Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Truth Is Stranger #84: The Green Bible

OK, we reduce, reuse, and recycle. We try not to run the a/c. We bike lots of places. Honestly, we do everything but wear birkenstocks. But even if the general idea is good, do we need to market a Bible as a GREEN Bible?

From Time Magazine:

Green runs through the Bible like a vine. There are the Garden and Noah's olive branch. The oaks under which Abraham met with angels. The "tree standing by the waterside" in Psalms. And there is Jesus, the self-proclaimed "true vine," who describes the Kingdom of Heaven as a mustard seed that grows into a tree "where birds can nest." He dies on a cross of wood, and when he rises Mary Magdalene mistakes him for a gardener.

Yeah, here's a clue, Time--there was no electricity back then. Of course the ancient world was green.



CMinor said...

I dunno...wasn't an awful lot of first-century Palestine kinda brown and dusty?

Baron Korf said...

Anyone else find it funny that it's the New Revised Standard?

Allen's Brain said...

Great! Just what we need! A Bible that completely biodegrades in a month's time!

Think of all the smoke for all those sacrifices. Can't be good for the environment.

Remember the good ol' days when it was God's world, and not man's?

Perhaps the "greenest" Bible is the simply read/heard, never printed variety--but somehow I doubt God is crazy about that idea.

Gregory said...

IC, you're going to put me out of a job.

Then again, Jesus was not far off from being a tree-hugger. He had long hair, wore sandals, and tried to stick it to the man. If they'd had granola back then He'd probably have been all over it.

The Ironic Catholic said...

Gregory--crunching on wheat berries while traveling--sounds like granola to me!

Allen--yeah, I thought about cracking a joke about the oral tradition that began most biblical books, you beat me to it.

Baron--uh, I have to admit, I don't get it.

CMinor--let's not get literalist here. You and I are Catholic!

Gregory said...

IC, I think Baron means that "New" or "Revised" could be considered an oxymoron of "Standard."

Baron Korf said...

The New Revised Standard Version, even the Catholic Edition, was rejected by Rome. However the RSV (both 1st and 2nd edition) is an approved translation. From what I understand, one of the biggest sticking points on the translation is inclusive language (i.e. being politically correct).

The Ironic Catholic said...

Baron, I'm no expert in Scripture, but I believe the NRSV was rejected (or not chosen) for liturgical use. Private devotional use OK. The NRSV does bend an ear toward inclusive language issues, but I've seen a lot worse (what I mean is that the inclusive language in the NRSV seems based in the original language, whereas some translations make the text more inclusive than the language can possibly allow. Although I can think of one exception to that rule in the NRSV--Gen 1:26-27...there may be others.)

I get your comment now, though. Thanks for the update.

John said...

The infant mortality rate was much higher, and the life expectancy was much lower. I like my modern technology, thankyouverymuch.

Especially plumbing. Sure beats outhouses and wells, especially when the two mix.