HarperCollins to Release C. S. Lewis Bible
To go along with the other tie-in books being released in October for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, HarperCollins will be publishing a C. S. Lewis Bible.
Thought-provoking meditations from beloved author C. S. Lewis’s own spiritual writings are paired with corresponding Bible passages in The C. S. Lewis Bible. This NRSV Bible provides readings comprised of over 600 selections from Lewis’s celebrated spiritual classics, a collection that includes Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, A Grief Observed, The Four Loves, and The Weight of Glory, as well as letters, poetry, and Lewis’s lesser-known works. Each reading, paired alongside relevant passages in the Bible, offers C. S. Lewis as a companion to a reader’s daily meditation of scripture.
Sample pages from the C. S. Lewis Bible can be viewed here and more information on this Bible can be found on HarperCollins’ website here. You can also pre-order the Bible here.
Thanks to johobbit for the heads-up!
UPDATE: In digging around for more information on the C. S. Lewis Bible, I ran across another book being released on Oct 12 called ‘A Year with Aslan: Daily Reflections from The Chronicles of Narnia’.
In the tradition of A YEAR WITH C. S. LEWIS, get your daily dose of Narnia inspiration in this first of its kind collection of 365 readings from the beloved children’s series. A Year with Aslan will select the most thought-provoking and poignant passages from all seven books in the series, and provide reflective questions that get the heart of what matters most.
I like! I will be buying it for sure =)
Awwww, I wish it were KJV!! That's my favorite version. but this is brilliant!
Huh… interesting. 🙂 Does anyone else find this slightly weird? I mean, putting the commentary of a single author right inside a Bible? I guess I think it's great if people use it as a commentary, but I'm just afraid this could tempt some people who (like myself) love C.S. Lewis' writing and ideas to put his words on too high a footing…
But it's still pretty cool. 🙂
I'd like to have ‘A Year with Aslan: Daily Reflections from The Chronicles of Narnia’ for my birthday.
Talking Rat, I understand your concern, but I don't think we should be afraid of putting a commentator's writings inside the Bible, no more than we should of putting a map of historical pieces (which could be flawed) inside the Bible.
I will probably not be buying one. CS Lewis had many great talents: apologetics, literature, history, philosophy, even poetry. But he was not a formal theologian. Many people go to Lewis for thoughts on theology. He had good thoughts on mere Christianity, but I would not advise anyone to go Lewis to sort out their theology any more than I would tell someone to go read John Piper for thoughts on history. Could he talk about it? Sure, but that's not necessarily his specialty. There are better sources.
This Bible will only reinforce this tendency.
i am totally getting this bible! and a year with aslan!!!
well you can look at it that way, but having his words in the bible might help you to understand it more. so i think its the coolest thing ever!!!
is your birthday in october?
i am SO buying that!!!!!
Although a commentary is probably going to influence people's views a lot more than a map. 🙂 I don't think it's sacrilegious or anything, 😉 and I'm all for commentary. But a regular commentary is in a separate book, so you're more likely to look at more than one and maybe even be more critical in your reading, whereas if it's right there, it seems like it would be easy to go only by what Lewis says about the passage… does that make sense? Not that someone's going to say, "This is inside my Bible, so it must be infallible too;" I think most people are smarter than that 😉 but subconsciously I think it could lead some people to be less critical– you know, "I'm studying The-Bible-and-C.S.-Lewis," instead of "I'm studying the Bible and seeing what C.S. says about it." And again, I don't think it's horrible, I'm just not sure yet if it's the best idea.
I agree– I just think I might prefer having it in a separate book (see below if you'd like for why). 🙂
I totally agree 🙁
I agree, Talking Rat. C. S. Lewis has some good insight, but I don't think we should pay more attention to his writings than the Bible, which is the inspired word of God. He was only human, after all.
By the way, Talking Rat, I like your name. 🙂 I have a pet rat, and sometimes I wish he could talk.
Then again, maybe not. 😉
awesome!!!!! I think it would be worth buying…..I might get it! 😀
Huh? whit?
I agree with Rilian and Talking Rat that we have to be careful with reading commentaries as the final truth of Scripture interpretation. But could we not have the same concerns about any Bible with study notes as we have with the CS Lewis Bible? I mean, all study notes are just a one group's opinion of the interpretation of Scripture. And though I know Lewis was not officially a trained theologian, even among scholars who have studied the Bible extensively there are many disagreements about Scripture interpretation and application. I'll be adding this Bible to my Lewis book collection – and reading it along with books and commentaries from other authors.
Well I find it odd that they would call it "The C.S. Lewis Bible." It sounds almost as bad as "The Gospel according to C.S. Lewis." I think its Ok to put reflections by C.S. Lewis as a commentary BUT they should call it something like,"Holy Bible with commentary by C.s Lewis" We have study bibles with notes, don't we?
A Year with Aslan sound AWEESOOOME. Will def get it 😀
I agree with you, Talking Rat. This isn't diabolical, but it is a little dangerous.
I totally agree with you, that was a well thought out observation. I think this is pretty cool, but I share in your consern.
This is a day-one buy for me. I can understand the caution some are expressing, but I think there's little likelihood of this Bible harming someone's faith. Technically, you're trusting other people anytime you read any version of the Bible, especially one with notes and articles.
Emphasizing a particular person's thoughts on the Bible is hardly new. For a little perspective, check out this list:
1. Joel Osteen's "Hope for Today" Bible
2. Joyce Meyer Study Bible
3. John Macarthur Study Bible
4. Max Lucado's "Inspirational Study Bible"
And on and on. Personally, I don't think Bibles that feature a single author's commentary are particularly disturbing. What I do find disturbing are Bibles that zero in on a single issue like environmentalism. Case in point: "The Green Bible," a Bible that colors all the verses that talk about the Earth in green. If that isn't weird, I don't know what is…
As far as I'm concerned, if all these other authors deserve their own Study Bible, then surely C.S. Lewis deserves one! I'll take his thoughts on the Bible over Joel Osteen's any day (no offense to fans of Joel Osteen).
awesome! I'm totally getting this!
Totally agree (about Joel Osteen too :P)
Uh, no thank you. If I want to read C.S. Lewis, I'll pick up one of his books…not a Bible.
I second that.
Totally getting it!
I'd thought about that with study notes, but like you said, study notes are from a group, which is a little different than one person.
🙂 Yay for rats! 🙂 (sorry, guys, for getting off topic, but you have no idea how hard it is to find fellow rat-lovers! 😉 )
You're kidding!! Rats are awesome!!
Yes. In fact, I'm not sure Lewis himself would have appreciated this.
I think that it's a little weird that they're putting C.S. Lewis's words in with the rest of the Bible, but I think that a seperate comentary would be a great idea.
I agree with all of you that this is not a good thing. Lewis wasn't a formal theologian, as Rilian and Lady G pointed out. Besides, I don't want to read Lewis's thoughts on the Bible. I already know what they are and I consider Lewis practically a heretic for them.
I own the Max Lucado Bible and, for me, it's a distraction. It's ADDING TO the Scriptures!
Bibles with study notes, like Scofield's and others, aren't the same thing–not really. They're trying to help you understand the Bible. They're giving background information: word studies and definitions, types and symbols, etc. Check out this site [Scofield Reference Notes on 1917 KJV] to see what I mean: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/
Hey you guys! Ok, so i know this is way off topic, but if you go to Narniafans.com, they show a picture of Ramadu! The actor is Leonard Nimoy… or something like that! I know i'm posting it on the comment thing, but I'm not a spy for Narniaweb and I don't know how to send it in. So if anyone is still reading this(i know this is kind of late, but it's the newest news) go to Narniafans.com and click on the third link or something!
And on this Bible thing, I'm not too happy about. I mean, we're not supposed to add to the Bible. I know that it's not made to add to the Bible, but it's still not right(at least, I think it's not right to call it a Bible if part of it is not the Bible, it's a story on CS LEWIS'S life.
@William: it's an April Fools joke! lol
Wait a sec…Could this be an April fool?
i think this is really interesting. one of my favorite things i love to look for when i read Lewis books is things that relate to passages in the bible. when i read chronicles of narnia, i adored the parts i found that refered to things of the bible, especially aslan stuff, so ithnk its cool that they can bring things together that he wrote that are very spiritually inspirational. and plus, just because they're calling it "bible" doesnt mean anything against the Bible. bible stands for "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth", and im not saying that we NEED things written by lewis before we leave earth, but i bet there are things he has for us that can enhance our walk with God and help our spiritual growth. after i had read narnia and screwtape letters i actually felt closer and stronger in my spiritual walk, not to mention gain knowledge of things that everyone should know about. so simply calling it bible just means a book of spiritual, or even just common normal, instructions that are handy and helpful. my mom has a big fat wedding magazine from Simple, and it has every detail you should know about planning a wedding, and she calls it her "wedding bible" 🙂
so there is nothing wrong with the name
It's sad that people use the word "Bible" so flippantly as to mean any book that should be trusted without fail. There is only one Book like that. The Bible is the infallible, unchangeable Word of God. The Bible is NOT "simply spiritual, or even just common, normal instructions that are handy and helpful." It comes directly from God. It isn't written by people who can make mistakes. It was written by men who heard the words of God. And the Bible is set apart from all other books because it was dictated by God. No other book- written by Max Lucado or C.S. Lewis- can compare. Which, as I said earlier, is why it's sad that people call anything that may be helpful a "Bible".
With apologies to C.S. Lewis and other commentators, the Bible is easy enough to understand without all the added words. The Bible was not written for people who had the time and experience to decipher something. It was written for people with barely any (if any) education. So we don't need theologians to decipher the Word.
One more thing- human people, however smart or close to God they are, are prone to mistakes. C.S. Lewis is no exception. Who knows what misinterpretation may be in the pages! In some of the "best Bibles around" there are mistakes, mistranslations, and heresies. I'm not saying that this particular Bible has such things, but it's best to just stick with what we're given.
Amen, HighQueen! Well said! *claps*
I hate seeing "wedding bible" and "cooking bible," etc. You don't WANT to know some of Lewis's thoughts on the Bible. They're not pretty. 🙁 Lewis on Genesis? Yikes!
This is really neat!
I doubt it– this was posted yesterday (so they would be cheating if it was! 😉 ) and the links are valid.
I'd agree about the Bible being clear enough for all people, but I'd add that, since we are also humans who make mistakes 😉 it is helpful (though not necessary) to have commentaries.
I was just reading some of the sample pages. (Warning: This may be what Lewis believed, but I don't think that he was trying to impress his beliefs upon everyone else.) He says that "the most lawless and inordinate loves are less contrary to God's will than a self-invited and self-protected lovelessness." So, basically, according to Mr. Lewis, loving others in the wrong way is better in God's eyes than not loving at all or just loving yourself. Now, whether or not I agree with this statement, the Bible commentaries present Lewis' words as fact. It may sound like an opinion, which it is, but the impression that I got from reading this was that it was true. And people may think, "Well, you know, Mr. Lewis was a great Christian and man of God. I'm just a simple (insert occupation here). So if Mr. Lewis says that it's true, it must be true." Does anyone have any idea how harmful this can be to readers? Mr. Lewis is a mere man. He was respected by most, but he's still a man. Honestly, I would rather just let the Bible speak for itself.
Seeing the commentary take up half a page of the Bible where the Word could have been was rather sickening.
I agree that it is helpful to have commentaries, Talking Rat. But, of course, it isn't necessary. And you honestly MUST evaluate the commentaries for what they say, not who wrote them. Don't get caught up in the mindset of "So-and-so was a great Christian. I should accept whatever he says as truth. And it is in a Bible, after all." That, I think, is the danger of commentaries. A great author combined with the fact that the words are in a Bible can overwhelm a person. Every word in the text of the actual Bible is absolutely true. I will vouch for that. But any added features- I suggest that one reads carefully. Those were not written by God.
Wow, that looks really cool! I'd love to buy that! 🙂
go rats!!!! 😀
Hooray! There are more rat-loving people than I thought. But then, rats ARE great pets! 🙂
Yes, I wish it were KJV too, that would really be nice.
Yeah, that would make more sense. I myself have a Bible with commentary by Henry Morris, but it's not called the "Henry Morris Bible" or anything like that… it just has little footnotes and brief introductions to the books.
ooohhhhh snap! 🙂 I can't believe I fell for it.
@High Queen: I agree. As you and Talking Rat noted, commentaries are helpful. I like and use study notes. At the same time, they're written by fallible people. We should never trust them as much as or more than the Word. Example: I own a Scofield Bible. I find it REALLY helpful. But sometimes I disagree with what he says [i.e. his commentary] and explain why in the margins. Every commentator is fallible. You have to compare them with the Word and see if what they're saying agrees with it.
"the most lawless and inordinate loves are less contrary to God’s will than a self-invited and self-protected lovelessness." — WRONG! Wrong love [ = sin] is no less contrary to God's will than lovelessness. God is explicit on all the wrong types of love He condemns and the punishment for them. Chapters in Leviticus and Proverbs, David's sin with Bathsheba, ETC: they're all sin, all lawless, all contrary to God's will. Whatever doesn't conform to God's word and will is contrary to it. Lawless and inordinate loves are no exception!
I think that this is clearly different from other so-called "Study Bibles". I would get it, because I have read his other works and can recognize what "part of the road" of the man's spiritual journey he was on. Others might not be able to recognize that. I can keep it in the proper context.
For those that haven't read his other works already, Lewis will seem to say stuff that he ultimately did not believe. The thing about the man is that he readily admitted that he did not have all of the answers, but was still looking and searching. If you don't remember this, you can take something out of context, and be harmed more than helped.
So, we are taking his words out of the *lifelong* context of his over all thought, and so much more worse, leading others astray.
Even herein so far, I can see where Lewis is not correctly interpreted. His comments on Creation, for instance, are not in a belief in evolution. At first, he considered it a possibility, but eventually, he viewed it as a myth that might have been heroic, but was much less logical and more difficult to believe than the true Christian myth.
About his words for love, if you take that and other quotes out of context of the overall BOOK, if not of his over all ENTIRE APOLOGETICS works, you will get thoroughly mixed up. Without a background in having read everything he wrote, you will not be able to isolate where they are from, and thus be harmed.
So, I think everyone is right, but before you criticize his beliefs, understand that he was on a lifelong quest to learn and understand the Lord, and that his works are searches in logic that build upon each other, often needing the entire book just to understand one single point within it. He would often make this clear at the start of his works.
Despite my agreement with the possible negativity of this work for those who haven't studied him extensively, I will say that there is one area where this work would be far superior to other so-called "study Bibles", and that is that it will not have the contamination of the anti-Christian and demonic "social Gospel" bilge that so many others have. And yes, I do believe that the "social Gospel" ruins any message of Christ. Even my Ryrie Study Bible is contaminated with it to some extent.
God bless all.
As to Lewis' position on theology, he called himself a 'lay theologan.' He never claimed to be the last word on anything Biblical. However, his insight has been invaluable to my personal walk with Christ. His theology is highly practical, though far from perfect. The nice thing about having his commentary side-by-side with the Bible's text is that you can check his comments against the Word of God.
As to the C.S. Lewis Bible itself, I'm getting it.
COOL!! That would be so cool to read! 🙂
Hehe…I hate april fools day jokes unless im doing it. 🙂
I totally agree! I was just trying to prove my point about how commentaries aren't the Bible, so I didn't voice my opinion. But one type of sin is just as wrong as another. Artificial love is just as wrong as hate.
But I have not studied C.S. Lewis extensively. However, if C.S. Lewis's comments can only be understood by those who know him well, then I'm sorry- they're not worth reading. I have neither the time nor inclination to do a background check on C.S. Lewis. I do not want to have to read his other works in order to understand his comments on the Bible. That is not practical at all. And that's just great for you, MereChristian, but what about the average Joe who will read this Bible and perhaps misinterpret his comments? This is fine, apparently, for someone who knows it all about C.S. Lewis, but if I don't, and I will misinterpret his comments, why get the Bible if I'm going to be misinformed?
Well, if he's still searching, that's all very well and good, as long as it's absolutely clear that this is just the observations of a man who is still seeking. Many people DO NOT KNOW this (if it's even true- no offense, but I am giving you a huge benefit of the doubt here). They think that this is the result of much prayer and testing. I realize that people go through periods of belief or unbelief. These comments, if they are in the wrong context, should not really be published, if it is not what Lewis believes.
That Lewis even considered evolution as an alternative to a created world shows that he cannot be trusted. (Of course, God-instigated evolution is debatable [a belief which I think is false, but that's my opinion]) Is that what you mean?
Just because something is more logical does not mean that it is true. Our God is a supernatural God. He does things outside the laws of science. Is not a man rising from the dead "difficult to believe"? Yet it is true. Is not water turning into wine impossible? Yet it happened. God is more powerful than laws, because he created them. Even if evolution was more logical than Creation, I would still believe Creation, as it is the account in the Bible.
Oh, please. If I have to read the entire book to understand and not misinterpret ONE QUOTE, then I would rather not read the quote. Again, if I need fifty-plus pages of background to fully understand a single sentence, then why bother? It's just not practical.
Lewis's words on love are just plain wrong. He's saying that the wrong kind of love is better than hate. Really, now. Both are sin.
Of course one should keep that in mind! Isn't that what every Christian does? And the building block strategy is not entirely bad. But if people take it out of context and just place one or two sentences in the Bible, then I think that this study Bible idea is just wrong. As Skilletdude put it, "Uh, no thanks. If I want to read C.S. Lewis, I'll pick up one of his books. Not a Bible."
Well, actually, it might. Saying that one type of sin is not sin but another type of the same sin is sin is rather heretical. Sin is sin. Period. But I think that C.S. Lewis was not intentionally anti-Christian. However, the commentary shouldn't be all one author. (Well, technically, there is only one Author.) There is danger of his words being either contradictory to the Christian faith (as he wasn't a theologian) or misinterpreted. I am giving you a large benefit of the doubt, but it seems to me that the mark of a good writer is one who can make a quote understood either standing alone or in an argument. At any rate, it is better for the reader to see two different views on a verse (if they want a study Bible) rather than one. This way they can decide or even come up with their own views.
Anyway, in summary, I do not want to-nor should I- have to understand his numerous other books in order to understand his commentary on the Bible. And, all in all, it seems to me that if, according to MereChristian, I'm going to misinterpret most if not all of Lewis's comments because I'm simply not well versed in everything he wrote, this whole C.S. Lewis Study Bible thing is a bad idea.
I never heard of that one.(The year with aslan.) What is it about?
Kinda agree with yer there, Narnian. But I guess the other writings are cool, though. But why call it a Bible? Isin't that sort of . . . I don't know. You said it right.
Hahahah! Read the comments. Didn't check, though.
Yeah, ditto . . .
I don't think you have to read everything Lewis wrote to understand anything he wrote– like you said, HighQueen, that would be highly impractical. Although I'm sure it helps you understand.
But I think, Mere Christian, that you have a point about context– there are a lot of places where Lewis freely admits that he wasn't sure about something, and that this or that was just his speculation. When it's all chopped up, it can be hard to get what he's saying.
And I don't think it's quite fair to say you shouldn't have to read quite a bit of context to fully understand a sentence– like your sentence, High Queen "Just because something is more logical does not mean that it is true." What you meant I think is that just because something doesn't seem to make sense *by human, natural standards* doesn't mean it's true– but I know that from context in the rest of the paragraph. If I had just read that sentence by itself, I might have thought you meant that truth isn't logical from any standpoint, including a logic that accepts the supernatural. Do you see what I'm saying.
About evolution– in the problem of pain, he talks about how it might have been (a great example of speculation where he states very clearly that he's only speculating) and talks about how at some point along the evolution of man, God gave him a soul– so he was definitely not excluding God.
So basically, I don't think his writings are unfathomable until you've studied everything he every wrote, but I also don't like the idea of just pulling things out of context from here and there and sticking them side by side with the Bible.