Reading Ecclesiasticus

Ecclesiasticus sounds like a word someone made up as a joke, like Colin Buchanan's jargonisationismacality in the evangelistic training dvd Just Start Talking. But it is the title of a long book of wisdom in Roman Catholic Bibles. Protestants don't need to be afraid of those books, which Christians have always believed to be worth reading, though Protestant Christians do not believe them to be holy writ.

There is some great stuff in Sirach [another name for Ecclesiasticus], which begins with a prologue by the author's grandson. I'd like to think that one day one of my grandsons would want to edit some of my ramblings!

Take chapters 22 and 23 for example. This morning I read this interesting observation on swearing, which I take to mean making an oath, in my read-through of the New Jerusalem Bible.

Sirach 23: 9 Do not get into the habit of swearing, do not make a habit of naming the Holy One; 10 for just as a slave who is constantly overseen will never be without bruises, so someone who is always swearing and uttering the Name will not be exempt from sin. 11 A man for ever swearing is full of iniquity, and the scourge will not depart from his house. If he offends, his sin will be on him, if he did it unheedingly, he has doubly sinned; if he swears a false oath, he will not be treated as innocent, for his house will be filled with calamities.

This may reflect part of the reason for substituting LORD for YAHWEH in the Septuagint, I suppose.

There was also some great advice for those who fear other people [such as myself, I admit]:

Sirach 23:18-19 ... the man who sins against the marriage bed and says to himself, 'Who can see me? There is darkness all round me, the walls hide me, no one can see me, why should I worry? The Most High will not remember my sins.' What he fears are human eyes, he does not realise that the eyes of the Lord are ten thousand times brighter than the sun, observing every aspect of human behaviour, seeing into the most secret corners.

But the words at the beginning of my reading today surely cannot be from God:

Sirach 22:3 It is a disgrace to have fathered a badly brought-up son, but the birth of any daughter is a loss

Some accuse the Bible of sexism, but I have not encountered anything like that comment in the canonical Scriptures.

Back to front?

I read recently that the Roman Catholic Church has decreed that Christians should not use the name Yahweh in liturgy, but should substitute Lord or God as is common in many English Bibles, which follow the practice of the Septuagint, the very first translation of the Old Testament into Greek. This is, of course, the practice of orthodox Jews.

But this morning I read Exodus 23 in the New Jerusalem Bible, a Roman Catholic Bible and came across this command in verse 13:

Do not mention the name of any other god: let none ever be heard from your lips.

It is odd that the Bible seems to command the opposite, don't you think!

The NJB itself is one of the few Bibles which does use Yahweh, rather than LORD or Lord GOD. Nothing is said in the article about the reading of this translation, which has the church's official blessing. I wonder if those who read in church will have to remember to substitute those words when reading?

I am enjoying reading through the New Jerusalem Bible, including reading the extra books and bits that are in Roman Catholic Bibles, partly because the translators did not consciously try to keep to the wording of the King James Version where possible, as translations such as the American Standard Version [a Bible which uses Jehovah for the tetragrammaton],Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New King James Version, New International Version and Today's New International Version do.

There is a welcome freshness in approach, which makes you think through the Scriptures again, and which also makes you stumble when reading, because your brain makes you say the old familiar words!

However, the study notes are not so welcome, as they reflect a low view of the Scriptures and regurgitate the discredited Documentary Hypothesis and liberal views of authorship. It is strange that these get the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat of the Roman Catholic Church, whose catechism and offical statements take a high view of the Scriptures.

End of one project, beginning of a new

Yesterday I completed my project of reading through the Bible in the innovative The Books of the Bible - a presentation of Today's New International Version, which is a Bible without chapters, verses or headings, organised more logically than the standard form in which Protestant Bibles are printed.

I found the introductions to books very helpful, and the lack of references and footnotes enticing, and completed this project faster than my previous read-throughs.

I've now begun reading The New Jerusalem Bible using a plan called Read the Bible and the Catechism in a Year, which I got from Felix Just's Ways of Reading the Bible webpage.

As always, I am adapting the chart to my own purposes. I'm not planning to read the catechism at this stage, but may do so later. This morning I read the first chapters of Genesis, Matthew, Proverbs and Tobit, as well as reading two Psalms and 1 Thessalonians.

One thing I've noticed so far is that God has three different names in the first four chapters of Genesis. In Genesis 1 he is God, Genesis 2 and 3 he is Yahweh God and in Genesis 4 he is Yahweh.

I also noticed that the NJB translates wrath as retribution.