Essential books of the Bible?

[Dedalus114]

Hello. I’m someone who would like to improve his Biblical literacy in order to better understand Western Literature. However, at the moment I really have no ambition to read the whole thing (or even most of it). So, what particular books of the Bible would you say can be called ‘essential background reading’ for understanding Western Literature?

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm wondering how the Bible is related to Western Literature. The book, in its entirety was written in the Middle East. Tell me the connection to Western Literature, then maybe I could focus you on certain parts.

[Dedalus114]

Thanks for the response, and that's a fair question...I basically mean in terms of influence on Western lit., and especially in terms of intertexual engagements...direct allusions to Biblical events and images, ways in which Biblical narratives underlie major Western works, etc.

[BienvenuJDC]

I've been through a complete School of Biblical Studies. But let me give some consideration to that...off hand though, I believe that since the Psalms is a book of poetry it is a good place to start. If you consider musical lyrics a part of literature, take a look at Ecclesiastes 3 which was made into a song by The Birds - Turn, Turn, Turn... Many quotes are taken from the Scriptures, but I'll have to think about them. (...Pride goeth before a fall...King James language an obvious influential clue...Proverbs 16:18).

[Drkshadow03]

Hello. I’m someone who would like to improve his Biblical literacy in order to better understand Western Literature. However, at the moment I really have no ambition to read the whole thing (or even most of it). So, what particular books of the Bible would you say can be called ‘essential background reading’ for understanding Western Literature?

Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Samuel, Kings I, Isaiah, Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes, Daniel.

The Gospels and Revelation.

Honestly, you should just read the whole Bible.

Try this test out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7893000/7893592.stm

[Dedalus114]

Thanks for the suggestions. Hmmm. I got a 6/10 on that quiz...I guess it could be worse.

[El Viejo]

Hello. I’m someone who would like to improve his Biblical literacy in order to better understand Western Literature. However, at the moment I really have no ambition to read the whole thing (or even most of it). So, what particular books of the Bible would you say can be called ‘essential background reading’ for understanding Western Literature?


The Bible is a collection of writings spanning many centuries and many topics. I do not think a Reader's Digest condensation could be done. I suggest you just bite it and read it through. It's tedious in places, but you'll have your own complete perspective when you're done. That will be a wonderful thing. Most of us learned someone else's perspective first, and that makes it hard to see with your own eyes. With some works this isn't much of a problem, but with the Bible zeal and conflict run high, and you need personal knowledge of the whole in order to evaluate what others have built from fragments.

[Tyler Self]

^^I agree. But if you absolutely have to get what the Bible is all about, I would begin in the gospel of John. I tell everyone who wants to learn about christianity this.

[A Snowy Evening]

I recently purchased a copy of the king james bible and was immediately surprised when scanning the table of contents. I was raised in a family with only a hint of christianity and so i have dedicated little time to religious study. I bought the bible for purely scholarly purposes, knowing little of the specific construction of the book but desiring to know more. What shocked me was the diminutive size of the New Testament as compared to the Old.

The new testament is a spare 150 pages in my book, a third the size of the old. It seems hardly enough to be the foundation of this religion that has dominated the world i have lived in my whole life. I do no think i have ever heard any mention of the size ratio of these two books; perhaps it doesn't matter. It is this thought that caused me to post in this thread rather than create a new one (and i hope this location is an appropriate one!). So, is my observation of any signifficance or am i just being puerile in judging a book by its girth? Please let me know.

[Virgil]

Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Samuel, Kings I, Isaiah, Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes, Daniel.

The Gospels and Revelation.

Honestly, you should just read the whole Bible.


I would add Paul's Epistles and Acts of the Apostles to that and I think those are the major ones.

[stlukesguild]

The new testament is a spare 150 pages in my book, a third the size of the old. It seems hardly enough to be the foundation of this religion that has dominated the world i have lived in my whole life. I do no think i have ever heard any mention of the size ratio of these two books; perhaps it doesn't matter. It is this thought that caused me to post in this thread rather than create a new one (and i hope this location is an appropriate one!). So, is my observation of any signifficance or am i just being puerile in judging a book by its girth? Please let me know.

150 pages!? That must be one hell of a condensed New Testament... or printed with real micro-print. My version is 421 pages long and the Old Testament is nearly 1400 pages. While this is the core text of Christianity it most certainly isn't the entire basis of the religion. One might add any number of other texts including various Apocryphal texts, Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, the writings of St. Augustine (Augustine of Hippo) St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis of Assisi, and endless literary contributions.

[JBI]

The new testament is a spare 150 pages in my book, a third the size of the old. It seems hardly enough to be the foundation of this religion that has dominated the world i have lived in my whole life. I do no think i have ever heard any mention of the size ratio of these two books; perhaps it doesn't matter. It is this thought that caused me to post in this thread rather than create a new one (and i hope this location is an appropriate one!). So, is my observation of any signifficance or am i just being puerile in judging a book by its girth? Please let me know.

150 pages!? That must be one hell of a condensed New Testament... or printed with real micro-print. My version is 421 pages long and the Old Testament is nearly 1400 pages. While this is the core text of Christianity it most certainly isn't the entire basis of the religion. One might add any number of other texts including various Apocryphal texts, Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, the writings of St. Augustine (Augustine of Hippo) St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis of Assisi, and endless literary contributions.

Yeah, the religion is as rooted in Hellenist Greek thought as it is in the Old Testament too (I would argue more so). The New Testament is just the technical work, the mythology of the religion itself was allowed to dominate, and then mold itself, until it finally came to the point, where most people simply forgot the oral tradition of Christianity (the saints and what not), and reverted back to a reading of the Text itself. Religion isn't built around one book, but Christianity I guess is able to conquer more space because of its defined biblical canon, and therefore it becomes a sort of written-media based religion, rather than Buddhism, for instance, or Hinduism, which are in many ways oral-media based religions. Of course, the religion still has a balance of the oral, as it inspires a community aspect, but that, I would argue, is slowly fading, so that the traditional church scene, rather ironically, is becoming more of a business, with loud speakers and television broadcasting, large congregations, and lack of connection amongst people, rather than a foundation of the community.

[A Snowy Evening]

150 pages!? That must be one hell of a condensed New Testament... or printed with real micro-print. My version is 421 pages long and the Old Testament is nearly 1400 pages. While this is the core text of Christianity it most certainly isn't the entire basis of the religion. One might add any number of other texts including various Apocryphal texts, Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, the writings of St. Augustine (Augustine of Hippo) St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis of Assisi, and endless literary contributions.



The bible i bought is a King James bible printed by Hendrickson publishers. "With no frills or extras that increase the page count or the price, this economy KJV Bible is the ideal choice for a basic introduction to Scripture..."

The only religion of which I can claim any depth of knowledge is Islam and I suppose that explains my assumed emphasis on a dominant central text for Christianity. But still, while Islam (as i understand it) is based on the Qu'ran, it is also based on the sunna of the prophet as well as the jurisprudence of the ulema.

Besides the New Testament, what other authoritative texts delineate the core of the Christian religion as separate from traditional Judaisim? What dogmatic works define Christianity?

[JBI]

The bible i bought is a King James bible printed by Hendrickson publishers. "With no frills or extras that increase the page count or the price, this economy KJV Bible is the ideal choice for a basic introduction to Scripture..."

The only religion of which I can claim any depth of knowledge is Islam and I suppose that explains my assumed emphasis on a dominant central text for Christianity. But still, while Islam (as i understand it) is based on the Qu'ran, it is also based on the sunna of the prophet as well as the jurisprudence of the ulema.

Besides the New Testament, what other authoritative texts delineate the core of the Christian religion as separate from traditional Judaisim? What dogmatic works define Christianity?

Its theological tradition, which, by means of the New Testament, almost made a clean break with Judaism. Judaism is more of an oral religion, with the primary texts only getting written down later. More than half of the Jewish canon is ignored in the Christian canon. The Talmudic tradition, for instance, the Mishna, Aggadah, Midrash, etc. are all absent in Christianity.

However, Platonic thought was allowed to dominate Christian scholarship for a while. In truth, classics got absorbed into Christianity, and altered perspectives greatly. In addition to that, new elements and interpretations, as well as new mythologies forefronted themselves, and caused an even bigger rift. There is very little in common between Christianity and Judaism if you look at it. The only thing really in common is the 10 Commandments. Christianity ignores most of the other 611 from the Pentateuch alone, and scrapped all the traditional practices and history.

I think it is also safe to say that Christian readings tend to favor the new book over the old.

[Moshu]

Hmmm, I don't exactly agree, JBI, I think it would be better put "SOME Christians scrap the tradtitional practices and history, ignore the Pentateuch and favor the NT over the OT." There is alot of pieces that have influenced Christianity, but there are a few churches/denominations who use the entire Bible as a foundation and keep old traditions.

[JBI]

Hmmm, I don't exactly agree, JBI, I think it would be better put "SOME Christians scrap the tradtitional practices and history, ignore the Pentateuch and favor the NT over the OT." There is alot of pieces that have influenced Christianity, but there are a few churches/denominations who use the entire Bible as a foundation and keep old traditions.

The two texts of the Bible, from the way I read them, are mutually incompatible. They are so different, that one completely goes against the other one. Jesus is not compatible with the Old Testament as a messiah, and by acknowledging him, you somehow have to break the old, and rewrite parts of it.

[librarius_qui]

I'm wondering how the Bible is related to Western Literature. The book, in its entirety was written in the Middle East. Tell me the connection to Western Literature, then maybe I could focus you on certain parts.

Europe was "Christianized", and all America is either Protestant or Catholic, so ...



Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Samuel, Kings I, Isaiah, Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes, Daniel.

The Gospels and Revelation.



I would add most nothing to this proposal, once you don't want to read it all.

"Genesis", Job & "Revelations"* are some of the most debated by non-believers;

"Genesis" is (literally) the beginning, and "Revelations" is the end.

Exodus and "Deuteronomy" will give you a good idea on Moses and what the Jews called the Law (Torah)

Samuel (I and II) and Kings I will give you notions on the first and main kings of Israel, Saul, David and Solomon.

(It's interesting to read Kings II because of Elisha and the division of the kingdom, I think, but not actually necessary, to a general knowledge on the subject ...)

Isaiah is the main prophet. I think I will add Jonah for you: it's short reading, and VERY significant to our culture.

"Ecclesiastes" is what some call a philosophical writing and vertent in the scriptures, it's useful to understand the thought of the bible.

And Daniel (or Ezekiel, however I agree with the suggestion of Daniel, for it's much shorter than Ezekiel) is interesting because of an example of a kind of writing very similar to "Revelarions", but in the old testment.

In the new testment, it's important to read the gospels, I agree, but you could choose either to read the four of them, or two of them, and a few of the letters ... If you don't read all the gospels, I'd recommend at least Matthew and John.

As for the letters, there are the ones written by Saulos (Paul), all right: I recommend the letter to Rome and the one supposed to have been written to Ephesus. I'd add, still one letter by Simon (Peter), could be the fist one, and "James", and "I John".



----
*I don't use these names but never mind -- I'm very different~

[mtpspur]

First off the concept of essential is troubling to me because of the CLAIMS of the Bible to be the Word of God. I assure you I can get in quite enough trouble with Him ignoring basic Christian tenets at my peril which is why God is a gracious God. It implies He can be edited down to an understandable level and dismissed willy nilly. Now mind you I read the Bible with the viewpoint that I am being taught and instructed in the revealed mind of God so tread carefully. BUT if you MUST thnakfully God is long suufering much like my wife) for essential reading or rather the concept should actually be--GETTING STARTED--Genesis (how it all began and how we got into the pickle we are in); Psalms (for worship), Proverbs (for daily living principles, John (most beautiful of the Gospels), Romans (for doctrine) and Revelations (for proper ending). But only if you must.

[librarius_qui]

As well as .. I forgot that .. encyclopedias' entries: you might begin through Wiki (I never read it, but it's beginning to get trustworthy (...), and Britannica.

I got to understand what the bible was (rationally) through reading explainations in an encyclopedia.

As well as I would recommend you to search for an ecumenic version of the bible, even because of ordering of the books.

No matter you won't read all the books, you should take a look at the index, and try to realize that the bible isn't a simple book, in a way (in the human(istic) way of seeing it): it was written by about 40 different people, from different periods, places and origins/professions, and different civil ranks (kings, sheppherds, priests, artists, fishermen, doctors ...).

& mtpspur gave quite an interesting view of a way of doing it too:
I'll quote, and mark the books:

"GETTING STARTED--Genesis (how it all began and how we got into the pickle we are in); Psalms (for worship), Proverbs (for daily living principles, John (most beautiful of the Gospels), Romans (for doctrine) and Revelations (for proper ending)."

A final note, to you too, mtpspur ... "The most beautiful of the gospels?" ... That's funny, sorry to say so. However, I have to .. er, "clarify": it's one in four gospels that is very different from all the others; so, 3 of them are quite alike, said even to have been based in one another (...), the first three, the fourth, this mentioned one, is structurally different from the other three. This is why I recommend to read one of the three, and don't ignore the fourth one.

Beautiful is a nice judgement. It ... sort of lowers the others, though. And it's, to begin with something, simply different.

It's only an opinion, though, on how to talk about the fourth gospel.~

lq

[Tyler Self]

It's not that John is more beautiful, it's that the gospel of John really presents Jesus as the messiah moreso than the others. Each gospel is well for its own purpose. For example, Luke is often called the "gospel for women."

John quotes a lot of stuff from the Old Testament which prophecied the messiah.

[librarius_qui]

(Anyway ... I had put to myself that I was not coming back into this forum, so, this is it for me. See you in "a hundred years" :alien: )

[Mathor]

I do not have any qualms over any parts of the Bible, reffering to JBI's point that most tend to take the side of the new testament. However, merely from a literal standpoint I find all the works of the Paul and John, and the Torah to be the most readable. I just like their writing styles most.

Paul:
Romans
Philippians
Galatians
Philemon
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
First Thessalonians
Hebrews
1 Timothy
2 Timothy

John:
1 John
Revelations

Torah:
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deutoronomy

That is simply my interpretation from a literal standpoint. I think they are all literal masterpieces.

[Rozzy]

There are some problems with the canon that biased theologians are not telling.

Some one by the name of John likely wrote the Apocalypse of John also known as the book of Revelations, but no one knows who that John was!!
Yes that is a fact, no one knows and if someone says they do know then ask them to prove it.

The book of Hebrews, the author is not known, the character of the book is pauline alright but attributing it to Paul is only a guess.

2 Peter and Jude are both pseudepigrapha, neither of which were written by the so named authors, James, 2, 3 John are also disputed books that are in the same boat.

In the second century the only New Testament canon was the gospels, each of which diverse areas would have one of the four. Irenaeus put copies of the four gospels together in a canon and presto we have a New testament.

over the years more books were added and several diverse canons emerged. In 382 A.D. Jerome was given the sole authority to standardize a Latin text and that is how books like 2 Peter and Jude were introduced as canon though they were never before thought of as scripture and were rightly considered pseudepigrapha.
Why did Jerome fiddle with the canon? Because he had to make it agree with the dogma and doctrines of the church, that is a fact.

[Tyler Self]

Nevermind.