God is Disappointed in You

boing
22

I’m not trying to make a religious or anti-religious remark, but I see a lot of talk of reading simpler, derivative works based on the bible, like a comic book based on the bible.

I feel like I should point out that if you can read a comic book based on the bible, it isn’t that much more difficult to read the actual bible. I can’t say if you will like it or what kind of reaction you might have, but it’s likely you will take at least something away from reading it.

I would like to recommend a very fine translation: The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary by Robert Alter. It is scholarly without being at all difficult. I feel it is an excellent choice if you’re an adult reading the bible for the first time.

I would further like to recommend some habits to have while reading it. Read the footnotes when you read it, if you are new to the bible it will point out some things that are considered interesting, or expand upon things that you may find unclear. Go ahead and try Genesis and then Exodus, which are the first two books, and you can say you’ve read some of the bible.

1 Like
24

Yep, forced sermons caused me to read quite a bit of the Bible (and earplugs helped tremendously). I only made it up to Isaiah or so, but it was worth the effort just to get a good feel of the Old Testament. Lots of fine language from the King James version. I’d like to have copies of both a revised King James version and the Jerusalem Bible simply for reference. But the main reason for writing is to mention The Book of J [Harold Bloom, David Rosenberg]. Scholars generally accept that there were four main authors (J, E, P, D for short [eh, look em up]) for the OT and Bloom teases out what seems to be the J parts and makes a convincing argument that this is essentially the first novel ever written. It is certainly a much easier read than the mishmash that is the Bible. Just to make thing a bit more entertaining, he also argues that J was probably a woman.

Edit: BTW, whole chunks of The Book of Daniel rival Revelations in bat shit weirdness.

2 Likes
25

Actually, that’s what I reckon god did. Despairing of we humans, he made kittens, butterflies and lambs. ftw.

26

Looks like a fun read I’m sure I’ll enjoy it, but then again I liked “Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal”.

I’m pretty sure they’ll find something to be offended about. That is sorta their thing. :slight_smile:

Zombies of course. That is the book where the dead rise and walk the earth.

awesome. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
27

But how can you trust a translation to carry the true meaning of the word? I can barely trust myself to get from thought to word.

28

Careful. You sound… offended.

2 Likes
29

Easy. Get the one true translation of the bible, that Cuthbert of Lindisfarne would have written himself if he was allowed to write in anything other than latin.

4 Likes
30

I’ll wait for the sequel; “God, I’m disappointed in you.”

3 Likes
31

Gin an, son.

2 Likes
32

The major problem with the Bible is one of context.

We don’t live in Judea during the Roman Empire two thousand years ago, or in Ancient Israel thousands of years before that. The average person doesn’t understand the significance of all the countless different symbols and metaphors that the Bible makes use of. They don’t have the necessary context to interpret what is actually being said.

I’m not a proper Biblical Scholar, but I’ve studied under several and they’ve demonstrated this time and again. You can’t understand the parable of the mustard seed unless you understand what a mustard seed meant to the people of Judea - it is literally impossible otherwise.

You can’t understand the full significance of Jesus’ actions at various points if you don’t already understand things like Judean cultural values on things like family and sharing meals with people. When Jesus’ family comes to fetch him and he says, “No, sorry, these people out here eatting lunch with me listening to me preach are my family”, that was for the time astoundingly, unthinkably shocking and offensive. You have to understand the rules and tabboos he broke, the social upheaval he caused, the scandal that was his life and teachings which today seem tame and ordinary.

Otherwise, you just read through the Bible and scratch your head in confusion because you aren’t in on the references - you don’t understand the code they’re speaking in. Or worse, you take what you read literally.

Whenever Jesus “healed” someone, it isn’t meant as a literal miracle - it’s a metaphor for spiritual healing. He speaks and gives “sight” to the “blind”, he speaks and gives “comfort” to those “suffering”, he speaks and those who are “paralyzed” become able to “walk”, he speaks and the “lepers” become “clean” and no longer have to live as outcasts.

And then there’s the trouble of translation and language. The Old Testament was written in Ancient Hebrew, while the New Testament was written in Ancient Greek. There are quite a lot of words that don’t translate well, or that lose something in the process. There are a lot of puns that modern readers miss, there are a lot of characters whose names literally reflect their obvious qualities (like a strong man being named “Hardy”), there are words that translate in multiple ways and whose intended meaning isn’t the most commonly used or easily understood…

Simply reading the Bible is a practice in futile confusion. Actually understanding it is a full academic undertaking requiring study of all the related history, culture, and language that went into the writing of the thing. I have profound respect for the people who actually do manage to study it with any degree of expertise, as I think I’d lack the patience.

So yeah, a simplified version is funny, in the way that reading a Simple English Wikipedia entry on complex organic chemistry is funny. But that’s all it is.

6 Likes
33

Sure, maybe. When different people from ancient to modern times have managed to interpret something in the bible very differently, and the existence of literal miracles is certainly an example, I tend to be hold people who claim the intended meaning is that certain with a lot skepticism.

2 Likes
34

I read the Bible a few times when I was younger, and listened to it on audio a few more times. I think a major problem with people’s reading is that they see it as a collection of stories with a moral that are somehow supposed to help us with our lives. People read a few verses a day, then go to some other part of the Bible for the next unrelated promise or interesting verse. I don’t “believe” in it anymore, but it is a fascinating set of works of literature. There are intricate themes and structural elements that are often missed in some translations. Numbers, repetition of themes and chiastic structures (like poetry, but using themes rather than sound or rhythm) are in many places and give hints to deeper meanings - such as that Genesis isn’t necessarily literal or chronological (or certainly that strict historicity isn’t the main point). The new testament is very easy to misunderstand if you aren’t familiar with the old testament, as it’s clear that Jesus wasn’t just speaking timeless words of wisdom but his teachings were intended to be seen in the context of Jewish teachings. Obviously as an atheist now I don’t believe in prophesy either, but however events like Easter week happened in reality, it says a lot about the beliefs of those writing the gospels that its relation is so closely tied to the symbolism of the old testament.

I’d suggest listening to an audio version and reading or listening to entire books in a relatively short period of time if you want to get a good sense of the meaning. A number of historical events are obviously inaccurate, particularly where it comes to numbers, but their idea of accuracy was different from ours. Books like Leviticus are both boring and infuriating to modern readers, but they are often fundamental to understanding other parts. Even if there isn’t any great objective truth to it, the Bible is a great insight into the subjective story of a fascinating culture over the course of many centuries and is probably worth reading for that reason alone.

1 Like
35

You’ve eloquently stated what I was thinking. Part of understanding the Bible is also realizing that the Bible itself is a shibboleth (also a biblical idea/term), yet none of us lived during that time and the knowledge, if discoverable, is in the realm of historical interpretation. Otherwise you end up with weird things about Lot’s wife being turned into salt and the gospel of Mathew talking about how humans are the salt of the earth and wait, what’s up with all this salt?

These aren’t straightforward stories to be taken literally, at least not literally in the sense of hearing a story of what happened last weekend or getting a report from the news.

36

Actually the Tanakh was written in both Hebrew and Aramaic. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox also added in a couple parts written in Greek.

But yeah, there are some translation issues - even ones made way nearly 2000 years ago. Like the whole “virgin” debacle - Isaiah’s prophecy in the original Hebrew states that the Messiah would be conceived by an almah (“young woman”) not a bethulah (“virgin”). And thus the Virgin Mary was born.

So you have to basically intentionally mistranslate the Tanakh in order not to piss Christians off.

4 Likes
37

It is not only the translations, but also the original editorial policy of picking certain gospels and leaving out others…

1 Like
38

Sure, maybe. When different people from ancient to modern times have
managed to interpret something in the bible very differently, and the
existence of literal miracles is certainly an example, I tend to be hold
people who claim the intended meaning is that certain with a lot
skepticism.

The thing is if you actually look at the entirety of the Gospels in the larger context of the historical and cultural setting, everything Jesus does is about upending the social order.

His entire movement is about taking back the Jewish faith from the corrupt priesthood and giving power back to the people. He was essentially the leader of an Iron Age Hippie movement in the backwaters of the Roman Empire.

Every person he heals or helps is symbolic. He wanted to break down the societal barriers of the times, he wanted to reform society.

You weren’t supposed to eat with people outside of your social class, yet Jesus ate with those who shared his beliefs. Your family was supposed to be your biological relatives, yet Jesus made those who shared his beliefs his family. The Roman Legions were the hated symbol of foreign imperial occupation, yet the Centurion came to Jesus for help and Jesus accepted him and his “servants” into the community. The Jewish priesthood were supposed to be an absolute, infallible authority, yet Jesus exposed their corruption and told people to think for themselves. The examples go on and on.

The guy was a counter-cultural revolutionary. He was out to reform the Jewish faith and Judean society. And you can only really get that if you understand how the Jewish faith and Judean society actually operated.

Overwhelmingly, I’ve repeatedly found that literal interpretations of religious texts crop up chiefly among the uneducated. Just look at the Cargo Cults of Melanesia for a perfect example.

Is it any surprise, then, that in the two thousand years since Jesus lived that literal interpretations of his words cropped up time and again?

So go ahead and be skeptical, but ask yourself what you’re really basing your skepticism on. If you prefer a literal interpretation, what leads you to that preference?

Have you taken the time to start looking into biblical scholarship? Do you have even a partial understanding of the complex world of ancient Judea with all its foreign cultural and societal rules and values?

It’s astoundingly easy to prefer a literal interpretation over a metaphorical one when you aren’t capable of understanding the metaphors being made. It’s like believing that light bulbs work via magic because you don’t properly understand the nature of electricity.

5 Likes
39

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household."

–Jesus, According to Matthew, KJV

40

I work for a Jewish animation nonprofit that does exactly this - tries to adapt parts of the bible into animations, and let me assure you, there’s no way not to offend someone.

Whether it’s through the need to omit a piece for the sake of time, the choice to go with one interpretation of the text over another, or from time to time a fairly innocent oversight, someone always seems to be offended. When it comes to anything dealing with reinterpreting old texts, it doesn’t matter who you are - you’re walking on thin ice.

With that said, for every one person offended, another thousand love it, so it’s important to take it all with a grain of salt.

Obviously, there’s going to be differences and problems depending on who you ask, but anything that gets people going back to the original source, even if it’s debate the said interpretation, seems worthwhile to me. Not just for the bible, but also for something like Gaiman’s take on Beowulf or Shakespear4Kidz. It’s not a replacement, it’s a lovely compliment for anyone who otherwise wouldn’t think of approaching it.

2 Likes
41

I do know people sometimes misunderstand metaphors. I also know people sometimes assume metaphors or even sarcasm in ancient texts where it is scarcely evident save how they’d like to read them, even things like Euripides or Livy that people are much less attached to.

I didn’t argue for any interpretation, just that when people are so divided on an interpretation it is probably because there are multiple sensible readings.

That Jesus literally performed miracle healings could be a belief found more among the uneducated, but it is something you do find theologians accept, and the idea seems to go back to at least later Roman times. That leaves me skeptical that the text and context really make a figurative intent the obvious conclusion; I could say the same about a literal intent.

Or is there something so unambiguous here that I can really conclude anyone who has interpreted them as intended literally must be someone who doesn’t understand Judaea?

1 Like
42

This translation looks very interesting and I am putting it on my wish list. I am concerned that it lacks annotations so places where there are multiple possible translations, or discussions where biblical scholars find the text to have been damaged over the years, is missing.

It is I’ve read parts of the Jewish Bible (everything Robert Alter has translated) and all of the New Testament, with annotations from Jewish authors. Bible translation is very difficult. I like Alter’s translations because he goes back to the originals and sometimes an annotation will say “we really don’t know how to translate this sentence”). Many popular translations of parts of the Jewish Bible are questionable. I think rocket science is easier than doing this translation work.