Once again, something I have been reading has sparked off a train of thought that seems relevant, and I have been pondering it while doing a batch of baking, some ironing and some cleaning. My first non-brethren visitor comes tomorrow, and I've never been a host before.
But the thoughts were a useful distraction from nervousness, and the domestic work took no mental capacity.
The quotation these musings stem from is translated from Polish, and runs something like "the scriptures are a common good, for believers, agnostics and atheists alike."
In common with many others I have read of, I have found the bible becoming increasingly valuable as I let go of what I have been told it all means. In its classic form, it is an immensely deep and precious work of literature, rich in comment about the human condition, and presented in nigh-on perfect language. You only have to try to imagine Western civilisation without the bible to gain some idea of how central it is.
Having a brain not unlike a sponge, much of the phrasing and thoughts of the scriptures have taken root in my memory - more so with me than many brethren, and I think my relative proficiency in that regard adds to their ongoing conviction that I am not really serious about my criticism. I am glad of the knowledge, regardless of what they think.
I am intrigued to note that I share my favourite book of the bible with no less than Richard Dawkins - that is Ecclesiastes. Intrigued, but not surprised, as I have often thought that it comes very close to agnosticism at least. I can read Ecclesiastes repeatedly, and never cease to marvel at the wisdom and the poetic thought.
Of course my knowledge is based on the New Translation, but fortunately it isn't so far from the gold standard of the King James that the older language is hard to learn instead.
Which brings me to another thought, and that is the value of modern English translations. I have a book with several pages of parallel text, with different versions, and I have to say I no longer agree that modern language is always bad. It can be very good indeed. I understand from elsewhere that other languages don't have the same instinctive reaction as English speakers, that somehow anything less than archaic language is irreverent. Even so, I remain of the opinion that the Authorised Version was done so well that the others are more or less redundant.
But certainly modern translations tend more to the woefully bad than they should. Apparently T S Eliot said of one version that it was the work of men who didn't know they were atheists.
And that rounds off my thoughts nicely, as I have often thought similarly about the uninspired and unattractive language used by brethren.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
J N Darby recognised the beauty of the KJV and said that he wanted Brethren to stick to its use in their public worship. His was to be a study Bible - useful for those who didn't have the advantage of the critical resources that were available to him.
The KJV was the work of three different groups of scholars - in Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster. Towards the end of the process they all met togethether in Westminster and read the whole work aloud to each other. This explains its wonderful, mellifluous sonority. Adam Nicolson's book 'Power and Glory' is a great book about the making of the KJV.
One final thought. It often strikes me that whether we read the KJV or the modern NRSV, we tend to overlook the fact that the Bible's origin is ancient. When reading it, it can help to bear in mind the nature of literary products of first millennium BC Mesopotamia, and the works of classical Greek and Roman writers. They put the Bible library in its historical and literary context.
The KJV is the classic example of simple, plain, beautiful English. When written, the language was not archaic. It was the common language of everyday speech, devoid of anything ornate or pretentious. I think some of the modern translations will, in time, come to be seen as equally beautiful, and more true to the original (if any document could be called an original). I think the NIV has achieved a commendable beauty and dignity of style, though I would go for the NRSV if you want an accurate translation, unbiased by theological prejudice.
If you like Ecclesiastes, I think you will like the apocryphal books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), which are written in much the same poetic style.
I have had the opposite experience. That is, I've found the bible less valuable over time. If I had had the opportunity to discover the bible as an adult, with no prior experience, it might be different. But after too many wasted hours trying to find something interesting to read while a boring sermon (but I repeat myself) was going on, I concluded that the proper place for a bible was on a shelf, closed.
Years ago I met a fellow who had a mischevious streak. When he saw a bible on a shelf, he would deliberately turn the book upside down. The next time he came to that domicile, he would check to see if it was still upside down. In my house, it would be unchanged.
I my house you will not find a Bible on any of my shelves.
Post a Comment