27 of 32 people found the following review helpful
How to read the bible,
This review is from: How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now (Hardcover)
This wonderful book is a feast for the reader. It presents the bible as it was intended to be understood by those who worte it. The reader who reads on until the very last page will find his or her religiosity unaltered by the liberating experience of truly understanding the context in which these ancient stories were told. Kugel has provided those with either a religious or historical interest in the bible with a most valuable gift.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 6, 2007 4:49:19 PM PST
T. Costa says:
How does anyone know how the bible was intended to be understood and what the authors who wrote it wanted?
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2007 9:45:24 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 25, 2007 9:45:56 PM PST
A later post indicates the book tells how to read the Jewish bible. What does that mean?
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2007 8:50:47 AM PST
Harold Gershowitz says:
Of course no one knows how the bible was intended to be understood; but some intellects such as John Selby Spong and James Kugel do extensive research and they share THEIR conclusions. And THEIR conclusions on the subject forces people to think and reason. The reader comes away from such well-thought-out work with new ideas that make sense of purely faith-based "holy grail."
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2008 5:29:02 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 14, 2010 9:48:39 AM PST]
Posted on Aug 20, 2008 11:15:59 AM PDT
David Richter says:
Not exactly. If you bother reading what Kugel says, the favored interpretation is NOT that of the Biblical authors who wrote the texts, NOR that of modern literary/historical scholars, but rather that of the Rabbis who put together the Talmud and the Midrash between 150 and 600 C.E. Kugel justifies that by saying that the Bible didn't become the Bible till the Rabbis had canonized it as such. Interesting idea. The equivalent for secular literature would be deciding that the meaning of Shakespeare would be determined, not by his own intentions, nor by the speculations of literary/historical scholars, but now and for all time by the British journalists of the late eighteenth through the nineteenth centuries, since it was those writers who placed Shakespeare at the top of the literary heap. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me either....
‹ Previous 1 Next ›