Is there a Bible for liberals?
January 4, 2008 12:25 PM Subscribe
Is there a specialty Bible for liberals?
There are specialty Bibles for teachers, preachers, members of the military, women, men, students, black men, black women, backpackers, thespians, recent graduates, senior citizens, and many other demographics. The Bibles have annotations, references for further study, devotionals, stories, and other features geared toward making the target demographic see the Bible as relevant to them.
Is there a Bible for people who are politically, socially, and/or economically progressive? (Jesus was something of a progressive himself.) I'm assuming there isn't one, but I'm posing the question anyway. If not, got any book recommendations on taking a progressive and non-literal interpretation of the Good Book? The more scholarly, the better.
There are specialty Bibles for teachers, preachers, members of the military, women, men, students, black men, black women, backpackers, thespians, recent graduates, senior citizens, and many other demographics. The Bibles have annotations, references for further study, devotionals, stories, and other features geared toward making the target demographic see the Bible as relevant to them.
Is there a Bible for people who are politically, socially, and/or economically progressive? (Jesus was something of a progressive himself.) I'm assuming there isn't one, but I'm posing the question anyway. If not, got any book recommendations on taking a progressive and non-literal interpretation of the Good Book? The more scholarly, the better.
Skeptic's Annotated Bible might be helpful.
posted by tom_g at 12:55 PM on January 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by tom_g at 12:55 PM on January 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
Here's your Bible:
1) The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholar's Version
Here are a few books you may be interested in:
2) Who Wrote the Bible? - a book about different theories of authorship.
3) How to Read the Bible - a book about scholarly and traditional views of the old testament.
Here's a place to start finding more books.
posted by Pants! at 12:58 PM on January 4, 2008
1) The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholar's Version
Here are a few books you may be interested in:
2) Who Wrote the Bible? - a book about different theories of authorship.
3) How to Read the Bible - a book about scholarly and traditional views of the old testament.
Here's a place to start finding more books.
posted by Pants! at 12:58 PM on January 4, 2008
I'm quoting a friend of mine, who I asked about your question and who is a pastor:
The short, smart aleky answer is that liberals don't need the Bible to be annotated to make it liberal. A good translation is, all by itself, a very progressive book.
I don't know of any particular editions that are marketed specifically toward liberals, mostly because the Christian publishing industry, on the commercial side at least, is dominated by conservatives, and on the academic side, they don't do "specialty" Bibles of any type.
- Pastor Drew Ludwig
He recommends this sites though: Sojo.net, which is progressive and Christian, and has progressive Bible study guides that are very helpful.
posted by voidcontext at 1:00 PM on January 4, 2008 [2 favorites]
The short, smart aleky answer is that liberals don't need the Bible to be annotated to make it liberal. A good translation is, all by itself, a very progressive book.
I don't know of any particular editions that are marketed specifically toward liberals, mostly because the Christian publishing industry, on the commercial side at least, is dominated by conservatives, and on the academic side, they don't do "specialty" Bibles of any type.
- Pastor Drew Ludwig
He recommends this sites though: Sojo.net, which is progressive and Christian, and has progressive Bible study guides that are very helpful.
posted by voidcontext at 1:00 PM on January 4, 2008 [2 favorites]
Tom_g beat me to it, seconding the Skeptic's Annotated.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:00 PM on January 4, 2008
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:00 PM on January 4, 2008
As mentioned in the thread blue_beetle, the most common study bible among progressive protestants tends to be the New Oxford Study Bible. It's basically just a scholarly translation with good notes about language, historical errors in translation, and historically based theological discussion. In general, most mainstream and progressive folks use the New Revised Standard Version.
posted by hydropsyche at 1:01 PM on January 4, 2008
posted by hydropsyche at 1:01 PM on January 4, 2008
Additionally, he says if you are hardcore liberal you'll want a Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson went through the Bible and took out anything that was supernatural, and just left core moral teachings. But also he says that Jefferson didn't have authority to take stuff out of the Bible.
As an aside, I'd love to see what would happen today if a president or major political figure took it upon themselves to edit the Bible, wow.
posted by voidcontext at 1:04 PM on January 4, 2008
As an aside, I'd love to see what would happen today if a president or major political figure took it upon themselves to edit the Bible, wow.
posted by voidcontext at 1:04 PM on January 4, 2008
I would also recommend reading The Gospel According to Jesus.
The author pulled as much as he could from original greek and aramaic source texts, and translated them in a historical and literal fashion (such as the original word used to describe Mary more closely translates to "of marrying age" not "virgin and has never had sex"). Very useful information, and he talks a lot in the preface about his approach to the translation and the assumptions he made (which is refreshing compared to other books that position themselves as infallible reproductions).
posted by mrzarquon at 1:08 PM on January 4, 2008
The author pulled as much as he could from original greek and aramaic source texts, and translated them in a historical and literal fashion (such as the original word used to describe Mary more closely translates to "of marrying age" not "virgin and has never had sex"). Very useful information, and he talks a lot in the preface about his approach to the translation and the assumptions he made (which is refreshing compared to other books that position themselves as infallible reproductions).
posted by mrzarquon at 1:08 PM on January 4, 2008
Have you heard of the Jefferson Bible? Complied by TJ himself to include the teachings of Jesus, without all that supernatural holy stuff. It's the bible, but rearranged and secularly censored. I like it as a non-miraculous guide to social justice.
Available online here and at most bookstores.
posted by Sfving at 1:09 PM on January 4, 2008
Available online here and at most bookstores.
posted by Sfving at 1:09 PM on January 4, 2008
But also he says that Jefferson didn't have authority to take stuff out of the Bible.
Who does have the authority to take stuff out?
posted by grateful at 1:15 PM on January 4, 2008
Who does have the authority to take stuff out?
posted by grateful at 1:15 PM on January 4, 2008
X-Rated Bible? Blasphemy. When you're on that, uh, spiritual journey, you can't go wrong with a Tijuana Bible.
posted by box at 1:45 PM on January 4, 2008
posted by box at 1:45 PM on January 4, 2008
"Reading the Bible again for the first time" by Marcus Borg. He is totally against literal interpretation of the bible. He prefers a metaphorical and historical reading. He has good credentials, since he was one of the "Jesus scholars"
posted by francesca too at 1:54 PM on January 4, 2008
posted by francesca too at 1:54 PM on January 4, 2008
My Who Wrote the Bible link was wrong. Here is the correct one.
posted by Pants! at 2:16 PM on January 4, 2008
posted by Pants! at 2:16 PM on January 4, 2008
Why do you want a liberal interpretation of Sacred Scripture?
posted by Fidei at 2:21 PM on January 4, 2008
posted by Fidei at 2:21 PM on January 4, 2008
Why do you want a liberal interpretation of Sacred Scripture
Probably because he is sick of conservative misinterpretation of it.
For what it's worth, my mother, who is a politically liberal UCC minister, generally uses the New Oxford or New Revised Standard versions ,and my college advisor, a politically liberal Episcopal minister, recommended the NRSV.
posted by dersins at 2:35 PM on January 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
Probably because he is sick of conservative misinterpretation of it.
For what it's worth, my mother, who is a politically liberal UCC minister, generally uses the New Oxford or New Revised Standard versions ,and my college advisor, a politically liberal Episcopal minister, recommended the NRSV.
posted by dersins at 2:35 PM on January 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
The most common Bible used by the more progressive denominations is the New Revised Standard. The Oxford Annotated edition is what they recommended at the UCC Seminary I briefly attended.
posted by khaibit at 2:36 PM on January 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by khaibit at 2:36 PM on January 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
I generally wouldn't recommend it, but the Inclusive Version seems pretty, ah, liberal. Did you mean translation or Study? Because most liberal denominations use RSV or NRSV and interpret through their 'world view'.
The Cotton Patch Version is fun, but appears to be out of print.
This translation was made by Clarence Jordan. It is not only a translation into modern American English but into American ideas. It cuts across the time space barrier, and the scene shifts from a first century Greco-Roman world to twentieth century America where Paul is no longer an aristocratic Pharisee, but a converted Southerner who boldly speaks the mind of Christ on such matters as racism, brotherhood, possessions, church membership and responsibility, the claims of Christ, and personal Christian living. Its plain, hard-hitting language is earthy and sweaty, straight from the cotton fields and city streets.
Association Press (1968)
posted by dawson at 2:43 PM on January 4, 2008
The Cotton Patch Version is fun, but appears to be out of print.
This translation was made by Clarence Jordan. It is not only a translation into modern American English but into American ideas. It cuts across the time space barrier, and the scene shifts from a first century Greco-Roman world to twentieth century America where Paul is no longer an aristocratic Pharisee, but a converted Southerner who boldly speaks the mind of Christ on such matters as racism, brotherhood, possessions, church membership and responsibility, the claims of Christ, and personal Christian living. Its plain, hard-hitting language is earthy and sweaty, straight from the cotton fields and city streets.
Association Press (1968)
posted by dawson at 2:43 PM on January 4, 2008
Just wanted to throw in another vote for NRSV, simply because every fundy I know hates it.
posted by phrontist at 3:42 PM on January 4, 2008
posted by phrontist at 3:42 PM on January 4, 2008
I got this from the Sceptic site that tom_g linked to.
It points you to all the "good" (ie, 'liberal') parts of the bible.
I've been looking for something like that myself, so I really appreciated the question too.
posted by marsha56 at 6:40 PM on January 4, 2008
It points you to all the "good" (ie, 'liberal') parts of the bible.
I've been looking for something like that myself, so I really appreciated the question too.
posted by marsha56 at 6:40 PM on January 4, 2008
The Message translation by Eugene Peterson. Even Bono reads that one.
posted by 4ster at 7:12 PM on January 4, 2008
posted by 4ster at 7:12 PM on January 4, 2008
I would not suggest The Message because I do not believe it to be a solid translation. Regardless of your denomination (these are Catholic Bibles), the New American Bible (NAB) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) are commonly accepted to be very close, good translations, in part because the Biblical Hebrew & Greek work was done by some of the most preeminent scholars of our time.
I think that in terms of annotations, you're really looking for a concordance. A number of people have recommended the Women's Bible Commentary published by Westminster John Knox to me as a good source for feminist readings. Additionally, there are other great books that should probably help you out. The Friedman book recommended upthread is a good start at understanding the different approaches.
posted by wildeepdotorg at 8:10 PM on January 4, 2008 [2 favorites]
I think that in terms of annotations, you're really looking for a concordance. A number of people have recommended the Women's Bible Commentary published by Westminster John Knox to me as a good source for feminist readings. Additionally, there are other great books that should probably help you out. The Friedman book recommended upthread is a good start at understanding the different approaches.
posted by wildeepdotorg at 8:10 PM on January 4, 2008 [2 favorites]
Second the motion to just get a well-translated Bible with scholarly notes, and use your liberal brain and heart when you read it. I have been ill-impressed with the specialty Bibles I've seen; their devotionals and stories brush the text and then go about their own business, or they paraphrase what is already straightforward just to spare you from thinking or to assure you that they're still there or something. Which is to say, they make it easy not to engage the text any more deeply than the wiseacres over at Skeptic's Annotated have.
(Actually, 'devotionals and stories' often bug me even when not bound in with Scripture, because they're not generally anywhere near as good as reading Scripture anyway, and they rob time and energy. House on sand/house on rock, yo? Don't underestimate the KJV, either: It may be archaic and slightly difficult at times, but it's one of the foundation pieces of Modern English rhetoric and diction, it usefully hews very close to the structure and phrasing of the Masoretic OT and Greek NT, and in many places it's free.)
posted by eritain at 8:13 PM on January 4, 2008
(Actually, 'devotionals and stories' often bug me even when not bound in with Scripture, because they're not generally anywhere near as good as reading Scripture anyway, and they rob time and energy. House on sand/house on rock, yo? Don't underestimate the KJV, either: It may be archaic and slightly difficult at times, but it's one of the foundation pieces of Modern English rhetoric and diction, it usefully hews very close to the structure and phrasing of the Masoretic OT and Greek NT, and in many places it's free.)
posted by eritain at 8:13 PM on January 4, 2008
One of the reasons conservatives take issue RSV and the NRSV is because it casts doubt on the authority of Matthew.
The RSV translated the Hebrew word "almah" as "young woman" rather than "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, which Matthew cites as a prophesy predicting that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. The Hebrew Bible was available to Greek speakers in the Septuagint, which translated the word as virgin.
When the RSV translators translated the word as young woman, it caused quite a bit of controversy because it cast doubt the legitimacy of the account of Jesus' birth in Matthew. This was one of the primary sources of controversy regarding the translation.
posted by Pants! at 8:28 PM on January 4, 2008
The RSV translated the Hebrew word "almah" as "young woman" rather than "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, which Matthew cites as a prophesy predicting that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. The Hebrew Bible was available to Greek speakers in the Septuagint, which translated the word as virgin.
When the RSV translators translated the word as young woman, it caused quite a bit of controversy because it cast doubt the legitimacy of the account of Jesus' birth in Matthew. This was one of the primary sources of controversy regarding the translation.
posted by Pants! at 8:28 PM on January 4, 2008
The RSV and its successor, the NRSV,mostly use the Hebrew (Masoretic) text for the Old Testament rather than the Greek text of the Septuagint. Isaiah 7:14 in the Masoretic text uses the word "almah," meaning young woman. Within the context of Isaiah 7 there is no reason to suppose that Isaiah was speaking of a woman who was a sexual virgin. The Hebrew reference is to a woman who is with child (perhaps even Isaiah's own wife).Isaiah in chapter 7 is encouraging King Ahaz that God is trustworthy towards God's people. There is another Hebrew word in Hebrew, "betulah," to mean virgin. Isaiah didn't use that word.
Matthew was quoting from the Septuagint, in which the Hebrew "almah" was translated into Greek as "parthenos," e.g., virgin. (Think of The Parthenon, temple built to the virgin goddess Athena.) Was Matthew quoting Isaiah out of context? Perhaps; but if you read all of Matthew 1:18-25, you will notice that the quote from Isaiah emphasizes that the child's name (in Isaiah) is "Immanuel," God-with-us. So too the child who is born of Mary is Emmanuel, God-with-us, even as his legal name, given to him by Joseph, is Jesus ("God saves").
Matthew's use of Isaiah demonstrates the place of this child in the grand scheme of God's saving nature than on the mother. Matthew 1:18-25 needs to be read in the context of all of Matthew 1, especially the genealogy that includes four women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah, e.g., Bathsheba) who, as biblical scholars gently put it, all have unusual sexual histories. To restate Matthew in modern terms: God acted then to bring about or continue the Davidic lineage; God acted now [from Matthew's perspective] to continue the Davidic lineage.
posted by apartment dweller at 12:58 PM on January 5, 2008
Matthew was quoting from the Septuagint, in which the Hebrew "almah" was translated into Greek as "parthenos," e.g., virgin. (Think of The Parthenon, temple built to the virgin goddess Athena.) Was Matthew quoting Isaiah out of context? Perhaps; but if you read all of Matthew 1:18-25, you will notice that the quote from Isaiah emphasizes that the child's name (in Isaiah) is "Immanuel," God-with-us. So too the child who is born of Mary is Emmanuel, God-with-us, even as his legal name, given to him by Joseph, is Jesus ("God saves").
Matthew's use of Isaiah demonstrates the place of this child in the grand scheme of God's saving nature than on the mother. Matthew 1:18-25 needs to be read in the context of all of Matthew 1, especially the genealogy that includes four women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah, e.g., Bathsheba) who, as biblical scholars gently put it, all have unusual sexual histories. To restate Matthew in modern terms: God acted then to bring about or continue the Davidic lineage; God acted now [from Matthew's perspective] to continue the Davidic lineage.
posted by apartment dweller at 12:58 PM on January 5, 2008
These aren't liberal "bibles," but I like to peruse:
1. "The Women's Torah Commentary: New Insights from Women Rabbis on the 54 Weekly Torah Portions"
2. "The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy" (The Schocken Bible, Volume 1) by Everett Fox
3. "The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary" Robert Alter
4. "How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now" by James L. Kugel
posted by Smalltown Girl at 9:56 AM on January 6, 2008
1. "The Women's Torah Commentary: New Insights from Women Rabbis on the 54 Weekly Torah Portions"
2. "The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy" (The Schocken Bible, Volume 1) by Everett Fox
3. "The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary" Robert Alter
4. "How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now" by James L. Kugel
posted by Smalltown Girl at 9:56 AM on January 6, 2008
Lots of good modern suggestions above. If you're interested in pre-twentieth century Bibles, how about Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Women's Bible?
posted by homelystar at 8:02 PM on February 5, 2008
posted by homelystar at 8:02 PM on February 5, 2008
« Older What is the best way to realtime-render 3D images... | Should I start over, with a new career in computer... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:33 PM on January 4, 2008