I'm down to the home stretch reading The Bible's Greatest Stories in which Paul Roche uses various sources to translate the canon, including books that only considered as such by some. For instance, Tobit and Judith, two of my favorites, are only deemed as such by Catholics. Thus, they are not in my Revised Standard Version, and darn if I cannot find my old Good News Bible that does have them. These days, of course, you can find the text of all the major versions easily online, but still it is nice to have easy access without doing so. Apocrypha ("hidden") is the term used for those additional books not part of the canon, while some of them that are deemed official but still "added" (to the official Jewish scriptures) are labeled "deuterocanonical" (second set). My old family bible was truly a tome -- it was a Catholic Bible with both sets, thus basically a third set of books (such as Esdras) was included.
Roche does a good job translating things for the modern reader while adding some notes to add to our understanding. The paperback is a bit under 500 pages, and even without "non-story" material (psalms, letters, and so forth), obviously decisions had to be made. He takes us up to the middle of the kings, but then uses various other books to give us a taste of life under foreign control. This works pretty well though it totally does away with the fall of the kingdoms (some good material) and the return (e.g., Nehemiah, a good story) except in the briefest summary form. It is always hard to know what to include in these things, but another ten or so pages easily might have given us a taste of this material, and it is good story fodder. For instance, he gives us a taste of the prophets via a short excerpt of Ezekiel. Also, maybe an excerpt of Revelations would have been nice too ... another few pages to complete the deal, so to speak.
The Bible has been of interest to me for some time in all its aspects -- literature, history, doctrine, and so forth. I have a book somewhere discussing the history of the Bible ... an "X-Rated Bible" with the many "R" rated parts discussed ... Karen Armstrong has an interesting little book discussing Genesis ... The Oxford Companion To The Bible for overall knowledge ... and used to stop by the library that had large commentaries discussing the books themselves. This can be fascinating reading, since there is so much meaning to the text, including as a window into past culture and history. Thus, the usefulness of having a copy nearby while certain passages are cited that turn out to have certain pearls of meaning to them. For instance, a few in the gospels suggest without saying as much that Joseph was not Jesus' true "father."
You get the idea that those "in the know" read the passages with some knowledge of the "back-story." One example would be how the apostles just up and followed Jesus, or how so many declared him the Son of God without much prompting (e.g., the Samaritan woman). Likewise, some of the less pleasing aspects of the Bible are somewhat better in context. Too much bloodshed in the Old Testament, especially from the time of Joshua to kings, much of which was deemed blessed by God. Roche suggests this must be seen as a fight between good and evil, the characters actually but props. Consider the Lord of the Rings trilogy -- did not really care for the movie and a half that I saw since much of it seemed to be a handful of heroes fighting battles against high odds and consistently winning. This sort of reminds one of the battles of Joshua.
OTOH, I do not "buy" Job -- no deus ex machina for me. So, you created everything. This "I'm your mother, that's why" approach didn't satisfy when I was ten, it does not now. As to the favorites listed above, Tobit is a nice story with mythical aspects including evil spirits and angels. It also shows that the two greatest commandments are not quite new creations ... "See that you never do to another what you would hate to have done to you" is among the lessons Tobit supplies to his son before the lad makes a trip that turns out to be an excuse to hook him up with a wife. Judith is one of those late additions that tell a lesson while getting its history wrong. It has a great line about how (to use Roche's somewhat wordy translation): "Ravished his [a general] eye with the gleam of her sandals / Made him prisoner by her beauty / Then with a short-sword severed his head." This was later a favorite subject for artists, including the controversial Artemisia.
To toss in a favorite subject, which sounds a bit off, The Oxford Companion to the Bible has an entry on abortion. The basic point to it is that the subject is simply not mentioned. In fact, if anything, various verses suggest it is legitimate. Overall, be fruitful and multiply is a usual command, and a mixture of a high death rate and (per the companion) perhaps lower birth rate, would make abortion in theory frowned upon. Still, a passage even suggests a baby under a month old (many would logically die at birth or even be born dead) has no worth (pursuant to the monetary damages set forth for various injuries). Also, a blow that causes a miscarriage requires a monetary settlement, not the "eye for an eye" penalty of killing a born person. Some imagery is suggested about God knowing you before birth and there are things like John jumping in his womb when Mary met up with Elizabeth. But, that last thing is simply quickening, right?
This all is rather hazy, isn't it?* Anyway, first, the Old Testament rules in various respects are no longer followed -- Jesus and Paul made it a habit to remind people that the laws of Moses should be interpreted with a light hand. This is partly because -- though this doesn't convince certain people -- they were products of the time. Thus, modern knowledge of prenatal development and so forth would change the calculus. Likewise, to use a broader theme, understanding of God, the human spirit, and life after death all developed over the time covered by the Bible. This is one interesting aspect of reading the darn thing, especially when past beliefs and practices are only discovered like ruins in various verses written centuries after they occur and/or oral traditions were in place.
Just one more interesting twist.
---
* Al Franken had a conservative leaning historian on today to discuss his new book on what the Founders would do if faced with current problems. This is something of a fool's errand, but it is an interesting approach to take. It calls to mind an essay I had to write in which two different historical figures (though somewhat of the same era) had to talk to each other. The exercise involved is useful, but its an 18th Century one -- the idea we should be compelled to follow them as if two centuries of experience does not changes matters is silly.
If not worse. Anyway, it was noted the Framers disagreed. Sure enough. The author brought up the account of Hamilton announcing (in some detail) that he was having an affair in order to explain that some disputed money was not insider trading but a bribe. But, his game was finance -- fiscal integrity was essential. For others, secrecy involving affairs of the heart would be a deep matter of honor. Consider the duel fought by Gen. Jackson over his "bigamy" given his wife's divorce didn't go thru when they at first thought it did.