I tried reading the 2nd Ed Revised Standard Version in 2008. I just got wrapped up in too many issues. When I got to the NT, I wanted to look at the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, which has a couple great sections on the writings of St. Paul.
I think it was a Fr. Fitzmeyer who wrote these sections, and made the observation that one should not look for a systematic approach in the writings of St. Paul. It’s just not there.
He, however, has organized a lot of Paul’s thoughts. I recommend you check your local parishes for a copy of that commentary in their library, to see if you can borrow it for this reading in particular.
He explains why some of Paul’s writings seem so genuinely attributable to him, while others are not so easy to recognize as Paul’s work.
I enjoyed the OT, in the sense of having seen so much that I didn’t know was there, before. For example, I think Leviticus is a very “Catholic” book, in which the writer (“Moses”) tells the people how to confess their sins (sound familiar?).
In the historical books, the whole issue of North and South kingdoms went over my head. Also, some of the prophets wrote to each of those, with different messages. I didn’t pick up that subtlety.
But, overwhelmingly, I was impressed at how God was so patient with the Israelites and how He loved them. Love, that’s what I see in the OT above all.
I don’t think I ever had an original thought, but I have come up with some interesting ideas that I have later validated from commentaries. For example, the account of Noah and the flood seems straightforward enough. What later impressed me was that for the balance of the OT, God was living up to the covenant that He made with Noah, not to destroy mankind with a flood, for its sinfulness.
I’d like to read the Bible in a year, without feeling too forced about it, as I did last year. What I’m saying, is that I didn’t understand a lot of what I was reading, and plodded on, with a lot of unresolved issues.
Tim Gray’s study of Exodus (Ascension Press) that aired on EWTN was his usual excellent quality work, pointing out many of the details and explaining them, things that I may have just slid over without comprehension.
Yes, I suppose it’s good to read it all in a year, for a few years, to make sure one knows the stories. But, I also think it takes a lot more close up study to really get down to the real action that is going on, to understand it.
Like today (1/5/09) the History Channel had a couple programs about how to resolve various issues in the bible. LIke “Lilleth” who is mentioned in Isaiah. Where did she come from? What is her significance? etc. Well, the Jewish Midrash reasoned that she was the “female” created in Chap 1 of Genesis. She is evil. blah, blah, blah.
Jeff Cavens’ survey of the Bible (Ascension Press) which is running on EWTN, highlights a lot of these issues and he explains them, which a casual reader might confuse (like me).
