blogging the bible

David Plotz of Slate is blogging the Bible. Reading it from beginning to end, offering commentary as he goes:

My goal is pretty simple. I want to find out what happens when an ignorant person actually reads the book on which his religion is based. I think I'm in the same position as many other lazy but faithful people (Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus). I love Judaism; I love (most of) the lessons it has taught me about how to live in the world; and yet I realized I am fundamentally ignorant about its foundation, its essential document. So, what will happen if I approach my Bible empty, unmediated by teachers or rabbis or parents? What will delight and horrify me? How will the Bible relate to the religion I practice, and the lessons I thought I learned in synagogue and Hebrew School?

It's interesting reading, largely because his reaction to what he finds is so unbiased by traditional interpretation. He doesn't exactly stick to theology, either. For example:

The first thing I'm noticing about the Book of Judges is that there don't appear to be any judges in it. Sure, they may be called "judges," but they're really generals, left-handed assassins, female guerillas, polygamist warriors, fratricidal maniacs, and holy child killers. No judging seems to occur in Judges—unless your idea of justice is Judge Dredd. But if you want good stories—this is the book to read. It's an adrenaline shot!

Also:

Didn't someone write a book on the biblical roots of capitalism and free enterprise? How did he handle this episode? Our hero Joseph abolishes private property, turns freeholders into serfs, and transforms a decentralized farm economy into a command-economy dictatorship. This is bad economics and worse public policy. This is China, 1949. Joseph is Chairman Mao. (And, to speculate a little bit, perhaps this centralized dictatorship established by Joseph is what ultimately led to the Israelites enslavement in Egypt. Once you create a voracious state apparatus, it must be fed. Is it a surprise that slavery became part of its diet? In a less totalitarian state, perhaps slavery wouldn't have been as necessary or as feasible. This digression has been brought to you by the American Enterprise Institute.)