In our readings this week, the canon was explored in a similar yet different light. Stein wrote about how the desire to control the canon not only limits to the area of authors, translators, political figures, but also publication firms. In order to boost sales, there is a growing number of niche bibles targeted towards different denominations and demographic communities. Each subtle change in the prose and wording, can lead to a drastic change in interpretation. The question I would like to address is if it is ethical for publications to have the power to alter the meaning of the bible for selfish reasons?
The Jefferson bible piqued my interest in its simplicity. Jefferson stripped away much of the prose and language of the tradition scriptures and really only highlighted the main plot of the biblical stories. While I wished many of my readings would look like that, I also recognize that biblical verses were meant to be lyrical given the low literacy rate. In his act of simplifying the Bible, he also took away important traditions which the Bible was based upon.
I am conflicted in the way some feminist argue for the Bible to change. I do understand the cultural significance of the Bible to many communities, but I also see the need for more women recognition in the scriptures. Stanton takes on an interesting point in her call for revision of the scriptures to be more inclusive. As a religion that is meant to unite, the Bible definitely draws a deep divide between the sexes.
No comments:
Post a Comment