I have said it before and will say it again and again and again. Hobbes’ Leviathan is absolute must-read material. I am rarely more invigorated while reading than when reading Hobbes. I exhort you, brethren, find a copy and make time for it. You will not be disappointed.

A former professor from the seminary reminded me recently that as an alumni, I had access to an online theological library. So I tracked it down and joined, $10 a month. Around the same time as joining, the same professor told me his recommendation for a commentary set for a church—meaning lay people. I had asked his opinion because I wanted to start a library at the church I joined. His recommendation was the NIV Application Commentary, which uses three approaches to each passage and never or rarely mentions any original language issues in a manner that requires training to understand. The three approaches are, “Original Meaning”, “Bridging Contexts”, and “Contemporary Significance”. Anyhow, I do have training in the original languages and I hate reading anything about the Bible in which the author has made the decision for me, preferring instead to read authors who lay out the evidence from which to choose what to think for myself. That’s where the Anchor Bible Commentary set comes in to play. I am certain there are other solid academic commentaries, but Anchor is kind of the gold standard. By way of example, the NIVAC’s 1 Peter volume might include, “Peter wrote…” and the Anchor Bible might write, “The author of 1 Peter wrote…” I prefer to approach the Bible Indiana Jones-style. (Recall—there are no priests!)

Boring details of my life, I know, but while all this was happening, I had started to get anxious about the issue of accuracy in the digital realm. Specifically, I had seen a few examples of how streaming services are latently airing edited versions of beloved entertainment. Long story short, I determined that I did not want to ever be distracted by worry about whether the content I was reading on a screen was original or edited, so I started tracking down a used set of the Anchor Bible commentary volumes. And I found and bought one (not quite complete). Then, lo and behold, I got an email announcing that the online theological library was ending its availability to alumni—at least as accessed outside of a proper library. No real reasons were given, but I was very thankful and felt very wise in my decision to begin to purchase the actual books for my home library.

All that to say this: I have for many years struggled in my attempt to a good habit of daily Bible study. As I have mentioned, I always start with the Bible if I have time to read. But I never loved my plan of just reading it and I also have never enjoyed using a devotional which were always so clearly superficial and kitsch so as to distract me from the intent of Bible study. Around the time of all this purchasing and subscription-cancelling etc. I had been in Ezra and Nehemiah, so I, one day, decided to see what ol’ Anchor said about them. And, boy, was I ignorant. It’s actually fascinating to me how much I had never known. This was part of the reason I began to read them recently anyhow. (Yay me.) Anyhow, the main thing to share here is that 1 and 2 Chronicles and Ezra and Nehemiah are all contemporary to each other. And the date of writing may be as late 150BC (don’t quote me on the date). Also, Haggai and Zechariah are the prophets of that same time. So what’s that? Like 6 books, spread from after 2 Kings to the end of the OT, in the Christian canon’s arrangement. I had known the Jewish canon concluded with (1&) 2 Chronicles, but I hadn’t ever studied the other four books, or committed to memory anything about their dates at the least. I did know that Nehemiah is where the tradition of standing during scripture reading gets it start.

All that said, I am happy to report that I have my new way of daily Bible study. I just read a passage and its “comment”. I have even been able to interest my wife in listening to it as I try to rid believers, one at a time, of the notion that one can gain understanding of the Bible by praying. It just doesn’t work like that.

Onward.

Netflix made a Frankenstein movie. I couldn’t finish it. But then I watched Bride!, as you know. I mentioned this at work to a reader and she asked me if I had read the book. I had not. So here we are. I haven’t researched it entirely, but I get the sense that Shelley (married to the famous writer Percy Bysshe Shelley, and daughter herself to very famous writers) really did invent the “monster” story, which pervades all manner of entertainment to this day. Quickly, I do want to note here that Frankenstein is the name of the creator, not the monster. And, imho, the book itself isn’t that good. But the idea is—obviously. The idea being, what if the creature you bring to life is a devil, not an angel?

Farmer Boy was fun. My main criticism is that a city kid of today really and truly cannot use much of the information which is transmitted and which was conceivably useful to farmers back in the day.

GW continues to be great. He is now President, not exactly by choice. Also interestingly, the state of politics in America back then was so startlingly similar to today, that a new idea has formed in me. This idea being that while everyone who wishes America well can appreciate the “fighter” in Trump, the truth is that we really need a leader who knows how to gain respect of everyone. That is who George Washington was. People were as vehemently opposed in their desires, motivations, and methods as we are today. But when a decision was needed, they all agreed GW was the man for the job. How did he do it? Moral living and pure motivations. How can such a man be formed and found? Imho, by studying GW. And by providence’s intervention.

I can’t explain it, but any time I spend away from Shakespeare causes me to forget how great he is. Luckily, he is so abundantly great that merely reading a line or two is all that I need to fall back in love with him. What a writer. What stories.

Merchant of Venice is in the Great Books of the Western World’s Great Ideas Program guided reading on the topic of “Philosophy of Law and Jurisprudence.” This is because the character agrees to forfeit “a pound of flesh” if he can’t pay back his debt. To generalize this contract, the question Shakespeare raises is, “Can a person use the law to bind himself to commit an unlawful act?” The largest perspective being, “What is the name of the thing which prevents a person from freely entering into a lawful contract which has as one result unlawfulness? If the thing is ‘law’ itself, then where does it get its power, since a man freely made the contract? Doesn’t law come from man?”

In any case, Shakespeare toys with the language and big ideas as if they were nothing. And it is a whole lot of fun to read.

That’s all for today.