“Do you understand what you are reading?”

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of the readings in the Revised Common Lectionary for 20 January 2014 (Monday after the Second Sunday after Epiphany), I chose to reflect on Acts 8:26-40. (I'd goofed earlier and did a reading for the Monday after the First Sunday in Advent earlier for the 20th, but it's all good as I needed to do a reading for that date anyway.

“Do you understand what you are reading?” Acts 8:30b

The reading I selected for today is that of the Philip and the Ethiopian (who wasn't an Ethiopian, but I don't want to make today's reflection one about geography and names).  While traveling, Philip comes across a eunuch who is reading from Isaiah 53 as he drives his chariot. (It was a lot easier to read and drive back when the horse could follow the road for you.)  Philip asks him the question that I chose as the title of this reflection.  Indeed, it is a question that any student of the Bible should ask emself.

Now in the reading, the eunuch replies  “How can I, unless someone explains it to me?”  Now Philip goes on to offer his view that the passage is a prophecy of Jesus, which the eunuch accepts to the point that he seeks to baptized immediately, which Philip does.   Now, regardless of one's own beliefs about Jesus, the point I want to make is that until a context was provided in which to understand what was written, the words had no meaning to the eunuch.  If one is going to try and understand the Bible (or any religious or philosophical text) I feel one needs more than the plain written words.  One needs to also study the context in which they were written to have an understanding of them.  Moreover, if they are going to have meaning for the reader, one needs to be able to place them within the context of today, just as Philip did for himself within his today.  Both past and present must be acknowledged.  If only the past is acknowledged, then the reader will derive no meaning from it.  If only the present is acknowledged, then the reader is imposing his own meaning upon the words instead of using them as means of communing with the writer.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

So you support using study bibles, like the Torah produced by Gunther Plaut, which included significant historical context and scholarly essays as well?  I always found those to be extremely helpful.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Most definitely.  The only problem such Bibles can have is that they potentially can be a bit unwieldy for use.  But whether one uses a study guide integrated with the text or a separate guide, they are useful. Indeed, I find they are even useful if you don't completely agree with the viewpoint of the author of the commentary.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Most definitely.  The only problem such Bibles can have is that they potentially can be a bit unwieldy for use.  But whether one uses a study guide integrated with the text or a separate guide, they are useful. Indeed, I find they are even useful if you don't completely agree with the viewpoint of the author of the commentary.

Do you think it'd be better to have separate books, or a larger, consolidated volume?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The only real difference is the form factor.  Some people will find it more convenient to have it all in one, others will find it easier to have two separate texts.  Whatever works best for the reader.