Another Response...

So Sharon checked out the book she thought she was reading, "The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart" by Peter Gomes, and called my attention to this paragraph:
"Bible study actually involves the study of the Bible. That involves a certain amount of work, a certain exchange of informed intelligence, a certain amount of discipline. Bible study is certainly not just the response of the uninformed reader to the uninterpreted text, but Bible study in most of the churches has become just that--the blind leading the blind, or, as some caustic critics of liberal Protestantism would put it, the bland leading the bland. The notion that texts have meaning and integrity, intention, contexts, and subtexts, and that they are part of an enormous history of interpretation that has long involved some of the greatest thinkers in the history of the world, is a notion often lost on those for whom the text is just one more of the many means the church provides to massage the egos of its members. (p 12)
Stan McCaslin

A Response to: "What Does this Say about God?"

My father, a much more disciplined student of the Bible than I am, and a reformed fundamentalist, finally came to believe that God was very much the experimentalist. God kept trying everything he/she could to gain the faithful attention of human beings, but everything failed until finally God decided that he had to send his son to live among us.
-Jim Witherspoon

A Response to Sharon

Like Sharon, I read this book while on vacation. I must say as well, it was not my first choice either. It seems to me that Plotz is overly concerned with prostitutes, rape, violence, and sex in general. Is it a guy thing? At any rate, I did resonate with his observations at the end about arguing with God. If God made us rational and questioning,then it must be OK to question. The appeal of the book comes from the fresh interpretation of one who makes no pretenses of being a scholar. That in itself may be reason enough to read it.
Mary Diboll

Comments to "What does this say about God?"

Stanley said...

Interesting translation question: Plotz quotes 2:17 as "as soon as you eat of it, you shall die." but my New English is "the day you eat from that, you are surely doomed to die." The difference is enough to weaken Plotz' point. What does the Hebrew say?
July 23, 2009 5:20 PM


Mark said...

Stan,
I am not a Hebrew scholar. In reviewing Bibleworks tool both the Hebrew and Greek translations have the word day. It appears to me and other commentators that Plotz’s actually stands on solid scholarship. I could find no one who responds or even notices his challenge. I assume mostly because it is a passage which has been understood as carrying larger truth than being interpreted literally.
I did find one interesting bit of commentary on the passage. It too seems to ignore the “on that day” but I still find it interesting. It comes from a work called: ETZ HAYIM: Torah and Commentary put out by The Rabbinical Assembly The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. In that commentary they make the following statement about that verse: "Perhaps this should be understood as, "you shall realize that you are mortal. You will have to live with the knowledge that one day you will die, a burden of awareness that no other creature bears" (Ramban)."
Peace,
Mark
July 28, 2009 9:22 AM


Stanley said...

"Remember it really is the same God..." Is it, really? OK, same God, but don't our limited human perceptions of God differ substantially among Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which claim it is the same God? We could go further, Antiochus' insistance that Zeus was the same God as the Jewish God was one spark for the Macabee's rebellion. I've heard Hindus argue that they see the same God, and that Christ is another avatar of Vishnu. I think in particular the differences between the Jewish and Christian view of God are worth discussing.
July 29, 2009 6:23 PM


Anonymous said...

I'm no scholar. And I'm only a quarter through the book.

Could it be that Judaism, newer than the polytheists, older than Christian and Islam religions, was the first to introduce the concept of the single, unique, all-powerful God? My God can beat up your gods.

I believe that most Christians understand God to be multi-dimensional; that is, complete enough to be experienced as a dichotomy (art and science, peace and war, bounty and famine, etc,), but not simple enough to be analyzed.

But Plotz is cynical about the God's fallable nature. Do we really believe God experiments, tinkers, changes mind, makes mistakes? Is this something that is a Jewish faith perspective? It's certainly not something that modern Christians talk much about. Or not, at least, Presbyterians.

And, yet, it's so clear in the Hebrew Testament. I guess I've never quite questioned the meaning of God's actions favoring certain people or of violence and permissiveness with the human condition. (Although I've been suspicious of the literary license.) But Plotz is all over it.

Maybe it works it way out in later chapters.
August 17, 2009 8:09 PM

From Sharon McCaslin

I read this book on vacation and I must admit I was disappointed. Silly me. I thought we were reading the book "The Good Book" which came out several years ago by Gomes, an eminent Biblical scholar. This author admits that what he brings is a fresh perspective (i.e., ignorance) and I already had plenty of ignorance of my own. I did get hopeful about halfway through when he did some contrasting with his experience in an Episcopalian school situation (suggesting that we could get some cross-cultural commentary) but closer examination makes it obvious that the Good Book he has in hand is only the Jewish Bible and he doesn't vary from that. I guess this wasn't my choice and I don't normally "do" blogs so perhaps my comments are more pessimistic than warranted. Anyway, he was inspired to read the Bible by the story of Dinah and I must admit that is the story which inspired me to read The Red Tent and then Queenmaker, both of which kept me fascinated.
So perhaps we have something in common.
Sharon

What does this say about God?

What does this say about God?

I have had a few questions regarding our process for the blog. As a result, let me begin this post with a few items of business. Please remember our summer read is not intended to be a place for my voice alone. If you would like to post more than a comment please contact me directly at markbradshawmiller@sbcglobal.net. I will gladly post your thoughts and make sure to give the appropriate credit.

Ok, now we have finished with the business items let me say I had not intended to write again until I finished all of Genesis. But after reading only the first twelve chapters I simply cannot resist sharing my thoughts. I appreciate the Author’s approach to the first twelve chapters of Genesis. It is as if he is reading a novel and these first chapters are intended to tell us about the main characters and story line. At least that is how I read his approach. After all, the basic question being asked is: “What do these stories tell us about God?” I find this a rather appropriate question for people of faith.

The answer to that question for the author seems a bit disturbing. In the first two chapters God seems unclear about the origins of the universe, as well as having an affinity for creepy crawly things. Later, God acts like an angry parent who sets the boundaries of punishment but does not follow through. God does not really punish Cain for killing his brother (a particularly disturbing inaction given our culture’s focus on law and order). Finally, God destroys people on the earth because they are “wicked.” A vague term which people throughout the ages have gladly filled in the gap with any sin of which they are not personally at risk of committing. The God that the author meets in the first twelve chapters is one that he finds troubling.

Instead of doing some defense of God, or offering an explanation I instead want to leave things open ended. What do you make of this? Does the author have a point? Has he overstated the case? (And in offering a response please do not say: Old Testament God=angry and mean, where the New Testament God= Love. Remember it really is the same God…) I am looking forward to your responses.

Peace and Grace,

Mark

Some initial thoughts...

My first thoughts about our summer read actually begin by way of confession. I did not want to read this book. My apprehension had a lot to do with my own ignorance of what was between the covers of the book. I suppose what I am confessing is my own guilt of judging a book by its' cover, or better yet its title. Fortunately, we can all overcome our ignorance. I have now only read the introduction but am really impressed by how reading Chapter 34 of Genesis that the author was driven to read more. As he concludes the introduction I imagine his words could have come from the founders of the reformation.
"My goal was simple. I wanted to find out what happens when an ignorant person actually reads the book on which his religion is based. I was in the same position as many other lazy but faithful people (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus). I loved Judaism; I loved (most of) the lessons it had taught me about how to live in the world; and yet I realized I was ignorant about its foundation, its essential document."
Ok, so maybe John Calvin didn't write like this, but the idea of the followers of a religion actually being familiar with their founding document(s) would.
I am looking forward to our summer journey through this book.
-Mark