A Few More Words

Rachel Held Evans in the book discussed last time examines what the Bible says about womanhood. 

This effect includes looking at the actual words and researching what various sources have analyzed them to mean. This is the work of a lifetime for many.

I was quite interested in college reading biblical commentaries, a study room having a multi-volume set covering the books of the Bible. I have The New American Bible (Catholic) and it has in-depth footnotes that provide loads of context.

People are generally left with reading the Bible in translation. One website helpfully provides many versions to pick from when you search for a biblical verse. For instance, the version I have does not translate Proverbs 31 as talking about a "woman of valor" but as a "worthy woman." 

[See, e.g., this comparison of translations of the same verse from Ruth, a "woman of valor."]

The value of a good translator is seen when you read a foreign novel in English translation. If you think translation is trivial, compare some first-year Latin student's translation of Julius Caesar with an expert. 

A good Bible will have footnotes that cross-referenced verses. The Bible is filled with material that becomes richer if you understand the allusions to other books as well as when the same themes are covered elsewhere. 

The Bible is made richer if you understand the context. For instance, it has two sets of books that discuss the kings of Israel. Each was written at different times, from different points of view.  

Translations also can rob the text of basic meanings. Muslims take this to an extreme by arguing the only true version of the Quran is in the original Arabic, which quite a few believers do not truly understand. 

For instance, the Bible can translate something as "God," when this specific name of God matters. The New Testament sometimes speaks of "powers," which are not just a reference to the Romans. In some cases, they are references to literal evil forces in the world. 

Evans shows the value of a deep reading of the Bible. For instance, some translate a portion of Genesis to mean Eve was a "help-meet" of Adam, interpreting it in a submissive way. Evans notes the term was also applied in other cases to God himself. 

See also, Acts 15, which discusses the Council of Jerusalem which sets forth four basic rules for Gentile Christians to follow. The language in different versions is notably different. Do people have to avoid "sexual immorality" "fornication" or "any kind of sexual sin?" And, what do these terms even mean? 

[I recall one interpretation was concerned with Jewish marriage rules. A looser translation would allow premarital sex if it was not "immoral" or "sinful" in nature. People find a lot of wiggle room there.]  

And, different translations are more poetic. I love the "for now we see through a glass, darkly" line but that is only in some versions. Years back I read a good young adult book that had that line it it. 

I enjoy Bart Ehrman's writings but sometimes he does assume too much. For instance, we simply do not know how much of the gospels are accurate. 

They discuss stuff that happened forty or more years before, using varying details. Any assumptions, e.g., about Judas Iscariot (whose "last name" alone is not totally clear) are guess estimates. 

The Hebrew scriptures are even more worthy of a grain of salt. They were written a range of dates over a span of hundreds of years. Sometimes, such as Daniel, they clearly are a form of historical fiction only said to be written in the period covered. And, they are largely based on oral and written materials we do not have. 

Those who interpret and apply all these materials have to do the best they can. The effort can be fascinating. It would be great, for instance, if I could find a book on Ruth (a book of four chapters) that provides an in-depth look at the many things taking place. Note too that some see Naomi and Ruth as a model for lesbians. Okay. Well, just remember, Ruth is her daughter-in-law.  

No wonder Rachel Held Evans loved the Bible so much. I'm no evangelical, and find it quite interesting.