authors?

[chrismythoi]

i am a biblical scholar, studying at sheffield uni, and i shall (very) briefly outline the subject's history.
until about 1800 ce the bible was in general read in a non-critical fashion.
1800-1920ce, the bible began to be read more critically with the advent of the original languages being better understood and more archaeology. this led to questions such as 'who wrote this, when, why, for whom.'
1920 until present- historical-critical methodolgy (the one above) was very popular but people felt there was more to do, and so until this day there has been an ever growing trend in such things as poetics, literary readings, more arty stuff.

now an interesting debate that emerges is, 'is knowledge of the bible in its original historical setting necessary to understand the bible's message.' this debate also spreads into normal literature. for example how many of us have read classics that have notes explaining certain phrases and names. i for one am reading gogols' dead souls at the moment, and it is full of information about odd names that in russian have an implicit joke, but to an english speakers ear mean nothing.

does the reader need to understand the author, setting, history of the book to properly understand its message?

[joseph90ie]

No, otherwise it wouldn't be a great book. But the more you know, I suppose the more you'll enjoy. But if you're not a person who takes a natural pleasure in study, forget about essaying a mastery of the details, it'll turn you off the book; but if you are the punctilious type, it can only add to your pleasure.

[five-trey]

Yes. To truly understand a book, you need to understand how, why, and by who it was written.


Example? The Crucible. Reading it as someone with no knowledge of America during the McCarthy trials can leave it thin.


I don't think you need to be able to understand every little nuance and cultural joke, but background information is critical, imo, to understanding literature. Otherwise, how do you connect literature to the author's world?

[joseph90ie]

We don't know who Homer was or how he wrote his book and we know little from his time, except what is provided by his book, yet Homer has spoken volumes to many of the great men and women of many ages. The same goes for Jesus Christ, or the men who wrote down his words - nothing is known. If I knew more, I'm sure I'd be able to give more examples.

I haven't read the Crucible, either, trey, but I don't doubt what you say is true, that if one read it without background info, it would appear thin. That can only mean it is mired in contemporary detail; and if that's the case, it'll be forgotten and unread in a short amount of time, like almost every book ever written - nothing new there.

[joseph90ie]

Sorry, I don't want to make ignorant prophecies about what I'm sure is a great book. I just mean, if it's to survive, the general rule for survival with books has proved to be that local detail doesn't age; and that, if that's predominantly what's on offer, as opposed to perennial wisdom, the book will sink.

I don't want to be getting out of my depth. I think I've something to say here, but I don't want to over-reach myself. I think my thought does more justice to me when I say it quietly to myself!! I'm sure this is true of all men; they're wiser when they're conversing within their own mind. As in, the competitive streak comes out in conversation.

[Niamh]

The oldest surviving texts of the bible date from about c150AD (new testiment anyway) The person/s who wrote the text down many or may not have had a text to copy from and may have relied on word of mouth. Considering this, how accurate are the gospels of Mattew, Mark, Luke and John? Had their real words been aultered within a one hundred year period? where things lost in translation?
The Church has lost a lot of its power and hold over us, and we can question the bible now and its authors now with no fear of excomunication.

[five-trey]

Sorry, I don't want to make ignorant prophecies about what I'm sure is a great book. I just mean, if it's to survive, the general rule for survival with books has proved to be that local detail doesn't age; and that, if that's predominantly what's on offer, as opposed to perennial wisdom, the book will sink.

I don't want to be getting out of my depth. I think I've something to say here, but I don't want to over-reach myself. I think my thought does more justice to me when I say it quietly to myself!! I'm sure this is true of all men; they're wiser when they're conversing within their own mind. As in, the competitive streak comes out in conversation.

Oh no, its quite alright. I understand what you're getting at. If books are written with narrow themes, it really wont be remembered. And that's absolutely correct. What I'm saying, however, is that you also need background knowledge to FULLY understand a book and its meaning.


As far as The Crucible, you should read it. Its a semi-short play by Arthur Miller and it is not at all "mirred in contemporary detail." =P

[joseph90ie]

lol, yeah, I can't believe I've the cheek to say Arthur Miller is mired in anything! I will get onto reading him in the next couple of months, definitely. I'm a bit of a lazy reader, yet I have all these ambitious opinions; but isn't that always the case!! People who like to talk without having put in the work. I think I'll open up my tele, disembowel its electronics, and use it as a little book nook! Didn't he write the Naked and the Dead, his first one? Man, I have to read that; I've heard Martin Amis praise it to the skies on youtube.

[five-trey]

Honestly, its the only Miller work I've read so I can't tell you much besides that, heh. It was very well written though; he definately did his homework on the whole 17th century scene. I'll try and read some more of his work as well, but I've got a heavy reading list right now.

[kiki1982]

What Niamh said is right: they had texts to copy from.

But rather than anything lost in translation, Christian copyists had the tendency to add 'truth' (divine) to the texts they copied. (The idea 'translation' was not at taken as we see it now, not word for word, but rather the 'true' sense ('divine' sense) ofthe text was translated or copied. If any 'truth' was deemed 'missing' or not enough, the translator or copyist was allowed to add).

Scholars have looked at different independent 'translations' and copies of texts in Europe and in the Arab world, the contents of which were known in both the European and Byzantine world (which was later conquered by the Arabs), yet the profoundly Christian 'truth' was not 'translated' by the Arabs, but the texts have the same contents. So instead of 'Jesus the man' the Christians added certain phrases about 'Jesus the Son of God', the 'true' Jesus, so to say.

I would think that there are certain images in the bible like the lame, the blind, the vine, the mustardseed and those things that carried a certain meaning to the people who wrote it and were also understood in the early days.

Knowing what those things mean would greatly contribute to understaning the image. Not the belief one has, because one believes or one doesn't, but it would give a better base on which to build the belief, interpretation, ... Rather than just seeing it as literal in some cases.

[Niamh]

Most of the novels that are around today that question the church and the bible in particular would not have been possible a few hundred years ago when the church was a simbol of fear and power. If philip Pullman had written the His Dark Materials two hundred/ three hundred years ago, there would have been an even more shocking reponse to it.

[subterranean]

now an interesting debate that emerges is, 'is knowledge of the bible in its original historical setting necessary to understand the bible's message.' this debate also spreads into normal literature. for example how many of us have read classics that have notes explaining certain phrases and names. i for one am reading gogols' dead souls at the moment, and it is full of information about odd names that in russian have an implicit joke, but to an english speakers ear mean nothing.

does the reader need to understand the author, setting, history of the book to properly understand its message?

I personally think it is important, to some extend, for readers in general to have understanding on context, settings, and historical backgrounds of books. Otherwise, we might end up not grasping the message or even, getting a totally different message compare to what the authors trying to convey. Some fictions like A Short History Of Tractors in Ukrainian gives quite clear picture on the context as well as the historical background of the story (postwar Russia and the life of immigrants coming from Eastern Europe to the West) and for readers who might never heard or read about the historical background won't find difficulties in understanding the characters and the overall story.
When it comes to the Bible, and other religious texts, I often read that understanding the messages requires understanding the historical background as well.