Dark and Lovely

This is the second of two week 3 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education.

Describe how the different translations of Song of Solomon render 1:5-6. Infer what the best translation might be given the time at which the poem was written and its geographical location/setting. Discuss how such translation differences could both influence social perceptions about women of color and be influenced by social perceptions about women of color.

 These two verses describe the coloring, in particular, of the woman in Song of Solomon. All of them refer to her as dark, but with different amounts of emphasis. There are essentially two references to her complexion, verse 5 refers to how she looks / her natural coloring (which could be hair, skin coloring or a combination of both) and verse 6a refers the fact that her skin shows signs of working in the sun. Robert Alter in his notes on these verses points out that this would mark her as a peasant, not an elegant (presumably richer) urban girl like the daughters of Jerusalem. This is a class marker that still exists in modern times - women are encouraged to wear sunscreen, makeup and otherwise take care of our face, hands and arms to disguise the fact that we work and "protect" us from the aging effects of the sun and wind, rather than acknowledging them as signs of being a hard worker or just the reality of life. (Alternatively sun and wind damage can be painful, but it's still just reality for a lot of people.) I think the CEB gives the translation that best reflects the meaning of these verses in modern times:

Dark am I, and lovely, daughters of Jerusalem—
        like the black tents of the Kedar nomads,
        like the curtains of Solomon’s palace.
Don’t stare at me because I’m darkened
        by the sun’s gaze.

 A number of other translations use "but" or "yet" in place of "and" in the first line, and most start the line with "I am", both taking away from the emphasis on the darkness of the woman's complexion. So, rather than the CEB's emphasis on "Dark" and "Lovely", you get things like "I am black, but comely" (KJV), "I am black and beautiful" (NRSV), "Dark am I, yet lovely" (NIV), "I am very dark, but lovely" (ESV), "I am dark, but comely"(JPS1985) "I am dark but desirable" (Altair). I suspect that given the geographical setting in the Middle East and the beloved identifying her as a goat herder, the woman in question would have been more likely to self identify as dark and lovely and leave the "but", "yet" and despite type thoughts for the class related issue of being darkened by working in the sun. The Hebrew on Sefaria shows the first word of this is "שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה" and even my rusty prayerbook Hebrew can identify that as related to "שָׁחֹר" - black, which further shows the emphasis on her being dark or black. I think that the addition of "black" to "tents of the Kedar nomads" in the CEB is a modern addition as well, to add a piece of knowledge that would have been understood by contemporary readers. (In the notes in his translation, Alter says these tents have been made from black goat hair.) Other translations do not include Black there but I think it is a useful addition for modern readers.

While we were asked to address verses 1:5-6, I don't think this discussion would be complete without pointing out verses 1:8 and 1:15-16 where many translations have the beloved referring to her as "fair." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has 2 definitions of "fair" that might apply here, definitions 4 "having very little color, coloring, or pigmentation : very light" and 5 "pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality." Obviously if you pay attention to verses 5 and 6, it's clear that the later definition is the one implied here, however, since the former is a more common use, it is likely to come first to mind and reinforce any thoughts of pale or less pigmented skin as beautiful. I think the translations like the CEB, ESV, and NIV which translate this as "beautiful" do a better job of expressing meaning. (NRSV uses beautiful for 15-16 only.)

I think the de-emphasis on the darkness of this woman in most modern translations is a result of modern western social attitudes and perceptions that privilege whiteness and paleness in beauty, while at the same time, it reinforces those perceptions. This kind of cycle of disdain and invisibility is unfortunately common. The woman's acknowledgement of the lower class distinction of having skin that shows she has been working in the sun shows how intersectional issues often magnify negativity. If I, as a white woman with type 2 hair complain about my hair being tangled, that is interpreted as my being momentarily fed up. If a black woman with type 4 hair does so, it is often interpreted as her having "bad hair", not just "a bad hair day", or an issue with type 4 hair in general. While I am not naive enough to think using a translation like that in the CEB that emphasizes the woman's blackness is a solution, at least it is not increasing the damage.

Translation References:

Ruth 1:5-6 in KJV, NIV, NRSV, CEB and ESV

Ruth 1:8 in KJV, NIV, NRSV, CEB and ESV

Ruth 1:15-16 in KJV, NIV, NRSV, CEB and ESV

Ruth 1 parallel Hebrew / JPS 1983 on Sefaria

Robert Alter's The Hebrew Bible Vol. 3: The Writings, containing his translation of Ruth is not freely available online.

Story of Thomas

This is the second of two week 3 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education. (The first wasn't really meaningful as is outside of the constraints of the course.)

Summarize what you learned about the story of Thomas as though you are presenting it to a Bible study group before a discussion.

Note: I wrote this as if it were for my church and I'll probably use it for our Bible study, as such I specifically reference the CEB, which we privilege because it is better for our non-native English speaking members and our Bible study materials (Sharing God's Story @ Home, the Narrative Lectionary programs inserts from Spirit and Truth Publishing). My final line is not taken directly from those materials, but is influenced by some of the questions they suggest people think about at home and not necessarily how I would introduce the discussion were we using other materials or none at all. (But I am not unhappy with that direction.) Were I presenting this orally, I would probably not read the direct quotes from D. Mark Davis that are inline below, but keep them handy for discussion if needed.

Today we are going to focus on the story of Thomas from chapter 20 in the Gospel of John 

In the Narrative Lectionary, which our church uses, each year focuses on a single gospel, and this year's focus is on John. This is our last reading of the year from John, for the rest of the lectionary year we are mostly going to be studying Acts. Hopefully, at this point, we at least have an understanding of the background of the Gospel of John and if you don't yet have your own sense of how it differs from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), I highly recommend that you read them if you haven't (or if reading on your own isn't your thing, we'll be covering Matthew next year and you'll be able to see the contrast.) I did want to share a quote about John in general that I think is particularly meaningful to this story. In her introduction to John in The Women's Bible Commentary, Gail R. O'Day says "in John, Salvation is found in and through the flesh, not apart from the flesh." I think it's worth reflecting on how this applies to this story in particular.

This week's reading is John 20:19-31 and while today, we are going to treat verses 19-23 as background information and focus on the story of Thomas in verses 24-31, that's not the only way to look at these verses. In verses 22-23, Jesus gives the apostles the gift of the Holy Spirit and says some important things about the forgiveness of sins. Not to mention that verse 21, where Jesus says "As the Father sent me, so I am sending you", is arguably John's version of Matthew 28:16-20, which you may have heard referred to as The Great Commission (and is the reading for this week next year.) Either of those topics are worthy of study in great depth, not being brushed aside as "just background", so please remember these verses going forward.

In this story, we have the disciples, minus Thomas, in a locked room, afraid and Jesus comes to them. Our CEB points out that they are afraid of "the Jewish Authorities", other translations say just "the Jews" or "the Judeans." Although it's not central to the story of Thomas, I think it's really important to comment on this because this verse and verses like it are often used as excuses for anti-semitism, unsubstantiated claims of Christian persecution, and otherwise separating people into us and them. The apostles are afraid of a specific group of locals in power, who specifically worked to turn Jesus over to the still more powerful  Romans. The apostles themselves are also Jews and have many Jewish supporters (but mainly in other areas of the country), but in every group of oppressed peoples, there are some who are willing to grovel to those in power for illusionary safety or power over others in their group. My Jewish Annotated New Testament points out that this fear is also based on Jesus's comments in John 16:2-3 that there will come a time when they will be persecuted. It's worth pointing out that the apostles don't need to be afraid in this context, the authorities do not bother them at this time, the only person who attempts to get into the room is Jesus himself. And thus, Jesus greeting them with "Peace be with you" is potentially multilayered, ranging from a standard Jewish greeting (Shalom) to his telling them that they do have peace in the moment, that is that this is not the time of oppression to come. Brian Stoffregen even points out that it can be an allusion to a future peaceful messianic age, although he doesn't think that is the primary intention here. Later, the other disciples tell Thomas what happened, he expresses doubts and states what he would need to have happen in order for him to believe - see Jesus and touch his wounds from the crucifiction himself. Then the next week, when Thomas is present, Jesus appears again, reassures the apostles again, and gives Thomas the opportunity to feel the wounds like he said he needs to. This story is often referred to as the story of doubting Thomas, but that's not necessarily a good summary. Thomas isn't the only one with doubts here, by the way. If you notice, despite Jesus reassuring them on the first visit, the disciples continue to meet in a locked room. When Thomas is reassured, he exclaims, "My Lord and my God!", which is more than recognition that it is in fact Jesus. Stoffregen refers to it as a confession and points out that he's using a formula for referring to Emperor Domitian, likely the emperor at the time the Gospel of John was written. Thus this confession has revolutionary implications, the immortal Jesus is the supreme power, not the mortal authorities. Finally,  The Jewish Study Bible points out that it could be an allusion to Psalm 35, which talks about people claiming to have seen things they did not and asking "My God and My Lord" to establish justice.

A last thing I want to touch on before we start discussing this story ourselves is some of the subtler meaning of the Greek that gets lost in translation. On the surface, just as Jesus tried to give the fearful apostles the sense of safety they need the first time he visits the locked room, Jesus gives Thomas what he says he needs, a chance to touch Jesus' wounds. However, when Thomas says he would need to actually feel the wounds to believe, D. Mark Davis tells us the word he uses for putting his hand into the wounds implies that his hand basically would fall into the wounds of their own accord while he's going about his business. ["βάλω: AASubj 1s, βάλλω, 1) to throw or let go of a thing without caring where it falls  1a) to scatter, to throw, cast into  1b) to give over to one's care uncertain about the result  1c) of fluids  1c1) to pour, pour into of rivers  1c2) to pour out  2) to put into, insert"] When Jesus appears before Thomas he tells him to feel with a word Davis says implies the movement requires some actual work. ["φέρε: PAImp 2s, φέρω, 1) to carry   1a) to carry some burden   1a1) to bear with one's self   1b) to move by bearing; move or, to be conveyed or borne, with the suggestion of force or speed"] In the Greek, Jesus is telling Thomas that what he wants is there, but he has to do more than the bare minimum, he has to put in some effort. I've seen discussion before over whether or not when Jesus goes on to say "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe" in verse 29 (this by the way is our study materials' suggested memory verse for this week), he is chiding Thomas for not believing without seeing, but perhaps the chide is for not even planning to make an effort to end his doubts. By the way, if you check the service challenge in our study materials for this week, it supports this view, suggesting that we take some sort of action like baking cookies or sending a note, to support our friends and family who may have doubts. Back to the idea of the possibility that Jesus is chiding anyone for not believing, remember it is the other apostles who still feel a need to be in a locked room despite Jesus' reassurance of peace.

So, let's talk about this passage and doubt and trust and how you go from doubt to trust.

The Bible As Received

This is the first of two week 2 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education and discusses the book How the Bible Came to Be by John Barton.

THE BIBLE AS RECEIVED: List the factors that made the process of finalizing the biblical books in writing a complex one for both the Old and New Testaments. Outline the reasons that some books are in the Apocrypha rather than in the Old Testament canon itself.

One factor that was new to me is the urge to have a set of books written or attributed to Moses. (I think this is a good spot to put the sentence I highlighted about author versus writer/scribe versus editor versus compiler that "The biblical world was not familiar with many of our finer distinctions." (p 34) ) The translation into Greek of the Law (5 books of Moses) and Prophets [which was used to be inclusive of what in Judaism today is referenced as the Prophets (Nevi'im) and the Writings (Ketuvim), but that is actually a later innovation], led to them starting to be presented as a single volume or collection. 

For the New Testament, it seems that over the first 100-200 years after Jesus, Christians came to first esteem, then collect together the 4 gospels as we know them, but it took about another 100 years for the current order to be agreed on - chronologically. Paul's letters (and the pseudo-Pauline letters) were likely collected due to a real or imagined belief that he wanted them shared among churches. (Barton mentions that Colossians 4:16 recommends sharing letters between churches, but also that Colossians may not be a genuine Pauline letter.) They are ordered (albeit imperfectly) by length. The other letters were also placed in length order, with the exception that letters by the same author were placed together. This leaves Acts and Revelations to be handled separately. I find it interesting that there were no collections that placed Acts immediately after Luke, despite it being the second half of the story. 

Some of the factors that Barton lists for why different books came to be seen as scripture include: 

*Citations* Mention of or quoting from the book by other well regarded (scriptural) books is a sign that the book may itself be scriptural.

*Authorship* For Jews, scriptural books are written by (or attributed to) prophets; for Christians, it is apostles and their close connections. It's important to note, though that good or valuable information may have been attributed to qualifying authors as much as actual authors may have qualified books as worth making into scripture.

*Date* Christians valued books believed to be written close to the time of Jesus and because Jews believe prophecy ceased after Ezra and that scripture must be written by prophets, only books believed to have been written before 500 BCE would qualify. (This seems to be why Sirach ended up in the Apocrypha.) Jews also seem to have believed that scripture started with Moses, as books attributed to earlier prophets do exist (and some were mentioned in the New Testament.)

*Relevance and Universality* Books that became scripture in Judaism were seen as universally applicable and relevant by the rabbis. In Christianity,  the test was were they relevant to early Christians and Paul, at least, argued for the relevance of the Hebrew scriptures as instructional and predictive of the current (to him) time. Barton seems to argue that the epistles, in particular, became scriptural because they could be "seen as belonging to all times and all places" (p. 64), but I saw nothing in his text to convince me that they were not universalized because they were considered scripture.

Aside from the above mentioned date issue, a major reason books became part of the apocrypha is that at the time of the translation of the bible from Greek to Latin, the Jews in Israel had decided that the books were not canonical, which brought them into doubt. They also were not as commonly quoted in the New Testament or by early Christian leaders. During the Reformation, in an attempt at making the Old Testament canon match the Hebrew canon, the apocryphal books were removed (or set aside in the case of the Lutherans and Anglicans) but the remaining books were not reordered to match the Jewish canonical order.

3 Portions of Isaiah

This is the second of two week 2 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education

THE CONTENTS: List the reasons scholars think there are three separate portions of Isaiah. Why might it be important as a preacher/pastor to understand this academic distinction?

This is an extremely timely question, as this week, someone asked on our church Discord (where most of our communal life takes place) about the relationship between Isaiah 43:23 and Isaiah 66:23-24. Their question was, in my opinion, based on a need to have a overly literal reading of the Bible and to make predictions about what the next life will be like. We talked about literalism in class last week, and my personal opinion on most of eschatology is that we should take Paul seriously when he tells us "Now I know partially but then I will know completely in the same way that I have been completely known." (1 Corinthians 12:12b) and not waste a lot of time in the now trying to figure out the exact details, but rather focus on what Jesus has told us about how to live in this life. However, I know that people, particularly people who have been heavily exposed to hellfire and brimstone type fundamentalism, worry about the future and have often been taught that they need to find certainty in the Bible even in the face of so many verses that tell us it isn't there. (ie Ecclesiastes 10:14, Matthew 24:36 ) And it is important to take that fear seriously, however, at the same time that I encourage people (myself included) to follow the guidance from Mandy Rice, MDiv on queerituality.com that "You can’t just unthink religious harm. You have to live your way beyond it." At any rate, simply talking about that "academic distinction" was helpful to my co-member in addressing some of their concern and then we were able to work from there.

Here is what I shared with my church about this:

I'm currently reading How The Bible Came To Be for a class and it talks about how Isaiah is likely 3 books or sections, written at different times, Isaiah 1-39, Isaiah 40-55, and Isaiah 56-66. Isaiah the prophet dates to the 8th Century BCE (the book puts him as just after Amos) and part 1 would take place then. The second part, which would include Isaiah 45:23 has references to then current events from the 6th Century BCE, concerning the plight of those exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. Then, 56-66, containing the first passage you quoted references then current events from after some of those exiled returned and rebuilt the temple.

(But also, some of the first section might also have been written later.)

So anyway, it seems like at the very least the second passage was a later prophecy.

In addition to the above mentioned timing references, there are differences in style, which not only vary between the three sections, but are also another factor in recognizing that some of the first section my have different authors. That said, none of the three sections are entirely internally consistent in style, but that does not necessarily mean different authors, because I know I, myself, write differently depending on the context.

Beyond being able to give context on relative timing and relationships of prophecies in Isaiah, you cannot understand the context of any given part of Isaiah without realizing that there are different authors from different points in history. I think realizing that parts of Isaiah were written by other authors also impresses on us how important Isaiah was in his own time and shortly after - he may have founded a school of prophets or people may have attempted to copy his style or use his name to gain legitimacy. Finally, I think this is the type of information that helps us fight against the poverty of literalism.

Seriously But Not Literally

 This is the first of two week 1 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education

Describe what it means that Progressive Christians “take the Bible seriously but not literally.” 

I've started, stopped and erased several partial paragraphs by now about what it means to "take the Bible seriously but not literally", because almost everything that I come up with is something that the literalists I know would also agree with, in some cases immediately and others in response to questioning. (Roger Wolsey partially addresses this in the introduction to his article 16 Ways Progressive Christians Interpret The Bible.) However, the more I think about it, the more I see the differences as almost anthropomorphizing the Bible. We don't just see the Bible as, as the CUA Statement of Faith puts it, "the authoritative textual basis of our faith"; we treat it as we would a beloved friend. I don't mean this in the sense of keeping it dear to our hearts and welcoming it into our homes (which my literalist friends do as well), but rather how we  listen and interact with it. We recognize that the same words in different contexts of time, place and content have different meaning. When my friend says "I just can't", context tells me whether they have reached the end of their physical or emotional rope and are asking for help or they are are excited about something and are using hyperbole or they are simply busy / setting a boundary and don't plan to discuss it further. As progressive Christians, we pay attention to nuance and style to determine the meaning of phrases in different contexts in the Bible, just like we do with our friends. If we are walking up to one of our friends and they are saying something that doesn't sound like the good person they usually are, or someone quotes them as having said something that doesn't line up with their usual personality and beliefs, we step back and make sure that they weren't quoting someone else, giving an example of something to avoid doing or saying, or otherwise not attempting to speak for themselves at that moment, and we apply the same to Bible verses. We recognize that story telling, sarcasm, poetry, and venting (imprecatory psalms anyone?) are all viable methods of communicating important information without expecting every word of them to also carry the exact literal truth in the Bible, just as we do in our friends. We recognize that what is appropriate in one time and place is not appropriate in another, and just as we behave differently when we show up to support our friends at something hard like a funeral than when we watch a movie together for relaxation, we don't expect every statement, requirement or prohibition in the Bible to apply in every situation. Just as we accept our friends when they are not perfect, as progressives, we don't and don't have to expect the Bible to be perfect in every way to value it or for it (in conjunction with the Holy Spirit) to illuminate our lives and strengthen our relationship with God.

(Are There) Passages to Know By Heart

This is the second of two week 1 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education

Discuss the “Fifteen Passages to Know by Heart.” [This is in a publication called The Bible and The United Church of Christ.] In your response, indicate whether or not you agree with the importance of knowing Scripture by heart and list the passages you would suggest for a similar list to “know by heart” or to “be familiar with.”

 I think the most important line in Caldwell's article is not any of the specific verses, but rather his description of what he means by knowing a passage by heart - "The point isn’t just to be able to rattle them off; the point is to know them so intimately that they’re written on your heart." I strongly disagree with just learning verses in a vacuum, and I have my doubts about memorizing them at all. A lot of verses are only truly meaningful in the larger context or are extremely misleading without it. Among my favorite verses are the pairing of "beat their swords  into plowshares" (Isaiah 2:4 / Micah 4:3) and "beat your plowshares into swords" (Joel 3:10), in large part because I think part of the point of them is to remind us how important context is. (Although I absolutely want to live in a world where we all can, metaphorically, beat swords into plowshares and live in peace.) I think that learning verses by rote makes it easier to weaponize them. That isn't to say that the practice is bad, but when you only know a few verses, it is easy to put too much emphasis on them and not the rest of the story they are a part of. (Lists like [some number] Bible verses about [topic XYZ] need to be approached with similar caution.) For one of my classes, we watched some taped lectures from an evangelical school, Gordon College. One of those lectures talked about the problems of transmission of the Bible and the fact that we know there have been some transmission errors because manuscripts differ. One of the students in the original class saw this as a challenge to his belief in Biblical inerrancy, but wasn't able to verbalize how or even his belief in inerrancy beyond simply repeating "The Lord's word is flawless" (Psalm 18:30) over and over. In his case, having learned a (partial) verse to support and defend his belief was actually keeping him from being able to ask questions and gain clarification on a topic, he knew the verse but he hadn't brought it into his heart.

In my Bible study group recently, we were discussing how growing up queer in America, even if you are in an affirming church yourself (or even a UUA church where the Bible is merely one among several potential "sources of meaning"), there is this constant pressure to discuss and defend against the "gotcha" verses and how that interferes in having a full relationship with the Bible. And I notice this same thing in Christian Universalism, people spend so much time focusing on the hell versus salvation texts that they lose track of what the Bible as a whole has to teach us. As Robin A. Parry says "every theological system has its problem texts"(The Evangelical Universalist, p 154), and it's important that we don't just focus on (or in this case memorize) the texts that promote or defend our beliefs or, alternatively, call out beliefs we disagree with. (No one wants to define our own theology as reactionary, but sometimes we do define ourselves by who or what we are not.)

Another concern I have with verse memorization is learning differences. Some people find memorization very easy and others find it difficult to impossible. Some people retain information easily once they have memorized it and others have to constantly review in order to keep it. I have noticed that memorizing things like sentences or examples helps some people understand concepts and for others understanding starts with getting the gist and then implementing the knowledge in some way; requiring exact memorization does not seem to make a huge difference. I suspect that the actual personal value of verse memorization has a lot to do with where you fall in this learning spectrum.

Any verse that someone ends up memorizing because they find it valuable and reference and discuss it  - either with others or in their personal reflections and prayer (ie have taken to heart organically) is a treasure. But I'm not sure the same benefit comes from picking a verse and going over it in whatever manner works for you until you have memorized it. One might be able to imitate the first process and study, discuss and pray with a verse enough times that you do memorize it; but that isn't what we usually think of as verse memorization.

In the 1960's and 1970's editions of the Joy of Cooking, the introduction to the index talks about two kinds of knowledge, what you know and what you can find easily. The internet and the ubiquity of smartphones means that even if your memory of the verse is, as Caldwell puts it 'you just describe it by saying, “You know, it’s the one about…”', you can probably find it in a few seconds, likely in multiple versions and with notes and commentary. While I agree with Caldwell that our personal favorites deserve better than “You know, it’s the one about…”, I'm not sure how many more verses deserve more than that. And speaking of versions, memorization tends to trap us in one translation (unless we both know and memorize in the original language.) That may or may not be a good thing. In 6th grade, I attended an Episcopal school and we had to memorize the Lord's Prayer (I believe the 1962 BCP version), that is still the wording of the Lord's Prayer I think of 40 plus years later. My current minister rotates through different versions of the Lord's Prayer and some of the versions with more modern language really speak to my soul, but my mind still defaults back to what I learned in 6th grade. Had I learned that version by reciting it regularly with my family, the memories attached might outweigh the more archaic wording, but in fact, my family was UU and didn't attend a church that prayed like that and my 6th grade school was a horrible fit for me academically, emotionally and socially, to the point of being a damaging experience. I don't think most memorization experiences will be that extreme, but I do know several people who have read a section of the Bible in a new or unfamiliar translation and had it open their heart in some way and it would be unfortunate if prior memorization interfered with their ability to fully integrate that experience.

I think there are ways to engage seriously with scripture beyond just reading that don't necessarily require memorization or access to education or study helps. For my final project for Freshman calligraphy class (at a secular but private school), I made an artistic copy of the school chapter 1 Corinthians 13. The process of planning and carefully writing it out (and the slow process of doing so) allowed me to internalize this text without memorizing it and encouraged me to think about it. The practice of lectio divina is a more formal way of spending time with a piece of scripture. Putting a chapter or book of the Bible in audio format on repeat while you drive or do chores may have a similar effect.

I've covered which verses not to bring into your heart, but not really which verses I would suggest. Part of that is that because I am cautious and ambivalent about the value of memorizing verses on purpose, I don't have strong opinions on which verses one should pick for this task. As a list of meaningful verses, I mostly like Caldwell's list. As a universalist, I'd probably leave out John 3:16 because I think people get too caught up in the "everyone who believes in him" part, particularly when it is quoted as a stand alone verse. I'd add 1 John 4:8, but that may have as much to do with the fact that it was my grandmother's favorite verse as the verse itself. I prefer Mark 12:29-31 to Deuteronomy 6:4-5, but that is mostly because I have organically used and studied the former enough times that it has settled in my heart, not because I think it is actually the superior statement. Perhaps I spent too much time pondering the "glass darkly" in 1 Corinthians 13, but I think Revelation and the assumption that it (or anything in the Bible) is a specific message about what the next life will bring is problematic, so I would probably  leave out that verse.

There is a list of verses that I have considered memorizing. I am a big fan of the Narrative Lectionary, which is an attempt to cover all the important stories of the bible. My church uses materials from Spirit and Truth publishing that recommend a memory verse (often actually a partial verse) for each Lectionary Reading. No one in my church is memorizing them, or even paying attention to the fact that there are memory verses in the material, but it has occurred to me that if I actually did so for a year, those 30 or so verses might function as reminders for pretty much all the major stories of the Bible and that would be an amazing thing to be able to recall easily.