The Bible is unreadable

[mal4mac]

Because I'd had no success reading the full Bible I thought I'd try an abridged version ("Testament" abridged by Philip Law). But I couldn't even get through that! It still had too many old prophets charging round the desert doing despicable, meaningless and unmotivated things.

I was reading the Iliad at the same time, and turning to it for light relief! I finished that and started reading Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy, so there was then no hope of continuing the Bible! I ground to a halt somewhere in "David" and just couldn't go on...

The "100 minute Bible" has just been delivered, maybe I can finish that!

Are there any out-takes forn the Bible that are actually readable for someone who expects a reasonable aesthetic experience from their reading? People like Stephen Mitchell have translated parts of the Bible (Job, Gospels...) I've a feeling that might be the way to go, i.e., read the parts that good writers and poets have felt worth translating.... Any recommendations along this line?

[hellsapoppin]

Have you read the new renditions of the Bible? The new ones use modern day English and make the book far more accessible.

If you have questions re any specific verses or concepts, try:

www.blueletterbible.org

[tailor STATELY]

I try to read at least one scripture a day and precede my reading with a prayer of understanding and retention.

There's a joke in my faith with regard to a soldier who has a field version of The Book of Mormon in his breast pocket. Being knocked on his butt after a bullet gets stopped in his book in battle, he gets up, shakes the dust from his fatigues, and takes it out his scriptures in amazement and utters "I knew it!, nothing gets through 2nd Nephi !!". Perhaps the same could be said about Exodus (which is where I'm currently slogging through again [albeit reverently] in the O.T.).

My introduction to Exodus was (perhaps for many) the movie "The Ten Commandments" where Charleton Heston is cast as Moses. Movies, religious documentaries, Sunday School discussions, and BYU discussions I watch on the tube (especially "Insights to Isaiah" for me) help me to get the 'meat' of each scriptural story; and even seem to help me get more motivated to read once I understand where and what the stumbling blocks of the more esoteric parts of the scriptures are.

While Stephen Mitchell's works do offer an interesting diversion, I recommend sticking to the major works with a Bible dictionary near at hand.

[Homers_child]

I tried reading a Bible a little while ago, I thought it would make me more enlightened and better versed in the religion of Christianity. You know, hold my own in debates.

Unfortunantely I couldn't get past a couple pages. It was so dry and repetitive and boring and... you get my point.

If only Milton rewrote the whole entire Bible instead of just the fall, I might be a converted Christian. At least he holds my attention.

[DanielBenoit]

I tried reading a Bible a little while ago, I thought it would make me more enlightened and better versed in the religion of Christianity. You know, hold my own in debates.

Unfortunantely I couldn't get past a couple pages. It was so dry and repetitive and boring and... you get my point.

If only Milton rewrote the whole entire Bible instead of just the fall, I might be a converted Christian. At least he holds my attention.

Wow! Milton translating the Bible. If only. . . . .

Yeah many parts of the Bible are dry repeditive and boring, and as a whole doesn't seem to hold up in comparison to Homer, Dante or Shakespeare.

Though, you must admit, there is some pretty beautiful stuff in there, hidden away between the thickness of two-thousand pages. Just read Ecclesiastes, it seems to go head on against what the gospels were preaching. I remember when I was a Christian, how much comfort I found in reading Pslams.

[NickAdams]

I got stuck in Genesis, but I found Jacob's deception to be hilarious. I contribute that to having viewed Woody Allen's "Love and Death" before I began reading the story and picturing Allen as Jacob with sheep's wool poorly glued to his face encouraging his father Isaac to touch it to prove that he was his masculine brother.

Genesis becomes far more interesting when it's read in the light of Kabbalah's Tree of Life.

Rabbinic significance
As to the actual significance of the numbers 10 and 22 in context of Judaism goes into Kabbalistic interpretation of Genesis. God is said to have created the world through Ten Utterances, marked by the number of times Genesis states, “And God said.”
Gen 1:3 - "And Elohim said, 'Let there be Light.' and there was Light." (Kether)
Gen 1:6 - "And Elohim said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the Waters, and let it divide the Waters from the Waters." (Chockmah)
Gen 1:9 - "And Elohim said, 'Let the Waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so." (Binah)
Gen 1:11 - "And Elohim said, 'Let the Earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth.' And it was so." (Chesed)
Gen 1:14-15 - "And Elohim said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so." (Gevurah)
Gen 1:20 - "And Elohim said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'" (Tiphareth)
Gen 1:22 - "And Elohim Blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.'" (Netzach)
Gen 1:26 - "And Elohim said, 'Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'" (Hod)
Gen 1:28 - "And Elohim blessed them and Elohim said to them, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over thefish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'" (Yesod)
Gen 1:29-30 - "And Elohim said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat.' And it was so." (Malkuth)

[Chilly]

Wow! Milton translating the Bible. If only. . . . .

Yeah many parts of the Bible are dry repeditive and boring, and as a whole doesn't seem to hold up in comparison to Homer, Dante or Shakespeare.

Though, you must admit, there is some pretty beautiful stuff in there, hidden away between the thickness of two-thousand pages. Just read Ecclesiastes, it seems to go head on against what the gospels were preaching. I remember when I was a Christian, how much comfort I found in reading Pslams.

I agree, there are parts of the bible that are very slow but when we read it we have to remember that it wasn't written for entertainment purposes, it wasn't written as if it was some novel that we read for an hour every night like any other book. God doesn't expect you to do that, in fact, no one expects you to do that.

If you really want to read it, read it very slowly, at most 3 chapters a day, and read study guides to help you understand what it means. Also, one very simple version to read is the NIRV, New International Readers Version (it's written at a grade 3 level).

[DanielBenoit]

Also, one very simple version to read is the NIRV, New International Readers Version (it's written at a grade 3 level).

Wow, lol!

[mal4mac]

Genesis becomes far more interesting when it's read in the light of Kabbalah's Tree of Life.


Interesting. Harold Bloom in "Genius" used this tenfold division to divide his "writers of genius", though he doesn't make this connection to "Genesis". In the first half the of the Keter (Crown) division you get Shakespeare, Cervantes, Montaigne, Milton, Tolstoy, and ... well you can look up the other 95 writers to see who they are and where they fit! Another Bloom list :-)


I agree, there are parts of the bible that are very slow but when we read it we have to remember that it wasn't written for entertainment purposes, it wasn't written as if it was some novel that we read for an hour every night like any other book. God doesn't expect you to do that, in fact, no one expects you to do that.

If you really want to read it, read it very slowly, at most 3 chapters a day, and read study guides to help you understand what it means. Also, one very simple version to read is the NIRV, New International Readers Version (it's written at a grade 3 level).

I don't care what God expects. I am asking my gods, the literary critics, to point out which parts of the Bible have aesthetic merit. And when I can't see why a part has such merit, I want to know why they think it has. So far, a few bits (Job, Ecclesiastes) I can see have the greatest aesthetic merit. Given that, I'm curious to find all the pieces with aesthetic merit without having to plough through the unploughable slow bits.

I've read Shakespeare and Homer, so I'm happy with complicated language and a certain amount of "slow". But I wouldn't read an unabridged Homer again. The Iliad has more than 1000 names of people & places, mostly appearing once (in the form "Achilles killed X", or similar.) I can see how this happened -- every important Greek had to get into this oral history! -- but it destroys the pleasure of the reading experience. Now the Bible seems to be similar in this respect, except is even "slower" than the Iliad, to the extent of being unreadable to all but (I guess) the seriously faithful or bible scholars.

So the serious common reader of literature has a predicament. Much serious literature refers to the Bible, major critics like Harold Bloom say it is canonical, so if you are serious about literature then the Bible has to be tackled somehow.

The first thing to do, for those who are Bloomites rather than Christians, is (surely) to get an abridged version approved by the master. Bloom actually said, "everything of aesthetic merit" in the Bible remains in "Testament". But he didn't say that much that isn't of aesthetic merit still remains!

For now, I'll read through the 100 Minute Bible, to get a bird's eye view, and then, maybe, try "Testament" again from the beginning -- editing out the "slow" bits to avoid on a re-read!

I guess it would be easy if Christianity was my religion, then I would just read the Bible. No excuses. But literature is my religion, so why should I go through the pain of reading the Bible, when I could re-read Hamlet, unabridged (!), and experience my religion in action, at its best...

[Morden]

I'm assuming you already know the basic? That the Bible is not a novel, nor written like a novel, nor even a Homeric epic. It is a collection of individual books written at different times by different authors about different aspects of the history and beliefs of the people of the Bible, all assembled between two covers as one "book". So, if anything, it is more like a collection of short stories by different authors with different perspectives around a common theme. Does Tanakh ring a bell? If not, google will tell you better than I can what the major divisions and perspectives are.

[hellsapoppin]

I would recommend that anyone read essays about biblical teaching rather than plunge into the book itself. An essay on, say, Mosaic law. Then another on Messianic law and how it overrules or enforces the old law. But if you must plunge into the book itself take the easy route.

For example, when reading the Old Testament, why not start with Amos? It is brief and deals with one topic: the punishment dealt to Israel because of its injustices and abuse of poor people. Then, try Proverbs which is a collection about wisdom and good conduct. Then go to the New Testament and begin with an easy book like James which deals with love and charity.

If you go from page one to the end, you may find that it is too boring or that it is inaccessible. Best to just read about the Bible before actually reading it.

[ntropyincarnate]

If you want readable it's mostly in the New Testament. Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon are good too. IMHO

Definitely skip at least the first 5 books, and pretty much anything before the prophets. Isaiah has some pretty sweet stuff in it, I know, but the rest of the prophets I'm not as familiar with, so I couldn't say.

What translation are you reading?

[DanielBenoit]

I am asking my gods, the literary critics, to point out which parts of the Bible have aesthetic merit.



But literature is my religion,

Then, why not let Shakespeare, Tolstoy and Milton be your gods instead of having a bunch of literary critics think for you.

Sometimes in literature you need to bite the bullet and read works unabridged.


By the way, concerning translation: I always stick to the King James Version, certainly the most poetic.

[stlukesguild]

Personally I would beg to differ with the assertions as the the "unreadability" of the Bible. I would personally place it along side of Shakespeare, Dante, and a few other absolute essential texts... speaking purely in aesthetic terms. If you are reading the Bible in English I would insist that there is only one translation of the entire text worthy of consideration and that is the King James Version.

I'm not certain where your difficulties with the text lie. I would suggest that it is probably of great help to begin with a critical exploration of how the work is laid out because you must be aware that the text as it exists is the product of numerous authors and later editors (some better than others). This is true even within individual "books" in which we often find more than a single version of same story interpolated. One might do well to familiarize yourself with the so-called "Documentary Hypothesis" which proposes a number of distinct writers within the Pentateuch. The theory essentially suggests that a number of different narratives by different writers were edited at a later time into the text that we now have. You can see an intro to the theory here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Or one may also look into Richard Elliott Friedmann's The Hidden Book in the Bible and Harold Bloom's (Oh no! Not him again!) The Book of J for further exploration.

The Bible is essentially a collection of loosely related and unrelated texts that represent the collective "history" of the Hebrew people. One might imagine what a post-Apocalyptic Bible of our culture might be like if it were to constructed of fragments of various lengths of Shakespeare (narrative), Blake and Baudelaire as well as lyrics of a few popular songs (poetry), bits of the Bill or Rights and the legal code of New York State (law), brief comments by Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, and Goethe (proverbs), etc...

The best approach to the Bible is to read one section or book at a time. Personally I find the work to contain some of the most magnificent writing ever. Like many of the truly "canonical" (Ack! Ack! That word again!!!) writers, the Bible can be shockingly strange because it is not what one expects at all. Of course Dante was not what I expected... neither was Kafka. But this strangeness is a strength. It shocks you out of your preconceived notions. The God of Abraham and Moses is a jealous, petty... at times despicable God ("Abe... kill me a son. You'd do it if you loved me." Moses... chop off the end of your penis. You'd do it if you loved me. It'll be a sign of a covenant... just between me and you.") In many ways this is a God not unfamiliar to Kafka.

As I already stated, I find the KJV to be by far the best English translation of the entire Bible... and certainly it has the advantage of a magnificent almost Shakespearean language. There are translations of the individual texts, however, that I would recommend. Certainly read Stephen Mitchell's Job which marvelously captures the poetry of the text. Mitchell also offers some intriguing interpretations in his commentary. Robert Alter offers some marvelous translations (The Five Books of Moses, The David Story, and The Book of Psalms) which offer up translations that are closer to capturing the original Hebrew rhythms, repetitions, and poetry. Ariel and Chana Bloch's translation of The Song of Songs is quite beautiful. I would also recommend A Poet's Book of Psalms edited by Lawrence Wieder in which the author selects what he considers to be the finest English translation of each of the Psalms (as poetry). Translators include Robert Burns, John Milton, Phillip Sidney, John Davies, Thomas Wyatt, Christopher Smart, Thomas Campion, Mary Sidney Herbert, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, etc...

Beyond these... I would (and do) still return to the KJV of the various books of the Bible. Genesis offers a fabulous fable-like explanation of the creation. Something only echoed in works like the Persian Shanameh. It is at once simple... and profound. The psychological insights and personal tragedies of figures such as Abraham, Moses, Jacob, David, Saul, etc... rivals the strongest narratives of literature.

Job is an almost shocking work... beginning in the manner of something like a puppet theater as an unknown God whose decisions cannot be questioned allows the "tempter" to play with the lives of his servant Job and family. I cannot help but think of Kafka's unseen tormentors: "One day J awoke to found that all he loved had been taken from him without reason..." Confronting this greatest challenge of faith... how can a just God allow bad things to happen to good people?... the book then erupts into a magnificent torrent of visionary poetry before returning once again to the puppet theater.

The Bible contains some of the most sensuous erotic poetry: "I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning." "Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb. Honey and milk are under thy tongue, and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon." Such poetry of love can be found in The Song of Songs... as well as certain Psalms.

Beyond this one may uncover magnificent poetry of praise, tormented lamentations and dire prophesy... some of which is horrific to read after knowledge of the Holocaust. There are also the magical narratives of the life of Jesus and the horrors of the Passion... the brilliance of the Sermon on the Mount which must stand along the Tao Te Ching at the summit of "wisdom literature" and again... the prophesies of Revelations... worthy of the most visionary bits of Blake, the Qur'an, Moby Dick, etc...

Like many of the towering works of literature, the Bible is unquestionably deeply flawed. It lacks the smooth narrative flow and perfection of a book such as Lolita, The Great Gatsby, or Madame Bovary. Of course one might point out just how Don Quixote, War and Peace, Moby Dick, Ulysses, and other such texts also become lost in diversions... sink into passages that are not merely less-than-marvelous... or even mediocre... but are actually bad... even horrible. And yet the wealth and splendor that is there to be found is also beyond compare. In a like manner I think of the oeuvre of Pablo Picasso who may just have produced the most crap of any great artist... some of it so bad that one cannot even fathom how even a mediocre artist would have allowed just trash to see the light of day... but then he also produces more art that attains the highest levels imaginable than almost anyone I can think of... and the heights he attains are virtually as unimaginable... and unexpected as those of the Bible.

[stlukesguild]

If you want readable it's mostly in the New Testament. Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon are good too. IMHO

Definitely skip at least the first 5 books, and pretty much anything before the prophets. Isaiah has some pretty sweet stuff in it, I know, but the rest of the prophets I'm not as familiar with, so I couldn't say

Skip the first five books??!! That would be the Pentateuch... the Torah... pretty much the core narratives of the Hebrew Bible.

[blazeofglory]

Because I'd had no success reading the full Bible I thought I'd try an abridged version ("Testament" abridged by Philip Law). But I couldn't even get through that! It still had too many old prophets charging round the desert doing despicable, meaningless and unmotivated things.

I was reading the Iliad at the same time, and turning to it for light relief! I finished that and started reading Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy, so there was then no hope of continuing the Bible! I ground to a halt somewhere in "David" and just couldn't go on...

The "100 minute Bible" has just been delivered, maybe I can finish that!

Are there any out-takes forn the Bible that are actually readable for someone who expects a reasonable aesthetic experience from their reading? People like Stephen Mitchell have translated parts of the Bible (Job, Gospels...) I've a feeling that might be the way to go, i.e., read the parts that good writers and poets have felt worth translating.... Any recommendations along this line?

Of course I too feel like that.

[ntropyincarnate]

If you want readable it's mostly in the New Testament. Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon are good too. IMHO

Definitely skip at least the first 5 books, and pretty much anything before the prophets. Isaiah has some pretty sweet stuff in it, I know, but the rest of the prophets I'm not as familiar with, so I couldn't say

Skip the first five books??!! That would be the Pentateuch... the Torah... pretty much the core narratives of the Hebrew Bible.

Yes, but they are also as boring as all hell. And so repetitive. I'm just saying, for readability...if you're just reading it for pleasure, the Pentateuch is a killer.

[JBI]

The Bible is essentially a collection of loosely related and unrelated texts that represent the collective "history" of the Hebrew people. One might imagine what a post-Apocalyptic Bible of our culture might be like if it were to constructed of fragments of various lengths of Shakespeare (narrative), Blake and Baudelaire as well as lyrics of a few popular songs (poetry), bits of the Bill or Rights and the legal code of New York State (law), brief comments by Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, and Goethe (proverbs), etc...



The Bible is only a fraction - the Hebrew Canon is much larger in places, and smaller in others (the Apocrypha is a Christian decision). The so called Collective History reading works only when you approach it from that angle - the King James though, if read as a single book, is not taking that angle - one would need to be versed in exterior Jewish scripture, and Rabbinic interpretation to understand a Jewish perspective - something which is very hard to do, given the intense amount of Hebrew and Aramaic scholarship written for thousands of years. The tradition itself isn't very static - the book is constantly changing, and being built upon. Commentary, and the understanding of the text functions more like an oral form of communication than a written one, and so, the interpretation is subject to additional argument centuries in the future - sort of like its own literary tradition.

[stlukesguild]

Yes, but they are also as boring as all hell. And so repetitive. I'm just saying, for readability...if you're just reading it for pleasure, the Pentateuch is a killer.

Obviously it depends upon the reader. "Boring" would seem to be a rather subjective criticism. We've had endless posters declare that everything from Mozart to Shakespeare to Moby Dick is "boring". I personally find the narratives of the creation, Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the Exodus from Egypt etc... to be among the most memorable of narratives. Considering their impact upon Western civilization and Western culture (literature, art, music, philosophy) it would seem that I am not alone. I would agree that Exodus in places... and more so Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are perplexing... even frustrating in the interpolation of repetitive historical minutiae, ritual, and Hebrew law and legislative records. There are passages of profundity, but especially in the last 3 books one must dig through a great deal that is unquestionably "mundane" to find it. Genesis especially, and Exodus, however, offer a nearly unrivaled wealth of narratives that combine into a single tale that traverses from the very creation of the universe to the the enslavement of the Hebrew peoples to their eventual triumphal exodus from out of Egypt. This narrative mirrors, in many ways, the later narratives/histories of the later rise of Israel followed by its eventual fall and "Babylonian" captivity. Part of the notion of the Documentary Hypothesis and the effort to discern the various authors of voices within the Pentateuch and the later "historical narratives" (The Saul, David, Solomon tales) is geared toward developing the ability to recognize or even read the great narratives as separate from later interpolations of Hebrew strictures.

[Red-Headed]

The Bible is unreadable

I've decided to wait for the movie...

[mal4mac]

Yes, but they are also as boring as all hell. And so repetitive. I'm just saying, for readability...if you're just reading it for pleasure, the Pentateuch is a killer.

Any why four gospels telling pretty much the same story? I wouldn't even read four versions of Hamlet back to back. "Testament" condenses the four gospels into one, which was a major selling point for me!

[mal4mac]

I personally find the narratives of the creation, Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the Exodus from Egypt etc... to be among the most memorable of narratives.

I agree. It's after that point that it became unreadable for me. I managed to slog through Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges, Ruth... but in Samuel the wheel's came off! I hit David and Goliath with some relief, but was then hugely disappointed to be dragged through David's later career as a paranoid megalomaniac... Maybe it was disappointment about the "boy gone bad", or maybe the endless lists of obscure destroyed tribes, people and places, but I couldn't go on. I turned to Blood Meridian and 'the Wire' for simpler language and manageable violence...

Maybe I need a good Bible commentary? But it's difficult to find readable ones! They tend to add pedantic scholarship to obscurity. Maybe I just need to skip the Bible and read Shakespeare, Milton, Dante... with good notes explaining the biblical references in full!

Anyone read "Asimov's Guide to the Bible"? Does that give good advice on skipping?

[Morden]

I have read the Bible and have it here alongside me, and I strongly endorse all the good things that have been said above about reading the Bible, and especially the KJV. I'd like to add just one practical note.

One really ought to read the whole thing once. Just slog through it!
At least that way you will know what is in it, before throwing stones.

And, who knows, you might come to appreciate it in some sense. But you don't have to. After you read it, that is up to you.

[NickAdams]

The Bible is unreadable

I've decided to wait for the movie...

Start with Life of Brian.;)

[Three Sparrows]

Wow...slogging through the Bible? I'm speechless. The only thing I don't find very interesting in the Bible is the long lists of names. It's a History too, so if you like reading history, you should like this. But then, since your only reading it "just 'cause," you might not be struck with it the way a Christian or a wannabe Christian would. Maybe you should wait a bit before trying again, meanwhile trying to be more open-minded towards religion. The right state of mind might help you to get through it better.

[Morden]

I didn't mind the lists of names.
I read through them just to see what names were like, and also on the chance that there might be some structure or relatedness to them rather than just the randomness of names. And I only had to do them once, no matter how much I look at and reread other parts of the Bible, so no big loss.

Not every thing in life comes with jelly and sugar on top.

[Virgil]

Personally I would beg to differ with the assertions as the the "unreadability" of the Bible. I would personally place it along side of Shakespeare, Dante, and a few other absolute essential texts... speaking purely in aesthetic terms. If you are reading the Bible in English I would insist that there is only one translation of the entire text worthy of consideration and that is the King James Version.


I used to say that myself StLukes, but I've changed my opinion. I've been in the process of reading different books of the Bible both in the King James Version and a modern translation (I'm using the Roman Catholic translation New American Bible, NAB) and while the King James sounds poetic in places it it is very awkward and archaic and tedious in others. Sure for the occaisional passage the king James soars, but as a whole I don't find it worth it. I have come to definitely prefer the modern translation, at least the NAB version.

Here are a couple of web sites on what to look for in a translation:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

[Red-Headed]

Start with Life of Brian.;)

Yeah, but that's New Testament. I should really start at the beginning! Maybe somewhere around the Ten Commandments! (http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0049833/)

[stlukesguild]

Personally, I don't find the King James Version to be any more archaic than Shakespeare, Spenser, Sidney, Marlow, Donne, Herrick, or even Milton. In other words... it certainly is written in a form of English that is outdated... but in no way inferior. If anything, it actually has the advantage of a far greater sense of poetry. It must also be credited, along-side of Shakespeare, of actually being the virtual foundation of "modern English". Milton, Christopher Smart, Thomas Traherne, William Blake, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, and endless writers are deeply in debt to the language and the flow and the cadence of the Bible as imagined in the KJV.

I can't speak specifically to the Roman Catholic New American Bible translation, but I will say that most contemporary translations I have read have been perhaps easier to understand in terms of "meaning" but frequently lose any sense of the poetry and are reduced to a middling pedestrian quality. As many scholars have pointed out, many of the modern translations are actually less accurate than the KJV in that they downplay the poetry, the metaphor, the intentional use of repetition and the often kill the intent with their attempt at naturalism and colloquialism.

I would certainly not limit my experience to the KJV, but look into a number of quality translations of various sections or books of the Bible in order to gain an alternative view. I believe multiple translations are a must when dealing with such an iconic work, and I have employed such with Homer, Virgil, and Dante and others as well. Again, I would especially recommend Robert Alter's translations of The Five Books of Moses, The David Story, and the Psalms. I'd also recommend A Poet's Book of Psalms edited by Lawrence Wieder in which the author selects what he considers to be the finest English translation of each of the Psalms (as poetry) by poets including Robert Burns, John Milton, Phillip Sidney, John Davies, Thomas Wyatt, Christopher Smart, Thomas Campion, Mary Sidney Herbert, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, etc... and one might wish to make a further exploration of the translation of Psalms by Sidney, his sister, Christopher Smart, and others. I'd also recommend Stephen Mitchell's Job and Chana and Ariel Bloch's Song of Songs. Another recommendation would be that of Richard Lattimore's translations of the Gospels and other New Testament books from the Greek.

As an interesting aside it might be noted that poetic translations of the Psalms were almost immediately begun following the completion of the KJV as it was recognized that there was a real shortcoming there. The KJV or the Psalms are quite beautiful... but with a few key exceptions (the most obvious being the beloved 23rd Psalm) they read as English prose... lovely prose... but prose none-the-less. various poets immediately took up the challenge of translating these Hebrew poems into English verse.

[Red-Headed]

Personally, I don't find the King James Version to be any more archaic than Shakespeare, Spenser, Sidney, Marlow, Donne, Herrick, or even Milton.

The KJV often employs out-dated (even for the Jacobeans) nominative pronouns like 'thou' & other archaic forms originally to give it some gravitas for its intended audience. These were not in general use in southern English. Some, like 'thee' (accusative) still exist as the familial in parts of the North. The dative 'Yeow' is still used in parts of the Midlands (Black Country) but now only as a familial.

[stlukesguild]

Speaking of translations... the King James Translation which I own is published by Everyman's Library (Knopf) and includes a rather good introduction of the history of the Bible and the history of the translations of the same. There are any number of earlier translations including that of the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Martin Luther's German, John Wycliffe's, and William Tyndale's (which was a model for and provided a great deal of the actual language of the KJV). One should understand the the great excitement concerning the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and other ancient parchments was due to the fact that there are no Hebrew "originals" of the Biblical writings from between the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls until around the 9th or 10th century. What we have is a translation of a translation. What has come down to us are early Greek translations (with many inconsistencies) and the translation of Jerome... which was based upon his collections of various translations... most importantly from the Hebrew. There are any number of books which explore the history of the Bible including The Book: A History of the Bible (copiously illustrated in color) by Christopher Hamel; Surpassing Wonder: the Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds, by Donald Akenson; An Introduction to the Old Testament, by Walter Brueggemann; The Literary Guide to the Bible and The Art of Biblical Poetry, by Robert Alter.

[Red-Headed]

One should understand the the great excitement concerning the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and other ancient parchments was due to the fact that there are no Hebrew "originals" of the Biblical writings from between the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls until around the 9th or 10th century. What we have is a translation of a translation.

It's all a matter of hermeneutics, semiotics & subjective ontology eventually... :eek:

[stlukesguild]

The KJV often employs out-dated (even for the Jacobeans) nominative pronouns like 'thou' & other archaic forms originally to give it some gravitas for its intended audience.

Interestingly enough it is often supposed that thou and you are an English variant on the formal vs informal address... not unlike tu and vous in French... with thou being obviously the formal form. In reality, thou originated as the form used for the expression of intimacy, familiarity, or even disrespect. It is still used... along with variations such as thee and prithee (albeit inconsistently) by Shakespeare, Spenser, and other writers... although it almost certainly owes its survival to William Tyndale's translation of the Bible in which he employed the forms in an attempt to preserve the singular and plural distinctions that he found in his Hebrew and Greek originals. Tyndale's use was replicated in the King James Version and because of this link it became thought of as denoting formality... which was actually the opposite of its original intent. This usage was further kept alive by imitation and usage by English poets as well as by various religious groups such as the Society of Friends (or Quakers) and other such groups, as well as in certain regional dialects. It actually shows up in the Southern United States (and can be found, for example, in a number of songs by Stephen Foster).

[Red-Headed]

The KJV often employs out-dated (even for the Jacobeans) nominative pronouns like 'thou' & other archaic forms originally to give it some gravitas for its intended audience.

Interestingly enough it is often supposed that thou and you are an English variant on the formal vs informal address... not unlike tu and vous in French... with thou being obviously the formal form.

Like I said, the nominative & accusative have evolved over the years. The accusative 'thee' is now used as the informal (familial) in dialect in parts of the north of England. If you ever spend any time in Manchester you will hear it quite a bit, along with many Dane descended words such as 'bairn' (child).

In the Midlands some inflectives, notably dative, also became familials (informal). Yeow (sounds like 'yow') being the most common, particularly in the Black Country. There was no real Danelaw influence on the Frisian descended Black Country speech as the Danes (with the exception of Wolverhampton) didn't actually settle there (the English wouldn't let them). So Midland's dialect is the oldest known Anglo-Saxon variant. My mother was from the Black Country & I can both speak & understand the dialect. Although it is unintelligible in most of Worcestershire. Oddly, Shakespeare spells many words with diphthongs that mimic much Black Country speech in assonance particularly. Many of his rhyme schemes only make sense if you take this into account. :eek2:

[Virgil]

Personally, I don't find the King James Version to be any more archaic than Shakespeare, Spenser, Sidney, Marlow, Donne, Herrick, or even Milton. In other words... it certainly is written in a form of English that is outdated... but in no way inferior. If anything, it actually has the advantage of a far greater sense of poetry. It must also be credited, along-side of Shakespeare, of actually being the virtual foundation of "modern English". Milton, Christopher Smart, Thomas Traherne, William Blake, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, and endless writers are deeply in debt to the language and the flow and the cadence of the Bible as imagined in the KJV.

Like Red-Headed says below, the KJV was consciously written to be archaic, so it's really in a language that never existed. I agree there are passages that rise to poetry, but those passages are few in between and in the meantime I struggle to understand the language. It's just down right awkard to read in places. Plus modern scholarship has arrived at more precise translations.


The KJV often employs out-dated (even for the Jacobeans) nominative pronouns like 'thou' & other archaic forms originally to give it some gravitas for its intended audience. These were not in general use in southern English. Some, like 'thee' (accusative) still exist as the familial in parts of the North. The dative 'Yeow' is still used in parts of the Midlands (Black Country) but now only as a familial.
It goes beyond "thees" and "thous. It goes to sentence structure as well. What makes for good poetry makes for poor readability. Unfortunately I don't find enough of the poetic passages. It's a chore to get through.

[stlukesguild]

Like Red-Headed says below, the KJV was consciously written to be archaic, so it's really in a language that never existed.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. The King James Version largely employed the language of the time, although translators made some efforts to covey certain aspects of the cadence or flow or even the vocabulary of the original Hebrew with the use of a poetic license. It also might be noted that a concern of the translators was to produce a Bible that would be appropriate, and resonate in public reading... thus, in a period of rapid linguistic change, they avoided contemporary idioms and neologisms; tending instead towards forms that were already slightly archaic, like verily and it came to pass. Of course, one might just as well argue that Shakespeare is written in a language that in no way mirrors the common speech of the time... nor was James Joyce, T.S. Eliot, or Cormac McCarthy. Beyond this... a vast majority of whatever archaisms were placed within the KJV were the result of the decision by translators to maintain a good deal from the Tyndale Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Great Bible in order to maintain a sense of continuity or familiarity with the readers.

I agree there are passages that rise to poetry, but those passages are few in between and in the meantime I struggle to understand the language.

Again... I don't find the poetic passages to be few or far between at all. I will admit that this may be owed in part to my familiarity with older English literature... especially poetry.

It's just down right awkard to read in places.

Again... is this "awkwardness" a flaw of the writing or is it merely do to a difficulty with the vocabulary, cadence, sentence structure, etc... of earlier English literature? Surely it is no more "awkward" than Sir Thomas Browne, Philip Sidney, Robert Burton, Francis Bacon, Thomas More or any other writer of prose of the era... and surely its a hell of a lot easier than Chaucer.

Plus modern scholarship has arrived at more precise translations.

Precise... but in what way? The clear, literal translation is not necessarily e best. The reality is that the King James Version is incredibly accurate. The translations were undertaken by some 47 scholars working in teams or committees. They worked primarily from the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts. They were also free to consult earlier translations including the Latin Vulgate and other early Latin versions, the Tyndale Bible, the Bishop's Bible, the Coverdale Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, etc... The greatest inaccuracies were related to attempts to avoid anything that suggested Puritanism... thus terms such as "congregation" were avoided.

By the 18th century there were essentially dozens if not hundreds of versions of the KJV as a result of poor editing practices. It was then decided to establish an authorized "standard edition" which was to be based upon a version edited at Oxford. At this time many thousands of small edits had been made. The King James Version would still go through further revisions in the form of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the Revised King James Version (RKJV). What is intriguing is that almost all of these translations go out of their way to maintain what was highly beloved by the general readers in much the same manner as the KJV sought to maintain aspects of the Tyndale and the Bishop's Bible.

Robert Alter, one of the leading scholars on Hebrew and the Bible, notes that a great majority of the newer translations of the Bible are just as accurate... and inaccurate as the KJV. Efforts at using informal colloquialisms have often resulted in the most ridiculous gaffes and zingers that completely miss the true intention. Alter notes that a number of the modern translations are written in clear English prose which gains, perhaps in understanding over the KJV but loses out in the splendor and richness of the older translation. The splendor of this translation is something that most of the translators recognize, and efforts are commonly made to maintain a good deal of what they find to be the best of the KJV. He also notes that the newer translations are often no more accurate in conveying the true sound, cadence, and flow of the Hebrew originals (nor are they without biases: Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc...) The translation of the Hebrew term עַלְמָה (ʿalmāh) in Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman" rather than the traditional Christian translation of "virgin" led to outrage and the start of the King James Only Movement. In no way would I argue that the KJV should be the only translation one should read. A great Bible that I saw years ago (but which was far too expensive for me at the time) placed various translations side by side in columns: Tyndale, KJV, RKJV, RSV, etc... Again... accessing a variety of translations may be the best solution.

[L.M. The Third]

I've a feeling that might be the way to go, i.e., read the parts that good writers and poets have felt worth translating.... Any recommendations along this line?

Personally I think many of these great writers and poets would point to the Bible and say, "There is literary greatness."
Here are some names of those who have declared in varying terms their highest respect for the Bible:

Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Goethe, Sir Walter Scott, Sir William Jones, John Milton, Bacon, Daniel Webster, John Adams, Lincoln, Napoleon, Sir Isaac Newton, Cowper, Newton, Franklin, Dr. Samuel Johnson, Matthew Arnold, Browning, Tennyson, and the list goes on and on.
Shakespeare alone has some five hundred Biblical quotations, allusions, etc.

Heres a quote from a Dr. James L. Vance.

"The Bible is not only many books, it is a literature. History, poetry, philosophy, theology, oratory, humor, sarcasm, irony, music, drama, tragedy, strategy, love tales, war tales, travelogues, laws, jurisprudence, songs, sermons, warning, prayers all are here. Was there ever such a literature? The Bible begins with agarden and ends with a city. It starts with a morning followed by a night, and ends with a day that shall know no night...It finds man at the shut gates of the lost Eden and leaves him before the open door at the top of the road."
(Found in I Love Books)

From the same book:

"George Saintsbury, most fastidious of critics, once declared that the best example known to him of absolutely perfect English prose is the sixth and seventh verses of the eighth chapter of the Song of Solomon:

Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned."

Another critic, Dr. William Lyon Phelps, said, "I have lived all my life with music, books and works of art, yet I cannot tell what is the best picture ever painted, or what is the best music written or the best play. I can, however tell you what is the... best poetry in the world...The best poetry is the 23d, the 90th and the 103d psalms.I stand in line with priests, atheists, skeptics, devotees, agnostics, and evangelists when I say that the Authorized Version of the Bible is the best example of English literature that the world has ever seen. I believe the knowledge of the Bible without a college course more valuable than a college course without the Bible."

I have friends who teach reading using phonics and one once had a coworker who said that the KJV Bible works up in grade level from the first chapter of Genesis on. I think Gen. 1 is about grade 5 grade level and it goes up.

I think there are a couple of reasons many find the Bible difficult reading. The first being that we know longer read as much or as thought-provoking literature as we should. So many today lack self-discipline in what they read, and seek only to be entertained.

The second reason I hold as a Christian, so I'm sure plenty won't agree with me: It is simply this "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

[Red-Headed]

Like Red-Headed says below, the KJV was consciously written to be archaic, so it's really in a language that never existed.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. The King James Version largely employed the language of the time,

Well, only if you think that most people really did speak in Shakespearean verse in Jacobean England.

Langland's West Midland dialect & speech is probably more accurately represented in Piers Plowman. In fact I recognise dialect words in the passage below (the translation is my own).

In a somer seson whan soft was the sonne
I shope me in shroudes as I a shepe were;
In habite as an hermite vnholy of workes
Went wyde in this world wonders to here.
Ac on a May mornynge on Maluerne hulles
Me byfel a ferly, of fairy me thougt:
I was very forwandred and went me to rest
Vnder a brode bank bi a bornes side
And as I lay and lened and looked in the wateres
I slombred in a slepying, it sweyued so merye.

~ William Langland (perhaps c.1330 - c.1386)

In a summer season, when pleasant was the sun
I dressed myself in the clothes of a shepherd;
In the habit of a not so holy hermit,
I went out wide in the world wonders to hear.
On a May morning on the Malvern hills
I fell across the land of fairy I thought:
I was very lost and I went to rest
Under a broad bank by the side of a bourne
And as I lay I leaned and looked into the water,
I slumbered and slept, it sounded so pleasant.

Shakespeare, like Langland was a mostly self-educated man & tried to improve his social standing by trying to lose his Midlands accent & dialect & adopting more Southern speech.

I doubt very much whether the KJB represented the colloquial speech of either the Elizabethan or Jacobean period. The inflexional endings for the third person present indicative of verbs had already been assimilated from the north & the midlands of England to become the standard even before Shakespeare was born.

When Chaucer used 'he fyndes' & 'he brynges' in the Canterbury Tales he is actually mimicking what was then a peculiar midland dialect. Chaucer would have used 'he fyndeth' or 'he bryngeth'. This was antiquated in the south by the time the KJB was compiled. As I said earlier, this was to give it a sense of gravitas.

Middle English started to split from old English primarily with development of simpler inflexions, especially in nouns & adjectives. This eventually blurred many of the distinctions between vowel sounds & unstressed syllables. The next development was an increased reliance on word-order (syntax) & prepositions to mark the relationships of words in a sentence. This & the mixture of Romance & Scandinavian Old Norse paved the way for the English of the time of the KJB.

During the Elizabethan era the language changed more than it had ever before, with thousands of new words & concepts coming into the English language. In fact it was our Renaissance.

I don't know where you get the idea that King James English was anything like colloquial English when it was written!

[Virgil]

Like Red-Headed says below, the KJV was consciously written to be archaic, so it's really in a language that never existed.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. The King James Version largely employed the language of the time, although translators made some efforts to covey certain aspects of the cadence or flow or even the vocabulary of the original Hebrew with the use of a poetic license. It also might be noted that a concern of the translators was to produce a Bible that would be appropriate, and resonate in public reading... thus, in a period of rapid linguistic change, they avoided contemporary idioms and neologisms; tending instead towards forms that were already slightly archaic, like verily and it came to pass.
Well, I'm not an expert in 15th cedntury English so I can't speak definitively. But I have read other writing of the period and I can't correlate the writing style to any other work. Can anyone? I would be interested in such a comparison. For instance compare malory's Le Morte with this and though both are different, I find Malory much more readable. I do think you are incorrect about only avoiding contemporary idioms. I'm pretty sure it was a conscious effort to affect sentence structure as well. If I had more time now I would pull some examples. I will try to later.


Of course, one might just as well argue that Shakespeare is written in a language that in no way mirrors the common speech of the time... nor was James Joyce, T.S. Eliot, or Cormac McCarthy. Beyond this... a vast majority of whatever archaisms were placed within the KJV were the result of the decision by translators to maintain a good deal from the Tyndale Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Great Bible in order to maintain a sense of continuity or familiarity with the readers.
I certainly disagree about Joyce, Eliot, and McCarthy. Whatever their difficulties, it is not sentence structure. As to Shakespeare, he's a poet who strains the language for poetic effect. The Bible is a prose work with an objective of clarity and communication. I'm not familiar with those previous bibles. I can't comment.


I agree there are passages that rise to poetry, but those passages are few in between and in the meantime I struggle to understand the language.

Again... I don't find the poetic passages to be few or far between at all. I will admit that this may be owed in part to my familiarity with older English literature... especially poetry.
Ok, I guess we just disagree. ;)


It's just down right awkard to read in places.

Again... is this "awkwardness" a flaw of the writing or is it merely do to a difficulty with the vocabulary, cadence, sentence structure, etc... of earlier English literature? Surely it is no more "awkward" than Sir Thomas Browne, Philip Sidney, Robert Burton, Francis Bacon, Thomas More or any other writer of prose of the era... and surely its a hell of a lot easier than Chaucer.
Again, Chaucer is poetry and of a significantly different time period. Yes, it's as different as those other writers, but, and I haven't read them in a while or along side the KJV to compare, those writers seem to be speaking in an English I can hear. This is the first time I've really read the KJV extensively and I'm shocked at its awkwardness of phrasing. Is it poetic? Sure, at places, but why should a prose work be poetic? TS Eliot made a critical examination of Milton where he said that Milton did not write in a real English (I'm paraphrasing) but stretched the language beyond its proper form. I agree, but I would allow Milton was a poet and had the right to stretch language for whatever effect he wished. I might argue that the KJV has the same flaw without the saving grace of being a poem. Clarity in prose is paramount.



Plus modern scholarship has arrived at more precise translations.

Precise... but in what way? The clear, literal translation is not necessarily e best. The reality is that the King James Version is incredibly accurate. The translations were undertaken by some 47 scholars working in teams or committees. They worked primarily from the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts.
Precise does not in any way mean literal. Just the opposite. Where the KJV is supposed to have failed is in the understanding of connotations of the ancient language. Modern scholarship understands those ancient languages far better (not literal but with the full connotations that all words have) than they did then.


Robert Alter, one of the leading scholars on Hebrew and the Bible, notes that a great majority of the newer translations of the Bible are just as accurate... and inaccurate as the KJV.
Well, that's one opinion. I've seen others that disagree.


Efforts at using informal colloquialisms have often resulted in the most ridiculous gaffes and zingers that completely miss the true intention. Alter notes that a number of the modern translations are written in clear English prose which gains, perhaps in understanding over the KJV but loses out in the splendor and richness of the older translation. The splendor of this translation is something that most of the translators recognize, and efforts are commonly made to maintain a good deal of what they find to be the best of the KJV. He also notes that the newer translations are often no more accurate in conveying the true sound, cadence, and flow of the Hebrew originals (nor are they without biases: Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc...) The translation of the Hebrew term עַלְמָה (ʿalmāh) in Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman" rather than the traditional Christian translation of "virgin" led to outrage and the start of the King James Only Movement. In no way would I argue that the KJV should be the only translation one should read. A great Bible that I saw years ago (but which was far too expensive for me at the time) placed various translations side by side in columns: Tyndale, KJV, RKJV, RSV, etc... Again... accessing a variety of translations may be the best solution.
I just saw in a book store a version that puts the translations side by side. I think the price has come down now and is managable. Sure, I think reading the KJV in sections would do a lover of the English language some good. But if you're looking to read for understanding and clarity, you can do a lot better.

[andave_ya]

unreadable? yowch. Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are hard-core, I admit, for all but the most dedicated of Bible scholars. But the rest of it...especially the gospels...are enough to bring one to his knees. It is different, I'm sure, for a person who isn't a born-again Christian to get that level of feeling out of the text, but at the right place and time it will hit you like a bag of bricks, even sometimes when you won't let it, and all of a sudden Christ will be revealed to you in all His glory, and you'll see why so many so deeply cleave to the precepts in that Book. At that point you'll even hold Leviticus dear, because it is the Word of God.

[Morden]

Yes, andave_ya, that is all true, and moreso each time one reads it. Amen.

[Red-Headed]

Well, on a short note; I think there is poetry in the KJV. After all, the psalms were meant to be sung....right? (OK, maybe in Hebrew)

[NickAdams]

This might be of interest in regards to the "Old Testament", it's poetry and translations:

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

http://www.cresourcei.org/parallel.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebrew-poetry.html

[chrismythoi]

i think the bible is very readable. the only exceptions are genealogies, but they only occur in the 'history' books and are not so frequent as to destroy the flow of the story.
my favourite parts of the bible are Job, Exodus, 1 Samuel, Mark, Revelation and maybe also Song of Songs. Ecclesiastes is good, along with Wisodm and Ecclesiasticus, both found in the Catholic Bible.

You must bear in mind when reading the Bible that such conceptions as genre, 'readability' and audience appreciation were not necessarily the powerful filters they are today in writing. it is a much more subtle and dificult form of literature that takes perseverance. it is also not a novel so dont expect to read it all straight through in the way you would war and peace for example.

the thing that ultimately makes the bible readable for me is that it is the basis of billions of people's faith, and the questions that can therefore arise from engaging with such a text are many.

however for those of you wishing to appreciate biblical literature, i would point you ini the direction of the following scholars who may shed light onto the topic for anyone wishing to enjoy the bible as art...

robert alter
j cheryl exum
david clines
david gunn and danna fewell
meir sternberg
laurence turner
jan fokkelman

these may be a good start.

[mortalterror]

Of course, one might just as well argue that Shakespeare is written in a language that in no way mirrors the common speech of the time... nor was James Joyce, T.S. Eliot, or Cormac McCarthy.
I cringe and a little part of me dies inside whenever you compare Shakespeare to Cormac McCarthy or Blood Meridian to Moby Dick.

[JBI]

Heh, you seem to have misread Eliot - he very much was using the common speech, in contrast to models like Tennyson, who were deliberately periphrastic. Eliot himself tried to establish himself as using a more common speech - I believe he phrased it as the language of conversation.

Periphrasis comes and goes with tastes - it was surely in fashion during Shakespeare's time, and the influence of John Lyly on his work - you can trace the development of his style too, from the pun crazy, rhetoric loving pentameters of Romeo and Juliet to the more loose highly enjambed verse rich with metaphor and imagery in The Winter's Tale.

The KVJ never was, and never will be spoken language - written and spoken English didn't really collide from my knowledge until later - the actual people's speak is generally different - take American fiction now, for instance - only drama is written in the vernacular - the literary diction is modeled after British trends, which too don't reflect the spoken language.

The Bible was meant to emulate the sort of archaic tones of the Old Testament in its translation - that's the reason for the language - it has nothing to do with spoken language, as, quite simply, literacy at that time was pitifully low anyway.

[JCamilo]

Isnt exactly this argument what gave birth to Coleridge's Suspension of Disbelief reggard Wordsworth Lyrical Ballads poems? And I think Eliot may use more comum language than writers who are under influence of Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton, etc... but the daily speaker of english would sundenly say "We are the white man. Alas!" while talking with each other in the streets during the first part of XX century? I would find it funny...
Anyways, if you study the language of oral storytellers, the most popular and closer to popular vocabulary and semantics, you will notice even them present some degree of stylization of language when storytelling; the form they build the sentences, link it, the words used to streess a momment in the narrative. This happens in the most casual and simple anedocte. So, accusing a literary work to be "not like people" talked makes no sense at all and just points why the option of JKV (never seen obviously, only read the bible in portuguese, except a few online parts)...
As the bible aesthetical merits, any body of text that spawns a methology of interpretation like the hebrew texts did (fully aware the bible is just part of it) is obviously full of aesthetical merit and if anything, ultra-readable. The NT is so well crafted that Jesus is basically a prototype of Scherazade, framing stories within stories...

[stlukesguild]

I cringe and a little part of me dies inside whenever you compare Shakespeare to Cormac McCarthy or Blood Meridian to Moby Dick.

No qualitative comparison... just noting that major writers across a vast spectrum of time and space have written in a manner which in no way mimics the spoken word.

[Red-Headed]

quite simply, literacy at that time was pitifully low anyway.

I've often wondered just how true this is about the Elizabethan/Jacobean era as a whole. In England anyhow. In Wales English would have been a second language (as it still is in parts of North Wales), & the Welsh literary tradition predates the English. Arthur Golding's translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses into English (1565-67) was a huge seller. Shakespeare would have been familiar with both that & the original. There were many pirated editions of Shakespeare's plays (much to his chagrin) around. Although plays weren't exactly considered literature at the time. I don't know how many people actually were literate or semi-literate in an overall population of about six million. Much of the yeomanry were literate as they were the principle fee payers for Oxbridge. The reason behind the tradition for long summer holidays was that the sons of the yeomanry & other farmers/landowners could help with the harvest. They tried to send at least their eldest sons to university. I will need to research this more.

[JBI]

I've often wondered just how true this is about the Elizabethan/Jacobean era as a whole. In England anyhow. In Wales English would have been a second language (as it still is in parts of North Wales), & the Welsh literary tradition predates the English. Arthur Golding's translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses into English (1565-67) was a huge seller. Shakespeare would have been familiar with both that & the original. There were many pirated editions of Shakespeare's plays (much to his chagrin) around. Although plays weren't exactly considered literature at the time. I don't know how many people actually were literate or semi-literate in an overall population of about six million. Much of the yeomanry were literate as they were the principle fee payers for Oxbridge. The reason behind the tradition for long summer holidays was that the sons of the yeomanry & other farmers/landowners could help with the harvest. They tried to send at least their eldest sons to university. I will need to research this more.

I think it is safe to say, right off the top - virtually all women were illiterate, and the rest of the population was hardly literate at all - basic literacy came much later - even in the 19th century literacy wasn't that high - in truth, I doubt it was at a very high standard up through the 20th century - the virtual lack of illiteracy we see today is a new phenomenon - I'm not an expert, but I gaurentee you that this so called literacy was reserved for certain classes - better to ask Petrarch's love, she can give an accurate statistic. The actual literary output shows nothing about literacy, as, quite simply, theatre and poetry didn't require literacy for distribution.

[Red-Headed]

I think it is safe to say, right off the top - virtually all women were illiterate,

That sounds about right for the lower & lower middle classes.


and the rest of the population was hardly literate at all - basic literacy came much later -

I suppose most journeymen & day-labourers were illiterate but I am not so sure about the middle classes. The son of the farmer who owned the farm next to Shakespeare's father's farm regularly sent letters back to his family from university in fluent Latin (see William Shakespeare ~ Anthony Holden). That doesn't seem like illiteracy to me.


even in the 19th century literacy wasn't that high - in truth, I doubt it was at a very high standard up through the 20th century -

Again, in a population of around 30 million I wonder how many were actually literate, or at least semi-literate? I think it is an assumption to believe that the vast majority were totally illiterate. 99% of the peasantry probably were, but there is evidence that even in the Elizabethan era literacy among the yeomanry & higher classes was relatively high (among males anyway).



the virtual lack of illiteracy we see today is a new phenomenon - I'm not an expert, but I gaurentee you that this so called literacy was reserved for certain classes

Ermmm... that was my 'so called' point, I thought.


The actual literary output shows nothing about literacy, as, quite simply, theatre and poetry didn't require literacy for distribution.

I'm still not so sure... ;)

[Virgil]

According to this roughly 30% of men and 10% of women were literate in Tudor England.
http://www.bibliomania.com/1/7/333/2453/29033/1/frameset.html

I bet that's a stretch too. I bet for most of those who are claimed to be literate, it's probably around third grade level.

[JBI]

According to this roughly 30% of men and 10% of women were literate in Tudor England.
http://www.bibliomania.com/1/7/333/2453/29033/1/frameset.html

I bet that's a stretch too. I bet for most of those who are claimed to be literate, it's probably around third grade level.

Literacy, actually, at that time was defined by the ability to sign one's own name - so, in essence, 20% of people could sign their own name - how many could read the bible, written in a literary language though?

[Red-Headed]

According to this roughly 30% of men and 10% of women were literate in Tudor England.
http://www.bibliomania.com/1/7/333/2453/29033/1/frameset.html

I bet that's a stretch too. I bet for most of those who are claimed to be literate, it's probably around third grade level.

That sounds like a good figure.

I'm not sure what 3rd grade level is but this was my original point. When I said that literacy may have been higher than many people originally believed, I wouldn't have thought that it was particularly advanced.

Remember that Shakespeare had quite a good Grammar school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_schools#Early_grammar_schools) education & these institutions were certainly not on the decline in his time.

[mal4mac]

As the bible aesthetical merits, any body of text that spawns a methology of interpretation like the hebrew texts did (fully aware the bible is just part of it) is obviously full of aesthetical merit and if anything, ultra-readable. The NT is so well crafted that Jesus is basically a prototype of Scherazade, framing stories within stories...

Anything can generate a lot of texts. There are lots of texts on 1960s council housing. But few would argue such housing has much in the way of aesthetic merits...

Maybe the Bible is like the architecture of modern cities, mostly cobbled together dross, with some amazing features here and there... I need a tour guide :-)

[JCamilo]

Council housing are not going to spawn lots of texts like the bible is doing for 3000 years. But I was refering to Kabalah; which only the hebrewing books generated.

[FalseReality]

Because I'd had no success reading the full Bible I thought I'd try an abridged version ("Testament" abridged by Philip Law). But I couldn't even get through that! It still had too many old prophets charging round the desert doing despicable, meaningless and unmotivated things.

I was reading the Iliad at the same time, and turning to it for light relief! I finished that and started reading Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy, so there was then no hope of continuing the Bible! I ground to a halt somewhere in "David" and just couldn't go on...

The "100 minute Bible" has just been delivered, maybe I can finish that!

Are there any out-takes forn the Bible that are actually readable for someone who expects a reasonable aesthetic experience from their reading? People like Stephen Mitchell have translated parts of the Bible (Job, Gospels...) I've a feeling that might be the way to go, i.e., read the parts that good writers and poets have felt worth translating.... Any recommendations along this line?

Here you go. This should be easier.


http://www.thebricktestament.com/

[mal4mac]

unreadable? yowch. Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are hard-core, I admit, for all but the most dedicated of Bible scholars.


That's what I meant by unreadable :-) Of course you can read it, but who, except Bible scholars, would want to? Which brings another question - who would want to be a Bible scholar? Why not be a scholar of something readable - like Shakespeare? I guess at universities you can't choose:

"Sorry, Jeff, we already have a Shakespeare expert if you want tenure you need to be our Bible expert." Jeff slinks off looking grim but determined...

I guess those brought up to be Christians also get the necessary steely determination. They are prepared to suffer, in the same way that Hindu fakirs stick pointed sticks through their flesh for their religion. Christians read Numbers instead...

Harold Bloom does stress, along with Nietzsche, that many of the greatest writers make painful demands on the reader's abilities and patience, in the cause of a higher pleasure. But how much pain? Shakespeare is fine. The small pain of reading the notes in the RSC Complete Shakespeare is worth the ultimate pleasure.

Even the storm of names & repetition in the unabridged Iliad is worth slogging through once for the reasonably frequent dramatic scenes of the highest calibre -- and it puts the equally violent Old Testament to shame in its far superior depiction of violence and its consequences. I read through some of the most violent books of the OT and the "Iliad" at the same time, and the difference was palpable.

"Testament" which Harold Bloom has said contains everything of the "highest literary interest" from the Bible is 1/3 the length of the complete Bible. So at least 2/3 of the Bible is not worth reading! (But even then I still found "Testament" unreadable! Still too much tedium was left in. Maybe another reduction by half needed?)



But the rest of it...especially the gospels...are enough to bring one to his knees...

Christians are doing a very bad job, then, in getting their message across to the modern, non-Christian reader of literature. Imagine if Shakespeare had made the first 600 000 words of his complete works unreadable! The playhouses would have been empty. The puritans would not have needed to close them by force. The Bible usually gets into lists of canonical literature, but has to share equal billing with Shakespeare, Dickens, and another dozen or say great writers. Who on Earth would read the Bible, cover to cover, when they could read Shakespeare instead...

P.S. I'm still reading the "100 minute Bible". Even that's a bit tedious - but I can manage a page a day, so should finish it before Xmas...


Here you go. This should be easier.


http://www.thebricktestament.com/

"Easiness" is not the main requirement. I'm looking for "reasonable aesthetic value". "Brick art" is too derivative and banal. Also, like the original, it "uses too many words": "She gave birth to a second child, Abel, the brother of Cain."

[Morden]

Nobody has mentioned The Jefferson Bible. Heavily redacted according to Jefferson's own sensibilities, it might be worth a look for people who want only the "nice" parts and the parts that a more or less modern person could find worthwhile.

[JCamilo]

So Bloom have published some essential Biblical texts. And? The essential of Keats wont have even near 1/3 of his complete poetry, Dickens even less,Melville will see even Moby Dick butchered for what is essential and only pleasing. No whale anatomy! Even Shakespeare won't have all his work selected. Even Dante, altough this one have the luck to see almost only of his essential alive, thanks to time.
And if you feel pleasure reading Shakespeare, fine. A considerable ammount of people felt pleasure reading the bible or do you think the kind of religious exaltation it can provoke was not pleasant? And dont you think there is people who find reading dramatic verse annoying?

[mal4mac]

So Bloom have published some essential Biblical texts. And? The essential of Keats wont have even near 1/3 of his complete poetry, Dickens even less,Melville will see even Moby Dick butchered for what is essential and only pleasing. No whale anatomy! Even Shakespeare won't have all his work selected. Even Dante, altough this one have the luck to see almost only of his essential alive, thanks to time.
And if you feel pleasure reading Shakespeare, fine. A considerable ammount of people felt pleasure reading the bible or do you think the kind of religious exaltation it can provoke was not pleasant? And dont you think there is people who find reading dramatic verse annoying?

"Testament" is not published, or edited, by Bloom. He reviewed it. I'm reading through the RSC Complete Shakespeare at the moment, and even his most minor play (Merry Wives of Windor!) is at least readable. The same goes for the other authors you mention. I get much pleasure from reading selected parts of the Bible, but there's an awful lot of unpleasant stretches. Have you read all of the Bible and found it all readable?

[Virgil]

Literacy, actually, at that time was defined by the ability to sign one's own name - so, in essence, 20% of people could sign their own name - how many could read the bible, written in a literary language though?

Yeah, but I'm not sure how they came up with those statistics. They may not have taken it from source assumptions (as you seem to be implying) but estimated it through some evalutative method. But neonetheless, that's sort of what I meant to say that the majority considered literate probably wasn't beyond third grade level, which is roughly nine years old.

Absolutely that most probably could not have read the Bible on their own.


Christians are doing a very bad job, then, in getting their message across to the modern, non-Christian reader of literature. Imagine if Shakespeare had made the first 600 000 words of his complete works unreadable! The playhouses would have been empty. The puritans would not have needed to close them by force. The Bible usually gets into lists of canonical literature, but has to share equal billing with Shakespeare, Dickens, and another dozen or say great writers. Who on Earth would read the Bible, cover to cover, when they could read Shakespeare instead...

P.S. I'm still reading the "100 minute Bible". Even that's a bit tedious - but I can manage a page a day, so should finish it before Xmas...

If it's so tedious and you're not a Christian, why do you even care? I'm not sure who is supposed to be getting a message to you, but frankly maybe they don't care about a message to you. Shakespeare and the Bible serve completely different functions, so the comparison is fallacious. And frankly i've heard the same argument (tedious and unreadable) made about Shakespeare.

[JCamilo]

"Testament" is not published, or edited, by Bloom. He reviewed it. I'm reading through the RSC Complete Shakespeare at the moment, and even his most minor play (Merry Wives of Windor!) is at least readable. The same goes for the other authors you mention. I get much pleasure from reading selected parts of the Bible, but there's an awful lot of unpleasant stretches. Have you read all of the Bible and found it all readable?

Edited, reviwed, published, schinegans. You are getting Shakespeare, what was already selected about him, and comparing to a collection of books. My complete works of Shakespeare have his will and it no more interesting than any part of the bible.
I have read all the bible, I used to read encyclopedias and dictionaries just for fun. The problem is that you define readable as something you give pleasure and you forget that the bible is being read by thousand years and nobody would read them as much if it was boring, annoying, painful. Shakespeare wrote some crap stuff, even him. Without aesthetical merit. Unreadable, boring, annoying.
Now, I have no idea why you are focused in a book that does not please you. The scholars, who are wise enough to opt for a book they enjoy, will have their fun with the bible.

[Red-Headed]

I'm reading through the RSC Complete Shakespeare at the moment, and even his most minor play (Merry Wives of Windor!) is at least readable.

I love 'Windsor'. It is a bit un-PC to keep making 'cheese' jokes about Sir Hugh Evans though. In fact, if you knew anything about Welsh history you would know why it could be be construed to be offensive & bordering on the racist to make references to the Welsh & cheese!

It's still a funny play.

[mal4mac]

If it's so tedious and you're not a Christian, why do you even care? I'm not sure who is supposed to be getting a message to you, but frankly maybe they don't care about a message to you. Shakespeare and the Bible serve completely different functions, so the comparison is fallacious. And frankly i've heard the same argument (tedious and unreadable) made about Shakespeare.

The Bible is a literary text, like Shakespeare, from which you can obtain aesthetic value. I've read parts of the Bible - Ecclesiastes, Job... - that have the highest aesthetic value (that is, generate the highest levels of literary pleasure.) So, naturally, I want to find all other parts of similar value. But I don't want to plough through the (estimated) 5/6 of little aesthetic value. I'd like a literary master to do the filleting for me :-) Now you are going to say "Do it yourself!" I might have to end up doing that, but first I thought I'd see if anyone has already done the job for me...

Someone recommended "The Jefferson Bible", but it only covers the new testament -- and I don't trust the literary taste of politicians.

[mal4mac]

I love 'Windsor'... It's still a funny play.

I'm not Welsh so it's not "Welsh touchiness" that makes me put the play at the bottom of the list. I agree it's still funny, even "bad" Shakespeare is still worthy of being read. I do not love it though, not like I love "The Tempest" or "Midsummer's Night Dream", and many other plays.

Maybe we should start a Shakespeare v. The Bible thread? Nah. The winner is too obvious. When you go post-Christian (like the Bard) you can't afford to produce 5/6 dross, you don't have the fanatical followers to put up with it...

[mona amon]

The Bible is a literary text, like Shakespeare, from which you can obtain aesthetic value. I've read parts of the Bible - Ecclesiastes, Job... - that have the highest aesthetic value (that is, generate the highest levels of literary pleasure.) So, naturally, I want to find all other parts of similar value. But I don't want to plough through the (estimated) 5/6 of little aesthetic value. I'd like a literary master to do the filleting for me :-) Now you are going to say "Do it yourself!" I might have to end up doing that, but first I thought I'd see if anyone has already done the job for me...

Someone recommended "The Jefferson Bible", but it only covers the new testament -- and I don't trust the literary taste of politicians.

I read this one some time back - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=O4hYlvzWui8C&dq=literary+guide+to+the+bible&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=xRJreGJUZB&sig=y74psN_ISmmxlpx_lTjVY3Pyia0&hl=en&ei=tCOlSpe7MZng7APH-6TfCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false (The Literary guide to the Bible By Robert Alter, Frank Kermode). It's a collection of essays by different people. There must be more out there. :)

[mal4mac]

I read this one some time back - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=O4hYlvzWui8C&dq=literary+guide+to+the+bible&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=xRJreGJUZB&sig=y74psN_ISmmxlpx_lTjVY3Pyia0&hl=en&ei=tCOlSpe7MZng7APH-6TfCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false (The Literary guide to the Bible By Robert Alter, Frank Kermode). It's a collection of essays by different people. There must be more out there. :)

I read a few chapters of this a while back. I don't think it's what I want.

What i want is advice on what to skip, and someone who sees it the way I do :-) For example "the story of David" is spread across several books and is very heavy going. What can I skip? I'm looking at books to see how they would recommend tackling David. I like the advice from:

"Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible" by Leland Ryken

He recommends skipping all but a few sections and says "what is wrong" with David - it's a fragmented historical account and reads more like a chronical than a literary text.

[bigben]

Well, of course the Bible doen't read like a well-concstructed novel. It is a jumble of stuff from the Israelite experience, including the Jews who spread the Jesus movement. It is mythology, semi-quasi-history, a little actual history, poems, predictions(though not as many as we've been asked to believe) and personal stories.

Reading it straight through like a novel is tedious, indeed. I did it, and it took most of the inspiration right out of it.

We are also led astray by various "Bible as Literature" efforts, which were often devices to get the Bible taught in tax supported and secular schools and colleges. The Bible is of great historical importance in world and American history, but it cannot be taught as a neutral or non-religious text.

It is as religious as they come, which is why I teach it and enjoy reading it. But I can't kid myself about it. If you read history, from Biblical times through the Crusades and into the conquests of peoples and the great wars, sorry tales cling to the Bible for justification.

Enjoy it or not. That's OK, but it can't be ignored. It is a part of us whether we hate it or love it.

[Virgil]

The Bible is a literary text, like Shakespeare, from which you can obtain aesthetic value. I've read parts of the Bible - Ecclesiastes, Job... - that have the highest aesthetic value (that is, generate the highest levels of literary pleasure.) So, naturally, I want to find all other parts of similar value. But I don't want to plough through the (estimated) 5/6 of little aesthetic value. I'd like a literary master to do the filleting for me :-) Now you are going to say "Do it yourself!" I might have to end up doing that, but first I thought I'd see if anyone has already done the job for me...


Well if 5/6ths of the bible is not of aesthetic value then your first statement was pretty ignorant, it is NOT a literary text. Clearly the Bible was not meant as a literary work.

Actually all your carping seems pretty inane. The Bible is the most written about text. Any decent book store has shelves of books explaining the bible. Your criticism of Christians "do a very bad job getting their message acrtoss" is just prejudice.

[JCamilo]

What makes anything about bible not literary?

[mal4mac]

Clearly the Bible was not meant as a literary work.

Bloom's quote on the back of "Testament" Is: "Everything of the highest *literary* interest has been preserved." So Bloom obviously thinks it is a literary text, to some extent. Even if the originators of the Bible did not want it to be a literary text it doesn't mean we can't treat it as such. Bloom also lists the Bible in his "the Western Canon", which is purely devoted to the *literary* canon. Fadiman also lists it. So the Bible, or part of it, is *surely* literature, if anything is.



The Bible is the most written about text. Any decent book store has shelves of books explaining the bible.

Could you recommend one?

[Virgil]

Bloom's quote on the back of "Testament" Is: "Everything of the highest *literary* interest has been preserved." So Bloom obviously thinks it is a literary text, to some extent. Even if the originators of the Bible did not want it to be a literary text it doesn't mean we can't treat it as such. Bloom also lists the Bible in his "the Western Canon", which is purely devoted to the *literary* canon. Fadiman also lists it. So the Bible, or part of it, is *surely* literature, if anything is.


Sure, any written text can be considered literary. Some even claim the phone book. But, let me concede that an element of the Bible, not the primary one but a secondary element, is literary.



Could you recommend one?
I just did a search. There are tons of books and I don't want to steer you toward a particularly religiously narrow one from the perspective of one Christian denomination. You can actually start on the internet. Wikipedia has excellent explications of each chapter of the bible. All you have to do is google a chapter, like this, "exudus wikipedia" and it will come up.

[NickAdams]

Sure, any written text can be considered literary. Some even claim the phone book.

It lacks a plot and is overcrowded with characters that the author has chosen not to develop. Perhaps it is a picaresque novel. :nod:

[Red-Headed]

I'm not Welsh so it's not "Welsh touchiness" that makes me put the play at the bottom of the list. I agree it's still funny, even "bad" Shakespeare is still worthy of being read. I do not love it though, not like I love "The Tempest" or "Midsummer's Night Dream", and many other plays.

Well, whether it's true that the Bard wrote 'Windsor' in less than a fortnight because Queen Elizabeth wanted to see a new play with the 'funny fat man' in it or not, you can't really compare it with the likes of the 'Tempest' or any of the great plays. I think that it is underestimated as a play & a comedy. It is always very popular in England. I think the English have just taken Falstaff to heart as a character. It probably tells you a lot about us as a race!


Maybe we should start a Shakespeare v. The Bible thread?

Shakespeare was definitely funnier...

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Because I'd had no success reading the full Bible I thought I'd try an abridged version ("Testament" abridged by Philip Law). But I couldn't even get through that! It still had too many old prophets charging round the desert doing despicable, meaningless and unmotivated things.

I was reading the Iliad at the same time, and turning to it for light relief! I finished that and started reading Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy, so there was then no hope of continuing the Bible! I ground to a halt somewhere in "David" and just couldn't go on...

The "100 minute Bible" has just been delivered, maybe I can finish that!

Are there any out-takes forn the Bible that are actually readable for someone who expects a reasonable aesthetic experience from their reading? People like Stephen Mitchell have translated parts of the Bible (Job, Gospels...) I've a feeling that might be the way to go, i.e., read the parts that good writers and poets have felt worth translating.... Any recommendations along this line?

For what purpose are you reading the Bible? I find it interesting and readible.

[mal4mac]

Sure, any written text can be considered literary. Some even claim the phone book.

Who exactly? Serious critics, like Howard Bloom, would not count the phone book as literature because it has no aesthetic value.



But, let me concede that an element of the Bible, not the primary one but a secondary element, is literary.


Maybe not the primary one for you, but it is the primary one for me. Who made you the judge to say what the main value of the Bible is for everyone?



I just did a search. There are tons of books and I don't want to steer you toward a particularly religiously narrow one from the perspective of one Christian denomination. You can actually start on the internet. Wikipedia has excellent explications of each chapter of the bible. All you have to do is google a chapter, like this, "exudus wikipedia" and it will come up.

I've done, and am still doing, all that. But you get lost in the snow of "narrow" texts, and a lot more. It took me an age to find "Testament" in this way, and it almost works for what I want. But I'd like something that works better.

To try and be clearer, what I'm looking for is an abridged Bible that retains all the text of literary, aesthetic value with a minimum of the "phone book" & "historical chronicle" elements.

[mal4mac]

It lacks a plot and is overcrowded with characters that the author has chosen not to develop. Perhaps it is a picaresque novel. :nod:

Good picaresque novels do not feel overcrowded with characters and have (at least!) an adequate plot. I've just finished Moll Flanders and it was an excellent read! Recently I completed Don Quixote, an even more enjoyable experience. To call the Bible a picaresque novel is to insult the picaresque novel...

[JCamilo]

Serious critics like Bloom are a pain in the ***, because Scientific Literature is Literature and not because any aesthetic merits.

[Virgil]

It lacks a plot and is overcrowded with characters that the author has chosen not to develop. Perhaps it is a picaresque novel. :nod:

Well I don't make that claim. It's the New Historicist critics. More contemporary garbage for criticism.

[NickAdams]

Good picaresque novels do not feel overcrowded with characters and have (at least!) an adequate plot. I've just finished Moll Flanders and it was an excellent read! Recently I completed Don Quixote, an even more enjoyable experience. To call the Bible a picaresque novel is to insult the picaresque novel...


Well I don't make that claim. It's the New Historicist critics. More contemporary garbage for criticism.

I was referring to the phone book.:lol:

[mal4mac]

Maybe what I need is a good dictionary. The phone book might be interesting if you had a dictionary of universal biography to hand :D

The "Penguin Dictionary of the Bible" looks promising. Has anyone had experience of this or a similar dictionary? Would you recommend it?

[gbrekken]

lost my first attempt. I would first recommend a concordance (Young's, Strongs), then a lexicon, followed by a Greek Interlinear, and finally something on structure and figures of speech (not all treasures lie on the surface, but some do) (E.W. Bullinger?). If it's understanding that you seek, I recommend starting to believe what is written, beginning with Romans 10:9-10.

[atiguhya padma]

I'd recommend a good dictionary or encyclopedia of mythology. Unlike gbrekken, I'd recommend reading the bible as text written by human beings with all their dated prejudices and misconceptions. As soon as you believe everything that is written there, then you may as well stop reading: it could say anything and it would still mean the same to you. It helps to have a critical eye when reading anything, especially fantastic claims made in ancient literature like those made in the bible. If you wish to read the bible as gbrekken suggests you might like to read Matthew 27 3-8 and follow that with Acts 1 18-19, and then ask yourself exactly how did Judas die? and who was it who bought the field? This should give you a flavour of the problems involved when believing what you read in the bible.

[soundofmusic]

I'd recommend a good dictionary or encyclopedia of mythology. Unlike gbrekken, I'd recommend reading the bible as text written by human beings with all their dated prejudices and misconceptions. As soon as you believe everything that is written there, then you may as well stop reading: it could say anything and it would still mean the same to you. It helps to have a critical eye when reading anything, especially fantastic claims made in ancient literature like those made in the bible. If you wish to read the bible as gbrekken suggests you might like to read Matthew 27 3-8 and follow that with Acts 1 18-19, and then ask yourself exactly how did Judas die? and who was it who bought the field? This should give you a flavour of the problems involved when believing what you read in the bible.

Fascinating point, it seems that after hanging himself, Judas managed to buy a field and draw and quarter himself.

[Virgil]

I'd recommend a good dictionary or encyclopedia of mythology. .
That is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Do you also advise to read the Cliff Notes to War and Peace rather than reading the novel itself? If your prejudices toward religion affects your reading list, by all means do whatever you wish. But to advise in such a way as to not read the single most important book of western culture is incredibly ignorant. Sure read with a critical eye; no one is asking anyone to convert. But no matter what your religious views, don't let prejudices (hateful prejudices at that) affect your understanding of any book.

As to your discrepency, the bible was not written as a historical document. Having multiple authors of varying perspectives over varying times it creates a layering of thought and connotations. Whether you find those thoughts and connotations as being inspired by divinity, that's your decsion.

[soundofmusic]

That is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Do you also advise to read the Cliff Notes to War and Peace rather than reading the novel itself? If your prejudices toward religion affects your reading list, by all means do whatever you wish. But to advise in such a way as to not read the single most important book of western culture is incredibly ignorant. Sure read with a critical eye; no one is asking anyone to convert. But no matter what your religious views, don't let prejudices (hateful prejudices at that) affect your understanding of any book.


I don't think Antiguhya was suggesting that one reads a mythology book instead of the bible; she was merely stating that :
1. to begin reading a work with any bias, belief or nonbelief, will sway the persons views
2. also, it is true, that many of the historical accounts in the bible are also shared in several cultures mythology.
As far as I'm concerned, if a person is a great believer in the bible,the fact that so many cultures share one account should be a testament to their faith.
On the other hand, others believe that these stories came from mans need to explain his existance.
I don't think any additional research, on literature, is ever in vain. I have often read cliff notes, Harold Bloom and any other critiques to find out others opinions and perhaps, see something I may have missed in a book. It is obvious that Antiguhya has looked alot more closely at the scriptures than many who are of the christian faith. The point she made about Judas is one I have never heard; and that is why we are on this forum: to exchange ideas and grow from our discoveries.

[OrphanPip]

Some of the books of the Bible, like the Book of Job, work quite well as literature. Many of the psalms are half decent poetry too, but the vast majority of the Bible verges on being unreadable.

[Virgil]

I don't think Antiguhya was suggesting that one reads a mythology book instead of the bible; she was merely stating that :


If that is so, then I apologize to Antiguha. But I'm not sure that's what she meant.

[Logos]

atiguhya padma is a boy, not a girl :idea:

[atiguhya padma]

Thank you Logos for clearing that matter up. And thank you SoundofMusic for your understanding. I was merely stating that if you read the bible then I would recommend that you read it in conjunction with a dictionary or encyclopedia of mythology. That should then place biblical claims in a larger global mythological perspective. Virgil, I accept your apologies. It is interesting to note that your comments were directed by your perception of my prejudices but maybe should be directed towards your own?


Some of the books of the Bible, like the Book of Job, work quite well as literature. Many of the psalms are half decent poetry too, but the vast majority of the Bible verges on being unreadable.

I agree. Interestingly, most of the claims to decent literature in the bible, if not all, refer to the Old Testament. Though books like Kings and Chronicles are terribly tedious, sometimes equivalent to reading the telephone book. And anyone familiar with scientific literature will find Genesis extremely primitive.

[JCamilo]

I wonder when a book does not work as literature...
The gospels are quite fine pieces of narratives. Included the use of Jesus as some short of Scherazad, with stories within frames, references to previous books (obviously the OT), and a wide range of metaphorical constructions that work so fine that we still use it today. Book of Revelations is a great example of allegorical poetry.
The letters are among the most important literary epistolar works we have...
In the OT there is the legal books, if anything they should be those wrongly accused of not working as literature...

[soundofmusic]

Thank you Logos for clearing that matter up. And thank you SoundofMusic for your understandin

You're very welcome. Sorry for refering to you as "she". I have enjoyed your insightful postings!

[Virgil]

Virgil, I accept your apologies. It is interesting to note that your comments were directed by your perception of my prejudices but maybe should be directed towards your own?
.
I've seen your comments regarding religion in the past. I know your prejudices.

[soundofmusic]

I've seen your comments regarding religion in the past. I know your prejudices.

It was very admirable of you to review your thoughts. It takes a very open person to do that.


I wonder when a book does not work as literature...
The gospels are quite fine pieces of narratives. Included the use of Jesus as some short of Scherazad, with stories within frames, references to previous books (obviously the OT), and a wide range of metaphorical constructions that work so fine that we still use it today. Book of Revelations is a great example of allegorical poetry.
The letters are among the most important literary epistolar works we have...
In the OT there is the legal books, if anything they should be those wrongly accused of not working as literature...

What a fascinating breakdown of the different styles of biblical literature. I loved the old testament stories as a child; but was disappointed reading them as an adult (I hadn't realized how much my imagination had added). A fundamentalist childhood made Revelations the worst of "Boogey Man" tales. I think I will "give it another go" with your insight...

[blazeofglory]

I have gone thru both the Old Testament and the New Testament and of course I like the stories of the Bible, and some chapters like Sermons on the Mounts, proverbs are really fascinating, in point of fact they are full of words of wisdom, and I always got impressed by the teachings in the Sermons on the Mounts, but at times some chapters are really hard to understand or commit to memory. Some chapters are revealing and others are rather evocative. There are family lineages, tales of ancestry. Save a few chapters most are difficult to read. I think the Bible was written at different epochs, and some are uninteresting. There are accounts of ancestral accounts that dull the reader.
The Bible is praise owing mainly to its sacredness; considered a great sacred text and consecrated the voice of God. Barring this we find some chapters unmoving. There are other greater sacred texts, more exhaustive philosophically, spiritually like the Mahabharata. Of course what I said may infuriate some Christian friends but I am speaking objectively. There are countless words of wisdom in the Bible, no doubt but the words in the Mahabharata are all the wiser.

[soundofmusic]

[QUOTE=blazeofglory;798211]I have gone thru both the Old Testament and the New Testament and of course I like the stories of the Bible, and There are countless words of wisdom in the Bible, no doubt but the words in the Mahabharata are all the wiser.[/QUOT

We are all here to learn from each other. So no one should take offense from your opinion. I'm glad you mentioned the Mahabharata, I enjoyed the parts I read. The story, itself, seemed very dramatic and colorful and the lessons were easily understood.

[tailor STATELY]

The Family Home Evening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Home_Evening) group I attend on Monday nights has lately been studying the O.T. at mine [partially because of this thread] and others' requests. We're at the point where Jacob, Isaac's younger son, has hoodwinked his Father-in-law (and reconciled) and is off to start his own life with his growing family.

With others in the group, an all 'empty nester' (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empty+nester) group, more 'versed' in the Bible than I (not too difficult) it has really helped me with understanding some of the nuances that I hadn't really 'seen'.

Thanks to all who have contributed links and comments - they have been a real help.

[753c]

Thank you Logos for clearing that matter up. And thank you SoundofMusic for your understanding. I was merely stating that if you read the bible then I would recommend that you read it in conjunction with a dictionary or encyclopedia of mythology. That should then place biblical claims in a larger global mythological perspective. Virgil, I accept your apologies. It is interesting to note that your comments were directed by your perception of my prejudices but maybe should be directed towards your own?



I agree. Interestingly, most of the claims to decent literature in the bible, if not all, refer to the Old Testament. Though books like Kings and Chronicles are terribly tedious, sometimes equivalent to reading the telephone book. And anyone familiar with scientific literature will find Genesis extremely primitive.

I humbly disagree. In my opinion the stories of Elijah and Elisha in the books of the Kings are exciting, adventurous, touching and thought provoking. Marks of great literature.
And BTW, if a book being considered primitive when compared with "scientific literature" contributes to it's being unreadable..... There are a lot of classics in trouble!
Respectfully yours,
753C

[blazeofglory]

[QUOTE=blazeofglory;798211]I have gone thru both the Old Testament and the New Testament and of course I like the stories of the Bible, and There are countless words of wisdom in the Bible, no doubt but the words in the Mahabharata are all the wiser.[/QUOT

We are all here to learn from each other. So no one should take offense from your opinion. I'm glad you mentioned the Mahabharata, I enjoyed the parts I read. The story, itself, seemed very dramatic and colorful and the lessons were easily understood.

I am glad that you have read the Mahabharata. May I know whose translation of the Magabharata?

[gbrekken]

far reaching this has become. I'm not going to get "hanged" on contradictions in our understanding of what is written, nor on mis-translations. The tools I mentioned are for those who are "workmen" of the words in The Word, to assist in obtaining the original intentions of such in their entirety. Ever set the gospels side by side chronologically to the minute? Even a novice might see something new about the number of Peter's denials, and though I know the meaning of heri-keri, I don't know how to spell it. The flaw lies within me, hence I seek proof of the flawless, not the elevation of my ego, intellect or opinion.

[ennison]

I've been fortunate to read the books of the Bible in other than English and clearly the Bible ain't unreadable as it's widely read

[Virgil]

I've been fortunate to read the books of the Bible in other than English and clearly the Bible ain't unreadable as it's widely read

Good point Ennison. It's really quite readable even in English, however the popularity of the King James Version has created a certain view of the language. Whatever the merits and demerits of the KJV are, it has had a negative effect on the readability.

[atiguhya padma]

Anything is readable. The point is the bible, and many other scriptures, are often only a pleasure to read for those with a conservative mindset. As a work of literature, for many like me, the bible is weary, tired and only inspiring to those who are out of touch with the current times. It may be a source for better literature, but it is a tedious text for a modern world.

[soundofmusic]

Do most people, apart from their faith, enjoy reading the bible? I loved hearing the stories of the bible as a child. As an adult, I sometimes find it an effort to "plow through the scriptures". It is not a matter of language; not in, at least, the same way that the "Paradise Lost", the "Canterbury Tales" or Goethe are. It is not a matter of belief, for many of the same accounts are reflected in other texts around the world.
What are your thoughts?:confused:

[Virgil]

Do most people, apart from their faith, enjoy reading the bible? I loved hearing the stories of the bible as a child. As an adult, I sometimes find it an effort to "plow through the scriptures". It is not a matter of language; not in, at least, the same way that the "Paradise Lost", the "Canterbury Tales" or Goethe are. It is not a matter of belief, for many of the same accounts are reflected in other texts around the world.
What are your thoughts?:confused:

You're assumption is that it's a work of literature. Any literary interest is purely secondary. The writers were not there to enetertain.

[mal4mac]

You're assumption is that it's a work of literature. Any literary interest is purely secondary. The writers were not there to enetertain.

Some parts are very entertaining! (Parts of Ecclesiastes, Job, some Psalms...) As literature is about getting the right words in the right order, then 'the best' Biblical authors would have been foolish to not make this interest of paramount importance, surely? It would be strange if they had thought it not worth bothering to express their belief using their best literary efforts. That much of the Bible is unreadable is probably down to second rate writers, collaters, priests, and what have you, sticking their oars in...

[Virgil]

Some parts are very entertaining! (Parts of Ecclesiastes, Job, some Psalms...) As literature is about getting the right words in the right order, then 'the best' Biblical authors would have been foolish to not make this interest of paramount importance, surely? It would be strange if they had thought it not worth bothering to express their belief using their best literary efforts. That much of the Bible is unreadable is probably down to second rate writers, collaters, priests, and what have you, sticking their oars in...

First you claim the Bible is unreadable in the very first post here, and now you profess to understand what is going on in the minds of the writers in their expression. "Surely it is strange" you say? You claim not to understand it and now you say it is strange? You aren't looking for help in understanding it. You are looking to find fault. {edit}

[JCamilo]

the only time I read something similar was Coleridge talking that prose is the right words at the right momment, and poetry the best words at the best momment.
Order would be very foolish, the order depends on intention and idiom. Legal Literature have different order than a poem, or Alice in the Wonderland, Scientific Literature as well, a dictionary another order, etc. A few books of the bible have multiple authors, "editors" and the text had origem in the oral tradition. The order or words used in a oral narration is not the same for written texts, even in the old times, imagine in the world of best-selling prose or journalism?

[MarkBastable]

But to advise in such a way as to not read the single most important book of western culture is incredibly ignorant.

I agree - and I'm a committed and happy atheist. The influence of the Bible is so profound that its literary merit is pretty secondary to its cultural importance - and that alone is reason enough to read it.

Also, some of the language in the Bible is damn good - and although it may be antique, it's not antiquated. Many expressions from the King James Version are part of everyday idiom, and references to Bible stories, with or without the direct quotation from a given version, are scattered throughout our shared use of both figurative and literal language. I'd bet that no literate English speaker makes it through a week without citing, consciously or otherwise, two or three Biblical references.

On top of which, the Bible isn't a book - it's a library. And, like most libraries, it contains some good stuff, some dull stuff, some relevant stuff and some moribund stuff.

I'm not saying one should read it daily. But you'd have to be pretty incurious not to read it at all. Apart from anything else, if you're going to set yourself up in opposition to Christianity, it makes sense to be familiar with the other guy's training manual.

[gbrekken]

I'm not ingnoring all that's been recently written here, but wish to add, augment. I think I made the point on "hanged" in a private message instead of a post here. The usage in Matthew is singular, non-occurring elsewhere in the canonical script. Neither concordance, lexicon, interlinear, etc. is going to give you much eye-opening understanding. I can imagine hanging on a single point, ala heri-keri, hence the bowels gushing out. I've no proof of the original intention of the word, and nothing within the script itself to support my somewhat imaginative belief in the non-contradictory nature of truth per se. This would be a prima facia case for going outside the text to find uses outside the primary text (secular sources at time of translation), in order to understand the primary. I'm not suggesting Cliff notes, but the fact that at times (such as in unique verbal occurrences), outside sources can support further understanding. Maybe I don't belong here; I understand so little, and can mis-understand so much.

[Virgil]

I agree - and I'm a committed and happy atheist. The influence of the Bible is so profound that its literary merit is pretty secondary to its cultural importance - and that alone is reason enough to read it. If you're going to set yourself up in opposition to Christianity, it makes sense to be familiar with the other guy's training manual.

Also, some of the language in the Bible is damn good - and although it may be antique, it's not antiquated. Many expressions from the King James Version are part of everyday idiom, and references to Bible stories, with or without the direct quotation from a given version, are scattered throughout our shared use of both figurative and literal language. I'd bet that no literate English speaker makes it through a week without citing, consciously or otherwise, two or three Biblical references.

On top of which, the Bible isn't a book - it's a library. And, like most libraries, it contains some good stuff, some dull stuff, some relevant stuff and some moribund stuff.

I'm not saying one should read it daily. But you'd have to be pretty incurious not to read it at all.
Thank you for that Mark. I think you are right on in your understanding of it.


I'm not ingnoring all that's been recently written here, but wish to add, augment. I think I made the point on "hanged" in a private message instead of a post here. The usage in Matthew is singular, non-occurring elsewhere in the canonical script. Neither concordance, lexicon, interlinear, etc. is going to give you much eye-opening understanding. I can imagine hanging on a single point, ala heri-keri, hence the bowels gushing out. I've no proof of the original intention of the word, and nothing within the script itself to support my somewhat imaginative belief in the non-contradictory nature of truth per se. This would be a prima facia case for going outside the text to find uses outside the primary text (secular sources at time of translation), in order to understand the primary. I'm not suggesting Cliff notes, but the fact that at times (such as in unique verbal occurrences), outside sources can support further understanding. Maybe I don't belong here; I understand so little, and can mis-understand so much.
You certainly do belong here gb. Absolutely other sources in explcating the work are warrented. There is a two thousand year history of commentary that has been built up and re-commented upon. I have a disagreement with my Evangelical Christian friends. For them the bible is the sole root of all sources of knowledge and that frankly will only tie one up into knots. Life and experience does not work by human logic and reason, and neither does history or transcendental understanding of the divine, and to pin oneself down to a complex text of multiple authors, varying histories, and different experiences is a condition for failure. The two thousand year commentary (actually even more than two thousand years because of old testament commentary - actually what was Christ but a commentator on the old testament? - amoung other things) in itself is not complete and can never be complete. Whether one is an atheist or a believer, human experience is not founded on reason and rationality, but an evolving conception. And therefore the bible itself, layered across centuries, book upon book, experience upon experience, is an aesthetic representation of life itself.

[blazeofglory]

Thank you for that Mark. I think you are right on in your understanding of it.


You certainly do belong here gb. Absolutely other sources in explcating the work are warrented. There is a two thousand year history of commentary that has been built up and re-commented upon. I have a disagreement with my Evangelical Christian friends. For them the bible is the sole root of all sources of knowledge and that frankly will only tie one up into knots. Life and experience does not work by human logic and reason, and neither does history or transcendental understanding of the divine, and to pin oneself down to a complex text of multiple authors, varying histories, and different experiences is a condition for failure. The two thousand year commentary (actually even more than two thousand years because of old testament commentary - actually what was Christ but a commentator on the old testament? - amoung other things) in itself is not complete and can never be complete. Whether one is an atheist or a believer, human experience is not founded on reason and rationality, but an evolving conception. And therefore the bible itself, layered across centuries, book upon book, experience upon experience, is an aesthetic representation of life itself.

I too feel the Bible is one of the evolutionary processes and steps of human understanding about the world and himself and the Bible is not the final truth and Jesus is one of the many thinkers like Plato, Russel., Sartre and the like!

[soundofmusic]

You're assumption is that it's a work of literature. Any literary interest is purely secondary. The writers were not there to enetertain.

You are right, of course, Virgil. I sometimes think, however, that it would be wonderful for the stories and parables to be placed in literary form (aside from the King James bible) for adults and children. Most christians I know really have no deep seated understanding of the bible; that is why they become so confused when stories such as DaVinci Code are released.

[Virgil]

You are right, of course, Virgil. I sometimes think, however, that it would be wonderful for the stories and parables to be placed in literary form (aside from the King James bible) for adults and children. Most christians I know really have no deep seated understanding of the bible; that is why they become so confused when stories such as DaVinci Code are released.

Actually I believe there are collections where they've gathered such stories. I think I had one somewhere once. I just did a search in Amazon for bibble stories and came up with this: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=bible+stories. Over 58,000 results actually!

[mal4mac]

I agree - and I'm a committed and happy atheist. The influence of the Bible is so profound that its literary merit is pretty secondary to its cultural importance - and that alone is reason enough to read it.

Also, some of the language in the Bible is damn good - and although it may be antique, it's not antiquated. Many expressions from the King James Version are part of everyday idiom, and references to Bible stories, with or without the direct quotation from a given version, are scattered throughout our shared use of both figurative and literal language. I'd bet that no literate English speaker makes it through a week without citing, consciously or otherwise, two or three Biblical references.

On top of which, the Bible isn't a book - it's a library. And, like most libraries, it contains some good stuff, some dull stuff, some relevant stuff and some moribund stuff.

I'm not saying one should read it daily. But you'd have to be pretty incurious not to read it at all. Apart from anything else, if you're going to set yourself up in opposition to Christianity, it makes sense to be familiar with the other guy's training manual.

Some of the stuff is so dull and so moribund that it makes it unreadable "as a whole", I would argue. Have you read it all? If not, you have not disproven my thesis that it is unreadable "as a whole". The only people I have heard say they have read it all are extremely highly motivated Christians--most recently some Jehovah's witnesses, and even they admitted it was really hard slog.

To oppose Christian arguments with atheist arguments it's the actual arguments that need to be engaged with, not some dusty manual--every Christian sect has its own interpretation of that manual anyway. No atheist need read the Bible to argue against Christian dogmas. Do you think creationists have read Darwin's Origin? No. So if they can argue against atheists without reading their "bible", why should we read theirs?

If you really want to, you can read the 100 Minute Bible to get reasonably familiar with "the other guys traning manual" -- no need to torture yourself by reading the whole thing. Though even the 100 Minute Bible is a tough chew in places! But I did finish it. So I *have* read the Bible!


Actually I believe there are collections where they've gathered such stories. I think I had one somewhere once. I just did a search in Amazon for bibble stories and came up with this: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=bible+stories. Over 58,000 results actually!

But many of these are for small kids, or are re-tellings by second-rate writers out to make a fast buck, or have other factors counting against them. Few have any literary merit at all for adult readers. The most promising abridgement I found was "Testament" by Philip Law. But I still found myself grinding to a halt on reading it.

Which of these 58 000 collections of Bible stories come closest to maintaining most of the literary merits of the original?

[MarkBastable]

If you really want to, you can read the 100 Minute Bible to get reasonably familiar with "the other guys traning manual"

I don't need to. I was brought up with it.


Though even the 100 Minute Bible is a tough chew in places! But I did finish it. So I *have* read the Bible!

You're the kind of person who flicks through the comic strip Hamlet and thinks he's read Shakespeare, aren't you?

[Virgil]

But many of these are for small kids, or are re-tellings by second-rate writers out to make a fast buck, or have other factors counting against them. Few have any literary merit at all for adult readers. The most promising abridgement I found was "Testament" by Philip Law. But I still found myself grinding to a halt on reading it.

Which of these 58 000 collections of Bible stories come closest to maintaining most of the literary merits of the original?

I have no desire to respond to any of your statements any longer here. You aren't here to understand. You are here to undermine. I really don't care whether you understand it or not.

[Scheherazade]

I think this thread has become unreadable too with all the personal comments and bickering going on.

Such comments and disrespectful/intolerant attitude towards those who do not share your views will lead to infraction points in future.