Book review: "The People's Bible" by Derek Wilson

2011 was the 400th anniversary of the first publication of the King James Bible. As a result, a number of books detailing the history of The Book were published to commemorate the occasion. The one I read was The People's Bible. The Remarkable History of the King James Version by Derek Wilson. I found it to be an insightful and enjoyable read. Wilson looks at the history of the KJV from the century before its publication to today, charting the changing religous and cultural climate that lead to its publication, and analysing its enduring influence.

Two aspects of the book particularly stood out for me. First, his portrayal of the situation prior to 1611 is vivid and memorable. The description of religious ritual in the setting of a primarily illiterate rural population evokes images of a way of 'doing' Christianity that is very different from the way it tend to be done in the Western world in this day and age. Furthermore, while the distribution of contraband bibles to believers desperate to read the Word of God in their own language is still a reality for many people in many countries, it is incredible to think that English speakers were in this very situation five centuries ago.

The second aspect that stood out was Wilson's discussion of the lasting influence of the King James Version of the Bible, and the questions that are still very relevant today. Should everybody be able to read and interpret the bible? Or should it be reserved for those who have undergone the training necessary to understand it deeply? How does the process of translation link into the belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and the authority that belief engenders? He contends that the increasing number of English translations of the Bible hinders the memorisation of scripture. While this may not be true at an individual level, in the community of faith generally, the lack of a single standard translation makes it more difficult to build "religous currency" that "strengthen[s] fellowship and reaffirm[s] belief" (pg 197). This hindrance though is tempered by the impression one gets that Wilson considers the ideal of a single most accurate English translation that all parties agree upon to be something of a chasing of the wind.

Readers of this blog will know that I like my software to be open-source. I like my religion to be open-source too. It is a bold statement by the Bible to claim to be the Word of God, and a bold statement by the Church to claim to point to the Saviour of humanity. The Church has devoted considerable energy to ensuring that these claims can be evaluated by people for themselves. Not only does this include the translation of the Bible into as many languages as possible, but also the publication of the Bible in Greek and Hebrew. The result being that the Bible is probably the most scrutinised and studied document in the world. The Bible has a significance about that few other pieces of literature possess, and which demands careful consideration of its contents. It is well worth a read.

References:
   McGrath A. 2001. In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible. London
   Wilson D. 2010. The People's Bible. The Remarkable History of the King James Version. Lion: Oxford.

Quote: GK Chesterton from 'Orthodoxy'—Nature

The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother. Unfortunately, if you regard Nature as a mother, you discover that she is a step-mother. The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate. This gives to the typically Christian pleasure in this earth a strange touch of lightness that is almost frivolity. Nature was a solemn mother to the worshippers of Isis and Cybele. Nature was a solemn mother to Wordsworth or to Emerson. But Nature is not solemn to Francis of Assisi or to George Herbert. To St. Francis, Nature is a sister, and even a younger sister: a little, dancing sister, to be laughed at as well as loved.

Chesterton GK. 1908. Orthodoxy. Image, New York (2001 Edition)
Chapter VII: The Eternal Revolution. Page 115.

Faraday Institute

Today I went to a talk by John Wood, based on the question "Is Man a Machine?". The talk in a nutshell discussed the uncertainty inherent in scientific measurement and human perception, the difference between man and machine being freedom, and that Christ sets us free to question, to investigate and to think.

He also directed us to the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, particularly the recently developed resource Test of Faith. This resource contains interviews with a number of leading scientists and theologians discussing the connections between the two fields and what they each can offer. In addition, the Faraday Institute website itself contains a large number of audio and video recordings of lectures discussing the interface between religion and science, and published documents on the subject also.

Quote: James Hannam on science and religion

One of the best quotes I've seen recently about the interface between science and religion. It's constructive and promotes dialogue, unlike a lot of the rhetoric that unfortunately gets more publicity.

"Nonetheless, today, science and religion are the two most powerful intellectual forces on the planet. Both are capable of doing enormous good, but their chances of doing so are much greater if they can work together. The award of the Templeton Prize to Lord Rees is a small step in the right direction."

James Hannam on the "Soapbox Science" blog.

Quote: GK Chesterton from 'Orthodoxy'

Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing—say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne or the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico, for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful. The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico: to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles; Pimlico would attire herself as a woman does when she is loved. For decoration is not given to hide horrible things: but to decorate things already adorable. A mother does not give her child a blue bow because he is so ugly without it. A lover does not give a girl a necklace to hide her neck. If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is theirs, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence.

Chesterton GK. 1908. Orthodoxy. Image, New York (2001 Edition)
Chapter V: The Flag of the World. Page 66.

Statio

The Bible is an amazing book and one that I recommend to all. Heck, even Richard Dawkins at his recent talk here in Christchurch recommended that people read it. Yet when I came to deciding whether or not I should put a random Bible verse generator on this site, I realised that I was reluctant to do so. Fears that readers may feel that I'm ramming something down their throat, question my objectivity as a scientist, or that it's just plain too cheesy all led me to be somewhat wary of putting it up there.

It's up there though, and this is why. I blog for myself, and am slowly making this site a place that has links to everything that I need. One thing that I need an easy way to read a random bible verse and meditate on it briefly throughout the day. This sort of thing is rooted in a practice followed by Benedictine monks called "statio"; a standing still. I first came across it while reading "Reaching for the Invisible God" by Philip Yancey, but there's an outline of the practise in this article by a doctor. I'm hoping that having this bible verse up here will get me thinking more on Christ and His love and keep my perspective on things that matter.

Creativity as god?

Something that a number of popular science magazines and websites have been talking about is Stuart Kauffman's latest book "Reinventing the Sacred". I haven't read it, so I won't be commenting about it. However, I did read his Perspectives column in New Scientist.

He uses biological "pre-adaptations" and how we're unable to predict them as being evidence of a "ceaseless creativity, with no supernatural creator."He then goes on to say:

Shall we use the "God" word? We do not have to, yet it is still our most powerful invented symbol. Our sense of God has evolved from Yahweh in the desert some 4500 years ago, a jealous, law-giving warrior God, to the God of love that Jesus taught. How many versions have people worshipped in the past 100,000 years?

Yet what is more awesome: to believe that God created everything in six days, or to believe that the biosphere came into being on its own, with no creator, and partially lawlessly? I find the latter proposition so stunning, so worthy of awe and respect, that I am happy to accept this natural creativity in the universe as a reinvention of "God".

I've been thinking about this, and have to say I disagree. To start with the second paragraph, as astounding as God's creativity and beauty in His creation is, the incredible thing is that that same God who holds the universe in His hand loves you and I with a passion we cannot comprehend. A passion that lead to Jesus' death by crucifixion so that we may have true freedom. THAT is stunning and worthy of awe and respect, far more so than a disembodied, faceless and impersonal creativity.

In terms of the first paragraph: God is the same God through the ages. Jesus taught that God was a law-keeper and judge, and Moses talked of God as being merciful and loving. Greater emphasis was given to the qualities that Kauffman states, but both aspects have been there throughout the revelation God has given us. Indeed, God's love and Jesus' sacrifice is shown more clearly by an appreciation and an understanding of his Holiness and Justice.

References:

Kauffman, S. (07 May 2008)
Perspectives: Why humanity needs a God of creativity
NewScientist.com news service