On “We” by Yevgeny Zamyatin **

This has been on my too-read list for years; unfortunately, it was quite a big disappointment. In part, this book suffered from The Godfather complex. By that I mean that so many other works that came after this book use similar tropes that the “original” hardly seems all that innovative or exciting, so while it might be the classic or the first, as a reader coming to it late, it reads as derivative. Not only that, but it doesn't read well.

The book is about a man working for the United State. Everyone works for the state. There is a kind of group think. Outside the state are revolutionaries, aiming for individuality. The man, like all other citizens, is simply a number. No one bears names. They all work for the good of the state. Until . . . The man falls in love with another person. Now, they work to break the system. Numbers: think Lucas's THX 1138; omnipotent, omniscient state with clandestine love affair: think 1984. Unlike those works, however, I never found myself caring about the characters. The writing was emotionally over the top; at the same time, it was hard to follow, and the fact that I fairly early on gave up caring meant I didn't try hard. A synopsis on Wikipedia explained most of what I'd gathered and little of what I hadn't (go there for the real synopsis).

Spoiler: It doesn't end well. Just as you think the revolutionaries might pull it off, the man himself reverts to be interested in supporting the state, soaking up its drug. It betrays his lover. The state wins. One can, I suppose, take the comments from the man's lover as holding hope out—namely, that revolutions never stop. A state might have total control, but eventually someone overthrows it. There is no end to that. We just don't see that overthrow in this story.

On “The Reluctant Parting” by Julie Galambush ***

Like Metzger's book, this work is essentially an introduction to the New Testament, providing summaries of each work and a short account of how it came to be. What differentiates this work is that it purports to provide a Jewish view of the New Testament. Galambush's thesis is that before the New Testament became Christian it was a Jewish work, one in which Jews debated Jews about the meaning of Judaism. It's a provocative thesis, one that I would have thought would have led to many more unique readings of the New Testament works than it did.

There are some valuable observations here but on the whole the work seems more an introduction to the New Testament to Jewish readers who would otherwise be unfamiliar or less familiar with the works, so it didn't offer as much new info to one familiar with the New Testament as I would have expected. Complicating this further if Galambush's standard Protestant reading of so much of Christian doctrine. With the author having been a Christian that converted to Judaism, I felt as if I were getting two rather distorted views of the scripture rather than a fresh read of it. Galambush takes the standard secular line on the late creation of most of the works of the New Testament, merges that with standard readings of Christian doctrine (e.g., harrowing of hell) that likely were not part of the NT authors' original intent, and then places all of that within Jewish arguments over what would have made for proper Jewish teaching at that time.

On “The New Testament” by Bruce M. Metzger ****

This introduction to the background, growth, and content of the New Testament was much more interesting and potentially useful than I expected. I'd been under the impression that this leading biblical scholar, as the teacher of Bart Ehrman, was something of a liberal one, but his readings fit, rather, more often with the conservative school. In addition, the work being an introduction would seem to offer little more than basics, but it actually provides some strong readings of the various biblical works.

The first part of the work discusses culture of the time in which the New Testament was written, providing in roughly one hundred pages a summary of Jewish sects and Greek philosophical, as well as the Roman governmental structure. A second section discusses life of Jesus and the literary structures of his various sayings and stories. Metzger than discusses the church's early history and the travels of Paul. A large section summarizes each book of the New Testament and presents theories regarding each work's creation; the summaries sometimes provides a few close readings that are eye-opening. The book closes with a suprisingly conservative view of how the canon essentially self -authenticated long before its actual setting aside and with a discussion of the various translations and their limitations and advantages.

On “Misquoting Truth” by Timothy Paul Jones *****

I figured I'd give this Christian response to the work of Bart Erhman a go after reading Ehrman's similarly titled work. Even Jones has to admit that Ehrman is an amazing scholar, but of course, both Jones and Ehrman have particular points of view and different axes to grind, as do we all. So what was useful about reading Jones's book was seeing so many of the fact that Ehrman doesn't quite give the full truth about. The first part of this book largely adresses Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, and the second largely addresses Ehrman's Lost Christianities.

Interesting tidbits that Ehrman doesnt include in his text: While many early documents are missing author names on their works, it's possibly because the title page is missing; in the cases where we have author names attached, in every single case, from a wide variety of areas, the names (Matthew, Mark, John, etc.) match what these works would come to be called. It's not like someone assigned these names to the works later. (What neither Jones nor Ehrman discuss are the specific documents and the specific dates of the documents and the actual numbers, which is likely getting a bit too far into the weeds for most people. If we have Gospels of John before 300 and none of them bare his name, and we have sixteen from the 400s with twelve bearing his name, that would arguably mean something quite different from having two Johns from the 200s, one bearing his name, eight from the 300s with one bearing his name, and then twelve from the 400s with three bearing his name.)

Ehrman's argument about 1 Corinthians 11:34-35 being added by a duplicitous scribe with an agenda mentions that those two verses are sometimes placed after verse 40 in some manuscript; what he doesn't mention is that those two verses, nevertheless, still always appear. We don't have versions of the letter without them. That suggests something quite different to me.

Other things that Jones brought up were things I'd thought about even while reading Ehrman's work. Most of the discrepanciess Ehrman sees in early manuscripts as destroying the value of the written works seem, on reflection, not to make that much of a difference when it comes down to the actual pont of the work. The same message still applies. I suppose that one could argue that God should have put his writings on some kind of industructable stone so that we would absolutely what they said, which seems to be the only thing that would satisfy Ehrman's scepticism, but the part of the point of scripture is that God works through fallible humans; the stone would kind of dissuit the point. That we have as accurate copies as we do seems no less than a miracle, as Jones notes, because if you think about people copying stuff down in a language without punctuation or spaces between words, such would seem to lend to all kinds of errors and eventual changes. You can take from that what you will. One man sees the whole enterprise as a human one attempting to speak for a god created by humans, and one man sees God speaking through humans.

But as Jones notes near the end, and I think the point is a good one, we can't get too tied up in the idea that everything in the Bible must match or that we have all the answers. Such prognostications can lead us to lose faith when scholars point out the problems. We need to be honest about what's there and about what we don't yet understand, while seeing the bigger picture.