Blogs and the Bible-- Literally

i sat one day clicking links faster than i could keep up with, and i came across Slate.com's "Blogging the Bible."

And i thinks to myself "this should be an interesting read" and i sits me down and reads for a while.

Author David Plotz goes through every chapter of every book (i think he's made it up to Job now) and kind of... writes things... about them. At times he's irreverent. At times he's blasphemous. At times he's insightful. At times he approaches worshipful.

i guess i can only give it a mixed review. Plotz seems more given over to banterous entertainment than delving the mysteries of the written Word. But really, could more be expected? Who would go to Slate.com to read something that wasn't entertaining? And i think he admits as much in the following Q and A:

Potomac, Md.: In your reading, are you looking at any secondary sources for guidance, such as the commentary in the footnotes in Etz Hayim?

David Plotz: I try to avoid commentary as much as possible. One of my translations has no commentary at all in it; the other has a few footnotes that I try to ignore. Avoiding commentary is a conscious effort. I want to encounter the book as rawly as possible. Most people encounter the Bible through someone else—as their rabbi or pastor or professor or priest interprets it for them. My goal for Blogging the Bible is to read it with as clear a mind as possible.

This means, of course, that I massively misinterpret certain passages, because I don't have sufficient education and context to understand them, and it means that I skip important verses or stories, and miss connections. But that's okay. The value of the experience for me as a reader (and as a writer) is to make sense of my holy book for myself—not to succumb to the interpretation that someone else imposes on it.

Something's got to be said for his trying, i suppose. But not much. i feel i have to protest his literary theory. Understanding what the text says or means doesn't matter to him, he claims: "i massively misinterpret certain passages... But that's okay." It's only important that he "experience" the text.

My protest is this: why is it "okay" to treat the Bible this way, but no other literature? How about a letter from your insurance company? A letter from your wife? A speeding ticket? A court summons? Your bank statement?

Is it "okay" to "experience" these pieces of literature instead of accurately pulling meaning from them? To feel the weight of social responsibility and civic duty but never actually go to court? To experience some vague feeling of familial love from your wife but never to actually meet her?

i don't think so.