Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: elogio dell'interpretazione

Grande articolo di Rav Jonathan Romain sul Guardian. E qualche
lezioncina per i lettori cattolici.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/dec/02/king-james-bible-talmud
 
 
An eye for an eye? The King James Bible and the Talmud
 
On its 400th anniversary, it is instructive to explore the
unacceptable aspects of the Authorised Version
 
Jonathan Romain
 
It has been a great year for King James I, but has it been so good for
the Bible? On the 400th anniversary of the translation that bears his
name, everyone has been praising the monarch for his initiative, but
ignoring a problem. Once we have finished admiring the elegance of the
translation, we still have to deal with the meaning of the actual
text. It may flow beautifully, but do we like what it says?
 
One example is the declaration of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" spelt
out in Exodus 21:24 as a principle of justice (and considered
sufficiently important to be repeated in both Leviticus and
Deuteronomy). However much sense it might have made in a nomadic
society 4,000 years ago, it is totally inappropriate today. Should we
send the police to the homes of the London rioters, with instructions
to loot them and then torch them? Unthinkable.
 
The rabbis of previous centuries also realised the verse was both
unworkable and immoral. However, they felt unable to alter the text
itself, either because they believed it was divine in origin or had
been sanctified by time. Their solution was to interpret away the
surface meaning and read it as if it meant an eye's worth for an eye.
Instead of a victim poking out the eye of his attacker, he could claim
financial compensation for the pain, the public embarrassment, the
medical expenses and loss of income.
 
What sounds like modern industrial relations legislation was actually
written in the Talmud, the rabbinic commentary on the Bible in the
second century. However, the unpalatable text of Exodus is still in
place and is read every day by millions who are unaware of this benign
reinterpretation, and the verse has become a theological albatross
around Jewish necks. Equally problematic is the Bible's propensity to
issue the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. These too have
been kicked into religious oblivion through later expositions, but the
larger issue of the unacceptable text remains to this day.
 
But if there are awkward and time-bound verses, the resilience of the
Bible is due to the moral challenges that permeate it and span the
ages. Cain's cry "Am I my brother's keeper?" is never answered but is
left for us to provide the response in every generation. Noah's Ark
tells how easily it is for the world to go under, consumed both by
nature and by its own evil, and yet the story also offers a rainbow of
hope for those who are willing to see it.
 
The Tower of Babel teaches about the dangers of over-ambition, as well
as the need for communication between people if society is going to
survive. The Joseph saga is still a handbook for social workers,
showing the ultimate dysfunctional family and warning of favouritism,
sibling rivalry and how parents can mess up their children's lives
(and vice versa).
 
Perhaps – in keeping with the Trade Descriptions Act – the good book
should be renamed The Complicated Bible, a reminder that we have the
task of sifting between the acceptable and unacceptable parts, and,
just as importantly, not to be worried by such an admission. As the
10th-century Jewish scholar Saadiah Gaon put it: "The main causes of
irreligion are the weak and ridiculous arguments advanced in defence
of faith."
 
So whereas in the days of King James believers would have felt obliged
to justify every verse, we can be more honest and more relaxed: not
denying its weaknesses and thereby not tarnishing its strengths.


 
E perché mai? Semmai la lezioncina riguarderà gli eretici luterani.
Noi cattolici siamo notoriamente troppo analfabeti per leggere le
Scritture e quindi a differenza di quelli non corriamo il rischio di
cadere nel letteralismo/fondamentalismo.
 
--
lo Splenetico


Pensa poi alla lobby dei dentisti e dei cavaocchi cattolici, che 
perderebbero le entrate derivanti da 2000 anni di lunga e consolidata 
tradizione di estrazione forzata di denti e bulbi oculari...
 
 
 
fe...@delenda.net
 
-- 
http://delendanet.blogspot.com
 

 Noi cattolici siamo notoriamente troppo analfabeti
 
vabbe', ma avete delle belle figure tutte intorno a voi.
 

 vabbe', ma avete delle belle figure tutte intorno a voi.
 
Quoto. Siamo grandi patroni delle Arti.
 
-- 
lo Splenetico
Information Is Not Knowledge

 Quoto. Siamo grandi patroni delle Arti.
 
oh, si', per esempio:
http://babilonia61.com/2008/01/23/paolo-uccello-miracolo-dell%E2%80%99ostia-profanata/
 


Ma sei Trew?
 
 
-- 
*Sunspot*
Stay hungry. Stay foolish. Stay dead.

 oh, si', per esempio:
http://babilonia61.com/2008/01/23/paolo-uccello-miracolo-dell%E2%80%9.
..
 
sempre i solit,  anzichè essere contenti di essere protagonisti di un
'opera d'arte fondamentale del Rinascimento, stanno sempre a
lamentarsi!

 
 
amalric ha scritto:
 
Qui c'era un post che parlava di culi.

 
 
amalric ha scritto:
 
Qui c'era il post di uno che straparlah di religioneh. Ed altrove, di
patibolo.

 unacceptable aspects of the Authorised Version
 
chissà se in tutte le scuole del regno ci saranno abbastanza
interpreti....
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6142328