Bible

[zo22]

Does Bible come under literary prose or non-literary prose??

[Judas130]

Does Bible come under literary prose or non-literary prose??
You can't really apply one form to the entire tome. The bible is a collection of accounts, psalms, letters - all have varying form. A form cannot be broadly ascribed to the Bible.

[The Atheist]

Fiction

[JBI]

Fiction

Wrong, foreign language resources, though sometimes filed under Judaic or some other such label.


Either way, I am yet to see it filed under fiction - it certainly contains, it can be argued, fictitious elements (take from that what you will), but as a text, it is no more fiction than Sappho's Odes, or Sophocles' Plays, which go under their own categories respectively.

[bazarov]

Fiction

:lol: :lol:

[dafydd manton]

Fiction
Possibly so, but it contains some very interesting prophecies that have been fulfilled in amazing detail (Ref Alexander the Great in Daniel, as one example), which make you wonder?

[JBI]

Possibly so, but it contains some very interesting prophecies that have been fulfilled in amazing detail (Ref Alexander the Great in Daniel, as one example), which make you wonder?

Not to mention that a lot of it is history (though manufactured and not completely true, just about as true as any other ancient history). Either way, fiction involves narrative, and various books in the bible are not narrative, but poetry. Psalms are not fiction, and neither is Job really. Just because something isn't completely true doesn't mean it doesn't have some truths running through it.

I think the problem is that there is a generation of atheists who proport to preach atheism, instead of read the Bible as a text - any really credible person on the Bible knows that the book isn't completely true (even the Pope does, as did scholars going back to the Middle Ages). People I think just don't understand the role religion has played, and plays in society, so that they preach the word of God (in English mind you) as all Truth, or they dismiss the book as fiction. Read it - I see no problem with people reading the Iliad, despite that those stories in their time were believed to be True. In essence, the book is a history more than anything else, and an important one.

[dafydd manton]

I,m not sure that I'd go along with the theory about the Pope. Pope - Il Papa - Father, (relevant to many another priest, too) and yet Mtthew 23:9 is specific. The Apostle Paul called taking money for spreading the Gospel "an abuse of privilege", and Christ himself mentioned about "Being no part of the world". Hmmmmm. He also said "by their fruits you shall know them", but this could open up a pathway to being abusive about another person's faith, which it isn't my place to do!!!

[Mr_Rayber]

The Bible, to me, is a fascinating compilation of many books by multiple authors, made up of just about every kind of writing available, using multiple styles and literary devices: poetry, fiction, allegory, history, etc. I don't think you can categorize the whole under any one heading; it just wasn't designed that way.

[The Atheist]

Possibly so, but it contains some very interesting prophecies that have been fulfilled in amazing detail (Ref Alexander the Great in Daniel, as one example), which make you wonder?

Sorry, but I don't buy that for a second.

The bible has many predictions and prophecies in it but I don't know of any that could be described as having "amazing detail".

Many claims are made about Nostradamus' predictions as well, but I don't see them either. Can you explain why you think the prediction is about Alexander, is so correct, and why the bible would have any interest in him?

Thanks.


Not to mention that a lot of it is history (though manufactured and not completely true, just about as true as any other ancient history).

So, a historical record which isn't true - and it appears to be not just "not completely true", but in fact, diabolically untrue - is a historical document? I guess Dennis the Menace is an important treatise on childhood as well.

Can you point to parts of the bible which are close to historically-accepted fact? Just close, mind you, because none of it is accurate and I'm pretty sure there is no evidence to suggest any of it is based on real events. Some of the places actually existed, but the book is fantasy.

[JBI]

Yes, it is an historical document, as is the Odyssey, as is Gilgamesh. As for proof - go to Jerusalem, and take the temple tour - there are stones from the wall buried deep that prove the temple existed. There has been archeological proof of some validity to the existence of many of the historical characters. MigDal David in part still stands today.

There isn't much proof that it is all fantasy, in fact, there is no such proof. History, in itself, is merely a narrative telling how one arrived at where we are today. Within that, there is oral history, which though it may not be completely "True" by your terms, has some meaning as an historical narrative for some people. You like to think of history as merely events and what happened, but that isn't how history is contrived or understood by those assembling it. There is manipulation, interpretation, and a sifting of stories. The further back you get, the less authoritative a record can be. What remains is a second history, an oral one, that is past down, and formulates into the text-based narrative that we see today. Do you have any idea how much editing went into the composition of the Bible? Do you have any idea how long the text took to arrive in its state? It is the story of a people moreso than not, and for you to dismiss it as trivial because it is not completely true is merely ethnocentric snobbery. Either you deny all history, as history itself is a mere manufacturing of events (which some scholars do) or you accept that there are many forms of history.

There have been studies, and much written on accounts of people in concentration camps during WW2. Many of them recall details which have been proven to not actually occurred (wrong dates, miscalculations, etc.) But does that make the history any less true? What is history, and what is its function?

To deny the text is to deny the history and heritage of a people. Of course, no one suggests you believe it as the testament of God, but one must understand that it is more than a manufactured form of narrative - it is an oral form, built upon the struggles and experiences of a people, and as such, an oral history that solidified into a text, which in many ways tried to create an authoritative rendition of the history, despite the original implications.


What historical narrative is true? How much do we actually know about Socrates? About Charlemagne, Napoleon, or even Mao? How much is contrived and how much is rooted in fact? The line is very vague - that is why history is studied and reinterpreted, because things aren't as black and white as you pretend them to be. There is truth behind the experience of literature, otherwise the stories in their earliest forms would have evaporated as being obsolete. The function these texts had in society shows a historical relevance of shared communal experiences contained within the discourse.

[The Atheist]

Yes, it is an historical document, as is the Odyssey, as is Gilgamesh.

No problem. If that's the meaning you have, that's fine.


As for proof - go to Jerusalem, and take the temple tour - there are stones from the wall buried deep that prove the temple existed. There has been archeological proof of some validity to the existence of many of the historical characters. MigDal David in part still stands today.

Using actual places to build a story on isn't new and it certainly doesn't give it any more credence that Clive Cussler, who, I believe, also uses historical figures and places.


There isn't much proof that it is all fantasy, in fact, there is no such proof.

Well, that's one of those things where absolute proof is difficult to show, given that it describes events in the distant past, but again, if you're going to use Odyssey as a comparative - I probably can't prove that's not true either.

On the other hand, things like Genesis, Exodus, Jericho and many, many other complete fantasies litter the book just as absurdities litter Cussler's books.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I can't prove Cussler's books or Harry Potter aren't true as well.


There is truth behind the experience of literature, otherwise the stories in their earliest forms would have evaporated as being obsolete.

Can't agree. The bible, unlike say, Aesop's Fables has had various religions built around it which have given it a bit of a boost.


The function these texts had in society shows a historical relevance of shared communal experiences contained within the discourse.

I'd be interested to know what you count as "shared communal experiences", since most of the communal experiences contained in the bible extant today are plain fantasy.

[dafydd manton]

Sorry, but I don't buy that for a second.

The bible has many predictions and prophecies in it but I don't know of any that could be described as having "amazing detail".

Many claims are made about Nostradamus' predictions as well, but I don't see them either. Can you explain why you think the prediction is about Alexander, is so correct, and why the bible would have any interest in him?

Thanks.



So, a historical record which isn't true - and it appears to be not just "not completely true", but in fact, diabolically untrue - is a historical document? I guess Dennis the Menace is an important treatise on childhood as well.

Can you point to parts of the bible which are close to historically-accepted fact? Just close, mind you, because none of it is accurate and I'm pretty sure there is no evidence to suggest any of it is based on real events. Some of the places actually existed, but the book is fantasy.

Daniel Chapter 8, verses 5 to 10 give finite detail as to the Medo-Persian empire being defeated by Greece, fact of history. Then it refers to the "single horn", which it explains, being divided four ways, which is precisely what happened to Alexander the Greats kingdon, being divided into four parts under Lysimachus, Ptolemy etc.

There is also the prophecy in Isaiah 44 verses 26 and 27 that refers to Cyrus, who was of course instrumental in the fall of Babylon and the rebuilding of Herusalem. Isaiah was written 130 years in advance of that event, yet the general, Cyrus was named. There are also any number of prophesies regarding the birth of Christ (such as when and where), his flight to Egypt as a child, his manner of death, and even what would happen to his body, and his clothing, after his death. For example, it was normal at executions for the condemned to have their legs broken at sundown, so that they would drown in their own body fluids. It did not happen to Jesus, as he was already dead, which appartently is unusual in the extreme. I could bore you for hours, but these were the things that made me think that the Bible is what it claims to be, not necessarily what religious leaders teach, which is often false.

[Drkshadow03]

So, a historical record which isn't true - and it appears to be not just "not completely true", but in fact, diabolically untrue - is a historical document? I guess Dennis the Menace is an important treatise on childhood as well.

Can you point to parts of the bible which are close to historically-accepted fact? Just close, mind you, because none of it is accurate and I'm pretty sure there is no evidence to suggest any of it is based on real events. Some of the places actually existed, but the book is fantasy.

The Babylonian Exile, the Assyrian destruction of Samara, The Persian rule that ended the exile. All real events, and all attested to in the Bible. In fact, many these events are covered in multiple books; they make up for a major part of the Bible. The existence of various personages from the Bible, especially various Kings. Cities. etc., can now also be claimed to be mostly historically accurate.

There are numerous artifacts attesting to these historical events, including Non-biblical sources for some of the invasions I listed above. Wikipedia does a nice job listing them all: Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology_(excavations_and_artifacts)#T able_II:_Artifacts).

[The Atheist]

Daniel Chapter 8, verses 5 to 10 give finite detail as to the Medo-Persian empire being defeated by Greece, fact of history. Then it refers to the "single horn", which it explains, being divided four ways, which is precisely what happened to Alexander the Greats kingdon, being divided into four parts under Lysimachus, Ptolemy etc.

I had a funny feeling that was going to be it:


5 And I understood: and behold a he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and he touched not the ground, and the he goat had a notable horn between his eyes. 6 And he went up to the ram that had the horns, which I had seen standing before the gate, and he ran towards him in the force of his strength. 7 And when he was come near the ram, he was enraged against him, and struck the ram: and broke his two horns, and the ram could not withstand him: and when he had cast him down on the ground, he stamped upon him, and none could deliver the ram out of his hand. 8 And the he goat became exceeding great: and when he was grown, the great horn was broken, and there came up four horns under it towards the four winds of heaven.

Outstanding.

Great example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.


The existence of various personages from the Bible, especially various Kings. Cities. etc., can now also be claimed to be mostly historically accurate.

See my comment on Clive Cussler.

The bible contains factual places and events, but sheds no light on any of them since they are used falsely - the fall of Jericho, exodus from Egypt, enslavement of Jews, etc.

[Drkshadow03]

See my comment on Clive Cussler.

The bible contains factual places and events, but sheds no light on any of them since they are used falsely - the fall of Jericho, exodus from Egypt, enslavement of Jews, etc.

Oh, I read your comments on Clive Cussler. I thought they were rather weak to be frank. Cussler writes adventure fiction that loosely revolves around historical themes and often plays around with Alternative History.

The Tanakh, on the other hand, is an actual source of history. Archaeology not only sheds light on the events recorded in the Bible, but vice-versa the events written in the Bible shed light on archaeological finds. The beliefs found in the Bible, whether you personally believe in them or not, shed light on the beliefs of an historical people, serving an historical anthropological function. So even putting specific events aside, the book itself functions as an historical document recording a particular culture's beliefs, thoughts, and practices who have descendents living in Modern times.

Cussler's fiction doesn't function in any of these ways, nor makes any pretensions to do so. None of his books shed light on new archaeological finds, none of his books record the practices of an Ancient people from a first-hand perspective, none of his books tell us anything about the literary practices of the historical period.

The key difference is the Bible doesn't borrow history for the sake of telling a story; the Bible, when shed of its religious trappings, is often one of our sources for the historical events themselves, especially when backed by other archaeological finds and texts.

The analogy doesn't work in the slightest. The texts are doing two very different things and function in entirely different ways. So your claim that the Bible sheds no light on history is patently false. It clearly does.

We also have a case of shifting the goalposts:


Can you point to parts of the bible which are close to historically-accepted fact? Just close, mind you, because none of it is accurate and I'm pretty sure there is no evidence to suggest any of it is based on real events. Some of the places actually existed, but the book is fantasy.

You didn't ask for absolute one to one perfect accuracy. You claim there is no evidence to suggest ANY of it is based on real events. All you wanted was part of the Bible that is historically-accepted and that is based on real events.

The Babylonian Exile, the Assyrian destruction of Samara, The Persian rule that ended the exile are all historically-accepted events that occupy large portions of the Biblical text and match pretty closely with how other historical sources say it went down.

You got what you asked for.

[The Atheist]

Oh, I read your comments on Clive Cussler. I thought they were rather weak to be frank. Cussler writes adventure fiction that loosely revolves around historical themes and often plays around with Alternative History.

Crikey, that's a very flattering description of Cussler, whom I'd describe as "appalling" and leave it at that.

Note that I'm not comparing the bible to anything of Cussler's, even I wouldn't be that cruel, but I am saying that the historical accuracy of the bible is equivalent to Cussler.


So even putting specific events aside, the book itself functions as an historical document recording a particular culture's beliefs, thoughts, and practices who have descendents living in Modern times.

Culturally, I'd agree entirely. Most of the history of the world since the year 0 has been largely based on one bible or another's teaching.


The key difference is the Bible doesn't borrow history for the sake of telling a story;..

>>Insert incredulous emoticon here<<

That, on the other hand, I'd disagree with unto death. I didn't think christianity borrowing from earlier festivals and myths was in much doubt.


... the Bible, when shed of its religious trappings, is often one of our sources for the historical events themselves, especially when backed by other archaeological finds and texts.

This part I disagree with.

Much of it can be attributed to the same post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy as above. Whether the accounts were contemporary, predictive or historically true, is often unknown, but the number of places where real history meets a myth-based bible is extremly small.


So your claim that the Bible sheds no light on history is patently false. It clearly does.

No, from a cultural perspective, you're quite right - I started ambiguously.


You didn't ask for absolute one to one perfect accuracy. You claim there is no evidence to suggest ANY of it is based on real events. All you wanted was part of the Bible that is historically-accepted and that is based on real events.

The Babylonian Exile, the Assyrian destruction of Samara, The Persian rule that ended the exile are all historically-accepted events that occupy large portions of the Biblical text and match pretty closely with how other historical sources say it went down.

You got what you asked for.

As noted, my poor description, written in a hurry. The accuracy of the bible's claims are where the divergence from reality begins.

[Drkshadow03]

This part I disagree with.

Much of it can be attributed to the same post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy as above. Whether the accounts were contemporary, predictive or historically true, is often unknown, but the number of places where real history meets a myth-based bible is extremly small.


I don't see in what way the statement commits a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I see how the prophecy statement of the guy above commits it. But I'm not implying any sort of causation. I am saying the book has recorded many events of real history. Likewise, later archaeological digs have vindicated the history contained within the Bible, just as some discoveries have shed doubt on certain parts. Similarly, the book is often used to interpret the archaeological finds and give them additional significance, a practice that occurs in other areas of archaeology.

What does any of this have to do with causation? I am not saying the book caused any historical events or predicted future historical events, I am saying it recorded them either during or shortly after the fact. And seems to have done so in some cases with a fair amount of historical accuracy.

[chrismythoi]

Possibly so, but it contains some very interesting prophecies that have been fulfilled in amazing detail (Ref Alexander the Great in Daniel, as one example), which make you wonder?

but alexander was before daniel was written...
i am not aware of any prophecy in the bible coming true, partly becasue that was not how the ancient jews viewed the idea of 'prophecy'.

in regards to the original point, the bible is certianly literary in nature. i would recommend books all called 'narrative art in the bible' or 'biblical narrative art' etc. maybe robert alter.

also think about how widely read the bible is, and also how it is referenced in almost all western art media, eg-the last supper, passion of the christ (obviously)

[JBI]

There is a difference between fact and truth. In terms of events, they perhaps didn't occur like that, but in terms of truth, this is a history of a people, but it is an oral form, which means it is somehow closer to the real experiences, and therefore isn't a work of fact, but experience and tradition. As such, it isn't less true, it just isn't rooted in the same facts.

You pretend like only things supported by proven facts can be historical. But these facts, the way they relate to their society, are oral, and therefore cannot be contained within your Enlightenment vision of historical discourse. Oral history relies more on tradition and interpretation rather than actuality and empirical evidence. The Truth behind it though, as a representation of a history, is not made less valid.

Folksongs, artwork, even food are all testaments of a historical tradition built on custom and oral discourse. Though the recipes eaten today in restaurants may not factually articulate a culinary custom going back to Renaissance Italy, it still acts as a testament for the tradition, and is still a historically alive cultural specimen.

Your arguments are all out of a written form of historical communication, and ignore the oral form. You bias space and event, whereas you ignore time and tradition. Written history is very different than oral history, and in general, is less significant. The bible itself doesn't have one reading, as real history, as a discourse cannot have one reading, though some try to suggest it should or does. There is a tradition, a building on the way things are seen, and, if there is no physical evidence to support it, an oral tradition based on events, and traditions.

Are Vasari's Lives of the Artists really factual? In a written sense, no, as there aren't any footnotes and there have been proven faults within the history as pertaining to other documents. But as an oral history, to some extent they are more truthful, as his work captures the tradition of how these people were seen.

History is not fact, it is an interpretation of fact. To think just because something is removed from the actual fact it is not true would create a necessity to question everything as meaningless. Baudrillard seemed to think that way, as did many post-modern theorists, because quite simply, Grand narratives cannot be supported as being truly Fact, and are mere representations of fact themselves. What one can do though, is understand that as a cultural heritage, this text contained what was seen as important in the narrative to the people who composed it and past it down. The same way the history books you get in school reflect the way educators view history.

Whether or not the things happened is irrelevant. What they represent is a history beyond the discourse of fact, a history that is not written, but debated. The writing of the text down is what complicated things, but as it is, the oral Torah went down much further before actually being penned. Beyond that, discourses of interpretation seek to bring the text back to life as a matter of debate. Try reading Talmud for instance, you have dozens of Rabbis, some from the early centuries AD, some from before then, some from the 10th century, and some later, all debating and trying to understand the same issues that occur from the text.

History as it pertains to the bible is not a static one, unless you choose to interpret it that way. Christian discourse for the most part tries to, but Jewish discourse does not. I think that's a big difference, and what creates these sorts of discrepancies. When people say Judeo-Christian tradition, usually they just mean Christian, as to me, the Jewish tradition seems closer to the Hindu tradition than Christianity.

[BienvenuJDC]

but alexander was before daniel was written...

Daniel lived from about 620 BC to 530 BC, and Alexander's conquests were about 333 BC. Daniel was definitely before Alexander.