Thread: Which 5 books to omit? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028282
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
TheAlethiophile started a thread in Keryg asking, if you could only keep 5 books of the Bible, which 5 would they be?
As a tangent HCH asked, which 5 would you delete? I think this deserves a thread of its own, so here it is:
If (for some bizarre reason) you had to choose to leave 5 books out of the Bible, which 5 would you omit? Whether it's because you don't like them, or you find them redundant, or don't add to our understanding of God or of our salvation, or whatever.
It would also be interesting to say why you're willing to omit each of your 5.
If you can't think of 5 put as many (<=5) as you like.
My 5, in the order in which I'd delete them:
1. Sirach
2. Proverbs
3. Numbers
4. Lamentations
5. Jeremiah
1 & 2 because they're dreary and tell a lot of untruths. 3 because it's pointless and stupid. 4 and 5 because they're so depressing and go on and on and on and on...
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
Sirach's not in my Bible anyway, I think it was taken out at the Reformation.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Sirach's not in my Bible anyway, I think it was taken out at the Reformation.
Please let's not argue about the Apocrypha! That's a whole 'nother thread in itself.
Posted by Matthaios (# 17828) on
:
I'll avoid the easy omissions of things like Obadiah, Nahum, Jude, 2&3 John, etc.
Probably:
Joshua and Judges, because they are somehow both dull and bloody at the same time.
Proverbs, because it is too much of a general mish-mash when compared to the maturity of Job and Ecclesiastes.
Ezekiel, because it is tediously and impenetrably baffling.
1 Timothy, because there is no way to rescue Paul's (or whoever's) comments about women from insanity.
[ 24. September 2013, 21:23: Message edited by: Matthaios ]
Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on
:
Only five? That's miserly.
I think I would have to dispense with the three Pastorals. Their authorship is... well... questionable implies a degree of uncertainty, and their theology isn't deep or lyrical enough to redeem them.
In the interests of balance between Old and New I'd probably have to use my remaining two wishes to dispense with the two Books of Chronicles - clearly the Diatessaron of the Tanakh.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
This is rather too easy:
1) 2 Peter — for being a crap edit of Jude, removing the most stylistically good bits, but adding in shovelfuls of the most ludicrous pseudepigraphic claims
2) 2 Thessalonians — for being a crap edit of 1 Thessalonians
3-5) The Pastoral Epistles, because if they weren't there, they wouldn't be missed.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Oh I disagree about Ezekiel! Granted it's kind of the Revolution #9 of the Old Testament, but it's so wonderful in its bizzarity.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh I disagree about Ezekiel! Granted it's kind of the Revolution #9 of the Old Testament, but it's so wonderful in its bizzarity.
But I can see how someone could find his going on and on and on about dimensions (etc) of his ideal temple for several chapters as the epitome of dullness.
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
I would remove I and II Chronicles, since they're mostly repetitions of I and II Kings. The rest would be obscure minor prophets like Obediah. If someone from the NT has to go, it would be Philemon.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh I disagree about Ezekiel! Granted it's kind of the Revolution #9 of the Old Testament, but it's so wonderful in its bizzarity.
But I can see how someone could find his going on and on and on about dimensions (etc) of his ideal temple for several chapters as the epitome of dullness.
Perhaps we could have an "Ezekiel's Greatest Hits" and squeeze out the boring stuff.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
1. Leviticus
Should need no explanation!
2. Proverbs
Dreary, tedious and banal.
3. Revelation
The cause of far too many wacky ideas.
4. 2 Peter
Let's face it, Jude wasn't much of a letter in the first place. So a poor rewrite really isn't needed.
5. Joshua
A book entirely built upon the doctrine that God advocates genocide...
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
If only Leviticus did give some explanation of why sacrifices are necessary and what they mean, it would save a lot of Christian wrangling.
There are good bits in Revelation, but interestingly the Orthodox church never uses it in its public worship, AFAIU. The liturgical bits are the best bits.
I was wading through Judges in the lectionary recently, and I thought it was even less edifying than Joshua.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
1. Numbers
The core history of the Israelites has already been covered in Genesis-Leviticus and gets a recapitulation in Deuteronomy.
2. Song of Solomon
OK, it's a nice poem, but we've got 150 of them in the book of Psalms. Not really much theology there, apart from 'God loves you a lot'.
3. Lamentations.
Even more depressing than Ecclesiastes.
4. Malachi
Does anyone really refer to this regularly for key points of historical understanding or doctrine? Don't think so.
5. 3 John
Not exactly substantial.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
You can't get rid of Numbers! It's got the story of Balaam, and God talking through his ass (or something like that).
I think I'd go with
1. Leviticus. I like mixed fibres.
2. The Song of Solomon. How many euphemisms for "nice tits" can you pack into one short book?
3. Obadiah. I mean, why?
4. 3John. I think it was only included because the John Fan Club were out in force, and they'd have included his laundry list if it had been available.
5. Revelation. See 4.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I was wading through Judges in the lectionary recently, and I thought it was even less edifying than Joshua.
But Judges has the comedy value - the tent peg through the temple and so on. It's got the Samson story as well. Hugely entertaining.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
I am surprised that no-one (not even me!!) has nominated 1 & 2 Chronicles. Do we REALLY need another version of 1 & 2 Kings? Totally superfluous.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
2. The Song of Solomon. How many euphemisms for "nice tits" can you pack into one short book?
I giggled out loud.
Mind you, reading the Song of Songs, I the bit that turns me on is the description of the boyfriend in Chapter 5. "His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven."
I'll go and have a shower now.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
(Sorry for the triple post!)
Just noticed that Bran Stark nominated 1 & 2 Chronicles. Sorry - missed that post. Good reasoning, though.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I am surprised that no-one (not even me!!) has nominated 1 & 2 Chronicles. Do we REALLY need another version of 1 & 2 Kings? Totally superfluous.
See Bran Stark above.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
I'm surprised to see so much of a downer on Revelation. To me, a book that calls the Christian to a life of witness through suffering, rather than to acts of violence, is something worth keeping. (See Richard Hays's new edited volume on Revelation to see this worked out in more detail).
What would I lose?
1) 1/2 Chronicles. It's just a bit of Samuel and then Kings made less interesting.
2) Habakkuk. Yeah, I get it: you don't like the Assyrians. We've moved on. It's one advantage is that some of us get to feel superior by pronouncing it with stress on the second syllable, which is probably another reason to get rid of it as an occasion of pride.
3) 2 Pet. Agree with what others have said.
4) 3 John. Again, I think that case has already been made by others.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
All I know from Habakkuk is the canticle at Lauds on Good Friday, and it's worth it for that. But no great loss otherwise.
[ 25. September 2013, 14:28: Message edited by: venbede ]
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on
:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
4. Malachi
Does anyone really refer to this regularly for key points of historical understanding or doctrine? Don't think so.
But Malachi is great! You can't get rid of Malachi! What other nation or religion has ever pictured their relationship with their God as a no-holds-barred matrimonial row?
"I've HAD IT with you!"
"What did I do?"
"You know d*** well it's your job to..."
"and ANOTHER THING...!"
Reading it, I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the first lot of crockery to hit the kitchen wall. Wonderful stuff!
And you can't get rid of Jeremiah - some fantastic poetry and inspiration for keeping faith when absolutely everything is going wrong.
Ezekiel just needed a good editor. About one third shorter and it would be a very fine book.
Even Proverbs has its moments.......especially at the beginning and the end.
What would I omit?
1. Ezra/Nehemiah. Most unpleasant: racist and sexist and just about everything else -ist.
2. 1 and 2 Chronicles. As other people have said, redundant.
3. Daniel. The only use made of Daniel is by dubious sects trying to promulgate their own view of the end of the age. We'd all be better off without THAT.
4. Romans. Can't understand a word of it. (Paul could have done with a good editor as well - could he have been related to Ezekiel?)
5. 1, 2 and 3 John (or any one of these if I'm not allowed to consider them as one book). Boring and pointless.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
My mother recommended that I treat with suspicion any group which over-emphasised Revelation, Daniel, or Matthew 24, so the first two, anyway.
I don't agree about Chronicles - I had an amusing time arguing with some literalists about conflicting versions of events. Didn't win, though.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Chronicles (can I count it as two books please?)
Esther
Danial
Habakkuk
Philemon
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I would remove I and II Chronicles, since they're mostly repetitions of I and II Kings. The rest would be obscure minor prophets like Obediah. If someone from the NT has to go, it would be Philemon.
Chronicles is interesting precisely where it diverges from Samuel-Kings (except when it's a genealogy!). There are some good expansive bits on Solomon and on Hezekiah. Somervell and Driver's parallel edition of the two is particularly neat.
As for Philemon, it's the most real of any of the Epistles. It's the only one that's from a named individual to a named individual, and for all the sender's notorious verbosity actually is approximately the length of a normal letter. It's a fascinating little book too.
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
4. Malachi
Does anyone really refer to this regularly for key points of historical understanding or doctrine? Don't think so.
Malachi contributes a lot to the eschatological background of the Gospels. And I'd argue that the Twelve Minor Prophets function as a collection — there are fairly obvious literary ties between Malachi and the second half of Zechariah, for instance. (So I wouldn't support eliminating Obadiah either, even though it has a lot of duplication of Jeremiah going on.)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
silly question. We need the most difficult and boring bits to provoke a reaction in us.
Holy Writ isn't such until we dialogue with it.
No dialogue, no challenge, just a fuzzy feeling of agreement, is no use to anyone.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
5. 1, 2 and 3 John (or any one of these if I'm not allowed to consider them as one book). Boring and pointless.
I would have violently disagreed with this until I sat down a few years ago to read a several hundred page commentary on the Johannine Epistles. My word, was it boring! I'd be OK with just having the one paragraph summary of 1 Jn, which really then gets repeated a bunch of times (with bad grammar to boot).
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Esther
Sure, take out one of only two books with a female lead ... the Bible doesn't pass the Bechtel test as it is, and it's even worse without Esther.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
I can't agree about Revelation, it brings comfort to Christians who are being persecuted. Some who have never known persecution get some funny ideas from it, but so what?
My list:
- Galatians - It's basically an early draft of Romans
- Nahum - the teaching is covered in the other prophets
- 3 John - Just because
- Esther - Where is God in this?
- Either Colossians or 1 John - both are a reply to early Gnosticism, we don't ned both. I'd give 1 John the benefit of the doubt and ditch Colossians.
Leviticus only just survived, once you get past the ickyness of all that blood and the repetitions there are some good bits.
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
I'm not surprised that a number of posters have put 3 John on their list. But I would be saddened to see it go. It's a tiny slice of life from the small Christian world of the 1st century -- the sort of letter one might come upon in a dusty attic, lodged and partly hidden at the back of an old desk drawer.
"John" is very human in this little bit of text. He encourages his friend and kvetches about an apparent trouble-maker. He thinks out loud about how he will handle the situation. It could be one of us, which is its special value.
quote:
I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
the Bible doesn't pass the Bechtel test as it is
I had to google what that was, but oh yes it does.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
My mother recommended that I treat with suspicion any group which over-emphasised Revelation, Daniel, or Matthew 24, so the first two, anyway.
I don't agree about Chronicles - I had an amusing time arguing with some literalists about conflicting versions of events. Didn't win, though.
Oh, you probably won, but such folks will never admit it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
the Bible doesn't pass the Bechtel test as it is
I had to google what that was, but oh yes it does.
4 books out of 73 (Catholic canon) or 3 books out of 66 (Protestant canon). Not a great showing.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
the Bible doesn't pass the Bechtel test as it is
I had to google what that was, but oh yes it does.
The conversation between Naomi and Ruth sprung to my mind immediately. But I wonder what the relevant passages in Mark and Luke are? (I'm not very familiar with Tobith.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
the Bible doesn't pass the Bechtel test as it is
I had to google what that was, but oh yes it does.
The conversation between Naomi and Ruth sprung to my mind immediately.
Although by word count, I'm willing to bet that most of their dialogue is about Boaz.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: Although by word count, I'm willing to bet that most of their dialogue is about Boaz.
Granted, but I like Ruth 1:16–17. It's a nice expression of commitment.
BTW Does your earlier calculation show that Protestants are slightly better on this one than Catholics? Hah! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
1. Revelation—the most misinterpreted book of the Bible, just going by how many "my interpretation is right, yours is wrong!" interpretations I've heard of it. A great mine for symbolism, a contribution to world literature, perhaps even a nice political polemic, but Scripture? Who knows. Perhaps Luther was right when he saw nothing of the Holy Spirit in it.
2. 2 Corinthians—I can't bring myself to axe all of Paul, much as I sometimes dislike the old sexist bat, but 2 Corinthians just seems to be a rehash of the worst bits of 1 Corinthians, with more frustration added in. All the distasteful bits, none of the great oratory.
3. Proverbs—While it was once a favorite of mine, I think I realized how dreadfully dull it was, even compared to the other wisdom lit books, all of which kinda drone on and on and on.
4. Job—Really never much liked this one, especially the moral of the story: don't ask questions, you stupid human, but I'll give you new shiny stuff because you passed the test. Sorry God, but I think Job would have rather his children not have been killed, unless you're implying human beings are just interchangeable chattel to be killed or given just to prove a point.
5. It's so long, cutting half of it should count, but: Psalms. Seriously, get an editor already. Maybe I just don't like Hebrew poetry, maybe we've heard the Psalms so much that they just sound trite, but enough already. Go find something else, even Proverbs, to chant antiphonally if that's your thing. Sure, there are some good ones, and others that have good bits, but a good content editing could make the whole thing much better.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: Although by word count, I'm willing to bet that most of their dialogue is about Boaz.
Granted, but I like Ruth 1:16–17. It's a nice expression of commitment.
BTW Does your earlier calculation show that Protestants are slightly better on this one than Catholics? Hah!
Hehe ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And I agree completely on the "expression of commitment" -- I'd add "and love." It's one of the most beautiful passages in Scripture regarding (non-sexual) love between two persons.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: And I agree completely on the "expression of commitment" -- I'd add "and love." It's one of the most beautiful passages in Scripture regarding (non-sexual) love between two persons.
Seconded. I'm still curious what the passages in Mark and Luke are that pass the Bechdel test.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: And I agree completely on the "expression of commitment" -- I'd add "and love." It's one of the most beautiful passages in Scripture regarding (non-sexual) love between two persons.
Seconded. I'm still curious what the passages in Mark and Luke are that pass the Bechdel test.
What I found (that others have posted online), and they both seem ridiculous, are:
Luke: Mary and Elizabeth talking about their respective foetuses
Mark: "Who will roll away the stone?"
[ 26. September 2013, 17:04: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: What I found (that others have posted online), and they both seem ridiculous, are:
Luke: Mary and Elizabeth talking about their respective foetuses
Mark: "Who will roll away the stone?"
I agree, neither are very convincing. Mary and Elizabeth are talking about their respective male foetuses. And the women in Mark are looking for a male body (Also, "Who will roll away the stone for us?" has a rather strong overtone of "Us ladies aren't strong enough" to it.)
I think I'm going to stick with Ruth.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
the Bible doesn't pass the Bechtel test as it is
I had to google what that was, but oh yes it does.
4 books out of 73 (Catholic canon) or 3 books out of 66 (Protestant canon). Not a great showing.
To be scrupulously fair, that's 4/37 or 3/33 once you discount the non-narrative books. And I'm not sure where one draws the line. Arguably Genesis should be redeemed by that bit where Rachel asks Leah for some mandrakes.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
And there's also the point that the narrative books of the Bible aren't actually all that full of direct speech. Yes, Queen Athaliah only utters two words, and that an exclamation, but that doesn't really set her apart from most of the monarchs of the two kingdoms.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
pererin: Arguably Genesis should be redeemed by that bit where Rachel asks Leah for some mandrakes.
Er... the part where Rachel wants the mandrakes of Leah's son and trades a night with her husband for them?
You'd have to stretch it quite a lot to call this 'not talking about a man'.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
I'm not surprised that a number of posters have put 3 John on their list. But I would be saddened to see it go. It's a tiny slice of life from the small Christian world of the 1st century -- the sort of letter one might come upon in a dusty attic, lodged and partly hidden at the back of an old desk drawer.
"John" is very human in this little bit of text. He encourages his friend and kvetches about an apparent trouble-maker. He thinks out loud about how he will handle the situation. It could be one of us, which is its special value.
quote:
I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.
I love this defense of 3 John and I agree that anything that gives us a little slice of life is valuable for making it all more real.
I agree with Trudy about Esther. Please. Give us two whole books.
All I would ask is that Revelation, and all the fuss, worry, schisms, bad novels and David Koresh types it has caused, was gone.
Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on
:
Genesis:
If we got rid of this, there would be no YECcies
Jeremiah:
Moan after moan after moan. I’d have left him in prison.
Matthew:
Because the birth story clashes with Luke’s, and I’d rather not have to deal with that in the Nativity play every year. And let’s face it: it’s weird. What about the multiple resuscitations at the time of the resurrection? It disturbs me (although maybe that’s a good reason to keep it).
Romans:
The one of Paul’s writings that has been so twisted over the years. And it would force a lot of preachers to broaden their horizons.
Revelation:
I know it gives hope to the persecuted, but also succour to the wackos. How much time has been wasted trying to set the date of something that isn’t going to happen (certainly, not as in the popular imagination).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I'd just get rid of Acts - because i dislike it - and we have to sit through seemingly endless readings from it during Eastertide every year.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd just get rid of Acts - because i dislike it - and we have to sit through seemingly endless readings from it during Eastertide every year.
Why do you dislike it? Is it because of the portrayal of "the Jews"?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd just get rid of Acts - because i dislike it - and we have to sit through seemingly endless readings from it during Eastertide every year.
Why do you dislike it? Is it because of the portrayal of "the Jews"?
I hadn't thought of that, initially, though that is a good reason to add to my dislikes. Plus the fact that the Lectionary kicks out the OT in its favour and, when we get to the end of it, the Daily Office lectionary makes us read it all over again as if once wasn't enough.
My main dislike is that it seems top be about heroics. Brave missionaries converting hundreds in one go. i can't believe it was like that at all.
I would be tempted to say that it idealises the early church except that factions are all too obvious.
On moving to a new teaching post, I inherited four O level RE classes for whom it was a set text so I had to mug up on it in order to get these kids through the exam before I could introduce a more relevant syllabus. The scholarship I found about Acts suggested it was idealised, confirming my hunches. The kids certainly didn't, for the most part, think that they were encountering history.
Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on
:
What a blasphemous thread this is... I'm sorry, but this is the Word of God. We're not free to take anything out, so this is just an exercise in hubris. God planned these holy scriptures from beyond Eternity, for our edification. Numbers may be boring and Proverbs may sound like an old grandfather going on and on, but there are no untruths.
Sheesh... one does not just remove books from the eternal word of God. Martin Luther can be excused because technically the Church didn't define the canon until after he died.
If I had to choose, I'd say Paralipomenon/Chronicles would be out, at least. They rehash Kings & Samuel quite a lot.
I wonder who'd have the gusto to remove the Psalms...
Edit: never mind the above comment. If you can take out Matthew (which does not contradict Luke in any way), you can pretty much justify taking out anything.
[ 28. September 2013, 20:36: Message edited by: VDMA ]
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
What a blasphemous thread this is... I'm sorry, but this is the Word of God. We're not free to take anything out, so this is just an exercise in hubris. God planned these holy scriptures from beyond Eternity, for our edification.
Blasphemous? Pretty strong language there, VDMA. Let me suggest you go back to the opening post of this thread and its twin sister, where you should note the operative word is IF. As in, hypothetical. Goodness, nobody's seriously proposing that we rewrite the canon, much less go around tearing pages out of the Bible willy-nilly.
If scripture was given to us for our edification, it seems that -- unique creatures that we are -- some of us find some bits of scripture more edifying than others. Personally, I find it interesting, even edifying (if you will), to see what elements of God's Word resonate with different posters. Perhaps that's because I've been around here for a while and have gotten to know them and respect their points of view.
And that is a suggestion for you: You've brand-new here. Stick around for a while, read some conversations, get to know the regulars who hang around here, learn the tone of the boards, and keep Matthew 7:1 in mind.
[ 29. September 2013, 01:08: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
What a blasphemous thread this is... I'm sorry, but this is the Word of God.
This combination appears to be idolatrous. The Bible is not God.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I have to put a plug in for 1 & 2 Chronicles. Vitally important! The retention of both Kings and Chronicles in the scriptures is evidence for hermeneutical method. Same basic story told with different theological emphases reflecting different times and contexts. Midrash eat your heart out.
It's like retaining the two creation stories next to each other without a problem. It tells you about the interpretive functions and hermeneutics of the authors and compilers.
For example: sin and its forgiveness in Chronicles becomes a personal issue rather than one effecting untold generations. Same with Ezekiel (exilic period). Quite the shift in theology because of responses to different circumstances. And the compilers of the bible are cool with that.
So should we be today. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
What a blasphemous thread this is... I'm sorry, but this is the Word of God. We're not free to take anything out, so this is just an exercise in hubris. God planned these holy scriptures from beyond Eternity, for our edification.
No it isn't. Jesus is the Word of God - it says so in the bible! Jn. 1
Wherever came the idea that scripture was planned before eternity? In over 50 years of being a Christian, I have never heard this ideas before. It IS, however, what Muslims believe about the Holy Qur'an.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My 5, in the order in which I'd delete them:
1. Sirach
2. Proverbs
3. Numbers
4. Lamentations
5. Jeremiah
WHAT!? Sirach? Really, you'd get rid of 'But the souls of the faithful' and 'how doth the city sit solitary'? The latter in particular is one that I always find so very moving, and it features in one of the best conversion narratives ever written:
quote:
The place was desolate and the work all brought to nothing. Quomodo sedet sola civitas - vanity of vanities, all is vanity. And yet, I thought, that is not the last word. It is not even an apt word - it is a dead word from ten years back. Something quite remote from anything the builders intended had come out of their work and out of the fierce little human tragedy in which I played. Something none of us thought about at the time. A small red flame, a beaten copper lamp of deplorable design, re-lit before the beaten copper doors of a tabernacle. This flame, which the old knights saw from their tombs, which they saw put out: the flame burns again for other soldiers far from home - farther, in heart, than Acre or Jerusalem. It could not have been lit but for the builders and the tragedians.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
"But the souls of the faithful" is Wisdom 3.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I'm actually with leo, that we need the challenges in the Bible. It's healthy for us to wrangle with the difficult texts, like Jacob with the angel. Similarly, the Scriptures leave us with a limp - and a blessing.
However, I'd cut the Pastorals for the reasons given earlier (I don't believe Paul wrote them). Although if we can accept that someone wrote them a generation after Paul, it gives us interesting insight into the shifting strategies of accommodation v. resistance in the early Church wrt the wider Greco-Roman culture. But we can learn things like that from extrabiblical texts as well, so why not make these 3 books extrabiblical as well?
I'd definitely remove the Greek addition to Daniel that's in the Apocrypha. It ruins the book, IMO. The book of Daniel has a clear chiastic structure. Tacking stuff onto the end ruins that and violates the author's intent. (NB: I'm in the camp that considers it pseudepigraphal, probably written in the Maccabean period.)
I'm torn for my final selection. There have been so many good arguments on this thread! I'd rather just edit or qualify with footnotes some of the troublesome books, like the genocidal rampages in Joshua or the bloodthirst in Revelation (which is otherwise a wonderful book) or a lot of misogyny throughout. I don't mind redundancies, personally, because I think comparisons are instructive when there are differences and divergences. As long as we can make a rule that you can't force it to harmonize if the text doesn't do that on its own. I'm always amused - and often frustrated - by how many people who claim to have a high view of Scripture try to force it to harmonize against its own will.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
However, I'd cut the Pastorals for the reasons given earlier (I don't believe Paul wrote them).
There are all sorts of books in the Bible that make dubious authorial claims. Why are the Pastorals any worse than, say, Ecclesiastes?
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I'd definitely remove the Greek addition to Daniel that's in the Apocrypha. It ruins the book, IMO. The book of Daniel has a clear chiastic structure. Tacking stuff onto the end ruins that and violates the author's intent. (NB: I'm in the camp that considers it pseudepigraphal, probably written in the Maccabean period.)
I'd be tempted to flip the canonical status of Daniel and its additions. The main book of Daniel consists of relatively shallow tall stories, followed by a load of apocalyptic weirdness. The Prayer/Song/Excessively Long Title gives us a couple of canticles; Susanna is wisdom literature of a particularly nice kind; and Bel and the Dragon is an interesting development on the tall stories, and moreover seems to attest to Daniel 7-12 being a later addition.
And I'm sceptical of large-scale chiasms to say the least...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
You can't get rid of the writing on the wall!
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You can't get rid of the writing on the wall!
Certainly not!
Also, Jesus referred to Daniel. Especially in terms of "The Son of Man". Without Daniel we wouldn't know what "the coming of the son of man" referred to.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
This thread derives originally from a casual remark of mine in another thread. I certainly did not intend any blasphemy. The other thread asks which 5 books one would save, which suggests discarding all but those 5.
By the way, when Bishop Ulfilas (Wulfila?) had the Bible translated into Gothic, he omitted the book of Judges, allegedly because it was full of violence and he felt his people were violent enough already.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Psalms. Seriously, get an editor already.
Quite so. There are only two psalms, one that goes, "Life is good and God is great, so that's OK" and one that goes, "Life is rubbish, but God is great, so that's OK".
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
Numbers - Stats are boring enough at the best of times
1 & 2 Chronicles - Yeah I've read Kings already
Jeremiah - Every time I try reading this, I get bored and depressed and my faith suffers
Proverbs - Banal
I can't believe someone said Daniel! It's the action movie of the OT, which crams a lion's den, a fiery furnace, a beastly king and a siege of Bablylon into twelve short chapters. What more could you want in a book?
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
My vote is to axe 2 Kings on the basis of it being the most soul-destroyingly depressing book in the Bible:
Executive summary:
quote:
A was a bad king who led Israel into sin. He died and B became king. B was a bad king who led Israel into sin. He died and C became king. C was a bad king who led Israel into sin. He died and D became king (etc. etc. etc.)
So in the end the LORD decided He'd had enough and carted the whole filthy lot of them off into exile. The End.
I wouldn't mind doing away with Lamentations either. Sheer unmitigated doom and woe with a couple of encouraging verses in the middle.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
Romans 8 is my favourite chapter in the bible, so you can keep your hands off that.
The interpretation of a certain verse in Levicitus has brought misery, so on the fire it goes.
Jeremiah's alright, though it gets depressing to read it more or less every bloody day in Lent.
Yes, Joshua's got some dodgy genocidal stuff, so that could go for me.
I'd only get rid of Psalm 78 to spare choirs who have to sing the BCP order of psalms on the 15th of the month (and vergers wanting to get home).
Matthew's got a lot of Jewish stuff there, so that's got to stay.
Revelations is ace. It also gave the title to an Iron Maiden song.
I mix up the books of Kings and Chronicles. Basically, the stories that end with "as for the rest of the stuff about king wotisname, isn't there a load of other stuff in the book of whateverit'scalled?" get a bit tiring after a while.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
la vie en rouge: My vote is to axe 2 Kings on the basis of it being the most soul-destroyingly depressing book in the Bible:
Executive summary:
quote:
A was a bad king who led Israel into sin. He died and B became king. B was a bad king who led Israel into sin. He died and C became king. C was a bad king who led Israel into sin. He died and D became king (etc. etc. etc.)
What I find interesting: it seems that most peoples have a tendency to embellish their own history, greatly exaggerating how good and noble their kings were. I wonder if there exists an example of another people that puts their own kings in such a negative light in their most important book.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I don't think they would agree that 2 Kings is their most important book.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Despite the name Kings, both are strongly anti-monarchist. Non-hereditary rulers were seen as a much better form of government. This dislike extended as late as the Herods.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: I don't think they would agree that 2 Kings is their most important book.
I was using the term in a sloppy way; I was talking about the Tanakh as a whole.
quote:
Gee D: Despite the name Kings, both are strongly anti-monarchist. Non-hereditary rulers were seen as a much better form of government. This dislike extended as late as the Herods.
Ah, that's interesting.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: I don't think they would agree that 2 Kings is their most important book.
I was using the term in a sloppy way; I was talking about the Tanakh as a whole.
I think that's highly anachronistic. I doubt very much the people who wrote 2 Kings were thinking that it was going to go into a collection of scrolls called "Tanakh" which comprised the definitive (and defining) literature of the Hebrew people.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: I think that's highly anachronistic. I doubt very much the people who wrote 2 Kings were thinking that it was going to go into a collection of scrolls called "Tanakh" which comprised the definitive (and defining) literature of the Hebrew people.
The term 'book' I used was wrong. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: I think that's highly anachronistic. I doubt very much the people who wrote 2 Kings were thinking that it was going to go into a collection of scrolls called "Tanakh" which comprised the definitive (and defining) literature of the Hebrew people.
The term 'book' I used was wrong. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
I don't think that covers it. Take the word "book" out entirely. They still didn't think what they were writing was going to be all that important, or be collected in any way with the Pentateuch.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: They still didn't think what they were writing was going to be all that important, or be collected in any way with the Pentateuch.
I'm not sure about that. Not everyone could write at that time, and writing the Chronicles of your people is slightly different from writing tomorrow's shopping list.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
A was a bad king who led Israel into sin. He died and B became king. B was a bad king who led Israel into sin. He died and C became king. C was a bad king who led Israel into sin. He died and D became king (etc. etc. etc.)
Surely that should be "B was such a bad king that he made A look positively benign by comparison. He led Israel into even more sin..." and so on?
[ 21. October 2013, 11:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I think there were four "good" kings: David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Josiah (from memory).
Kings is part of the Duetoronomic history. The main theology of that being if you follow God - all will be well. If you do not - shit happens.
And Job comes along to nicely say "WTF? That's so not true".
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: They still didn't think what they were writing was going to be all that important, or be collected in any way with the Pentateuch.
I'm not sure about that. Not everyone could write at that time, and writing the Chronicles of your people is slightly different from writing tomorrow's shopping list.
Granted. Although it certainly isn't the chronicles of their people -- it's more like the greatest hits. The constant refrain is, "As for the other things that King Iornaimheerah did, are they not written in the chronicles of the kings of Israel?" The writer(s) of the Kings/Chronicles seem to know that the chronicles of their people are somewhere else, and they're just giving the highlights.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
One way to look at the long sad history of the kings is that it is the fulfillment of the statement in Second Samuel of the disadvantages of having a king. This is in contrast to the last sentence of the book of Judges.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
One way to look at the long sad history of the kings is that it is the fulfillment of the statement in Second Samuel of the disadvantages of having a king. This is in contrast to the last sentence of the book of Judges.
Yes, the people were well and truly warned about having a king, and having insisted upon one, had their hopes dashed. Indeed, there were very few "good" kings and many who were "bad". By contrast, the Judges come out of it well. One could scarcely say that the ancient Jewish people were democrats, but they were most certainly anti-monarchist.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
but they were most certainly anti-monarchist.
Wouldn't go that far.
The Davidic covenant is a major theme in the OT and it carries over into the NT with Jesus as messiah (anointed son of God) - King of the Jews in the Davidic line.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
The covenant with David was with him personally, not as king, at least as I see it. His House certainly was important, and Jesus's membership of that house is stressed. And remember that David did not inherit the throne as Jonathan would have.
The closest analogy I can see to the Judges were the Doges of the Venetian Republic. Chosen/elected from a limited group, they held office for a short but renewable time. As with the Doge (and most monarchs until recent times) they carried out administrative, military and judicial roles, not simply the last of these.
There are very few good kings in the 2 books, but most of the judges come out well. Perhaps there was some later editing to enhance the status of the judges and demean the kings. That's beyond my ability to discuss in any detail. If we move forward in time, the early Hasmoneans get a good press, but not so for the later ones, nor for the Herodians who followed.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The covenant with David was with him personally, not as king, at least as I see it. His House certainly was important, and Jesus's membership of that house is stressed. And remember that David did not inherit the throne as Jonathan would have.
The davidic covenant is one of the five (?) major ones in the OT.
2 Samuel 7 stresses the eternal nature of this covenant. It may have begun with David personally but it certainly doesn't end there and it certainly has to do with the Kingship stuff.
Thus says the Lord of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel; and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.
Psalm 89 is another important reiteration of this covenant.
The monarchy of David and Solomon was the Golden Age of Israel that Jesus was hoped to restore.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0