Reading the Bible as Literature

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I have never read the Bible, basically because I'm not Christian. Only in recent years have I come to realize that the Bible is not just a religious text, but possibly the most important piece of literature ever written, so what kind of literature buff would I be not to read it?

I was wondering, what should I read? Are the versions of the Bible written to be read as literature (maybe annotated, or some such)? Also, which version should be read, barring there isn't a better, more literary inclined version? I just downloaded The Holy Bible: English Standard Version on to my Kindle, but there's also a King James version, old and new testament, and I seem to remember the King James Bible is the most widely used.

Any help on this would be great. Thanks!

[OrphanPip]

The most influential version on English literature is definitely The King James version, annotated versions should be widely available.

We also have a Bible book club in the religious section that's kind of gone dead, but I'm sure could be revived if people built up the energy to do so.

[Drkshadow03]

I have never read the Bible, basically because I'm not Christian. Only in recent years have I come to realize that the Bible is not just a religious text, but possibly the most important piece of literature ever written, so what kind of literature buff would I be not to read it?

I was wondering, what should I read? Are the versions of the Bible written to be read as literature (maybe annotated, or some such)? Also, which version should be read, barring there isn't a better, more literary inclined version? I just downloaded The Holy Bible: English Standard Version on to my Kindle, but there's also a King James version, old and new testament, and I seem to remember the King James Bible is the most widely used.

Any help on this would be great. Thanks!

I personally really like the JPS version (Jewish Publication Version) of the Tanakh. It has a nice balance of reliable translation, maintaining the poetic language, while being rendered with a modern simplicity.

However, I referred to the Tanakh because it's the Jewish version of the Bible. So you'd have to find another translation for the New Testament material if you went with the JPS. The two Maccabi books are considered apocryphal from Jewish perspective, so they won't be included in the Old Testament material, whereas in many Christian versions of the Bible the two Maccabi books are included (and they're worth reading anyway for the history).

[The Comedian]

I use the New Oxford Annotated Bible. It has informative footnotes (MUCH easier to use than end notes) and introductions to each book in the Bible. It's clearly edited for scholars of the text and not so much practitioners of the faith.

And yeah, there's a Bible as Literature thread, as Pip said. I started it a while back, but work took me away from it for a while. But if someone wants to get it a kick start, I'm sure others will participate. It was a very active thread.

[MarkBastable]

I'd say that the advantage of the King James is that, as Pip implies, it's the one from which scores - possibly hundreds - of idiomatic expressions in everyday English originate. It's always a bit of a thrill when you come across one you hadn't identified before as being a Biblical allusion.

I mean, if not for the King James, the word 'bushel' would probably have disappeared completely

[Scheherazade]

I mean, if not for the King James, the word 'bushel' would probably have disappeared completelyAnd we surely do not want to imagine a world without the word "bushel" in it!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

And we surely do not want to imagine a world without the word "bushel" in it!

:lol: Beat me to that comment, Scher.

[MarkBastable]

You just can't say anything around here, can you? Jesus wept.

[Scheherazade]

:lol: Beat me to that comment, Scher.I think that was Mark's point, anyway... So he actually beat us to it.


You just can't say anything around here, can you? Jesus wept.I'm tempted to say, "Eye for an eye" but I will not.

[mal4mac]

The most influential version on English literature is definitely The King James version, annotated versions should be widely available.

There certainly should be, but that doesn't mean there are :)

[keilj]

Read the King James version

I strongly, strongly recommended that you do not do the chronological thing. Read Genesis and Exodus, then skip right to the New Testament. If you try to read the entire Old Testament, you will never get to the great, great writings in nearly every book of the New Testament


Also, some other great books in the Old Testament to skip back to are Job, Proverbs, and Psalms

[JBI]

Read the King James version

I strongly, strongly recommended that you do not do the chronological thing. Read Genesis and Exodus, then skip right to the New Testament. If you try to read the entire Old Testament, you will never get to the great, great writings in nearly every book of the New Testament


Also, some other great books in the Old Testament to skip back to are Job, Proverbs, and Psalms

You do know Job, Proverbs, and Psalms are part of the old right? To be honest, with the exception of perhaps Leviticus, the whole old testament is worth reading.

[The Comedian]

I'm tempted to say, "Eye for an eye" but I will not.

Hey! You just did! :rolleyes: Don't count on me turning the other cheek! ;)

[keilj]

You do know Job, Proverbs, and Psalms are part of the old right?

Yes. You did not read my post carefully


Of course the entire Bible is worth reading. But I know far too many people who have attempted it - got stuck in trying to slog through the Old Testament - and have never laid eyes on the New Testament books, for the sake of trying to be chronological completists about their reading of the Bible. So now their entire conception of the Bible is "a book filled with monotonous chapters about x begot y begot z", and they have completely missed out on the revolutionary ideas that are contained in the New Testament.

So for me, when giving advice to someone who is attempting the Bible for the first time, I don't recommend starting from page one and skipping nothing

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I may read the New testament first, or just hit the most "popular" parts and go from there. Plus, I'm definitely more interested in the non-psalm parts.

And, while I'd love to get an annotated version, I'm not unless I can find one on the Kindle. 2000+ pages is just too big for me to read in any kind of comfort.

[stlukesguild]

Of course the entire Bible is worth reading. But I know far too many people who have attempted it - got stuck in trying to slog through the Old Testament - and have never laid eyes on the New Testament books, for the sake of trying to be chronological completists about their reading of the Bible. So now their entire conception of the Bible is "a book filled with monotonous chapters about x begot y begot z", and they have completely missed out on the revolutionary ideas that are contained in the New Testament.

So for me, when giving advice to someone who is attempting the Bible for the first time, I don't recommend starting from page one and skipping nothing

I believe that JBI's point was that The Old Testament/The Hebrew Bible is a far greater work of literature than the New Testament... and certainly no less "revolutionary."

As the Bible is not a single book but rather a collection of books I agree that reading the work in a chronological (or rather a linear) manner is not a necessity. As a result of the fragmentation and interpolations involved in the historical narratives I would recommend some familiarity with the documentary hypothesis or Wellhausen hypothesis for a guide at reading these and avoiding the endless boring tally of laws and of who begat whom that were added by later religious scholars. I quite admire Richard Elliott Friedman's The Hidden Book in the Bible as such a guide. My preferred translation of the whole Bible is the King James, but I also look to other translations of individual books. I quite admire Robert Alter's The Five Books of Moses, The David Story, The Book of Psalms, and The Wisdom Books, Chana and Ariel Bloch's Song of Solomon, Stephen Mitchell's Job, and translations of collected English poets of the Psalms.

[YesNo]

Revelation is interesting to read.

Here is where you get the last judgment which seems to me to be a retelling of the Zoroastrian final triumph over evil but with the heat turned up. There is a lot of anger in this book. Considering the political situation of the Jews and Romans at the time, this might be understandable. From some reading I recall doing, I think it almost didn't make it into the canon.

[JBI]

Yes. You did not read my post carefully


Of course the entire Bible is worth reading. But I know far too many people who have attempted it - got stuck in trying to slog through the Old Testament - and have never laid eyes on the New Testament books, for the sake of trying to be chronological completists about their reading of the Bible. So now their entire conception of the Bible is "a book filled with monotonous chapters about x begot y begot z", and they have completely missed out on the revolutionary ideas that are contained in the New Testament.

So for me, when giving advice to someone who is attempting the Bible for the first time, I don't recommend starting from page one and skipping nothing

The text of the old testament was put together like that for a reason - there is an intended trajectory. There is a reason for its order, even if the authors are different people - there is this misconception that because the dating is so varied that it is really an anthology - well, perhaps it has qualities of anthology, but the book was assembled as a single text, well, the old Testament anyway, and the idea of canon and authoritative version was probably the reason it was recorded like this in the first place - Jews, and the Jewish tradition always were preoccupied with the text as single entity.

[mal4mac]

Who says the Bible is the most important piece of literature ever written? A few old priests? There are many contenders - Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, Tolstoy, Dickens... and these are far more readable! Of course some of these mention biblical characters & stories, so get versions with concise notes...

The Bible is judged as great literature because of its influence, not because its an easy or enjoyable read. And you don't have to read it... Why read something that is *so* difficult and not very enjoyable. There's a lot of great literature that isn't *too* difficult and really fun to read. If you want an easy(ish) life & still encounter great literature, then there are many other options.

[MarkBastable]

Who says the Bible is the most important piece of literature ever written? A few old priests? There are many contenders - Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, Tolstoy, Dickens... and these are far more readable! Of course some of these mention biblical characters & stories, so get versions with concise notes...

The Bible is judged as great literature because of its influence, not because its an easy or enjoyable read. And you don't have to read it... Why read something that is *so* difficult and not very enjoyable. There's a lot of great literature that isn't *too* difficult and really fun to read. If you want an easy(ish) life & still encounter great literature, then there are many other options.

Okay - who had the ticket for Saturday 18:30-19:00 GMT? If you come to the office you can pick up your mal4mac Bible thread Sweepstake prize.

[YesNo]

The text of the old testament was put together like that for a reason - there is an intended trajectory. There is a reason for its order, even if the authors are different people - there is this misconception that because the dating is so varied that it is really an anthology - well, perhaps it has qualities of anthology, but the book was assembled as a single text, well, the old Testament anyway, and the idea of canon and authoritative version was probably the reason it was recorded like this in the first place - Jews, and the Jewish tradition always were preoccupied with the text as single entity.
There does seem to be an intention in the ordering of the various books. There are two different orderings of the books comprising the "Old Testament". One is the Christian ordering, ending with Malachi, and the other is the Jewish ordering of the Tanakh which ends with 2nd Chronicles.


Who says the Bible is the most important piece of literature ever written?
I agree with you, mal4mac, that it is not. However, in Christian societies it is very influential and one way to step back from this influence is to view the text simply as literature.

[JCamilo]

Who says the Bible is the most important piece of literature ever written? A few old priests? There are many contenders - Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, Tolstoy, Dickens... and these are far more readable! Of course some of these mention biblical characters & stories, so get versions with concise notes...

The Bible is judged as great literature because of its influence, not because its an easy or enjoyable read. And you don't have to read it... Why read something that is *so* difficult and not very enjoyable. There's a lot of great literature that isn't *too* difficult and really fun to read. If you want an easy(ish) life & still encounter great literature, then there are many other options.

Depends what you classify was easy to read. For example, Mr.Shakespeare did not even wrote for reading. Hamlet, Othelo etc, are a mess, in terms of simplicity of structure for reading, Proverbs, Job, Chronicles and the four Gospels are naturally easier to read.

As readable is a matter of trainning, the bible in its many versions is a widespread text, people without formal training, who would struggle with Dante or Homer, get by many of their texts. By all accounts, 1001 nights is much more complicated than Gospels.

As enjoyment, I fall to see how it is even possible to be judged. People enjoy biblical stories. Not many enjoy Dante.

[stlukesguild]

Well... Mac has a habit of assuming that if he doesn't particularly like a book it is automatically proof of that book's failings and not his own as a reader.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Who says the Bible is the most important piece of literature ever written? A few old priests? There are many contenders - Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, Tolstoy, Dickens... and these are far more readable! Of course some of these mention biblical characters & stories, so get versions with concise notes...

Since when does readability alone factor into a piece of literature's importance? I wasn't saying it's the greatest (in terms of artistic merit), but the most important. If you want to argue that another piece of literature has had a larger impact on the world than The Bible, have at it. Barring other religious texts, I don't see how any other piece of literature can contend.

[JCamilo]

Well, Homer does (but we should stop assuming there is no religiousity related to Homer), Plato, Aristotle and there is probally some Confucian power in this world. But the books around the bible are without doubt among the most important politically and aesthetically wise.

[kiki1982]

No-one has ever said that one needs to read the bible from front to back or the other way round.

Readable is indeed not a valid point in terms of good or not good, being worthy of thought or not. I suppose some ramblings of Schopenhauer are mere repeats of what he has said before and profoundly uninteresting and boring. Does that make him any less important? Dickens repeats himself and I don't like him, happen what may, but I will never deny that the man has had his merits for literature in general. That said, once you've read one book by an author, you have read them all, then...

You can just look up the bible name or verse on the internet and then read the part in the bible. Mostly those parts are so very short that it really hardly matters and takes very few minutes of your time... The only thing you have to be able to do is spot the important bits. Then again, you will not remember the whole of the bible even if you have read it once...

I think it is difficult to deny that most of Western literature has been influenced by the bible, or the writers' knowledge of it just as the writers' religious views mattered a great lot in mostly older literature. And then their moral views predominantly.

I am now (still :blush:) reading Mahfouz's Palace Walk and that is heavily influenced by Islam. So I have taken our copy of the Quran off the shelf and started reading the surahs referenced. Interesting it is. I am not going to read the Quran from beginning to end or call it gripping, but I would not dare to state that to Mahfouz and his culture itself, it is not important.

Ah, maybe I should take up reading the bible once with that 2 year plan (:eek:) that was delivered with my husband's King James confirmation bible edition by a supplier of the royal family, but then I think about the time it would take me and what I would get out of it...

Still, I suppose that The Da Vinci Code is then more important literature than the bible? (certainly, it is more readable and more gripping or am I jumping to conclusions here? :D)

[k1ngk0ngwl]

There are pieces of the Bible that are great literature, but most of it isn't very good, despite the effort of King James' writers to make it sound beautiful. It is a little misleading, when it comes to history, the characters are as one-dimensional as can be, and the fables aren't particularly profound. Some of the morality it presents is downright questionable.

Because the Old Testament was compiled from four different versions, it contains conflicting theology about the nature of God. The New Testament suffers even worse because, of the hundreds of available Gospels, the ones that survived were picked to serve political ends, then arranged out of order to give the appearance of prophecy fulfillment. The end result is a large work that lacks a unifying message or morality. This is why I, personally, see it as a bad piece of literature. Certainly, it has had an immeasurable influence upon civilization, but you must consider that, during Christianity's first millennium and long thereafter, most people couldn't even read it. Even today, most Christians have never read it from front to back, and are content to cherry pick the prettier, more self-serving pieces.

I suspect the consensus would be that Psalms has some of the greatest passages. If you do plan to take on the whole thing, I would advise doing some research about the origins of each piece to give it a better context. When I was young, I read the whole thing out loud, 1/2 hour at a time before school everyday, and, even then, only occasionally did something jump out at me. Once I was older and had a chance to revisit armed with more information, it held a lot more meaning for me.

[JCamilo]

There are pieces of the Bible that are great literature, but most of it isn't very good, despite the effort of King James' writers to make it sound beautiful. It is a little misleading, when it comes to history, the characters are as one-dimensional as can be, and the fables aren't particularly profound. Some of the morality it presents is downright questionable.

Sometimes I have to laugh, King James Version is the most relevant version of english language. The german version that was in the havoc of protestant reform was is probally the most relelvant translation of the bible, if not the earlier greek manuscripts. Most of the influence of he bible is not due to King James.
And another thing that keep bugging me is the reading that a character is profund. Hamlet is not deep or anything, it is just extremelly well used, a plot device, a symbol and the biblical characters who include at least 2 versions of Jesus, Satan, Jave, Moses, Judah, David, Abraham, Caine are all powerful characters, which actions and personality are models in any narrative and unmatched by the majority of characters ever created. A side note, a good text or narrative does not need dostoieviskan characters. Scherazade is perhaps the most relevant female character ever and she only tell stories.
As the fables being not profond, this must be explained. The basis of 3 major religions are "not profond"? The complexity of the gospels or revelations? As fable goes, a parable like Job is almost perfect. The bible is a prime example of early and influential narrative.
As the morality being quesitonable, that is irrelevant. The morality of any age is questionably, it is a nature of morals to be so.



Because the Old Testament was compiled from four different versions, it contains conflicting theology about the nature of God.

Which would add the complexity, but there is not a single text from traditonal cultures who do not suffer from it. All where compiled from different authors, Homer, Bible, etc.


The New Testament suffers even worse because, of the hundreds of available Gospels, the ones that survived were picked to serve political ends, then arranged out of order to give the appearance of prophecy fulfillment.


they didnt even knew the order and since they are not building a historical book, the chronology was not that relevant.


The end result is a large work that lacks a unifying message or morality. This is why I, personally, see it as a bad piece of literature. Certainly, it has had an immeasurable influence upon civilization, but you must consider that, during Christianity's first millennium and long thereafter, most people couldn't even read it. Even today, most Christians have never read it from front to back, and are content to cherry pick the prettier, more self-serving pieces.

So? Most people could not read Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Plato, Aristotele either. And again, having a moral unity is not a literary merit. In fact almost a flaw.

[OrphanPip]

Yes it's undeniable that the Bible is influential, that the stories and characters are strongly archetypal in Western culture. However, it is also true that a good amount of that is a result of the circular reinforcement of value that comes from the central position of the text that has been enforced culturally and politically.

It's really difficult to approach the Bible and trust our own judgment of its worth, because most of us in the West approach it already with exposure to the underlining cultural assumptions and ideas that it's presenting. It answers our expectations of what a profound fable should be, because our biases are built on the Bible.

[The Atheist]

Huh, a total deja vu subject. We did this [acrimoniously] a few months back.


Who says the Bible is the most important piece of literature ever written?

Lots of people still think that, but current literature courses at many universities give the lie to that theory by completely ignoring the bible.

As was discussed previously, some universities still give it a prime place, but most of those universities appeared to be in USA. Even Oxford UK does not specifically study the bible in its Bachelor degrees in English Literature. (http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate_courses/courses/english_language_and_literature/english_language_and.html)


There are pieces of the Bible that are great literature, but most of it isn't very good, despite the effort of King James' writers to make it sound beautiful. It is a little misleading, when it comes to history, the characters are as one-dimensional as can be, and the fables aren't particularly profound. Some of the morality it presents is downright questionable.

Those obvious points are usually disregarded by supporters of the fallacy that the bible has real relevance in the 21st century.

I would have said "completely misleading when it comes to history" as the historical claims in the bible are almost all either entirely false or incorrect in major detail.

Now those traditionalists living in North America can come and explain why they feel this is all wrong and biased because I'm an atheist.... (I'm happy with Oxford, Auckland, Melbourne and other universities that have outgrown the christian bible)

[Drkshadow03]

Who says the Bible is the most important piece of literature ever written? A few old priests? There are many contenders - Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, Tolstoy, Dickens... and these are far more readable! Of course some of these mention biblical characters & stories, so get versions with concise notes...

The Bible is judged as great literature because of its influence, not because its an easy or enjoyable read. And you don't have to read it... Why read something that is *so* difficult and not very enjoyable. There's a lot of great literature that isn't *too* difficult and really fun to read. If you want an easy(ish) life & still encounter great literature, then there are many other options.

Why do you assume the Bible isn't enjoyable? Because you personally didn't enjoy it? I find the Bible quite enjoyable. Nor do I find it particularly difficult. Certainly not more so than Dante.

And seriously Dickens as a contender for the most important piece of literature? Shakespeare I can understand, The Bible too, and Homer, but Dickens?

[JCamilo]

Now those traditionalists living in North America can come and explain why they feel this is all wrong and biased because I'm an atheist.... (I'm happy with Oxford, Auckland, Melbourne and other universities that have outgrown the christian bible)

I am a south American and more atheist than you, so :reddevil::boxing_smiley:

Anyways, Pip, no text didnt grant its popularity for something beyond the text itself. Virgil was an official poet of empire, Shakespeare worked for his kings, Goethe had ties with governament, Homer was used as educational text - the dark age doctors "Imposed" the classical reference alongside with the Bible, Enlightment writers burried authors and praised those who were suited to their ends, etc. It is simple: the authority, either religous, academic or else has good taste. They know the appeal of quality and use at their favor. The bible would fail if was writen by likes of Paulo Coelho (and the process of selection of the biblical texts, both in jewish case and catholic had also the quality factor, as they aesthatically considered the truth as divine and "beauty" was true and divine).

[Drkshadow03]

I am a south American and more atheist than you, so :reddevil::boxing_smiley:

Anyways, Pip, no text didnt grant its popularity for something beyond the text itself. Virgil was an official poet of empire, Shakespeare worked for his kings, Goethe had ties with governament, Homer was used as educational text - the dark age doctors "Imposed" the classical reference alongside with the Bible, Enlightment writers burried authors and praised those who were suited to their ends, etc. It is simple: the authority, either religous, academic or else has good taste. They know the appeal of quality and use at their favor. The bible would fail if was writen by likes of Paulo Coelho (and the process of selection of the biblical texts, both in jewish case and catholic had also the quality factor, as they aesthatically considered the truth as divine and "beauty" was true and divine).

The Atheist also forgot to mention how irrelevant Homer and Greek Mythology is to understanding literature too since they are not included in the English literature program at Oxford.

George Orwell apparently is the only author worth reading. :smilielol5:

[stlukesguild]

There are pieces of the Bible that are great literature, but most of it isn't very good, despite the effort of King James' writers to make it sound beautiful. It is a little misleading, when it comes to history, the characters are as one-dimensional as can be, and the fables aren't particularly profound. Some of the morality it presents is downright questionable.

Pure BS. But then I suppose you are a much deeper reader than all of the writers, poets, artists, and musicians over the course of history who have been profoundly inspired by these texts. The early narratives are challenging to read because of the fact that they are pieced together from various narratives including later interpolations of Hebrew genealogy, law, etc... which breaks the narrative flow, but this can be rectified with the assistance of a good guide. Other individual books: Job, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Lamentations, Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, Jonah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the four Gospels, the Book of Revelations, etc... are all incredibly powerful works of literature... LITERATURE. The "history" is no more "misleading" than the history found in Homer, Virgil, Herodotus, Firdowsi, the Arabian Night's, the Mahabharata, the Arthurian legends, Ariosto, Gibbon, or even Rousseau. They are the product of story-tellers inventing a history for a culture. The characters are no less one-dimensional than most characters in literature prior to the novel... for the simple reason that character development (unlike what you learned in high-school) has not always been a central aspect of literature. Even so... as JCamilo states... there are several truly magnificent characters in the Bible: Jesus, Satan, Yahweh, Moses, Judah, David, Abraham, Caine... and I would add Job (can anyone imagine Kafka's Joseph K without him?) among others.


As for the profundity of the fables... I don't exactly know how you went about measuring that. For whatever reason, these fables seem to have struck more than a few others as being profound enough to continue speaking over millennium. Morality? Well I didn't know that was the role of the writer. Perhaps a little Oscar Wilde is in order.

[mortalterror]

As a work of literature, the Bible is inferior to the collected works of Homer, Shakespeare, or Dante. I'll agree to that much. Job, Revelations, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Proverbs, and Matthew are all masterpieces; but that's only about 1/3 of the book. Depending on what edition you use, that's only 200-400 pages. My copy of the Iliad is 600, as a standard of comparison.

[stlukesguild]

There are pieces of the Bible that are great literature, but most of it isn't very good, despite the effort of King James' writers to make it sound beautiful. It is a little misleading, when it comes to history, the characters are as one-dimensional as can be, and the fables aren't particularly profound. Some of the morality it presents is downright questionable.

Those obvious points are usually disregarded by supporters of the fallacy that the bible has real relevance in the 21st century.

The only fallacy here is that of suggesting that you have the least ability to judge the Bible (or nearly anything else... considering our earlier discussions of Shakespeare) as literature. The reality is that you have become what you most hate... a fundamentalist unable to think beyond his own religious views.

The relevance of the Bible is beyond question... even in the 20th century. Christianity remains the largest religion in the world and the Hebrew Bible remains a central text for the all three Abrahamic religions.

In the field of literature, the Bible remains one of the few texts (along with Dante's Comedia, Homer's epics, Spenser's Fairie Queene, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, etc...) that are afforded entire university courses. I am speaking of courses that approach the Bible as literature and not theology. The Bible remains a major source of inspiration across the arts: literature and poetry, music, painting, sculpture, and film. It has been a major source of artistic inspiration upon true believers, agnostics, and atheists. But undoubtedly, like any good fundamentalist, you are deny even that which is right before your own eyes if it goes against your belief system.

[stlukesguild]

As a work of literature, the Bible is inferior to the collected works of Homer, Shakespeare, or Dante.

Of course comparisons are always open to debate. I'll grant you Shakespeare, and Dante... and add Milton... but I'm not as much of a classicist as you. I'd take the Bible over Homer.

[YesNo]

... there are several truly magnificent characters in the Bible: Jesus, Satan, Yahweh, Moses, Judah, David, Abraham, Caine... and I would add Job (can anyone imagine Kafka's Joseph K without him?) among others.

Among the others, I would add Sarah and Bathsheba.

Did J mean to say in Genesis 12:10-20 that Abraham's wife Sarah had an affair with Pharaoh?

In 2nd Samuel 11:1-27, was it David who took Bathsheba or Bathsheba who set up David?

[JCamilo]

Milton? His complete poetry has absolute normal poems, even Paradise Lost has slowdowns. Shakespeare has a selection of plays which are not notable. Granted, I never saw anything of Dante which is is not masterful. Perhaps if someone include him between in the old testament, nobody would dare to claim that was not divine. But that is ridiculous, I would take John over Mathew anytime, I know many would take Mark, but the truth the 4 gospels are great works of literature, style of text changing according the author, even when the theme is the same. Obviously, I repeat, Jesus predates Sherazade, he is a storyteller, a story within story frame, his mistery is the same mistery she carries. That he carries his own story is exemplary.

But you know that story Borges liked to mention about Liebniz library in heaven: Several copies of the most perfect book of all (in that cased Virgil's Aeneid) or several different books, even if they are not as great as Aeneid? The answer is enough, the bible is not perfect, you can argue her with the best authors of all (which say much about it, how many can be better than Homer, Shakespeare or Dante), but it is a masterwork, if it is the 4th, 5th... who cares. Most of Cervates works are not great. But he wrote Don Quixote.

[JBI]

Huh, a total deja vu subject. We did this [acrimoniously] a few months back.



Lots of people still think that, but current literature courses at many universities give the lie to that theory by completely ignoring the bible.

As was discussed previously, some universities still give it a prime place, but most of those universities appeared to be in USA. Even Oxford UK does not specifically study the bible in its Bachelor degrees in English Literature. (http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate_courses/courses/english_language_and_literature/english_language_and.html)



Those obvious points are usually disregarded by supporters of the fallacy that the bible has real relevance in the 21st century.

I would have said "completely misleading when it comes to history" as the historical claims in the bible are almost all either entirely false or incorrect in major detail.

Now those traditionalists living in North America can come and explain why they feel this is all wrong and biased because I'm an atheist.... (I'm happy with Oxford, Auckland, Melbourne and other universities that have outgrown the christian bible)

You are an atheist true, but why should we care? why should anybody care that you do not believe - to be honest, you preach your unbelief more than most people their belief - because you do not like a book does not make it outdated - in fact, the rise of the groups you attack as "traditionalists" have if anything made the book more necessary for understanding the contemporary world.

Beyond that though, just because it isn't listed in a curriculum does not mean it isn't read - for instance, I read versions from 4 bibles in a class I once took. They were in xeroxes or online, so they did not get listed as part of the description - simply put, the quality of education reflects the in depth analysis one undergoes - one cannot read 16th century literature at an in depth level without looking at religious controversy, as well as perhaps several versions of the Bible.

A course on the Bible may not exist, but generally all serious students are expected, without even asking, to know the bible - we read Eliot in American poetry or whatever, we need the Bible at a basic level - we flip to even atheist authors, we need the Bible.

Your hijacking of threads is characteristic of somebody who cannot come to terms with other people's different opinions, I.E. it displays an intolerance that others would enjoy reading a mere text as literature. In other words, your posts display an inherent intolerance, characteristic of the same hypocritical vises you see in these "Traditionalists", but Brutus is an honorable man, etc..

[stlukesguild]

...your posts display an inherent intolerance, characteristic of the same hypocritical vises you see in these "Traditionalists", but Brutus is an honorable man, etc..

Brutus, eh? I was thinking more along the lines of St. Paul (Paul of Tarsus) who begins as an enemy of the early followers of Christianity, and becomes the most militant voice of the early church. But Brutus certainly works.:p

[Drkshadow03]

Beyond that though, just because it isn't listed in a curriculum does not mean it isn't read - for instance, I read versions from 4 bibles in a class I once took. They were in xeroxes or online, so they did not get listed as part of the description - simply put, the quality of education reflects the in depth analysis one undergoes - one cannot read 16th century literature at an in depth level without looking at religious controversy, as well as perhaps several versions of the Bible.

A course on the Bible may not exist, but generally all serious students are expected, without even asking, to know the bible - we read Eliot in American poetry or whatever, we need the Bible at a basic level - we flip to even atheist authors, we need the Bible.


Exactly. Even when I took classes that had nothing to do with the Bible and we were talking about contemporary authors like Cormac McCarthy or Leslie Marmon Silko, inevitably those discussions turned to Biblical archetypes or Christianity. In fact, I can't think of ANY English class I took where there wasn't a discussion of the Bible or Christianity in some context at some point.

[mortalterror]

Milton? His complete poetry has absolute normal poems, even Paradise Lost has slowdowns. Shakespeare has a selection of plays which are not notable. Granted, I never saw anything of Dante which is is not masterful. Perhaps if someone include him between in the old testament, nobody would dare to claim that was not divine. But that is ridiculous, I would take John over Mathew anytime, I know many would take Mark, but the truth the 4 gospels are great works of literature, style of text changing according the author, even when the theme is the same. Obviously, I repeat, Jesus predates Sherazade, he is a storyteller, a story within story frame, his mistery is the same mistery she carries. That he carries his own story is exemplary.

But you know that story Borges liked to mention about Liebniz library in heaven: Several copies of the most perfect book of all (in that cased Virgil's Aeneid) or several different books, even if they are not as great as Aeneid? The answer is enough, the bible is not perfect, you can argue her with the best authors of all (which say much about it, how many can be better than Homer, Shakespeare or Dante), but it is a masterwork, if it is the 4th, 5th... who cares. Most of Cervates works are not great. But he wrote Don Quixote.

I don't know about Milton either, J. He's good, but even Homer nods. I can understand why someone might only want to read sections of Milton's poetic output. Heck, Books 2 and 4 of the Aeneid have always been more popular than the poem as a whole, even in Virgil's time. I wouldn't call Paradise Lost a perfect poem any more than I would the Aeneid, and neither is as good as The Divine Comedy or The Iliad. Dante, even with his rather small output, does have some rather boring works. I'm speaking, of course, about the Convivio and De Monarchia. Shakespeare's got some stinkers too, but him and Homer both have more than a thousand first rate pages.

Why would you take John over Matthew? Matthew has the Sermon on the Mount in it.

[Vautrin]

The Bible as Literature

I wonder how God wrote it. You think he's one of those people typing away on their laptops at Starbucks (who we all know are procrastinating by people watching and checking their email every two seconds)?

Or did He do it old-school; at home on a manual typewriter with an endless supply of strong black coffee and an ashtray overstuffed with cigarette buds?

I guess we can never be sure how he did it. However, we can absolutely be certain of one thing; He has an incredible agent!

[JCamilo]

I don't know about Milton either, J. He's good, but even Homer nods. I can understand why someone might only want to read sections of Milton's poetic output. Heck, Books 2 and 4 of the Aeneid have always been more popular than the poem as a whole, even in Virgil's time. I wouldn't call Paradise Lost a perfect poem any more than I would the Aeneid, and neither is as good as The Divine Comedy or The Iliad. Dante, even with his rather small output, does have some rather boring works. I'm speaking, of course, about the Convivio and De Monarchia. Shakespeare's got some stinkers too, but him and Homer both have more than a thousand first rate pages.

Why would you take John over Matthew? Matthew has the Sermon on the Mount in it.

Well, Milton has his political works, which are not such big deal. Also, it happens with all, when we read they complete works, we find when they sleep. Milton is like that, not all his elegies are Lycidas. And well, Paradise regained just do not need to be. This is a bit like Ovid and Virgil, in a way, tradition preserved Ovid flaws. Virgil destroyed his. When they are at their best, I do not see the difference of status. Guys like Dante and Virgil have this luck. I wonder if time had erased all wasted effort of Coleridge, how it would change his status.

As Dante... well Monarchy is not a big deal, albeit it is a fine, if the best, didatic explanation of medieval politcs. I was much upset, because Locke and Machiavelli had nothing with that, and yet, people talk about them and absolutism, while Dante is abc. As Convivio... I like it. If Milton wrote a list of themes, Dante made up a aesthetic theory to create his Comedy, his muse, it also made me think about Borges creating books he could not write to write about it (with the advantage, Dante just did it)... Of course, it is interesting, because it is almost a warm up, the feeling that the Comedy is sneaking behind every page.

I like more John because it is my name of course :D
I find John gospel more original, it is the one after all that develops the divinity of Jesus, the shadows of gnosticism leading John to a poetic more close to a creation that the register of the previous gospels. Also, the literary gambling is more daring, since the rupture with jews was already there, John provokes a dialogue between his text with the old testament, while Mark and Mathews basically write a continuation. Those things, plus the position of the narrator (closer, more empathic), the more active and dramatic Jesus also made the passion and judgment more interesting. That it became the source for justification for jewish persecution does not reduce the quality of the text.

[L.M. The Third]

Why would you take John over Matthew? Matthew has the Sermon on the Mount in it.

Aw, but John has the first part of John chapter one - "In the beginning was the word..." etc. And those are John's own thoughts - not (ostensibly) quotes from his master.

[Bill 42]

I wonder how God wrote it.

He outsourced.

It's funny how our current world hasn't learned the perils of outsourcing.

[Gladys]

I and II Kings makes excellent reading - such irony.

[Serena03]

Many may still have a hard time accepting this as a good piece of literature because it is still widely interpreted as a history book instead. Perhaps once it finally resides as part of mythology as many of the ancient Greek stories and so forth have, it can be fully respected once again. I'm trying to re-approach this from a literary perspective as a non-believer which thus far has been an enjoyable read from a mythological standpoint despite its contradictions. For better clarification, I would recommend the 1769 KJV than the 1611 edition.

[mal4mac]

No-one has ever said that one needs to read the bible from front to back or the other way round.


Tut. Tut. That's like saying that reading an abridged version of War & Peace is OK. What kind of literature buff would you be if you started reading abridged versions? :)



Readable is indeed not a valid point in terms of good or not good...

Of course it's valid! Did you see your favourite Sue Perkins on Saturday, Kiki? She was extolling the virtues of the corniest best sellers, in that, unlike much "serious literature", many have good plots, are easy to read, and allow people to escape from their miserable lives for a few hours. These things have value.


I suppose some ramblings of Schopenhauer are mere repeats of what he has said before and profoundly uninteresting and boring. Does that make him any less important? Dickens repeats himself and I don't like him, happen what may, but I will never deny that the man has had his merits for literature in general. That said, once you've read one book by an author, you have read them all, then...


Schopenhauer does repeat a lot, but at least much of it is worth repeating. I'm re-reading his main works with a pencil so when I re-read him again I can avoid his most boring repeats (wish I had done that the first time!)

Even though you dare to dislike Dickens I still count you as a fully paid up member of the literature buff club, kiki :)




Still, I suppose that The Da Vinci Code is then more important literature than the bible? (certainly, it is more readable and more gripping or am I jumping to conclusions here? :D)

I'm not arguing that easy readability is the only consideration! Brown's work is supposedly full of historical inaccuracies, and no literary critic I admire rates it at all. So I'll give it a miss.

[JCamilo]

Tut. Tut. That's like saying that reading an abridged version of War & Peace is OK. What kind of literature buff would you be if you started reading abridged versions? :)

He would be Borges, who didnt wrote big novels but selected chapters to read. Seems like a good literary destiny.

Are you serious? Joyce is 100 years ago, he already wrote a work that tell you that.



Of course it's valid! Did you see your favourite Sue Perkins on Saturday, Kiki? She was extolling the virtues of the corniest best sellers, in that, unlike much "serious literature", many have good plots, are easy to read, and allow people to escape from their miserable lives for a few hours. These things have value.

Of course it is not. Reading is a technique you learn. Not a inate quality of the text. I found the bible extremely easy to read and Penal Codes a pain. But a lawyer will think the other way around.

And Sue Perkins is dumb and your argument is even worst. If the quality cannt be measured by accessibility of the reader, how trash books having good plots sustain otherwise?



Schopenhauer does repeat a lot, but at least much of it is worth repeating. I'm re-reading his main works with a pencil so when I re-read him again I can avoid his most boring repeats (wish I had done that the first time!)

So, you are creating an abrigaded version for your use. Congratulations. Please ,select well his opinion about women.



I'm not arguing that easy readability is the only consideration! Brown's work is supposedly full of historical inaccuracies, and no literary critic I admire rates it at all. So I'll give it a miss.

But Sue Perkins must love it. Now, Shakespeare is full of historical accuracy too, well, several authors are. So what? History accurary is only relevant if you are studying History. Since english language is flawed enough to have a word for History and another for Story, that is not happening right?

The reason of Brown's lack of quality is not his plot, lies, accuracy... It is so easy to read that does cause anything. You do not scape for 2 hours, you just remain in the same place.

At arguments like this we must say Finnegans Wake. It seems to be written for this...

[Drkshadow03]

As a work of literature, the Bible is inferior to the collected works of Homer, Shakespeare, or Dante. I'll agree to that much. Job, Revelations, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Proverbs, and Matthew are all masterpieces; but that's only about 1/3 of the book. Depending on what edition you use, that's only 200-400 pages. My copy of the Iliad is 600, as a standard of comparison.

As I've pointed out in other threads I'm not a big fan of "the better than thou" game in literature because it is always going to come back to a certain amount of opinion and preference. I'd rather talk about the merits of the work itself. Part of the method you presented is to compare how many pages did each write that we could possibly call a masterpiece. Personally I would include more works than the ones you did.

In addition, I would include Genesis, Exodus, Kings I and II (especially the parts with David and Solomon), Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Ruth, and Jonah to your list, but that's just me.


Nevertheless, the original post talks about the importance of the Bible in relationship to literature. The influence of the Bible on later literature, including works still written today is incalculable. I see influence as the central issue when we speak of importance.

[YesNo]

Yes it's undeniable that the Bible is influential, that the stories and characters are strongly archetypal in Western culture. However, it is also true that a good amount of that is a result of the circular reinforcement of value that comes from the central position of the text that has been enforced culturally and politically.

It's really difficult to approach the Bible and trust our own judgment of its worth, because most of us in the West approach it already with exposure to the underlining cultural assumptions and ideas that it's presenting. It answers our expectations of what a profound fable should be, because our biases are built on the Bible.
I agree. I put some of your comment in bold, OrphanPip.

That is why it is important to read the Bible as literature in conjunction with commentaries written by people with different beliefs.

To get beyond "our expectations of what a profound fable should be", we should also read religious stories from other cultures. I would recommend the Ramayana from Hinduism, but I am sure there are others.

In our postmodern world, they are all "stories" or "narratives", and so is any theory that science comes up with.

[JCamilo]

They were stories and narratives long ago. It is a brewish idea to expand the interpretation beyond the literal meaning, they do it for centuries and Agostine already called a mistake to try to find literal truths in the gospels.

You people seems to have a problem, guys like Cicero, Plato, Gibbon didnt wrote "stories", "fictions", "poetry", yet we never have a problem to approach their text with an aesthetical judgment (Beauty many not be truth, but it is certainly a charming truth) and this is not even a medieval problem as they considered beauty to be divine.

Anyways, the use of the word fable...

[Drkshadow03]

I agree. I put some of your comment in bold, OrphanPip.

That is why it is important to read the Bible as literature in conjunction with commentaries written by people with different beliefs.

To get beyond "our expectations of what a profound fable should be", we should also read religious stories from other cultures. I would recommend the Ramayana from Hinduism, but I am sure there are others.

In our postmodern world, they are all "stories" or "narratives", and so is any theory that science comes up with.

Orphanpip's argument is just a variant of Terry Eagleton's argument in his Literary Theory book, except Eagleton's example is Shakespeare and relies more on the Old White Man Theory. But it essentially boils down to the same argument. It's hard to judge any piece of literature because it's always a process of circular reinforcement of value. Shakespeare is the greatest because his works have all the qualities of a good play. We know the qualities of a good play because we can see them in Shakespeare's play, which are great. Shakespeare's plays are obviously excellent because they meet those standards.

Of course, Eagelton's version is more like this: We are told what is good by the White Old Men that rule academia who learned that books X, Y, and Z are good because that was what they were told by their White Old Male Professors, who learned the same from their professors, ad nauseam. Meanwhile, the only reason we accept X, Y, and Z as good is because the White Male Professors say so. When someone questions them and they need to give reasons/justifications for X, Y, and Z being good it's because they have qualities A, B, and C. Qualities A, B, and C are considered important for because good novels like X, Y, and Z have those qualities.

Not that I'm big a fan of these type of arguments.

[MarkBastable]

Orphanpip's argument is just a variant of Terry Eagleton's argument in his Literary Theory book, except Eagleton's example is Shakespeare and relies more on the Old White Man Theory. But it essentially boils down to the same argument. It's hard to judge any piece of literature because it's always a process of circular reinforcement of value. Shakespeare is the greatest because his works have all the qualities of a good play. We know the qualities of a good play because we can see them in Shakespeare's play, which are great. Shakespeare's plays are obviously excellent because they meet those standards.

Of course, Eagelton's version is more like this: We are told what is good by the White Old Men that rule academia who learned that books X, Y, and Z are good because that was what they were told by their White Old Male Professors, who learned the same from their professors, ad nauseam. Meanwhile, the only reason we accept X, Y, and Z as good is because the White Male Professors say so. When someone questions them and they need to give reasons/justifications for X, Y, and Z being good it's because they have qualities A, B, and C. Qualities A, B, and C are considered important for because good novels like X, Y, and Z have those qualities.

Not that I'm big a fan of these type of arguments.

All that may be true, but that doesn't make it wrong. In order to do show it to be wrong, I think you'd have to come up with qualities other than A, B and C that were convincing components of 'good', and then show them being deployed in novels like K, J and L, if not X, Y and Z.

[JCamilo]

I think the beef of Drk is not that Shakespeare is good and he cannt be a model. It is more that at some point you have to show why Shakespeare is good without saying Shakespeare is good because it is how Shakespeare did it. Which is pretty much what Pip ended saying, the bible answer us what a fable is because it is what we learnt as a good fable should be.

There is a reason why the bible worked even before was taught to us (I wonder why people ignore that before Roman Empire, the texts were already secular but preserved by a minority, not a majority. Which would imply the power of the text predates its political power)...

[Drkshadow03]

All that may be true, but that doesn't make it wrong. In order to do show it to be wrong, I think you'd have to come up with qualities other than A, B and C that were convincing components of 'good', and then show them being deployed in novels like K, J and L, if not X, Y and Z.

Sure, I agree a person can't just dismiss an argument because they don't like the implications of the argument or the kind of relativism it leads to since it would be fallacious to dismiss the truth-value of an argument because one doesn't like it's conclusions.

My comment at the end that I don't agree with this viewpoint was more to separate my own viewpoint from those arguments. I honestly didn't make any attempt to disprove the assertion, only to note that Orphanpip's argument is extremely modest in how he's presenting its implications.
I would challenge the view perhaps by arguing if we look at the works that others accept as good we would in fact find that there is no such thing as components that are always good or bad. Instead I think we'd find some literary works do A well, but fail completely at B. To use the Bible and Shakespeare as starting points: the Bible is full of Deus Ex Machina, but well, so is Shakespeare. The Bible occasionally plagiarizes stories, but so does Shakespeare. Shakespeare's strengths are his mastery of character and language. The Bible's strength is in its memorable stories, its engagement with central issues at the human condition, its originality in mythologizing the history of a group of people, its plethora of literary genres all in a single book, and its influence on so much literature/art/music after it.

Instead considerations that should be central: What is the purpose of this writing and is this an effective style and method to fulfill its purpose? Is the story/events/argument memorable? Is it written in beautiful language or in a language that is suitable to the content that has a beauty to it? Do the themes, issues, and conflicts reveal something about the human condition? And if so, do these issues still matter to us today? Does this work serve as an important cultural artifact of the ideas/beliefs/issues of its times and its authors? Has this work influenced/inspired a lot of art after it? Did the work revolutionize either structure or story archetypes at its time?

[OrphanPip]

I didn't mean it quite in the Eagleton way. Merely, just thinking of myself, who was raised with the stories in a relatively religious home, I can't really approach any of the stories in the Bible with a clean slate. I've heard them all before, and often I can't even remember when I first heard them.

And when I read things like Native American fables, or even Greek myth, I can't help but find that most cultures have mythic stories that are not that much different in quality from most Bible stories. I think it is fine to say that the Bible is a powerful work of literature, but I also think there is some bias at play when people claim the entire thing is golden from beginning to end, anyone who has actually read it from beginning to end knows that's a lie. Given, if any text is revised continuously over several centuries it's bound to come off decently polished.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Huh, a total deja vu subject. We did this [acrimoniously] a few months back.



Lots of people still think that, but current literature courses at many universities give the lie to that theory by completely ignoring the bible.

As was discussed previously, some universities still give it a prime place, but most of those universities appeared to be in USA. Even Oxford UK does not specifically study the bible in its Bachelor degrees in English Literature. (http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate_courses/courses/english_language_and_literature/english_language_and.html)



Those obvious points are usually disregarded by supporters of the fallacy that the bible has real relevance in the 21st century.

I would have said "completely misleading when it comes to history" as the historical claims in the bible are almost all either entirely false or incorrect in major detail.

Now those traditionalists living in North America can come and explain why they feel this is all wrong and biased because I'm an atheist.... (I'm happy with Oxford, Auckland, Melbourne and other universities that have outgrown the christian bible)

I'm an agnostic/athiest also, and I "dislike" organized religion, but these statements are just absurd. I'd point out why, but everyone else already did, and much more effectively than I could.

Okay, so, if I were to put together a list of the essential parts of The Bible I should read, what are they? I don't think I want to read the whole thing (even if I probably should) for the very reason that there's so much I want to read, I don't want to spend so much time on one text (again, probably flawed thinking on my part, but it is what it is).

So far, these have been listed (at least, what I saw in a "list" format):


Job, Revelations, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Proverbs, and Matthew.


Genesis, Exodus, Kings I and II (especially the parts with David and Solomon), Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Ruth, and Jonah.

This whole conversation has been very interesting, by the way: I've learned a lot, so thanks all!

[Vautrin]

He outsourced.

It's funny how our current world hasn't learned the perils of outsourcing.


That makes sense! He probably outsourced it to China. Especially if you consider all that talk about providing for the poor and rich people having no shot at heaven. It all sounds vaguely...COMMUNIST! :willy_nilly:

[hanzklein]

Can anyone recommended a particular Bible version edition?

[stlukesguild]

I think it is fine to say that the Bible is a powerful work of literature, but I also think there is some bias at play when people claim the entire thing is golden from beginning to end, anyone who has actually read it from beginning to end knows that's a lie.

Who... outside the fundamentalists... has suggested as much? Shakespeare, and Milton, and Cervantes, and Chaucer all have their less than stellar passages and more. Perhaps only Dante never falters.:biggrin5:

[mortalterror]

Who... outside the fundamentalists... has suggested as much? Shakespeare, and Milton, and Cervantes, and Chaucer all have their less than stellar passages and more. Perhaps only Dante never falters.:biggrin5:

The Divine Comedy is quite well written, but every book has it's flaws. Top of my head, Dante puts Manto in both the eighth circle of Hell(Inf. XX) and Limbo(Purg. XXII). With Homer you have Pylaimenes killed, but later being alive to witness the death of his son. Odysseus' ship changes colors. The Aeneid is full of unfinished lines and inconsistencies as James J. O'Hara points out:

In the Aeneid we read that Aeneas will have a son in old age, and that he has only three more years on earth; that Helen both openly helped the Greeks enter Troy, and (if Vergil wrote that passage) that she cowered in hiding in fear of punishment; that Aeneas' Trojan son Ascanius will be the ancestor of the Alban kings, and that his half-Italian son Silvius will be; that Theseus escaped from the underworld, and that he is still there; that the Italians were peaceful before the arrival of the Trojans and that they were warlike; that Aeneas is fighting on the side of Jupiter, and that he is like a monster fighting against Jupiter; that Palinurus fell from Aeneas' ship the day before Aeneas met him in the underworld, and that he fell three or four days before; that Aeneas will impose customs on the Italians he conquers in Italy, and that the Italians will keep their own customs; that Jupiter both predicted and forbade the war in Italy, and that he both was impartial and gave help to one side; that the golden bough will yield willingly and easily or not at all, but then that it yields only hesitantly to Aeneas.
Even the best books are prone to continuity errors. I think you'll find that Dante mixes up names, dates, and places from time to time. If you mean that the quality of his writing never dips, I would suggest that the masque in the earthly paradise was boring. Also, a few of his theological discourses in Paradise are long winded and pedantic.


In addition, I would include Genesis, Exodus, Kings I and II (especially the parts with David and Solomon), Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Ruth, and Jonah to your list, but that's just me.

Genesis has great things in it, but it's got some crummy stuff in it too. The Book of Job is beautiful without all the baggage. Besides, I can appreciate some of the structure or plotting in Genesis, while wishing parts of it had better diction, rhetoric, or imagery. All of those books you mention have nice things in them but they are full of lesser things too. It's hard to find a book of the Bible that doesn't have something noteworthy in it, but those saving graces don't always lift the rest up to greatness. Jeremiah and Corinthians are both very good, but I wouldn't call them great, at least not in comparison to The Song of Solomon or the Book of Revelations. Those books are good and the Bible doesn't fall into a simple dichotomy of good and bad. There is a scale, a range of quality throughout. But nobody is going to argue that Malachi, Zechariah, Haggai, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Timothy are the creme de la creme.


Of course, Eagelton's version is more like this: We are told what is good by the White Old Men that rule academia who learned that books X, Y, and Z are good because that was what they were told by their White Old Male Professors, who learned the same from their professors, ad nauseam. Meanwhile, the only reason we accept X, Y, and Z as good is because the White Male Professors say so. When someone questions them and they need to give reasons/justifications for X, Y, and Z being good it's because they have qualities A, B, and C. Qualities A, B, and C are considered important for because good novels like X, Y, and Z have those qualities.

If the critical consensus had stayed consistent or unanimous about Shakespeare's plays over the course of 400 years his argument would be more viable. However, major critics have knocked Hamlet, and King John used to be one of his most popular plays.

[kiki1982]

Tut. Tut. That's like saying that reading an abridged version of War & Peace is OK. What kind of literature buff would you be if you started reading abridged versions? :)

That is a misconception. The bible has no 'plot' as such, apart from a few sections with a plot (like the Book of Esther, Exodus and story of Mozes and Jacob). The Gospel of John has as much to do with the one by Matthew as Byron's Cain has to do with the few verses in Genesis about Cain and Abel. It is the same subject matter, but other execution and other purpose. As such, The Book of Kings has as much to do with Revelation as Pride and Prejudice with 1984. They are totally unconnected. War and Peace has a plot, a clear purpose. Where the bible has a clear purpose (for some people that is to say), it is not a consistent book that has a beginning and an end. Rather view it like a collection of short stories put together by a guy who knows the author's work and who wants to make a point of showing development in the latter's work. Since when are readers expected to read those stories at the same time, in order? That is ridiculous.


Of course it's valid! Did you see your favourite Sue Perkins on Saturday, Kiki? She was extolling the virtues of the corniest best sellers, in that, unlike much "serious literature", many have good plots, are easy to read, and allow people to escape from their miserable lives for a few hours. These things have value.

No, I did not watch that programm. We had more interesting things to do. It is fantastic that those books have good plots and offer people an escape. And? What do they do to world literature? I daresay they will not survive 50 years. Essentially, there have been loads more authors in history than those which are read regularly nowadays. Why did they not survive? Because the greatest amount of writing that is produced is crap. Only go to Waterstone's and have a look. I usually avoid the shelves at the beginning of the shop because it is too hard to plough through all that. Better go to the sure catches and otherwise I will hear about it.


Schopenhauer does repeat a lot, but at least much of it is worth repeating. I'm re-reading his main works with a pencil so when I re-read him again I can avoid his most boring repeats (wish I had done that the first time!)

Even though you dare to dislike Dickens I still count you as a fully paid up member of the literature buff club, kiki :)

And what makes you decide that one thing is more worth repeating than another?


I'm not arguing that easy readability is the only consideration! Brown's work is supposedly full of historical inaccuracies, and no literary critic I admire rates it at all. So I'll give it a miss.

Please, easy? Only the first page is enough to decide that it is diabolical! Annoying style, unimaginative word use, bad sentence structure, etc etc. :sick: Historical inaccuracy is a minor point. More authors have been guilty of that, but they can be excused provided they have produced a great story, properly written with some good points in it. Think of Sir Walter Scott: rivalry between Saxons and Normans at the time of Richard the Lionhearted :lol:, right... But his stories are great, though. And his style, mmm mmm. Dumas has also been guilty of minor inaccuracies. Still, great writing.
Dickens, despite his unimaginative names and bad (read: mono-dimensional) characterisation (that is my greatest problem), did write great plots, albeit a bit predictable, and has provided English lit with great inspiration and fluent writing.
His style is not absolutely the greatest though.

[JBI]

Dickens' characters are meant to be flat - they are cartoon characters and newspaper villains.

[kiki1982]

I know that they have to be that, but that cannot keep my interest. I just get bored after fifty pages at most

[keilj]

Okay, so, if I were to put together a list of the essential parts of The Bible I should read, what are they? I don't think I want to read the whole thing (even if I probably should) for the very reason that there's so much I want to read, I don't want to spend so much time on one text (again, probably flawed thinking on my part, but it is what it is).

So far, these have been listed (at least, what I saw in a "list" format):




Definitely include Romans and Hebrews. And probably include John, Acts and Corinthians

I'd probably skip Revelations - but that's just me

[keilj]

Can anyone recommended a particular Bible version edition?

King James. Or NIV if you don't like the King James

[YesNo]

King James. Or NIV if you don't like the King James
I don't think the version matters so much as the commentaries and essays that come with the version. The King James version should work as well as any other. However, there have been controversies and Christians can be quite picky on which one they use. In the good old days, you could even get burned at the stake for promoting the wrong translation. See Brian Moynaham's history God's Bestseller: http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Bestseller-Bible-Martyrdom-Betrayal/dp/0312314868

I look at the Jewish Study Bible for the Tanakh (containing books Christians call the Old Testament): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh

For the New Testament there is also the Jerusalem Bible with Catholic commentary.

I also like David Rosenberg's translation of the writings of the Yahwist (or J) as well as Harold Bloom's commentary in The Book of J.

[JCamilo]

Dickens' characters are meant to be flat - they are cartoon characters and newspaper villains.

Have you noticed that unless a character is meditative, less-action, more thought, with pages of inner monologues, it will be called here as a bad-not deep-undeveloped character and with this all the characters that are contraditory, action, arquetypical are "bad". People can be only dostoieviskian here...

[MarkBastable]

Have you noticed that unless a character is meditative, less-action, more thought, with pages of inner monologues, it will be called here as a bad-not deep-undeveloped character and with this all the characters that are contraditory, action, arquetypical are "bad". People can be only dostoieviskian here...

Slightly sarky, but I think you have a point.

I'd say Scrooge, for instance, was a well-developed, finely drawn and completely credible character.

[Alexander III]

Slightly sarky, but I think you have a point.

I'd say Scrooge, for instance, was a well-developed, finely drawn and completely credible character.

I would also add David Copperfield as an extremely well crafted character.

[mal4mac]

Can anyone recommended a particular Bible version edition?

"The 100 Minute Bible"

[Mary...]

I was wondering, what should I read? Are the versions of the Bible written to be read as literature (maybe annotated, or some such)? Also, which version should be read, barring there isn't a better, more literary inclined version? I just downloaded The Holy Bible: English Standard Version on to my Kindle, but there's also a King James version, old and new testament, and I seem to remember the King James Bible is the most widely used.

Any help on this would be great. Thanks!

While the Bible is a religious text and an important piece of literature, it is also an historical document. You will probably get more out of reading the Bible if you read it along with the Historical Atlas of the Bible

Good Luck.

[oshima]

Right now I am taking a class called "The Bible as Literature", and we use the New Oxford Annotated Third Edition (now with Apocrypha!). According to the Professor, this version is the one most widely used for academic purposes. It's quite good, Ive found. It has copious amounts of scholarly footnotes, mostly about the literary, archeological, and authorial related information. Each book comes with and introduction and there are many detailed essays and maps, including some in color at the back.

While usually I'm all for abstract arguments, comparing relatively modern authors to the bible in terms of quality is quite ridiculous, but Shakespeare and Milton!? As much as I enjoy both of those, and yes, more than the various books of the compilation we refer to as the Bible, how would there even be a Milton or a Shakespeare without the Bible? The influence on Milton and Dante are so obvious they aren't even worth discussing, but Shakespeare used a lot of material from the bible, and not just the myriads of allusions and parallels he put in his plays, but sometimes in the very core of their drama. The Merchant of Venice anyone?

[ralfyman]

I have never read the Bible, basically because I'm not Christian. Only in recent years have I come to realize that the Bible is not just a religious text, but possibly the most important piece of literature ever written, so what kind of literature buff would I be not to read it?

I was wondering, what should I read? Are the versions of the Bible written to be read as literature (maybe annotated, or some such)? Also, which version should be read, barring there isn't a better, more literary inclined version? I just downloaded The Holy Bible: English Standard Version on to my Kindle, but there's also a King James version, old and new testament, and I seem to remember the King James Bible is the most widely used.

Any help on this would be great. Thanks!

In some "Great Books" courses, the first five books are usually mentioned, some of the gospels, Psalms, Proverbs, etc. Annotated versions are always helpful, and the King James version appreciated for style. For commentaries, one can look at works by critics like Harold Bloom.

[Calidore]

In addition to the Oxford Annotated Bible mentioned above, there's also the NET Bible, which has nearly 61,000 study and translators' footnotes and is available in online or freely downloadable forms from www.bible.org.

[tonywalt]

I have not read the entire thread but recommend Proverbs for it's wisdom and Songs of Solomon for it's eloquence.

Your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, will have no conflict with the words found.

[Freudian Monkey]

The Bible certainly is a magnificent piece of literature and it should be enjoyed for it's cultural, historical and poetic value rather than only as a source of religious dogmas. However, in the recent years I've had difficulties motivating myself to read Bible, not because I'm uninterested or just plain lazy, but because I've come to realize the magnitude of knowledge required to understand these ancient writings (for instance the epistle to The Hebrews). Of course one can just read Bible through as any piece of literature, make one's own interpretations of it and just enjoy it's language and narrative beauty. However personally I would also want to be able to understand the context in which these texts were written - and this is not something one can simply figure out by himself. There are of course books dedicated to helping people with this task by providing historical and religious background knowledge, but as I said, the magnitude of work required to actually understand what you are reading often requires a degree in theology - which I don't have.

This is also the reason why in my opinion people really shouldn't read Bible as a moral guide: there is too great a risk for harmful misinterpretation.



While usually I'm all for abstract arguments, comparing relatively modern authors to the bible in terms of quality is quite ridiculous, but Shakespeare and Milton!? As much as I enjoy both of those, and yes, more than the various books of the compilation we refer to as the Bible, how would there even be a Milton or a Shakespeare without the Bible? The influence on Milton and Dante are so obvious they aren't even worth discussing, but Shakespeare used a lot of material from the bible, and not just the myriads of allusions and parallels he put in his plays, but sometimes in the very core of their drama. The Merchant of Venice anyone?

I completely agree. Even though christianity itself owns a lot to Plato and Aristotle, The Bible can still be seen as a fundamental factor in the western culture.

[chipper]

I have never read the Bible, basically because I'm not Christian. Only in recent years have I come to realize that the Bible is not just a religious text, but possibly the most important piece of literature ever written, so what kind of literature buff would I be not to read it?

I was wondering, what should I read? Are the versions of the Bible written to be read as literature (maybe annotated, or some such)? Also, which version should be read, barring there isn't a better, more literary inclined version? I just downloaded The Holy Bible: English Standard Version on to my Kindle, but there's also a King James version, old and new testament, and I seem to remember the King James Bible is the most widely used.

Any help on this would be great. Thanks!

English standard version is the easiest to understand because it is written in the modern language. King James is written in old english so it could be a bit hard to understand.

yes, it's a great source of stories.

[sethyirak_7]

Not to intrude on any of the discussions here, I have a suggestion for anyone reading the bible solely as a piece of literature. It has become something of my own "Bible" due to my infatuation with the author and the interesting insights he provides.

The book is Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine by Harold Bloom.

Anyway, it isn't a theological discussion of any kind. The entire analysis is from a literary viewpoint by a scholar of literature. Before reading, one should refresh themselves with a bit of Shakespeare, due to the fact that the author is considered the authority on Shakespeare and many of his comparisons come from the Bard.

To describe what the book is "about" would be an impossible venture for a layman such as myself, so I will just give you the first paragraph of the introduction and let you decide for yourself.

"This book centers upon three figures: a more-or-less historical person, Yeshua of Nazareth; a theological God, Jesus Christ; and a human, all-to-human God, Yahweh. That opening sentence cannot avoid sounding polemical, and yet I hope only to clarify (if I can) and not to give offense."

Just a suggestion...

[Freudian Monkey]

If someone wants to learn more about historical context of the New Testament, I encourage to watch through a Yale University video series about it; it's available on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/user/YaleCourses#p/c/279CFA55C51E75E0

[blazeofglory]

There is no historicity in the Bible. Jesus is not a historical figure the way Socrates, Aristotle, Plato and the like were though they were born about 25 hundred years ago whereas Jesus was supposedly born much later. Jesus is a mythological character. Of course from a literary lens the Bible, both testaments, is full of wisdom and interesting tales. But if we try to link the life Jesus with historical facts this becomes trash.

We are so much fooled by some biblical pundits. With that said I am just making an objective comment and I apologize if my statement hurts any believer. Everyone has the right to follow a religion.

[YesNo]

If someone wants to learn to learn more about historical evidence behind the New Testament, I encourage to watch through a Yale University video series about it; it's available on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/user/YaleCourses#p/c/279CFA55C51E75E0

Thanks for the reference to these courses. They look very good and on a variety of subjects.

[YesNo]

It has become something of my own "Bible" due to my infatuation with the author and the interesting insights he provides.

The book is Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine by Harold Bloom.


I also found Bloom impressive, specifically, his commentary in The Book of J . There he argued that the major stories of Genesis, basically all of them that we remember, were written by a female in Solomon's court. In some other text, which I can't remember at the moment, he actually identified the woman as Bathsheba, Solomon's mother.

Although I skimmed past his literary discussion of J's text, which I thought was uninteresting and inflated in its praise, the idea that J was Bathsheba stuck.


There is no historicity in the Bible. Jesus is not a historical figure the way Socrates, Aristotle, Plato and the like were though they were born about 25 hundred years ago whereas Jesus was supposedly born much later. Jesus is a mythological character. Of course from a literary lens the Bible, both testaments, is full of wisdom and interesting tales. But if we try to link the life Jesus with historical facts this becomes trash.

We are so much fooled by some biblical pundits. With that said I am just making an objective comment and I apologize if my statement hurts any believer. Everyone has the right to follow a religion.
The problem is that Jesus did not write anything down, but I don't think he was entirely mythological. I suspect he represented a real person. I would also say the same thing for the people in the Jewish Tanakh (Old Testament) from the time of David onward, unless they were clearly fictional, such as, Job. This doesn't mean that everything written about them actually happened.

[JCamilo]

Jesus Christ, Bloom book should be avoided by all cost. Is a piece of sionism, a senile babbling where he totally lost critical sense for propaganda. One must be well aware of his early works and other's criticism of bible to not fail for it. Just avoid. The very notion that J is free of angst of influence is a self-promotion non-sense. The texts of bibles do have a considerable ammount of influence of other sources.

Which leads me to: Shakespeare and Milton cann't be greater because they are under the influence of the bible? The critery of greatness is based on chronology. Without doubting that the bible has imense aesthetical merits, it is not a work free of influence. By this critery, some versions of gilgamesh would be undoubtly superior to the bible. And we should include the influence of egyptian texts, grecian, persian and roman (in the new testament, where Lucas try to draw a chronical style).

And of course, Shakespeare and Milton had other precurssors than the bible. Without Marlowe there would be no Shakespeare. So, Shakespeare could not surpass Marlowe and the bible? Dante have several other precussors, which one he didnt surpass? And who considers Amaridis, Tyrant Lo Blanc or Lazarillo Tomes superior to Cervantes and Quixote? It is always possible to own something to someone and surpass them. It is the game, and Shakespeare did once or while reggarding the bible, Milton's Paradise lost and some small poems (Lycidas for example), Cervantes Quixote, Moby Dick, etc all managed to stand up and look the Bible on the face.

Socrates and Jesus are very similar in many aspects.

[YesNo]

Jesus Christ, Bloom book should be avoided by all cost. Is a piece of sionism, a senile babbling where he totally lost critical sense for propaganda. One must be well aware of his early works and other's criticism of bible to not fail for it. Just avoid. The very notion that J is free of angst of influence is a self-promotion non-sense. The texts of bibles do have a considerable ammount of influence of other sources.

Which leads me to: Shakespeare and Milton cann't be greater because they are under the influence of the bible? The critery of greatness is based on chronology. Without doubting that the bible has imense aesthetical merits, it is not a work free of influence. By this critery, some versions of gilgamesh would be undoubtly superior to the bible. And we should include the influence of egyptian texts, grecian, persian and roman (in the new testament, where Lucas try to draw a chronical style).

And of course, Shakespeare and Milton had other precurssors than the bible. Without Marlowe there would be no Shakespeare. So, Shakespeare could not surpass Marlowe and the bible? Dante have several other precussors, which one he didnt surpass? And who considers Amaridis, Tyrant Lo Blanc or Lazarillo Tomes superior to Cervantes and Quixote? It is always possible to own something to someone and surpass them. It is the game, and Shakespeare did once or while reggarding the bible, Milton's Paradise lost and some small poems (Lycidas for example), Cervantes Quixote, Moby Dick, etc all managed to stand up and look the Bible on the face.

Socrates and Jesus are very similar in many aspects.
I didn't understand the issue of "influence" that Bloom raised, although I recall the idea being presented. Since it didn't make any sense to me, I ignored it. Perhaps I was also thinking he was "babbling". :)

However, I don't see Bloom promoting Zionism, but I have only read a few of his writings. So I don't really know.

What do you think of Bloom's claim that the J contribution to Genesis was written by a female?

[JCamilo]

There is blatant Zionism. Do you remember for example, when he uses another researcher that presents a number that majority of Muslims were against terrorism (the issue of suicide-bomb) and he just, for no reason : but of course they all (in sense of majority) approves terrorism. There is also the insistence that Yavewh is original. It is not. His transformations in the bible are more due the influence of external cultures than originality. Bloom knows well the majority of the texts were fixed during the babylonian exile, he know the influence of alexandria library copists, the know the platonism. Also, his attempt to turn any of the gospel as non jewish - the only close to it is Luke - is funny. There is the birth of catholic anti-semitism in John, but it was born inside jewish mindiset. It is more a result of a split than usurpation. (Albeit, in Bloom originaly, usurpation is not something negative, but in this book, he do seems a bit *****y about the Mathew and John usurpation, which is nothing but brilliant). It is rather obvious, the idea of Jesus-god is jewish, not catholic, but he seems to admit only the absent god idea. (I would say there is more, but the book is so bad that I wont return to it so soon)

As J. I dunno what is the point of Bloom. Is he aiming to market? Early oral literature are born in female societies, so that is what he may say, but I never saw him giving any exaplantion to it. Which make me think if it is not some of bloom jewish misticism, disguised with the notion of genesis being written by god's wisdow, which is female... By any means, Iliad was written by a girl named H.

As Influence: the central idea of Bloom is how to explain how literature influences are the mechanism of creation. In a simple way: by pressure you both admire your precussor and wants to be superior to it. The great artist is the one who manages to overcome both and create something remarkable. I would say he is not different from Eliot as much and it is in much aspects, a freudian reading of literature. In this case, he transform Yaweh in a creator, free of pressure from a precussor, which is absolutelly ridiculous. It goes well for some artists when you think of competition and can tolerate the idea Freud was right.

[YesNo]

I do think Bloom is unconsciously promoting his Jewish heritage, but probably no more than a Christian would promote the same stories for similar reasons. Both would give Genesis a higher rating than, say, the Ramayana simply because they culturally value it more. That wouldn't make him a Zionist, which I think would be a member of a political movement, but he might be for all I know.

I don't agree with Bloom's influence theory, so I won't defend it.

The only point Bloom made that I find useful is the idea that J was female. In retrospect, much of Genesis makes sense with that in mind.

As one example, consider the story where Sarah and Pharaoh have their affair (Genesis 12:10-20). I don't see why Abraham would ask his wife to pretend to be his sister only when they reached Egypt. Why not before? Why do it at all? Why would he tolerate Pharaoh taking his wife without objection? It doesn't make sense. Also, of the three characters, Abraham, Pharaoh and Sarah, only Sarah is portrayed as blameless. I don't see this as a story that a man would write.

[BienvenuJDC]

There is no historicity in the Bible. Jesus is not a historical figure the way Socrates, Aristotle, Plato and the like were though they were born about 25 hundred years ago whereas Jesus was supposedly born much later. Jesus is a mythological character. Of course from a literary lens the Bible, both testaments, is full of wisdom and interesting tales. But if we try to link the life Jesus with historical facts this becomes trash.

We are so much fooled by some biblical pundits. With that said I am just making an objective comment and I apologize if my statement hurts any believer. Everyone has the right to follow a religion.

There is more historical documentation for Jesus Christ than there is Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, or the like. Would you care to document your statement? I don't understand how you can make such statements, since there is not only the Biblical accounts, but also the many writings of the early church fathers (who were some eyewitnesses and 2nd person witnesses). There are just too many manuscripts to discount Jesus as mythological.

I'm not going to argue this, for it is futile. But if one is going to consider the Bible even only as literature, I think that the historical considerations ought to be given more value.

[JCamilo]

Well, when I mention zionism is not the political group, but zionism also implies in this short of international jewish nationalism, which Bloom is guilty to some extreme (being him, an humanist, he obviously does not engage in extreme acts, but the comment about all muslims approving suicide bombers is pure racism and hatred. Unconcious or not).

Well, we would first adimit J. If we do, there is also many patriarchal and not so feminist parts. Also J, didnt wrote it all, part of it (If I am not mistaken the part you mention is not J's.) was made. And anyways, he would register - not create - many stories. What Bloom point is a creative mind to register the stories, not to generate it. I am not sure why he thinks it need to be a woman, didnt read the book where he explains it, but to me it is pointless to consider the genre of made up creator, from texts where every reckon was altered and registered long after it.
One coudl easily argue, Homer from Odyssey is a woman (Buttler does) because part of present as perfect woman.

[G L Wilson]

With a talking donkey and unicorns, the Bible is a fun book. This is an opinion.

[G L Wilson]

Understood completely, the Bible is a revolutionary text.

[blazeofglory]

The Bible cannot be a piece of literature save its beautiful language. The language of the Bible is polished and refined and has been made elegant yet the depth of literature is lacking in this book. I hardly read the Bible for its literature.

[G L Wilson]

Understood completely, the Bible is a revolutionary text.

You are your brother's keeper - what is more revolutionary?

[TheChilly]

I have never read the Bible, basically because I'm not Christian. Only in recent years have I come to realize that the Bible is not just a religious text, but possibly the most important piece of literature ever written, so what kind of literature buff would I be not to read it?

I was wondering, what should I read? Are the versions of the Bible written to be read as literature (maybe annotated, or some such)? Also, which version should be read, barring there isn't a better, more literary inclined version? I just downloaded The Holy Bible: English Standard Version on to my Kindle, but there's also a King James version, old and new testament, and I seem to remember the King James Bible is the most widely used.

Any help on this would be great. Thanks!


In my case, I see the Bible as more of a very, very significant work of literature. In the case of religious text, eh (and this is coming from a Catholic).

[blazeofglory]

The Bible is a book of religion and teachings only. There are sermons, proverbs and all the rest of stuffs. I find them really dull and uninteresting. But it is in the garb of beautiful English and simply language alone cannot make it literature and literature cannot be reduced to religious junks

[m2vihand]

I read Bible everyday as a Christian. I tried the English version, but that was too hard for me! It is very good book, and I say that if somebody wants literature, they can get it from Bible, though the purpose of Bible is not being amazing literally, but being the Word of God.

[Arrowni]

Understood completely, the Bible is a revolutionary text.

This.


You have to wonder how it ended up being the center of one of the most conservative groups ever.

[G L Wilson]

This.


You have to wonder how it ended up being the center of one of the most conservative groups ever.

Conservatism in itself is pretty radical. You don't find a great deal of love for it on the other side.

[prickly_pete]

Conservatism in itself is pretty radical.

Yep. There's nothing about rapid economic and technological expansions thats conservative.

[Arrowni]

Conservatism in itself is pretty radical. You don't find a great deal of love for it on the other side.

That's an interesting way to put it, yes, conservatism is radical, but revolution cannot be static which leads to different issues when it comes to put real actions "into speech". I'd argue that prior to St. Paul's letters catholicism was much more flexible because it was much less a matter of speech and much more a matter of community; you can argue that it would've dissapeared if it didn't thrive for universality through speech, but you can also argue that it already dissapeared since it's sensible reality became absolutely impaired because of the fixed ideology. I guess the real problem, in the end, is that religion is politics.

[ralfyman]

Jesus Christ, Bloom book should be avoided by all cost. Is a piece of sionism, a senile babbling where he totally lost critical sense for propaganda. One must be well aware of his early works and other's criticism of bible to not fail for it. Just avoid. The very notion that J is free of angst of influence is a self-promotion non-sense. The texts of bibles do have a considerable ammount of influence of other sources.

Which leads me to: Shakespeare and Milton cann't be greater because they are under the influence of the bible? The critery of greatness is based on chronology. Without doubting that the bible has imense aesthetical merits, it is not a work free of influence. By this critery, some versions of gilgamesh would be undoubtly superior to the bible. And we should include the influence of egyptian texts, grecian, persian and roman (in the new testament, where Lucas try to draw a chronical style).

And of course, Shakespeare and Milton had other precurssors than the bible. Without Marlowe there would be no Shakespeare. So, Shakespeare could not surpass Marlowe and the bible? Dante have several other precussors, which one he didnt surpass? And who considers Amaridis, Tyrant Lo Blanc or Lazarillo Tomes superior to Cervantes and Quixote? It is always possible to own something to someone and surpass them. It is the game, and Shakespeare did once or while reggarding the bible, Milton's Paradise lost and some small poems (Lycidas for example), Cervantes Quixote, Moby Dick, etc all managed to stand up and look the Bible on the face.

Socrates and Jesus are very similar in many aspects.

If you are looking for Biblical commentaries, then avoid Bloom. If you are looking for critics who read the Bible as literature, however, then do the opposite.

My understanding is that Bloom uses various "critery" to determine "greatness," and the anxiety of influence is only one. Other critics will define "greatness" using other criteria and will face similar complaints: they only insist on "propaganda," there's no such thing as "greatness" because there of "precussors," etc.

[ralfyman]

The Bible is a book of religion and teachings only. There are sermons, proverbs and all the rest of stuffs. I find them really dull and uninteresting. But it is in the garb of beautiful English and simply language alone cannot make it literature and literature cannot be reduced to religious junks

It's actually a collection of books from various cultures and contain all sorts of "stuffs." They should be found "dull and interesting" by some readers in the same way that opposing works should also be found the same. They were also not written in "beautiful English," although I cannot comment further as I cannot understand the last sentence of your post.

[dwdean]

if you want to read it for entertainment, i'd say check out the OT. there are some fantastical stories of "bible greats" such as David, Solomon, Daniel, Job, Esther, etc etc... Also, some say that the character of God is best displayed in the OT.
The NT shows the life of Christ, however, and i would say that everyman, christian or otherwise, should be familiar with that.

[WICKES]

I have never read the Bible, basically because I'm not Christian. Only in recent years have I come to realize that the Bible is not just a religious text, but possibly the most important piece of literature ever written, so what kind of literature buff would I be not to read it?

I was wondering, what should I read? Are the versions of the Bible written to be read as literature (maybe annotated, or some such)? Also, which version should be read, barring there isn't a better, more literary inclined version? I just downloaded The Holy Bible: English Standard Version on to my Kindle, but there's also a King James version, old and new testament, and I seem to remember the King James Bible is the most widely used.

Any help on this would be great. Thanks!

If you want to read the Bible as literature you MUST read the King James version. This translation came out of an England in the middle of a literary renaissance. Shakespeare was still writing in London when it was written there. There is a passage in McEwan's Saturday in which the young daughter destined for Oxford is advised

"Shakespeare, Milton and the King James Bible...these are the sources of all good English verse and prose"

[Theunderground]

Having just read the new testament i will give credit to its minmalist,concise and clear manner. Not 'novelistic',homeric or wordy. I was even inspired by some of the moving passages. But the contradictions and tribal fantastic mentality of the disciples was cultish. And Jesus,well sorry to say though he has a great deal of good to say,he also comes across as dogmatic,idealistic and subversive. (not to mention narcissistic.) No offense to anyone,but boy its a seductive text calling to a cult basically. Religion is scary stuff at this level.

[freemovietag]

Yep. There is nothing about rapid economic and technological expansions thats conservative.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I just started reading The Bible. I couldn't choose if I wanted to read the King James Version or the English Standard Version. After reading the first 5 chapters of Genesis in each, I chose the English Standard Version. I ultimately found it easier to understand by making the language a little clearer. I also think that even though they tinker with the language a bit, it isn't so much so that it takes away from the feel of the KJV. I just understand what is actually going on better, and it has footnotes. I might go back and read my favorite books in the KJV.

I'm going to try and read all of it by 2014 (I'll be reading it off-and-on, obviously).

[Pierre Menard]

I also hope to read The Bible in full over the next couple of years. Almost bought the King James version the other day but decided I might work my way through the 30 odd unstarted books I have on my shelf first.


I'd be curious to know which books end up being your favourite, Mutatis.

[RetsixArp]

Well, I just started reading The Bible. I couldn't choose if I wanted to read the King James Version or the English Standard Version. After reading the first 5 chapters of Genesis in each, I chose the English Standard Version. I ultimately found it easier to understand by making the language a little clearer. ...If you can afford it, I'd recommend getting an unabridged audiobook (if available) of whatever version you read.

One of the reasons I, deep in middle age, finally read the Bible, as it says, "throughly" was because of a devotional my mother'd given me years ago. I read it daily but was finding way too many contradictions: keep away from people, go to people; works are good, works don't matter.

I bought a 60+ CD set of the KJV (because I'd had a copy of it for ages), but it was another 2+ yr B4 I began listening to it on my commute. Yes, there are contradictions (God is forever threatening to destroy Egypt in the O.T., but you'll notice it's still there when Joseph & Mary need to escape the wrath of Herod), but 4 me, it's really only reading it after hearing it that brings the true force of it words home: & I do mean words & NOT message, because the Bible is the origin of countless standard slogans & sayings.

[BienvenuJDC]

When you read the Psalms...use the King James Version...just for its poetic qualities.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've actually been reading the KJV a bit more than the ESV. I'll occasionally switch to the ESV if I'm a bit unclear on something. Just doing more comparing, I like the language of the KJV a lot more, even if the two aren't that different.

[OrphanPip]

The Song of Songs in the KJV is great too.

[stlukesguild]

The KJV is probably the best English translation in literary terms of the entire Bible... but the Psalms were recognized as somewhat lacking right from the start. Only a few of them work well as great poetry... most obviously Psalm 23. The Psalms are poetry... but in the KJV they read mostly like prose... albeit very beautiful... even poetic prose. A good many English poets took on the challenge of translating the Psalms into English poetry: Philip and Mary Sidney, Milton, Christopher Smart, etc... I would very much recommend The Poet's Book of Psalms, edited by Laurance Wieder, which collects many of the finest translations of the Psalms by poets from the 16th to the 20th century. The Hebrew scholar/translator, Robert Alter has produced a number of very strong translations of texts from the Hebrew Bible which capture many of the elements of the original lost in translation. I also recommend his translation of the Psalms: The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. Of course I would (and have) also read the KJV.

[stlukesguild]

The Song of Songs in the KJV is great too.

Yes... most of the modern attempts at translation that I have read attempt to free up the eroticism of the poetry... and end up slipping into crude vulgarity. One exception is The Song of Songs translated by Ariel Bloch & Chana Bloch with afterword by Robert Alter and forward by Stephen Mitchell.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Quick question: why does God have such a hatred of "unleavened bread"?

Also, how many here have read the English Standard Version?

[BienvenuJDC]

Quick question: why does God have such a hatred of "unleavened bread"?

Also, how many here have read the English Standard Version?

Why do you think that God hates unleavened bread?

I use it as a study aid occasionally.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I have no clue. Something to do with yeast? I don't know. A.so, I think I got it backwards. He hate leavened bread, right? Now I'm more confused.

[BienvenuJDC]

Go back to the Exodus from Egypt. They didn't have time to wait for their bread to rise...they were in a hurry to leave. There is also symbolism in the purity of unleavened bread, since leavening contains a byproduct (waste) from the yeast.

[ZTay]

Would just like to point out that the Bible absolutely was NOT written as literature or for entertainment. There is a clear sense that the writers were not just documenting a series of events but chronicling something awe-inspiring. Christ is not just a man or a community leader but the son of God and he is that expressly. I think the compromise made by reading it as if it were Homer or something is a product of your inability to see and accept the bible for what it is and makes your entire reading of the book and your take from it insincere and vain. That goes for the lot of you and not just the first poster.

[BienvenuJDC]

Don't assume that everyone here reads the Bible merely for literary purposes. I agree with you sentiments, ZTay. I have devoted every bit of my purpose to what I have read in the Bible.

[OrphanPip]

Would just like to point out that the Bible absolutely was NOT written as literature or for entertainment. There is a clear sense that the writers were not just documenting a series of events but chronicling something awe-inspiring. Christ is not just a man or a community leader but the son of God and he is that expressly. I think the compromise made by reading it as if it were Homer or something is a product of your inability to see and accept the bible for what it is and makes your entire reading of the book and your take from it insincere and vain. That goes for the lot of you and not just the first poster.

Some of us just don't care about the Bible beyond its role as a literary and historical text. Boo hoo, it's not a compromise, it's a different set of priorities from yours.

[namenlose]

Would just like to point out that the Bible absolutely was NOT written as literature or for entertainment. There is a clear sense that the writers were not just documenting a series of events but chronicling something awe-inspiring. Christ is not just a man or a community leader but the son of God and he is that expressly. I think the compromise made by reading it as if it were Homer or something is a product of your inability to see and accept the bible for what it is and makes your entire reading of the book and your take from it insincere and vain. That goes for the lot of you and not just the first poster.

Hello, ZTay.
I agree with you about the point that The Bible was written as something more than literature, but I would also judge it as literature nonetheless. Poets like Milton and Blake for instance read The Bible as both literature and religious text, and books like Psalms clearly have poetic purposes. Also, can’t literature be awe-inspiring? The objective of literature is not to generate a strict kind of entertainment, but rather to affect the reader in some way. Moreover, Homer and the three great tragic dramatists were not exactly removed from religion, and their works were inclined rather to inspire awe than to entertain in the modern sense.

I don’t think someone who reads The Bible as literature would necessarily think of Christ just as a man or a community leader. In the context of the work, he is indeed the son of God, so the best way to read the Gospels would be to read them as if they were the revelation of the son of God, even if this person does not believe in it. I understand your sentiments about the book, but I think your claims about others' readings of it are rather unfair. A Jewish person could argue that your way of reading The Bible is insincere and vain and expresses your inability to see it as what it is. His sentiment would not be incomprehensible, since the New Testament represents nothing to his people, and the claim that his sacred writings were primarily a preparation to the coming of Jesus may even sound offensive.

The western tradition is deeply rooted in The Bible, and studying it also as literature is not exactly a form of banalizing the elevated nature of the work. A non-believer reader of the scriptures may even find some spiritual experience in them, notwithstanding his lack of faith. Our reality is one of uncertainty, and the ways to affect one's inward world are varied and not completely strict or comprehended. Were not the Mahabharata and the Vedas respected by many christian writers as beautiful spiritual works, even if their faith was distinct to the expressed in these books?

I don't believe we have to be limited to our beliefs when studying something. As OrphanPip said, many may come to The Bible simply because of its historic and literary importance — which is difficult to ignore —, while others certainly will come to it because of its essentiality to their faith. If someone reads the book passionately and takes something great from it, even though this person does not believe in the faith it expresses, who could say his passion is not legitimate or sincere? Sorry if I sounded offensive in any way.

[Pierre Menard]

Would just like to point out that the Bible absolutely was NOT written as literature or for entertainment. There is a clear sense that the writers were not just documenting a series of events but chronicling something awe-inspiring. Christ is not just a man or a community leader but the son of God and he is that expressly. I think the compromise made by reading it as if it were Homer or something is a product of your inability to see and accept the bible for what it is and makes your entire reading of the book and your take from it insincere and vain. That goes for the lot of you and not just the first poster.


Your priorities for reading the Bible are simply different to those of others. There's no religious significance to a lot of us, there is however a profound literary significance, which is telling by how many writers it has influenced and how the general mythical make-up of The Bible has continued to form our art over time. It's of immense literary importance, and a number of us are interested in it from that perspective.

[JCamilo]

It is funny, because apparently the oral storytelling from where the bible was created is rather funny for kids listening to it. There is registers among non-urban groups that passages of the bibles were told and people laughed. Imagine that.

Imagine, literature writen as not literature. Magic indeed.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Thanks for the explanation, Bien.


Would just like to point out that the Bible absolutely was NOT written as literature or for entertainment. There is a clear sense that the writers were not just documenting a series of events but chronicling something awe-inspiring. Christ is not just a man or a community leader but the son of God and he is that expressly. I think the compromise made by reading it as if it were Homer or something is a product of your inability to see and accept the bible for what it is and makes your entire reading of the book and your take from it insincere and vain. That goes for the lot of you and not just the first poster.

Right. My refusal to blindly follow all the stories in the bible make my reading "insincere and vain." I actually think my reading will be much clearer than yours, ZTay, because my reading won't be clouded by blind subservience--I can recognize the flaws, which there are obvious ones (lots of repetition, just in the first two books, and all those sections on genealogy--doesn't get much more tedious than that!). I, and many others, will read it as a piece of literature. Try getting off your pedestal, and deal with it.

As to how I see Christ in the bible? A fictional character in a fictional book, albeit a good one.

(Also, should the conversation devolve in such a way, I'd just like to point out that it was not an atheist who first bashed Christians [i.e., the "vain and insincere" comment--don't tell me that wasn't supposed to be insulting]--remember that if you decide to start up the "atheists are such bullies to Christians on here!" whine-a-thon.)

[lichtrausch]

Would just like to point out that the Bible absolutely was NOT written as literature or for entertainment. There is a clear sense that the writers were not just documenting a series of events but chronicling something awe-inspiring. Christ is not just a man or a community leader but the son of God and he is that expressly. I think the compromise made by reading it as if it were Homer or something is a product of your inability to see and accept the bible for what it is and makes your entire reading of the book and your take from it insincere and vain. That goes for the lot of you and not just the first poster.
How can those of us who aren't Christian possibly read the Bible in this way? To me the Bible is a collection of myths, to be judged by the same standards as other works of fiction.

[Yankee]

I have never read the Bible, basically because I'm not Christian. Only in recent years have I come to realize that the Bible is not just a religious text, but possibly the most important piece of literature ever written, so what kind of literature buff would I be not to read it?

I was wondering, what should I read? Are the versions of the Bible written to be read as literature (maybe annotated, or some such)? Also, which version should be read, barring there isn't a better, more literary inclined version? I just downloaded The Holy Bible: English Standard Version on to my Kindle, but there's also a King James version, old and new testament, and I seem to remember the King James Bible is the most widely used.

Any help on this would be great. Thanks!

My advice is to first read a paraphrase translation of the Bible. Here is a short list of such translations: Click here (https://www.olivetree.com/resources/bibles/paraphrasedtranslations.php)

Note: I am not a Christian either but I have read the Bible on more than one occasion.

-

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Thanks, Yankee, though I think I'm sticking to the KJV and ESV.

[cacian]

Go back to the Exodus from Egypt. They didn't have time to wait for their bread to rise...they were in a hurry to leave. There is also symbolism in the purity of unleavened bread, since leavening contains a byproduct (waste) from the yeast.

Hi BienvenuJDC
How is bread pure because it is unleavened?
Bread is not bread if it is not leavend surely.
Yeast is natural how is that not pure?

[cacian]

My advice is to first read a paraphrase translation of the Bible. Here is a short list of such translations: Click here (https://www.olivetree.com/resources/bibles/paraphrasedtranslations.php)

Note: I am not a Christian either but I have read the Bible on more than one occasion.

-

Why did you read the bible?
Were you doing research?

[YesNo]

My advice is to first read a paraphrase translation of the Bible.
-

I think I agree. I have only read about 10% of the Jewish Tanakh or half of the Christian New Testament. To avoid wasting my time on personal misreadings, I pick an edition that has commentaries such as The Jewish Study Bible or the Catholic Jerusalem Bible. Also, I usually have to have some additional motivation. Yesterday I picked up Harold S. Kushner's The Book of Job: When Bad Things Happened to a Good Person. Although I have read Job before, I haven't read it with Kushner's commentary nearby.

I hopefully approach these religious texts with the same respect that I would approach the Bhagavad Gita or the Dhammapada.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Why did you read the bible?
Were you doing research?

Why does he need a reason other than he wanted to? I love some people's reaction: "You're not a Christian? Why would you ever read the bible?"

[Drkshadow03]

Why did you read the bible?
Were you doing research?

Enjoyment?

[stlukesguild]

I think I agree. I have only read about 10% of the Jewish Tanakh or half of the Christian New Testament. To avoid wasting my time on personal misreadings, I pick an edition that has commentaries such as The Jewish Study Bible or the Catholic Jerusalem Bible.

This makes no sense whatsoever to me. How is reading the Bible rather than some collection of commentaries of the Cliff Notes "a waste of time" any more than reading War and Peace, Les Miserables, The Odyssey, or In Search of Lost Time?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think I agree. I have only read about 10% of the Jewish Tanakh or half of the Christian New Testament. To avoid wasting my time on personal misreadings, I pick an edition that has commentaries such as The Jewish Study Bible or the Catholic Jerusalem Bible.

This makes no sense whatsoever to me. How is reading the Bible rather than some collection of commentaries of the Cliff Notes "a waste of time" any more than reading War and Peace, Les Miserables, The Odyssey, or In Search of Lost Time?

I agree. Reading a "paraphrasing" or essentially a cliff notes version of something seems a waste of time. So what if you make personal misreadings? I'm not even sure what that means, or if it's even possible--I think the very phrase "personal misreading" may be a sort of oxymoron. If I want to read the Bible, I'm going to read the Bible, whether it's one translation or another. I will, undoubtedly, not "get" all of it, or maybe even most of it. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy the language, or or enjoy what I *do* get (along with what I don't get). I can tell you one thing for sure, though: I'd much rather read it and make my own judgements, no matter how flawed, than read someone else's possibly flawed judgements.

In any case, I think it'd be much more appropriate to read the actual source material, then read a paraphrasing. I've done that on several occasions with difficult texts.

[Yankee]

I read everything! I am a true book worm.

[BienvenuJDC]

Hi BienvenuJDC
How is bread pure because it is unleavened?
Bread is not bread if it is not leavend surely.
Yeast is natural how is that not pure?

The leavening process is the action of an organism giving off a waste product. The rising of bread is the CO2 from yeast. The fermentation process is alike...alcohol is basically yeast pee and the bubbles are the exhalation of yeast. The unleavened bread doesn't have the organism.

[YesNo]

This makes no sense whatsoever to me. How is reading the Bible rather than some collection of commentaries of the Cliff Notes "a waste of time" any more than reading War and Peace, Les Miserables, The Odyssey, or In Search of Lost Time?

It might be a waste of time as well. It depends on the commentary. If someone with a missionary zeal against the text wrote the commentary, I would have to think twice about using it as a guide to reading the text.

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, the commentary should be read with the text and not in place of it.

Part of the reason to use a commentary with these old religious texts is the same reason some people find literary criticism valuable in giving them insights into the texts. Another part of the reason is that these texts have a long history of admirers. I would like to get up-to-date as quickly as possible. That usually involves getting a sympathetic commentary on the text to guide me through it. Another reason is that I often find the commentary itself more interesting that the original text. It motivates me to look at the original.

[cacian]

The question that comes to mind is this:
Is the bible a safe place to be?
I find it quite heavy on the intellectual side.

[cacian]

Enjoyment?

Ah. I did not think there was anything cheerful about the bible.
It is all doom and gloom.
The first place to learn about distruction killing feuds and deceptions and then there is hell.
I found the bible somber and twisted in a lot of places.
I would not describe it as a place of enjoyment mysefl. I feel it is predominantly scary. That is my opinion of it.
Sorry I do not mean disrespectful but everytime I read something about the bible I find there is at least a kiliing of some sort. Not vey nice.

[cacian]

The leavening process is the action of an organism giving off a waste product. The rising of bread is the CO2 from yeast. The fermentation process is alike...alcohol is basically yeast pee and the bubbles are the exhalation of yeast. The unleavened bread doesn't have the organism.

What about beer and yeast? I thought it was to with wheet which contains yeast which is a goodness rather an inlleness.

[YesNo]

The question that comes to mind is this:
Is the bible a safe place to be?
I find it quite heavy on the intellectual side.

My daughter has been encouraging me to watch The Hunger Games. She wanted to see it again and get my reaction to it. She has also read the whole Suzanne Collin's trilogy. I don't know what this is like as literature, but as far as a movie goes, the dystopia described in the novels does not seem like a safe place to be either, but people enjoy it nonetheless. We watched it a couple evenings ago and I thought the movie was good.

One also reads these religious texts because their admirers say that there is more to them than just a good story. Although, there is likely more to a good story than a good story as well, this is part of the attraction.

In the case of these Judeo-Christian texts, they present the universe as good with a God, perceived differently than some eastern God-within, who loves them as a community and as individuals in spite of all the "faithlessness" of the community of believers. I'm reading Kushner's The Book of Job now and based on this commentary, I see the text now as two texts, the "fable" in chapters 1, 2 and 42 which may have been taken from other older stories from different cultures and the "poem" which is the part in the middle. If that is all I get out of the commentary, it will have been well worth reading.

[Drkshadow03]

Ah. I did not think there was anything cheerful about the bible.
It is all doom and gloom.
The first place to learn about distruction killing feuds and deceptions and then there is hell.
I found the bible somber and twisted in a lot of places.
I would not describe it as a place of enjoyment mysefl. I feel it is predominantly scary. That is my opinion of it.
Sorry I do not mean disrespectful but everytime I read something about the bible I find there is at least a kiliing of some sort. Not vey nice.

I didn't mean enjoyment in that way and it might have been a poor choice of words on my part. I meant it more in the sense of entertainment and intellectual stimulation. I find the Bible endlessly interesting on an aesthetic and story level and, yes, I always do feel more "spiritual" or at least more connected to my roots and G-d after I read it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Ah. I did not think there was anything cheerful about the bible.
It is all doom and gloom.
The first place to learn about distruction killing feuds and deceptions and then there is hell.
I found the bible somber and twisted in a lot of places.
I would not describe it as a place of enjoyment mysefl. I feel it is predominantly scary. That is my opinion of it.
Sorry I do not mean disrespectful but everytime I read something about the bible I find there is at least a kiliing of some sort. Not vey nice.
Ah, yes. We must all remember--when cacian doesn't find enjoyment in something, no one else will, either.

[BienvenuJDC]

You obviously haven't read the 23rd Psalm, Song of Solomon, Proverbs, or the many exciting adventurous passages.


Ah. I did not think there was anything cheerful about the bible.
It is all doom and gloom.
The first place to learn about distruction killing feuds and deceptions and then there is hell.
I found the bible somber and twisted in a lot of places.
I would not describe it as a place of enjoyment mysefl. I feel it is predominantly scary. That is my opinion of it.
Sorry I do not mean disrespectful but everytime I read something about the bible I find there is at least a kiliing of some sort. Not vey nice.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You obviously haven't read the 23rd Psalm, Song of Solomon, Proverbs, or the many exciting adventurous passages.

:lol:

[cacian]

You obviously haven't read the 23rd Psalm, Song of Solomon, Proverbs, or the many exciting adventurous passages.

Ay. There is the twist you see full of love lillies and wine and this most enchanting:
''I am dark but beautiful''

[BienvenuJDC]

But if you are referring to the parts of the Bible that are merely reflecting the historical accounts, then how is that different than EVERY other historical account of war, life, and reality? When you get to the New Testament, it's merely the account and instruction of the new church in the midst of persecution. So it seems to me that it isn't a dark book after all, but a book with a new refreshing perspective.


Ay. There is the twist you see full of love lillies and wine and this most enchanting:
''I am dark but beautiful''

[Jassy Melson]

The problem with reading and/or studying the Bible as literature is that the writers of the Bible did not consider their writing as literature--or attempts at writing literature. They believed they were writing true accounts of events that had taken place. They had no conception of literature.

[Anton Hermes]

The problem with reading and/or studying the Bible as literature is that the writers of the Bible did not consider their writing as literature--or attempts at writing literature. They believed they were writing true accounts of events that had taken place. They had no conception of literature.

I doubt that's accurate. In fact, I doubt they had any notion that we could ever discover or understand what the "true" causes of natural phenomena are. Scripture and mythology exist to interpret phenomena using symbols that resonate in the community.

[OrphanPip]

The problem with reading and/or studying the Bible as literature is that the writers of the Bible did not consider their writing as literature--or attempts at writing literature. They believed they were writing true accounts of events that had taken place. They had no conception of literature.

How could they have no conception of literature? The only way that could be possible is if they were a pre-literate society. Besides, it is easy to identify consciously literary choices in the text, like The Song of Songs. Moreover, it is quite likely that the authors of the Bible would not have perceived there to be a clear break between the literary, the historical, and the theological. Ancient theology would be more inclined towards an argument that the beauty, or as we might say the literary qualities, of the text is part of the religious argument, as beauty is transcendent and comes from God.

[JCamilo]

Imagine, if there is a problem reading the bible as literature, reading Homer then is impossible :D

[Jassy Melson]

I should clarify what I stated when I said "They had no conception of literature." The writers of the Bible were not concerned with literature. They were writing accounts of things they felt had happened and that were true. The writers of the Bible were intelligent enough to know how to effectively write well. But to their way of thinkling they weren't writing literature. They believed they were writing fact.

[stlukesguild]

Jassy Melson- I should clarify what I stated when I said "They had no conception of literature." The writers of the Bible were not concerned with literature. They were writing accounts of things they felt had happened and that were true. The writers of the Bible were intelligent enough to know how to effectively write well. But to their way of thinkling they weren't writing literature. They believed they were writing fact.

That may be true of some of the Biblical writers... but certainly not all. The Song of Solomon, was modeled on Greek and Persian examples of pastoral poetry. Vast sections of the narratives from the Pentateuch and the Solomon/Saul/David history may be thought of as not far different in intent from Homer's epics. The Bible is a collection of books by authors with different intentions... including the creation of what we think of as literature.

Yet even if we accept the fundamentalist position that the Bible had a sole "author" (God) and the intent was religious/spiritual revelation, how is that at all relevant to whether the work can be judged as a work of literature? The contemporary concept of "Art" and the "Artist" would have been unknown to the individuals who painted the caves at Lascaux or Altamira... and just as foreign to most of the painters, scribes, sculptors, and other artisans of the Middle-Ages. They would not have seen themselves as "artists" let alone "creators"... a concept almost blasphemous as only God could "create". They would have thought of themselves merely as the tools through which God expressed himself. Nor would they have thought of their work as "Art" but rather as a form of praise to God... a beautification and glorification of God's word or the church... a giving voice to the Christian narratives...

But surely we still can look at these as ART:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_decoration3_large.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=decoration3_large.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_39499-IMG_1117p.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=39499-IMG_1117p.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_lindis2_zps5f493729.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=lindis2_zps5f493729.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_tangere.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=tangere.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_080697a.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=080697a.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_ChartresCathedralWindo.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=ChartresCathedralWindo.jpg)

[Corona]

To start with, pardon my poor English!
I'm not truly an expert on this matter, but I'll tell my opinion nonetheless.
I think there should be no problems reading the Bible as literature although the authors probably planned it not to be "literature". But what about, eg, "The Song of Songs"? Are we really sure it was meant to be a religious book at all?
Also, the fact the authors depicted the events to be true doesn't mean people who read them HAD to take those writings as factual: how many novels have you read in which the writer beforehand states the facts presented in the book to be absolute truth? And yet modern readers aren't supposed to take the facts as absolute truth!
If we speculate about the original intensions of an author - admitting we always can! - then we shouldn't be reading a lot of classics which were not intended to be literature at all!
So, the whole problem is this: WHAT can be considered literature and what is not literature? And, of course, how much the author's intentions comes into play when discussing this. What is literature and what is not?
As a student of italian literature it amazed me to see how many book one wouldn't rank as literature are studied as if they were books of literature! Take N.Machiavelli's "The Prince" or Galileo Galilei's "Dialogue": although being classified respectevily as political or scientific essays, they are studied as literature!
The same argoment could be used when describing Dante's Commedia: not unlike, it's universally claimed as great literature but who is to say Dante didn't consider it to be a work one has to consider as pure truth?
One should be able to fully discerns the writer's own opinion, but, then again, who could be that sure to classify a book as literature or not?
This argoment lies at the heart not just of literature, but of art itself as it's very difficult definiying art, let alone judging what is or what is not literature and what is the correct way of reading something!

[Anton Hermes]

I should clarify what I stated when I said "They had no conception of literature." The writers of the Bible were not concerned with literature. They were writing accounts of things they felt had happened and that were true. The writers of the Bible were intelligent enough to know how to effectively write well. But to their way of thinkling they weren't writing literature. They believed they were writing fact.

Particularly with events like the Creation and the Flood, I don't think the "writers" had any awareness of our contemporary distinction between myth and fact. These legends existed as ways to interpret phenomena for a community that had no understanding of the scientific method or statistical inference, and viewed all phenomena as the product of some sort of agency. Ancient thinkers were profoundly intelligent and creative, so the myths they passed down still stand as landmarks of human imagination.

When it comes to things like the Gospel accounts, I still think it's wrong to assume that people passed these legends down as journalistic records of events that really happened. It's imposing a contemporary perspective (one informed by Enlightenment philosophy and modern psychology) on the worldviews of people who had a vastly different way of relating to myth, ritual, natural phenomena, and personal experience. John Shelby Spong has described the way the Gospels created and elaborated the legend of Christ in the context of such things as the Jewish liturgical calendar and the pantheon of Jewish patriarchs for an audience who would be familiar with the allusions and echoes of old legends.

I dispute the claim that ancient thinkers felt they were explaining the material causes of phenomena or presenting evidence to substantiate the reality of past events.

[JCamilo]

The distinction is irrelevant. Homer wrote without concept of literature and he thought it was true. Even, the concept of "truth" is not the same, hence the development of interpretative systems such as cabala which indicated they looked the truth beyond literalism and was quite a fine literary tradition, with a great notion of what is text and its function.

[Corona]

^ Yeah, I quite agree with you.
The fact the notion of "literature" itself was not discussed/know during that age doesn't imply Homer's works cannot be seen by OUR modern point of view as pure literature!
On top of that, the question still stands: what can be "considered" literature and how much comes into play the author's concern/intention?
Wheter the author(s) wanted their work(s) to be treated like if they were reality or fiction and wheter readers believe the things displayed in the book to be true or not, doesn't change the outcome, as the distinction between "fiction" and "truth" isn't necessarily at the heart of the distinction between a novel and another kind of book!
One is free to consider Hamlet's story to be pure truth, and the same goes for every story of supposed-fiction, but it doesn't have much to do with the fact it could be seen as literature!

[Anton Hermes]

The distinction is irrelevant. Homer wrote without concept of literature and he thought it was true.
Mind if I ask how you know what Homer thought?