Organic References
As I continue to have more experiences with my copy of The Books of The Bible in various Bible study and church settings, I’m finding that the passage referencing issue keeps coming up. It is so tempting—repeatedly tempting—to revert to at least a chapter reference when you want to point someone to a certain place in the Scriptures. This pattern is deeply imbedded in our Bible practice.
In the local assembly of Jesus-followers of which I’m a part, we’ve been reading and discussing the servant passages in Isaiah and exploring how the gospels use them in reference to Jesus. When I was teaching on Matthew’s telling of Jesus’ baptism, my first instinct was to simply rattle off the four references (42:1-9; 49:1-13; 50:4-11; and 52:13-53:12) and start pointing out the connections. It is so fast. Zoom. Zoom. You’re there.
But it’s actually so much richer to take a moment to see each of these in light of their setting in Isaiah. For example, I could have simply noted that when Jesus is baptized by John (in Matthew’s first main section, at the end of the part about the Baptizer, right before the temptation story), the words recorded from the heavenly voice seem to combine two key passages. “You are my son” from Psalm 2 refers to Israel’s king as the one who will rule the nations with a rod of iron. But the next part (“whom I love; with him I am well pleased”) seems to clearly pick up on language from the first servant song: “Here is my servant . . . my chosen one in whom I delight.”
OK, so the passage tells us that Israel’s promised king, God’s son, is also the servant that Isaiah proclaimed. Nice. In my notes that I handed out that day, I could have simply listed the four servant songs, we could have read them, and that would be that. But wait. Isolating Isaiah 42:1-9 and reading it alone doesn’t really cut it.
When I read “Isaiah 42” in The Books of The Bible, I can easily see that there is a lengthy oracle that precedes it. It focuses on God’s supremacy over the false gods of the nations. It’s a set-up for the presentation of the servant that follows. This chosen servant of God does not come to smash the nations with their idols, instead he is shown as the one who will bring them light. He will free them, and they can put their hope in him. The servant reveals God’s true intention, not just for Israel, but for the world.
Much more could be said. The c&v Bible is particularly bad with the last servant song: how many times have you heard people refer to “Isaiah 53,” ignoring the fact that the song begins in chapter 52? But the point is that the format can either help or hinder the likelihood that I will read in context. Yes, it’s possible (if difficult) to try and read past or over the often incorrectly placed chapter and verse breaks. But why should readers have to do that?
The Bible’s books have natural, intentional, literary breaks. Let’s start talking about them. And let’s start practicing referring to them in natural, contextual, literary ways.
-Glenn
In the local assembly of Jesus-followers of which I’m a part, we’ve been reading and discussing the servant passages in Isaiah and exploring how the gospels use them in reference to Jesus. When I was teaching on Matthew’s telling of Jesus’ baptism, my first instinct was to simply rattle off the four references (42:1-9; 49:1-13; 50:4-11; and 52:13-53:12) and start pointing out the connections. It is so fast. Zoom. Zoom. You’re there.
But it’s actually so much richer to take a moment to see each of these in light of their setting in Isaiah. For example, I could have simply noted that when Jesus is baptized by John (in Matthew’s first main section, at the end of the part about the Baptizer, right before the temptation story), the words recorded from the heavenly voice seem to combine two key passages. “You are my son” from Psalm 2 refers to Israel’s king as the one who will rule the nations with a rod of iron. But the next part (“whom I love; with him I am well pleased”) seems to clearly pick up on language from the first servant song: “Here is my servant . . . my chosen one in whom I delight.”
OK, so the passage tells us that Israel’s promised king, God’s son, is also the servant that Isaiah proclaimed. Nice. In my notes that I handed out that day, I could have simply listed the four servant songs, we could have read them, and that would be that. But wait. Isolating Isaiah 42:1-9 and reading it alone doesn’t really cut it.
When I read “Isaiah 42” in The Books of The Bible, I can easily see that there is a lengthy oracle that precedes it. It focuses on God’s supremacy over the false gods of the nations. It’s a set-up for the presentation of the servant that follows. This chosen servant of God does not come to smash the nations with their idols, instead he is shown as the one who will bring them light. He will free them, and they can put their hope in him. The servant reveals God’s true intention, not just for Israel, but for the world.
Much more could be said. The c&v Bible is particularly bad with the last servant song: how many times have you heard people refer to “Isaiah 53,” ignoring the fact that the song begins in chapter 52? But the point is that the format can either help or hinder the likelihood that I will read in context. Yes, it’s possible (if difficult) to try and read past or over the often incorrectly placed chapter and verse breaks. But why should readers have to do that?
The Bible’s books have natural, intentional, literary breaks. Let’s start talking about them. And let’s start practicing referring to them in natural, contextual, literary ways.
-Glenn
posted by Glenn at
2:32 PM
3 Comments:
I will preface this by saying that I am in full support of the de-versifying project. The original scriptures didn't need numbers, so we don't either.
That being said, I think this post gets at the heart of one of my biggest issues. In the modern world of the printing press... or Blackberries and iPhones... we are encouraged by our churches, and I would say the Spirit, to not just blindly follow what the fine chap up front is telling us. We are called to challenge what it is we are being taught by checking things out ourselves. Will this become more difficult if our pastors start using The Books of the Bible?
When pastors quote or make reference to other passages they could, as you have suggested in this post provide the context and surrounding of that particular quotation so the actual verse and chapter is not strictly needed. That is fine and all, but I have two issues with that.
1) For the new Christian who is exploring their faith and who is (hopefully) trying to deepen their understanding of said faith the context might not be enough to let them know where to search out those passages for further research.
2) For the Christ follower who is familiar with the scriptures, it is still a time saver to have the actual chapter and verse. This may be somewhat of an indicator of laziness, but not necessarily. Aside from those with amazing memories, providing the setting for the verse won't necessarily lead us right to where that passage comes from. In note taking during sermons it is not only a time saver to jot down the chapter and verse, but is actually more beneficial; in the time it takes for me to sloppily write down hints about where to find the verse, the pastor may have moved on to another talking point or may even just be reading that particular passage (which I am not fully paying attention to because I am writing).
This, obviously, isn't a condemnation of The Books of the Bible, it is just an issue that, I feel, need to be more directly dealt with.
You said: "When I read “Isaiah 42” in The Books of The Bible, I can easily see that there is a lengthy oracle that precedes it." In that one sentence you made reference to a chapter because it was much easier and more succinct than writing out the summary of the content of that chapter.
The other that arises is this: if I provide the context for a passage by saying "shortly after this happened, and before this story" you are opening up the possibility of confusion. What if there are two similar stories or what if someone writes down a detail wrong so assumes you are talking about a different story or location?
"The Bible’s books have natural, intentional, literary breaks. Let’s start talking about them. And let’s start practicing referring to them in natural, contextual, literary ways."
I completely agree. The more context, both historical and literary, can be provided in a sermon or study the better. People need to know where the stories are coming from, why they are where they are, etc. But progress (if chapters and verses can be seen as such) is not always a bad thing.
Any thoughts on this issue?
(I have also added this to a blog post of my own.)
Hello Matt,
You're a tough guy to keep up with! I'll link this response to the other locations where you've raised these good questions.
A quick story. I was in a meeting with a veteran in the Bible publishing industry a few months back. We had been telling him about this concept for a couple of years (we've been working on it for about five). His message was the sort of 'that's nice' that your grandmother might say when she thinks you've done something a bit silly.
This past August, we gave him a copy. We met with him in September. I'll never forget his words: "I didn't think it would make a difference in how I read the Bible. But you know what? It really is different. This is great."
Not only was this confirmation of the fact that the concept is different, it also demonstrated just how hard it is to communicate it's distinctiveness. A Bible publishing veteran was having trouble seeing how special the concept was. You're definitely ahead of the game there, Matt. We appreciate your kind words and going out of your way to express them.
The interaction with the Bible publishing vet is where much of our 'marketing speak' comes in. How do you describe something so different in just a couple of sentences, or even just a couple of words? How do you reference about a complex, nuanced idea in a simple way that people will understand? In our attempts to do so, it's come across shallow for some. This was not intentional on our part, but that is hardly of consequence. It's a bit like offending my wife. Whether or not I've intended to offend her, she's still offended and it's a reality I must deal with. In this case, calling it a Bible without additives is less meaningful for some than describing it in it's fullness.
Similarly, this is the same issue we've taken with chapter and verse referencing. The reality is that it's much quicker and (at least in the short run) clearer to people where the passage is in the pages of their whole Bible when you put a couple numbers after a book name. But it's almost always less meaningful. Attaching a numbered reference to the end merely tells you how to find it. But referencing by context tells you what it is as well.
You have rightly noted that this is no easy task to reference this way. It takes commitment and time and creativity and great care. This is our point as well. These sorts of things belong in our commitment to, as some have called it, the greatest story ever told.
In regards to new Christians, hopefully we aren't throwing them out there on their own to figure this stuff out for themselves. And what if we taught folks this sort of thing from their early interactions with Scripture? Not only would we cultivate a great ethic of Scripture reading, but this sort of referencing would come even quicker than it does for those of us who are used to chapters and verses (which by the way, I've found actually surprisingly easy in mixed Bible company—more on that another time).
Does any of that make sense? I don't presume to have all the answers, but want to make sure I'm communicating my thoughts clearly. Additionally, what has your experience with TBoTB been as you've been reading it?
Thanks again for the good questions,
p
"The interaction with the Bible publishing vet is where much of our 'marketing speak' comes in. How do you describe something so different in just a couple of sentences, or even just a couple of words? How do you reference about a complex, nuanced idea in a simple way that people will understand? In our attempts to do so, it's come across shallow for some. This was not intentional on our part, but that is hardly of consequence. It's a bit like offending my wife. Whether or not I've intended to offend her, she's still offended and it's a reality I must deal with. In this case, calling it a Bible without additives is less meaningful for some than describing it in it's fullness."
I was thinking of how to respond... I wrote a bunch that I thought was fitting, and I really do think it was, but I think it comes down to this: you asked "How do you describe something so different in just a couple of sentences." I will just be blunt: it could be said "The Bible with verse and chapter notations removed." It is simple and to the point.
Obviously it is a more complex issue than just that. But my fear is that using "marketing speak" just puts us in the realm of being worldly. Of course we have to to live in the world and reach those that know the language of the world... which includes marketing language. Does that mean things should be broken down into a catch phrase or trendy slogan? I suppose that could be possible, but is it necessary?
Going the "trendy" route might be more flashy and get more people to pay attention (which is a good thing), but at what cost? It isn't exactly a completely truthful statement (of course things have been added) nor does it actually describe how this version is different than other versions.
I don't think I would go so far as to say it is bad that particular slogan was chosen, but personally I don't know if it was necessary.
As far as the original topic goes (Organic Referencing), it seems that the crux of your argument is this: "The reality is that it's much quicker and (at least in the short run) clearer to people where the passage is in the pages of their whole Bible when you put a couple numbers after a book name. But it's almost always less meaningful. Attaching a numbered reference to the end merely tells you how to find it. But referencing by context tells you what it is as well."
On this point I completely agree. BUT does that mean we throw out the baby with the bath water? I suppose my argument would be that during a church service it is not going to always be appropriate to use TBotB. YES, context should ALWAYS be provided, but why not show people where they can find the context so they can read it themselves?
Let me ask this: are you folks recommending that TBotB is the only version used? Or would you say it is more of a companion version?
I see it as something that can (and should) be used as a study and/or devotional tool, but not as a primary, church going Bible. It is up to the pastor/preacher/speaker/whatever to provide the context, it should not be up to the receiver of the message to figure out where they are pulling the message from (obviously that is somewhat simplified because in many ways, they definitely are responsible for that).
Tell people where the can find the context, tell people the context, have people read the context. All of it is great, but why remove something that is obviously a helpful tool? Why should we be sold on one way of reading Scripture?
As far as my experiences go, to be perfectly honest, they have been somewhat limited as of yet. I don't own a copy yet (poor grad student!) so my experience has been limited to what you have available on your website and my usage of the ESV's online version that can remove chapter and verse notations.
That confession said, I love it. I think it is a wonderful way to experience scripture. I love the NASB, but its versing (is that a word?) is horrible! It is definitely very worth while to actually read what the original structure was, to see how the actual paragraphs ans sentences flowed. Definitely a great read!
I hope I don't sound like I am being overly harsh, I really do love the project, these are just concerns that I have had in thinking about this approach to Bible reading.
(And, of course, I have cross posted this comment here.)
Post a Comment
<< Home