Much of today is being spent trying to finish my essay/paper that will form the basis of a WIP presentation at next week's university summer school.  I am looking (very briefly) at reading in community as part of thinking what that might mean for writing.  One of the striking things (if obvious) is that churches are one of the few places where adults read aloud, one of the few places where there is any real sense of a shared reading experience.  This isn't exaclty earth shattering news, it is one of those taken for granted things about church life, but it has made me pause and think.

Academia seems to involve a lot of private reading that may then get discussed corporately, but rarely do people listen to something being read and then talk about it.  Some reading I did (on my own, silently) about reading groups suggests the same is true with them... people may all read the same book, and may air views on it but they don't routinely listen together as it is read aloud (audio books seem to be popular on car journeys, very few people listen to 'A Book at Bedtime' let alone do so in groups!).

The only places that collective listening to someone reading seems to happen are churches, public lectures and after dinner speeches.  Of these only churches (via Bible study/disucssion groups) and lectures (via Q/A) ever invite any kind of discussion.  And pretty much only church groups anticipate any impact of that on daily life.  Lots of preachers are talking about moving from sermons to conversations, which is fine, but I wonder, do we also need to be re-learning how to listen to someone reading aloud?

(As an aside, I occassionally try to read Barth.  The only way I do this successfully is to read it aloud, and fast, which seems to energise the otherwise rather dense prose.  Do you read things aloud and if so, what and why?!)

One of my periodic rants.

I am glad that I spent a year trying to grasp the rudiments of koine Greek, and gladder (in the style of Alice) that I have interlinear NT and OT on my shelf.  Today was I reading over the Acts 10 passage for Sunday in the church's pew Bible (GNB 2nd Ed) and once more winced at a bad interpretative decision.

Acts 10:2 GNB says 'He was a religious man... He also did much to help the Jewish poor people...'

Says who?  There is no mention of Jewish people in the Greek, nor of poverty for that matter, though the latter is implied.  It says he gave alms.  Is 'alms' too tricky a word for people to cope with?  I wouldn't have thought so.  Cornelius may have given alms to Jewish people, but he may not, we simply don't know, but let's not make it up to suit our own ends. Grrr!