inside. But he loves her so much that she, on occasion, opens the shutters and displays herself but only to her beloved. His love for her brings her out of her own space.
The Zohar unpacks the parable. The man is a reader of Bible. The ravishing maiden is the Bible itself. It is not only that reader loves the text but that his adoration brings out messages in the text itself. The text loves us back. It flirts with us. How does it flirt? It begs for our attention with its curiosities, its repetitions, and alliterations to ask questions, to engage us in its study. We pause and inquire and fall in love in the process.
I have seen this love so many, many times when I teach Bible precisely because I give my students the opportunity to read the text closely and slowly themselves. They realize why this text is so influential and rich in its stories and its moral guidance, in the fabulous failings of its heroes and in their essential greatness. I cannot give that to them. They must take it for themselves.
With the confidence that this text will yield its treasures with patience and a little flirtation, any reader's open mind will be able to interpret the Bible. We have to give ourselves permission and understand that its neither priest nor rabbi, academic nor novelist who owns this text. Fall in love again. Or maybe for the first time.
Dr. Erica Brown is the Director for Adult Education at The Partnership for Jewish Life and Learning and the Scholar-in-Residence for The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington. She is also an adjunct professor at American University and George Washington University, was a Jerusalem Fellow and is a faculty member of the Wexner Foundation.
By Erica Brown |
February 19, 2009; 12:59 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Read the Bible in Humility and Community |
Next: Americans Want Movies with Morals, Christian Values
Posted by: CCNL | February 22, 2009 12:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I read the Bible and the Book of Mormon - both cover to cover. All my life, so called "Christians" have been using these books to judge me, guilt me and exclude me. Both are ancient, boring and contradictory. Love them and the Koran as well if you'd like, but for me, they represent manipulated tools of intolerance and hatred in the name of a small and shallow Abrahamic god.
Posted by: coloradodog | February 22, 2009 11:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"It intricacies seem to require the help of a basic translator (especially from the King James English) and a commentator or two, at least."
This is an interesting commentary on our continuing relationship with language.
"King James English" is essentially Shakespeare's English. In fact, he was one of the contributors to the translation. Granted, Shakespeare's language isn't the easiest to understand, but for centuries -- right up to the present time -- his plays have been a staple of high school English courses. So, really, how hard can it be to understand?
The answer is that it's difficult and challenging, but, with a little effort, comprehension can be coaxed out of the complexity.
Why, then, do readers of the KJV need a translator? Shakespeare wrote in modern English -- not middle or old English.
Posted by: kjohnson3 | February 22, 2009 7:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Are you kidding me ? People have been trying to make the Bible a human rather than divine document for 1500 years. Abraham PROBABLY never existed ?? oh my, you remind me of the atheists in England that put "God PROBABLY doesnt exist, so just be good and dont worry" on a bunch of buses. Abraham is real, Moses is real and the Old Testament is divinely authored and is completed and fulfilled in every way by the messiah Jesus Christ who will return one day to judge the world in Righteousness. Jesus said ""I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." Repent and believe.
Posted by: US-conscience | February 21, 2009 9:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Reality of Judaism- 101
From http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
"New Torah For Modern Minds
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document. "
Posted by: CCNL | February 20, 2009 2:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Hmmm, "I am the Truth" i.e. John 14:6. This passage was, according to many NT exegetes, not said by the historical Jesus but was wishful thinking and an embellishment by John to make Jesus more like the ancient and local gods of first century Palestine.; http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf
Note: said passage only appears once in the NT. i.e. a single attestation making it historically unreliable.