APPROACHING THE BIBLE
By Bob Parvin
APPROACHING THE BIBLE
By Bob Parvin
Approaching the Bible as Literature
Approaching the Bible as a Moral Guide
Approaching the Bible as a Salvation Guide
Preparing this Web page is my latest attempt to familiarize myself with the Bible and to share some of my information, sources, and links.
Although we speak of "the Bible," there are at least four Bibles without considering all of the different translations. There is the Protestant Bible, Catholic Bible, Eastern Orthodox Bible, and Hebrew Bible, which is the same as the Old Testament in the Protestant Bible except the arrangement is a bit different and Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are not divided.
The Bible is an anthology of ancient religious writings consisting of 39 "books" in the Old Testament of the Protestant Bible and 46 in the Catholic Bible OT. The additional books in the Catholic Bible are included in the Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible. Both Bibles have 27 books in the New Testament. The books vary greatly in length; Genesis has 50 chapters and Obadiah has only one short chapter.
The OT is was written and compiled over the period of from roughly 1000 to 100 BCE. The New Testament was written probably between 50 and 120 CE. The order of the books and even the order of the chapters is not strictly the order in which they were written.
The Bible is the first book ever printed with movable type. It was the Gutenberg Bible (Jerome's Vulgate translation in Latin) printed in the 1450s in Germany. To see a digital copy of a page from Genesis, go to The Gutenberg Bible. It was illuminated (decorated) by hand.
For an excellent discussion on what the Old Testament is go to What is the Old testament?
The Protestant Old Testament consists of the following four major parts:
The New Testament consists of the following parts:
For very brief summaries of the books of the Bible go to A Summary of the Contents of Each Bible Book.
In preparing to read the Bible the conclusion we reach about its origin will at least partly determine how we interpret it. For many conservative Christians the question of who wrote the Bible is an easy one: God Wrote it!
Dr. Jack Waskey's short answer to the question of who wrote the Bible is the Holy Spirit, but he concedes that the process of the inspiration of many people in producing the bible was a complicated process. See Who Wrote the Bible?
Others find the question even more complicated. Here are excerpts from an authoritative book by Richard Elliott Friedman: Who wrote the Bible and when? He tells how three 18th Century people independently found evidence in the Bible that the OT is a composite of writings from at least four different sources, and there was a redactor or editor who knitted the writings together. This conclusion is known as the Documentary Hypothesis, which has come to be accepted by practically all mainstream biblical scholars.
Allen Stairs also explains the Documentary Hypothesis and also addresses the implications this may have on ones beliefs in Who Wrote the Bible?
For a wonderful poem by someone who writes like a religious scientist on who wrote the Bible go to The Word of God.
Based on what I have read my conclusion is that the Bible has its roots in oral tradition. Many of the stories, instructions, laws, etc. that circulated were derived from other cultures, and many were indigenous. There had to be many versions of these, and at some point about three millennia ago people began selecting, writing, combining, adding and subtracting, revising, editing, canonizing, and translating the material which became the Bibles that we read. The secular interpreter, Jacques Berlinerblau, Associate Professor of Comparative Literature and Languages at Hofstra University, argues in his book, The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously, that the Bible was "assembled" rather than authored, so it doesn't make much sense to ask "who wrote the Bible."
The Bible recites a lot of history, but its compilers were not historians in the modern sense. They did not worry about verifying historical accounts in the way that modern historians do. They used history as the scaffolding for their theological messages. At what point the history becomes reasonably accurate is debatable. For a brief discussion of this subject go to The Bible and history and to The Bible as History .
For an excellent brief survey of Old Testament biblical history go to Old Testament Life and Literature by Gerald Larue, professor emeritus of Biblical History and Archaeology at the University of Southern California.
According to Finkelstein and Silberman in The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin (2001) archeologists can't say much about ancient Israel until about the 7th century B.C.E. in about the time of King Josiah's reign. They do agree that King David (probably ruled from 1010 to 970 B.C.E.) and King Solomon were historical figures (1 Kings). For a summary of the author's findings cursor down the amazon.com Web page to Mark Wylie's review of the book.
To get a glimpse of the archeological debate go to Archeology vs. the Bible, You Decide.
For some good historical/anthropological background go to An Anthropologist Looks at the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
Far more important than the interpretation of words, phrases, or verses is how we personally interpret the nature of the Bible. For example, it makes an enormous difference whether you believe that Genesis 1:1-2 is infallible cosmology or an allegory. It makes little difference whether you think the Genesis "first day" was our 24-hour day or an eon, which only reflects how fast you think God allegedly did His work.
Berlinerblau asserts that this "textual assemblage" (of the Bible) results in a "meaning jungle." He quotes William Blake's The Everlasting Gospel: "Both read the Bible day and night, but thou readst black where I read white." In addition to the problem of inconsistencies Berlinerbau points out that the untranslated biblical Hebrew is often "broken, grammatically flawed, or inscrutable." Translators have often tried to make sense out of sentences that make no sense.
In approaching the Bible we need to get our assumptions out on the table and examine them. The first thing we should examine is our grounds for beliefs in general. Are our grounds for believing the Bible any different from those for believing, for example, a book on the history of Egypt? Is the Bible itself adequate proof for our biblical beliefs? How can we choose between conflicting holy books? These questions get us into the deep waters of the philosophy of religion and especially the epistemology of religion. I suggest you test the waters by going to Philosophy of Religion.
We approach the Bible with different assumptions and personal grounds for belief that are derived from our family background, early religious training, education, and needs. Here are three positions:
The religious conservatives' belief that the Bible is the word of God is taken on faith, and their grounds for belief is the religious authority of the text itself. They seek certainty and the security of a well-defined deity by rejecting modernity and a universe ruled by impersonal probabilistic natural law. They usually have a heavy emotional/spiritual investment in the Bible that they protect.
To understand what at least one conservative means by reading the Bible literally go to Interpretation 101, which discusses the literal and allegorical methods of interpretation.
Some secularists also tend to read the bible literally in a negative way when they cite things they find offensive such as all of the brutality, injustices, and vulgarities. For example, they may use a literal reading of the flood to show how monstrous the OT God was and then show that a global flood is scientifically impossible and that there is no evidence for such a god in the first place. Some may look at the Bible objectively and neutrally in much the same way as a cultural anthropologist might look at it and find the subject intriguing. They may assume that the ancient composers of the Bible were simply trying to make sense of their world and their relation to it without the benefit of science and enlightenment rationality.
For a scholarly and authoritative discussion of faith and reason go to Faith and Reason. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1).
It may be useful at this point to distinguish between theism, deism, and atheism. Theism is the belief in a god(s) or, more particularly, a belief that a god(s) is part of the world or universe, yet transcends it, and is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Deism is a belief on the basis of reason alone in the past work of a god that only created the universe without having any further influence upon it or mankind. Many of our founding fathers were deists. Atheism is either the absence of a belief in a deity, "without theism," because they see no convincing evidence for such a claim (weak atheism) or the denial of a deity (strong atheism). An agnostic is one who either believes it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god (strong agnostic) or one who simply has no position on the issue (weak agnostic). A weak agnostic was asked if his position was one of ignorance or apathy to which he replied, "I don't know, and I don't care."
Two technical terms that we often encounter in biblical interpretation are "hermeneutics," which may mean the principles or a principle or method of interpretation, and "exegesis," which may mean the application of the principles or an explanation of the text.
An interesting book by a mainstream Christian academic on reading the Bible is Reading the Bible for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally by Marcus J. Borg, the Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University. He mixes his own theology with his scholarship, which is common for biblical scholars. For a sample of the book go to Reading the Creation Stories Again.
As Borg sees it, there are two main ways of reading the Bible: One is reading the Bible as the "word of God." The second is the 'historical-metaphorical approach" in which questions such as these are raised: What did the Bible mean to the authors in their ancient setting? What do the biblical narratives mean as stories? Is the verse or chapter true in a deeper sense even though not literally true? Is Genesis 1 an historical account about a week of divine cosmological creation or is it simply a "poem" about God and His relation to the Universe and his precedent establishing the sabbath?
There has been a long and growing tradition of Christians reading the Bible in Borg's way. It allows them to take the Bible seriously without rejecting modernity and science. They can believe that Jesus was special without believing that he walked on water.
A good exercise to perform in clarifying our approach to the Bible is to ask ourselves what assumptions we are making about the Bible that we would not make about the holy books from other religions, and what evidence would we require to believe other holy books that we would not require in believing the Bible.
For an excellent discussion of methods of interpretation go to Methods of Interpreting the Bible. It describes four common ways of interpreting the Bible.
To begin with, we need to distinguish between Bible studies, which study what the Bible says and means, and biblical studies, which study the Bible critically.
"Biblical criticism" is a catch-all for scholarly analysis focusing on various aspects of the Bible. We should understand that "criticism" in this sense means analysis rather than faultfinding. Biblical criticism is not accepted by conservative Christians. For example, they do not approve of the Jesus Seminar, which is a group of academic theologians who study what the Bible says that Jesus said and did, see Jesus Seminar.
One type of biblical criticism is higher criticism, which deals with sources and literary methods used by the biblical writers. Lower criticism (textual criticism) is a study of the wording and context of the text to find the most reliable rendition. Historical criticism looks for the historical setting and context of the writing. One aspect of historical criticism is source criticism that looks for the sources of the text. Literary criticism deals with the literary aspects of the Bible, which we will return to below. For a good discussion of these subjects go to Biblical Criticism.
Susan Niditch, associate professor of religion at Amherst College and author of A Prelude to Biblical Folklore: Underdogs and Tricksters believes that much of the Bible is folklore, and she is critical of Bible scholars for not recognizing this. The late Professor Alan Dundes, the noted folklorist at UC Berkeley and author of Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore, argues that the Bible is folklore, and the evidence is the frequent retelling of stories with variation. These are the main characteristics of folklore. Technically, folklore may be true, partly true, true in a poetic sense, or fictional.
To read more about the views of Dundes and Niditch on the subject of the folklore in the Bible go to Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore / A Prelude to Biblical Folklore: Underdogs and Tricksters.
Most universities have courses on the "Bible as literature." Here is an example: The Bible as Literature. It gives a good description of what the course is all about.
Whatever one thinks of the Bible, it contains a ton of literature of several genre. Much of it will hold our interest, but there are many patches that are as boring as the phone book.
If a literalist and a secularist discuss the Genesis creation story, they will bump up against a brick wall of conflicting mutual certitude, but they can have a good discussion of it as literature without considering whether it is revelation or folklore.
To see the value of attending to the literary aspect of the Bible, go to Different Kinds of Literature in the Bible, Part I and II. Robert Alter, Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature at UC
Berkeley, argues in The Literary Guide to the Bible, which he co-edits, that attending to the literary aspects of the Bible is not simply for the sake of literary appreciation but for better understanding the author's intent.
An excellent book on the Bible as literature is entitled The Bible as literature: An Introduction, (4th Edition), which can be purchased used for about $5. (The 5th Ed., 2005, sells new for about $47.) The view taken by the authors is that the Bible is an anthology of writings by real people over a period of actual historical times. They argue that this does not necessarily conflict with the belief that the Bible was written under the inspiration of God; however, I wouldn't recommend this book to very conservative Christians. The book uses modern scholarship to take a broad look at the whole Bible including the Apocrypha without religious bias. I gather that the book is used in many university courses at least for supplemental reading; however, it is a very accessible and interesting book for the general reader.
There are far more characters in the Bible than even in a Russian novel, so a family tree can help us to keep them straight. Go to A Biblical Genealogy or Genealogy. To read about a character go to the excellent People and Characters in the Bible. The biographic sketches are brief but quite comprehensive.
The Bible is a rich source of quotable sayings. For a good collection of Bible quotations from listed biblical books go to All Great Quotes.
There are great moral gems in the Bible. One of my favorite gems is in Paul's letter to the Galatians: (5:13-14, CEV) "My friends, you were chosen to be free. So don't use your freedom as an excuse to do anything you want. Let it be an opportunity to serve each other with love. All that the law says can be summed up in the command to love others as much as you love yourself." But he goes further in 1 Thessalonians: (4:9-12, CEV) "We don't have to write to you about the need to love each other. God has taught you to do this, and you already have shown your love for all of his people in Macedonia. But, my dear friends, we ask you to do even more. Try your best to live quietly, to mind your own business, and to work hard, just as we taught you to do. Then you will be respected by people who are not followers of the Lord, and you won't have to depend on anyone." He could also be speaking to us today.
Paul gave some less universal advice regarding slavery. See Colosians 3:22 (CEV): "Slaves, you must always obey your earthly masters. Try to please them at all times, and not just when you think they are watching. Honor the Lord and serve your masters with your whole heart." Also see what he said in Colosians 4: "Slave owners, be fair and honest with your slaves. Don't forget that you have a master in heaven." At that ancient time and place this was undoubtedly a morally progressive viewpoint, but moral standards regarding slavery and many other practices have evolved over the last two millennia. Therefore, when we approach the Bible for moral instruction, we must consider how it should be read in our more morally enlightened time.
If you are concerned about current moral issues such as global warming, stem cell research, cloning, contraception, abortion, and preemptive warfare, don't look to the Bible for explicit moral guidance or even clear, consistent general moral principles. On the other hand, if you are concerned about our moral obligations to the poor, the Bible has lots of explicit timeless advice. See, for example, Deuteronomy 14:29-42 (CEV): "...You must also give food to the poor who live in your town, including orphans, widows, and foreigners. If they have enough to eat, then the LORD your God will be pleased and make you successful in everything you do."
Jesus said in Matthew 5:39 (CEV), "But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you. When someone slaps your right cheek, turn and let that person slap your other cheek. If someone sues you for your shirt, give up your coat as well. If a soldier forces you to carry his pack one mile, carry it two miles. When people ask you for something, give it to them. When they want to borrow money, lend it to them." Also see Mark 10:21: "Jesus looked closely at the man. He liked him and said, 'There's one thing you still need to do. Go sell everything you own. Give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven. Then come with me.'" These are nice moral sentiments, but how many people including Bible literalists would turn the other cheek today or sell everything and give all the money to the poor, thus becoming poor themselves? Not many because it is not very sensible, but perhaps this was not intended to be interpreted literally.
It is necessary to have an enlightened moral philosophy before approaching the Bible or any holy book so that we can make an independent judgment on how the guidance should be read in our time and place. This points to a big problem today in Islam. For example, some Muslims believe the Qur'an is telling them to kill all infidels, and they act on it without carefully considering how the Qur'an should be read and without making an independent moral judgment derived from more enlightened current values.
See Bible passages considered immoral by today's theologians and secularists.
Most Christians probably believe that the most important role of the Bible is to show believers the way to salvation. As in the case of other subjects, the Bible speaks with many disparate voices on salvation. To see the stark differences in salvation doctrine, see SALVATION: Historical & current Christian beliefs. Also see The All-Important Matter of Salvation.
To see more Bible passages related to salvation, see Salvation Related Passages in Christian Scriptures.
To read an interesting conservative Christian take on biblical theology and humanistic philosophy and psychology, go to Comparing Basic Biblical Theology with Humanistic Philosophy. The author believes that humanistic psychology has jumped theology's claim. He says, "At the heart of Biblical Theology, three great doctrines reveal the whole of what man’s relationship to God and God’s relationship to man is really all about. These three great doctrines deal with sin, salvation from sin, and life beyond the earthly grave... Biblical orthodoxy declares the uncompromising truth of these three doctrines. It is not that other Biblical doctrines are not as important, it is just that if you deny any of these three, you have destroyed the reason for the Christian Faith altogether."
For a good introduction to theology go to Introduction to Theology and Theological Language.
The Process
The first big problem in translating the Bible is to decide which ancient texts to translate since there is no one existing original text for any of the books of either the OT or the NT. According to Stephen L. Harris (see below), the usual starting place for the OT is the Mesoritic text embodied in the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex and for the NT it is the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexanrinus, and Codex Betae. (A codex is an ancient biblical manuscript book that replaced scrolls.) There are a lot of other sources including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Different translators may use somewhat different sources, and there may be differences of opinion on which sources have a better pedigree.
The process of canonization was to a significant extent arbitrary. Some books made the cut and others didn't, and the reasons for this were not necessarily logical. The canonized Old Testament was first written mostly in ancient Hebrew and some in Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in koine (common) Greek because many Christians had come under Greek influence especially at Alexandria.
After the translator has selected his sources, he has to understand the meaning of the language in its historical context. This is fraught with many problems involving the frequent ambiguity of the text involving problems of word equivalency, idioms, poetic construction, wordplay, grammar, and syntax. There are also the problems of reconstructing the historical and cultural context.
Once the translator has settled on the meaning, he/she must decide whether to try to preserve the form as nearly as possible in a "word for word" translation (formal equivalence), which often results in an unnatural syntax or to place more emphasis on meaning and readability (and sound when read aloud) by "meaning for meaning" translation or paraphrase (dynamic or functional equivalence).
Another problem is deciding what reading level to aim for. For a general family readership the best solution is to use simple but not childish contemporary language.
Biblical translation is no easy task, and it is loaded with uncertainty!
The Old testament was first written mostly in Hebrew and was referred to as the Hebrew Bible. When it was translated into Greek around the 3rd century B.C.E., it was called the Septuagint. The New Testament books were first written in Greek. In the early 5th century C.E., a priest named Jerome produced the monumental Latin Vulgate Bible by translating the Hebrew Bible and the Greek NT into Latin.
Early English Translations
The first English versions of the Bible were the two made by John Wycliffe and his associates by translating the Latin Vulgate Bible (1380-1397). Wycliffe was an English priest who wanted to give lay people access to the scriptures, which the national church didn't want to happen. After his death the church declared him a heretic, exhumed his body, and burned the remains.
The first English translation from Hebrew and Greek sources was by still another priest named William Tyndale (1530-1535). He was also opposed by the church, and he was eventually declared a heretic, strangled, and burned at the stake for his worthy efforts.
The first complete Bible to be printed in English was the Miles Coverdale, a priest, translation called the Coverdale Bible (1535), which the church allowed to be distributed. He was also involved in the preparation of the Great Bible published in 1539.
Queen Mary forbade the use of English Bibles, so a group of discontents went to Geneva, Switzerland, and produced the Geneva Bible (1560). It was the first to use numbered verses and separate paragraphs. It was the Bible used by the Puritans and the Pilgrims.
The Bishop's Bible, which was a revision of the Great Bible, was published in 1568, and it became the basis for the King James Version (KJV) published in 1611. One factor that made the KJV widely read was Gutenberg's invention of the printing press 1455. It was the dominating translation for centuries. No, the KJV was not dictated by God in Elizabethan English, but the KJV text has become a tradition. The KJV is nearly a "word for word" translation with the goal of preserving the word order of the original languages, which often makes for clumsy English. The KJV is apparently a good translation for its time considering the translators' more limited knowledge of the ancient languages and the more limited material that they had to work with, but it is now outdated from a biblical scholar's point of view. It is much loved and very widely distributed but little read because its language is so archaic.
Some people may prefer the KJV because they have a faith-based belief that it is more "authentic." Some fundamentalists support a King James Only movement. Other people may feel attached to the KJV because it is more "literary;" they love the Elizabethan language. To some people the notion of making a modern translation of the Bible is like making a modern translation of Shakespeare. Many of the familiar KJV quotations sound flat in modern translations.
Modern English Translations
The first revision of the KJV was the British effort called the Revised Version (RV) published in 1885. The OT was an update and refinement of the KJV, and the NT was a translation from the Greek text. An American adaptation of it was called the American Standard Version (1901), which was the forerunner of Revised Standard Version (1952) and the New American Standard Bible (1971). The announcement of the RSV was big news in 1952, and I along with 1,600,000 other people went out and bought a copy in the first year.
What is the Bible?
Who Wrote the Bible?
Bible Interpretation
Biblical Criticism
Approaching the Bible as Literature
Approaching the Bible as a Moral Guide
Approaching the Bible as a Salvation Guide
Bible Translation
"On a June day last year, a group of scholars stood up from their work in a book-cluttered room of the Yale Divinity School to say a short prayer together. It was an important moment for learning and for Protestantism. After 14 years of patient work, their 32-man committee had completed the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, the most important English translation of the Scriptures since a slightly larger group of English scholars handed their three-year work to King James I in 1611."
|
|---|
The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), online, first published by the National Council of Churches in 1991 is a translation that is more or less the gold standard among many biblical scholars. It is often used by mainstream Protestant churches and by others who want an unbiased translation. It is easy to read, but the wording is sometimes a bit awkward because it uses "word for word" translation to a large extent. Some editions come with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books.
A broadly based group of Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant scholars refined the New English Bible producing The Revised English Bible (REB), 1989, (unable to find it online), which provides good scholarship and good readability. It is the one that Stephen Harris uses for biblical citations in his text, Understanding the Bible, which carries weight with me. It goes further toward the "meaning for meaning" approach than the NRSV and reads more smoothly aloud or silently. It is my choice of a translation for a literate adult reader.
One of the most accessible Bible versions is the Contemporary English Version (CEV), online, published by the American Bible Society in 1995. The "meaning for meaning" approach was used in its translation, and the quality of translation is somewhat controversial. Some regard it as good, and others think that the translation is too free-wheeling. It was translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic OT texts and the Greek NT texts published by the United Bible Societies with some refinement. Some feel that the language has been "dumbed down," but although the language is simple, it is not childish except for a few phrases. It would be my choice for a young family. Another Bible of this genre is the Holy Bible: New Living Translation. (The original Living Bible is one person's paraphrase of an existing Bible, apparently the American Standard Bible, rather than a translation.) The Good News Translation, sometimes titled the Good News Bible, was an earlier fairly good translation into simple English offered by the American Bible Society.
The New Jerusalem Bible, Reader's Edition (NJB), online, is used by many Catholics and some Protestants. It has introductions and a helpful outline "plan" for each book and the outline is superimposed on the text along with minor headings. There is a good theological glossary, a helpful chronological table, an index off persons, and maps at the end. It includes all 43 books of the Catholic OT. It is a good readable modern translation tending a little more toward the "meaning for meaning" approach than the NRSV. The quality of the paper in the paperback Reader's Edition is mediocre. This Bible is not approved for Catholic liturgical purposes. Two other Catholic Bibles, which I understand are approved for liturgical use, are a modified version of the New American Bible with the 1986 Revised New Testament, with inclusive language removed" and The Ignatius Bible: Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition.
The best-selling New International Version (NIV), online, which is the work of evangelical scholars and was published in 1978. The NIV is quite accessible and sounds good when read aloud. It is said to have an evangelical Protestant bias; see New International Version.
For information on other translations go to Bibles.
Comparison of Translations
To compare translations let's turn to Judges 18:18-19. Five men barged into Micah's house, and here is what was said according to the KJV translation:
"And these went into Micah's house, and fetched the carved image, the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image. Then said the priest unto them, What do ye? And they said unto him, Hold thy peace, lay thy hand upon thy mouth, and go with us, and be to us a father and a priest:"
Here are translations of the two verses from the above six modern Bible versions:
Notice that the meaning of all six modern translations and the KJV is essentially the same with different shades of emotion. In my view it is a mistake to get hung up on the particular wording used; the meaning is the important thing for me. Which rendering do you think sounds right in modern idiomatic English considering the circumstances of the soldiers barging in?
I knew a first grade teacher who quieted her students by telling them to "close your mouth." An ancient biblical writer might have said in Hebrew "put your hand over your mouth," which apparently was a common idiom. A more direct modern English-speaking teacher might say, "Be quiet please." Or, if more exasperated, "Hey! Be quiet!"
One way to compare the translations from the literary standpoint is to look at their rendering of the verses you are familiar with such as the Lord's Prayer (Mathew 6:9-13), the Beatitudes (Mathew 5:3-10), and the 23rd Psalm.
The issue of the differences in the four modern translations mentioned boils down to this: They may be of considerable importance to biblical scholars, but they are of minor significance for the average reader because these difference are much less significant than the uncertainty involved in the whole process of translation.
Of course, in a church setting it is desirable for everyone to have the same translation, and if it is a conservative Christian church using the KJV, one could also use a modern translation such as the NASB for his personal or family use. One can then enjoy the poetic language and cadence of the KJV and the greater transparency of the modern translation. In a mainstream Protestant church the Bible used may be the NRSV, but a young family might choose the CEV for home use.
For an excellent discussion and comparison of English Bible versions go to The Development of English Bible Versions. You can also compare text of several translations of the Bible on BibleGateway.com mentioned above.
People with a weak biblical background need to use a study Bible with a modern translation and with background material, book introductions or synopses, and notes. In selecting one we need to choose one that fits our assumptions about the Bible and has our preferred translation.
If you prefer the REB, a good study Bible published by the Oxford University Press is the The Oxford Study Bible: Revised English Bible with Apocrypha, which includes 196 pages of articles giving very helpful background material on the Bible. For each book it gives an introduction and copious annotation written by contributors from Jewish, Catholic, and various Protestant traditions. It also has a good index of people, places, and themes, and 14 maps. It is my choice for an adult study Bible.
Another well-regarded study Bible published by the Oxford University Press using the NRSV is the The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, Third Edition. At the end it has a lot of useful information such as "Modern Approaches to Biblical Study," and it includes a concordance and a large indexed map section. A work similar to the Oxford Annotated Bible is the less popular The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books.
If you prefer the CEV for a study Bible, then consider the The Learning Bible, Contemporary English Version published by the American Bible Society. It has an attractive format and is loaded with helpful marginal notes, all kinds of graphics including a good map section, and lots of essays. It has an introduction to each division of the Bible and an introduction and outline or each book. It has one column per page (with marginal notes) like a novel rather than the usual two cramped columns per page, and the font is easy to read. It is a big heavy book containing 2,400 pages, so one needs to read it on a table or stand or on pillow in the lap. It is my choice for a young family. The Learning Bible also comes in the New International Version.
There are also study Bibles available with the NASB translation such as the MacArthur, Rylie, Zondervan, and Scofield NASB study Bibles with varying degrees of doctrinal bias.
Evangelicals may be more comfortable with the translation and notes and commentary of the Zondervan NIV Study Bible, 2002 Ed., a hefty 2,240 pages.
Those who have even more interest in the Bible and who want to ratchet it up a notch may also want to obtain a suitable Bible commentary. They comment on each division down to the verse level. Since these commentaries may include a lot of opinion, it is important to get one that reflects ones Bible assumptions.
A mainstream commentary is the Harper-Collins Bible Commentary (2000 Ed., 1232 pages). The Commentary starts off with a good introduction including a general essay on the Bible followed by an essay entitled "The Bible and Its Communities." Next comes overviews of the Old Testament, Apocrypha, and the New Testament. Next are essays on "The Ancient Near East," "The Greco-Roman Period, and "Reading and Interpreting the Bible." Then there is an "Introduction to the Biblical story, Genesis-Esther" followed by an introduction to Genesis. Then the commentary starts with a two paragraph introduction on "The Beginnings," 1:1-11:32. This is followed by the detailed commentary "The Two Creation Accounts," 1:1-2:24; "The Six Days of Creation," 1:3-31 and continuing on. This same pattern is followed throughout the rest of the book. This commentary provides a lot of information and opinion and is a good reference book, but it tells me more than I really want to know. The Oxford Bible Commentary is similar and highly regarded but more expensive and much less popular.
The encyclopedic, mainstream Harper-Collins Bible Dictionary (1996 Ed., 1280 pages) is another way to go. It explains divisions and books of the Bible, has outlines of the contents of the books and explains people, places, terms, and events of the Bible and includes a map section. This is a very useful book to have close at hand when reading the Bible.
I like the mainstream Pocket Bible Commentary (1961) by William Neil, who is an avowed Christian rather than a neutral scholar. (I bought a new copy through a used book affiliate of amazon.com for $0.45.) I like it because it is so well-written, and it is relatively brief and compact (544 pages). I like his view of the Bible: "The Bible does not stand or fall by the accuracy of its information, because it is not a textbook of science, or history or archaeology. It stands or falls by what it has to say about the purpose of life, the meaning of the world we live in, and the reality that lies behind it." (page 13)
Moderately conservative Christians who use the NIV Bible would probably prefer the The New International Bible Commentary (1999 Ed., 1664 pages) whose commentaries are from 43 world-class evangelical scholars. Really conservative Christians would probably prefer Halley's Bible Manual: An Abbreviated Bible Commentary, which is a very compact book and a very conservative commentary.
The Oxford Companion to the Bible is encyclopedic, but it is not really an encyclopedia. It has more than 700 alphabetically arranged articles by experts covering many aspects of the Bible and related topics. Included in the topics are entries for each book of the Bible and for the important characters. This book is a treasure trove for any open-minded person who is seriously interested in the Bible. You can get a good used copy for less than $4.00, which is certainly a bargain for this interesting and useful volume from Oxford University Press.
Although it is not a verse by verse commentary, Asimov's Guide to the Bible "explores the historical, geographic, and biographical aspects of the events described in the Old and New Testaments." It has much interesting background comment that is helpful before reading each book of the Bible. Although Asimov is a non-theist, he treats the Bible respectfully as well as objectively.
There is an enormous amount of information about the Bible online. For an extensive religious encyclopedia go to Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity.
For an outline of the Bible go to The 66 Books of the Bible, which has an outline and links to BibleGateway.com where you can choose the translation desired and read the full text. For a good outline/summary go to Bible Outline. For longer summaries of all of the books of the Bible go to Summaries of the OT, NT, and each of the 66 Books. You can find key points in the OT and NT in Key Points Locator.
If you want to find a name or phrase in your choice of Bible version go to Crosswalk.com.
There is no shortage of books about the Bible. The trick is to find books that are compatible with our feeling about it unless we are open to other viewpoints.
Those who would like a highly readable tour of the Bible including a synopsis of each book might enjoy Don't Know Much About The Bible by Kenneth C. Davis. (I have seen new copies offered for less than $4 by Amazon's used book dealers.) Davis is not a biblical scholar, but his is a good researcher and an entertaining writer. It's a good read, but it's too irreverently written for conservative Christians.
An interesting, insightful, and well-written blog, The Complete Blogging the Bible So Far by David Plotz, reminds me of Davis' style but is even more irreverent. Plotz is doing a running commentary as he reads the whole Bible for the first time. As you read his reactions to the stories, you may find yourself thinking, oh yeah, I wondered about that too.
Another well-written book that won't appeal to conservative Christians is Understanding the Bible: An Introduction for Skeptics, Seekers, and Religious Liberals.
A book that will appeal to more conservative Christians is How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee, Professor of New Testament at Regent College, and Douglass Stuart, Professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.
The best selling textbook used in university religious studies courses on the Bible is Understanding the Bible (7th Ed., 2006, ($57.81 new) by Stephen Harris, professor emeritus, Department of Humanities and Religious Studies, California State University, Sacramento. Like-new copies of the 6th Edition have been available for about $5 plus S & H from amazon.com used-book dealers. Although it's a textbook, it's quite accessible. Harris is an objective, non-sectarian scholar/teacher who reflects the work of mainstream biblical scholars. It begins with a good background on the Bible, and then it has a good discussion of each of the books in the Bible. It also has an excellent glossary. I highly recommend this book to those who are open to the conclusions of mainstream scholars.
Before we begin reading the Bible, we need to plan our attack. The first thing we need to consider is our purpose in reading it. Is it to find inspirational verses or to read the most popular Bible stories or to read the whole thing? Our purpose will determine the depth to which we mine the text. Some may intensely study the text carefully for its moral or theological meaning. They may also want to refer to a Bible commentary from time to time. Others may read the Bible the same way that they would read a novel.
What assumptions will we make about the Bible? This is a subject we discussed above.
Should we read a bare Bible or use a study Bible?
How much will we prepare for each book by reading synopses in a study Bible or by referring to books? For example, a strategy that I used was to read the appropriate chapter in the above mentioned Undertanding the Bible by Harris. Alternatively one might refer to Don't Know Much About The Bible by Kenneth C. Davis
Do we want to start at the beginning or follow some other order?
What translation will we use? This is important and should be carefully considered by comparing the translations to see what suits us best.
Will we read regularly or when we have a reason or need to read or whenever we happen to think about it? Here is an excellent short piece on this subject: Strategies for Daily Bible Readers.
Some people approach the Bible mainly to find support for their prejudices or viewpoint. The Bible has been used to condone slavery, segregation, anti-Semitism, opposition of science, attribution of guilt to disease, environmental exploitation, irrational dietary restrictions, subjugation of women, brutal punishment of children, gay bashing, and capital punishment including the execution of innocent "witches" and heretics. The Bible has also been used to explain calamities, which were called acts of God. A very interesting example is the story of how a Pentecostal leader interpreted the San Francisco earthquake as divine punishment, which resulted in the launching of the Pentacostal movement. To read the story in the leader's own words, go to The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and notice his use of biblical citations. To see how Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson interpreted the 9-11 attack go to
Falwell apologizes to gays, feminists, lesbians.
For more on using the Bible to buttress our prejudices go to reflections of Pastor Larry Dahlstrom, ret., in Understanding the Bible.
(The following stretches the scope of my Web page, but I have to vent my outrage.) Being an insomniac, I often check out the late night TV "prosperity preachers" to see what outrageously fraudulent claims they are making. They have found innumerable Biblical references that they twist to support their pitches to rob gullible people who can least afford it. They are promised that if they send in "seed money" they will reap many times what they sow. Some of these bottom-feeding preachers have the hutzpah to ask for a "thousand dollar vow of faith." One such scumbag spends all of his time on his shows making a pitch for money. It makes me appreciate the chastened Jimmy Swaggert who along with his low key pitches for money gives biblical inspiration often with apparent tearful sincerity and without yelling and screaming.
Fraud is called "theft by deception." If the "prosperity gospel" is not deception, what is? These low-life preachers are worse than bank robbers. About $70 million is taken per year by bank robbers, but one prosperity minister alone was hauling in roughly $80 million per year in his most profitable years before he was taken down a notch.
It is infuriating for me to watch big-time fraud taking place and not be able to stop it or warn the hapless victims. Apparently these larcenous preachers are immune from criminal prosecution because they wrap their fraud in religion. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to defraud people in the name of religion. For more information about these charlatans go to Word-Faith "Prosperity Gospel" Movement.
The prosperity preachers love to quote this verse: "Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly---for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians 9:6-7) You won't hear them citing Acts 8:20-23 (NIV):
(20) Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! (21) You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. (22) Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. (23) For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin."
The high profile TV faith healers that send out prayer handkerchiefs or anointed oils also misuse the scripture. One of their favorite citations is Acts 19:11-12 (NIV): (11) "God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, (12) so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them."
Aids to Bible Reading
Books about the Bible
Strategies for Approaching the Bible
Misuse of the Bible