Bible as Literature Reading Thread?

I have a feeling that I'm going to regret asking this, but would anyone be interested in reading books of the Bible as literature? And then having a message-board discussion about them here on the form? "As literature" means that the thread would not condone anyone saying that another poster should believe or this or that, or not believe this or that. . . . it also means that we don't bicker about whose preferred faith is correct or incorrect. . .

Rather, because Biblical allusions are vital in any understanding of Western literature, I (at least) like reading the Bible for this (and other) reasons.

I mean, the reason why I'm postin' this is because I recently finished Melville's Moby-Dick, and because it's so frequently alluded to, I'd like to read to book of "Jonah" with an eye for literary discussion.

So I really, really, really, really, really wouldn't want the discussion to be a "Bible study" or an atheist vs believer show-down. . .

Anyone interested?

I for one would be interested in this.

I would be interested also. I have not read the entire Christian bible, but would find it interesting to do do. A group would motivate the reading.

I did go through Genesis about a decade ago using a couple of books as a guide to the contents, one by a Christian pastor and the other by a literary commentator. This provided a diverse perspective.

At the moment I am reading the Bhagavad Gita guided by Eknath Easwaran's three volume commentary. Without the commentary, I don't think I would have understood much of the original text.

I'd be interested in joining in. However, I think you'll have to define precisely what reading the Bible as literature means. For example, if we were to talk about "literary technique", I might end up giving you my beliefs on prophetic symbolism. While I love the Bible as literature, I'm accustomed to Bible studies, not just exclaiming over the intriguing stories and the glorious KJV language.
Again, I'd be willing to join in, I just want to know what defines a purely literary reading of the Bible.

You could certainly count me in for a discussion on the bible as literature, because I have always felt it is immensely over-rated as literature. Masses of errors and contradictions in a book entirely based on deus ex machina.

So let's have a go!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

Rather, because Biblical allusions are vital in any understanding of Western literature,...

---

I don't believe a bar of this, either. While it is important as a historical document, given that much of western history has been affected by it, I cannot see the position that the bible aids understanding of anything outside of religion as tenable in any way.

Feel free to back that assertion before we start. The KJV is predated by both Shakespeare and Chaucer, both of whom I feel, are far more important than a translation of a translation of allegedly holy texts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

I have a feeling that I'm going to regret asking this, but would anyone be interested in reading books of the Bible as literature? And then having a message-board discussion about them here on the form? "As literature" means that the thread would not condone anyone saying that another poster should believe or this or that, or not believe this or that. . . . it also means that we don't bicker about whose preferred faith is correct or incorrect. . .

Rather, because Biblical allusions are vital in any understanding of Western literature, I (at least) like reading the Bible for this (and other) reasons.

I mean, the reason why I'm postin' this is because I recently finished Melville's Moby-Dick, and because it's so frequently alluded to, I'd like to read to book of "Jonah" with an eye for literary discussion.

So I really, really, really, really, really wouldn't want the discussion to be a "Bible study" or an atheist vs believer show-down. . .

Anyone interested?

---

I might be interested. I have been doing my own literary interpretations of the Bible on my blog. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?

Other thoughts/suggestions:

1) I would prefer to read the JPS translation of the Old Testament/Tanakh over the KJV.

2) Having read the Bible all the way through once two years ago, and now trying a method where I'm reading it in smaller chunks and responding, I recommend to approach it small chunks at a time. Instead of reading ALL of Genesis and then asking people to post, it is far more fruitful to read Genesis 1 in a single session and discuss, then Genesis 2 in a single session and discuss, two or three psalms, etc.

I have great respect for YOU Comedian so respectfully have to turn down the concept of reading the Bible AS literature. As a believer my opinions would be biased and not in the proper frame of mind for this sort of thing as I believe my doctrinal beliefs would supersde any story discussions. Plus commentaries have somewhat spoiled me on the concept though I highly recommend Matthew Henry's commentary for an overall commoon man's insights. I will say this much almost every theme and story idea can be found in the Bible (if one searches with an open mind) and you have caught the idea well with Melville and Moby Dick and the bible for background and reference points. But as a comics fan can't resist refering you to Jim Starlin'sWarlock series form the 1970s (Marvel) as he writes Adam Warlock as a character almost overwhelmed by predestinationa and the sins of the church in general.Starlin has issues but he is at least inteeliegent and enteratining about it. (Marvel in the 70s--such greta stuff before the corporation began overkill with the X-Men.

You could certainly count me in for a discussion on the bible as literature, because I have always felt it is immensely over-rated as literature. Masses of errors and contradictions in a book entirely based on deus ex machina.

Considering the hostility toward the Bible suggested by your chosen on-line name, this post, and any number of your past contributions, I would suggest that your contributions would be of use only to ensure the stirring up of controversy and possible closing of the thread, which is undoubtedly your intention anyway.

Rather, because Biblical allusions are vital in any understanding of Western literature,...

I don't believe a bar of this, either. While it is important as a historical document, given that much of western history has been affected by it, I cannot see the position that the bible aids understanding of anything outside of religion as tenable in any way.

Thus we are already presented with an example of your limited grasp of Western literary or cultural history. It would be incredibly difficult, if not outright impossible, to suggest a single text that has had a greater influence upon the arts of the West for the last 1500 years (for better or worse). Dante's Comedia, Dante's Paradise Lost, the cantatas and masses of Bach, the Sistine ceiling and so much more are rooted in the Biblical narratives. The Biblical narratives combined with the mythologies of Greece (and to a lesser degree Rome) essentially stand as the common narratives of Western culture until the 20th century... and are clearly still thriving.

Feel free to back that assertion before we start. The KJV is predated by both Shakespeare and Chaucer, both of whom I feel, are far more important than a translation of a translation of allegedly holy texts.

Chaucer certainly predates the King James translation... but then again, are we assuming that English was the sole "relevant" language to the Western culture? The Septuagint, the first known Greek translation dates from between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE until its completion in 132 BCE. The translation into Latin made by Jerome dates from between AD 382 and 420. Although further translation into vernacular languages was discouraged, it was still a something not unheard of. There were many fragmentary translations made into the various European languages, including translations of the 10 Commandments and the Gospels into English. One such known translation was that of the Gospel of St. John made by the Venerable Bede (672/73 – 735). Wyclif's Middle-English translation (1383) is actually quite contemporaneous with Chaucer (c. 1343-1400).

Chaucer, on the other hand, for all his brilliance, literally disappeared from English literature following the deposition of Richard II and the near military state imposed by Henry IV and Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chancellor, Thomas Arundel. (Who Murdered Chaucer? by Terry Jones and several other scholars makes for interesting thoughts on the sudden "disappearance" of Chaucer). The first printed/published editions of the Canterbury Tales date from 1478 and 1483 and it is not until the 19th century that the whole of Chaucer's canon was established. Many critics have noted that Chaucer was a major influence upon the establishment of English as the vernacular literary language, however the impact of his actual writings occurred over time, and in no way rival the influence of the Bible. On the other hand, the Bible is itself a major source of influence upon Chaucer (along with Petrarch, Dante, and Boccaccio).

Shakespeare (1564-1616)? He is actually a contemporary of the King James Bible (1611)... which itself was deeply indebted to William Tyndale's (c. 1494 – 1536) Bible. Shakespeare's own works would actually not be published until 1623. While Shakespeare had an undoubted influence upon subsequent literature in the West... especially in the English-speaking world... it would again be difficult to argue that the influence of Shakespeare rivals that of the Bible upon the arts and culture. While the whole of Shakespeare's oeuvre may be superior in aesthetic terms to that of the Bible (an assertion that itself is arguable), the simple fact that the Bible stands as the central text of Christianity and Judaism (albeit the Hebrew Bible or "Old Testament" only), and one of the holy texts of Islam pretty much guarantees that no other book could even begin to approach it in terms of influence upon Western culture.

Considering the impact of the Bible upon subsequent literature, music, and art... even into the present... it seems little more than absurd to suggest that a familiarity with the Bible has no use beyond the understanding of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.M. The Third

Again, I'd be willing to join in, I just want to know what defines a purely literary reading of the Bible.

---

It's a good point that you bring up L.M -- and I don't really want to be the definition maker. But in this thread, at least, I really just want to discuss the stories, their relationship to other works of literature. . .in general treat the Biblical stories as a mythology that has shaped countless other stories. I'd like to refer to the people in the Bible, even the big G, as "characters".

And in saying this, I don't at all mean to demean or otherwise poo-poo one's Christian or Jewish faith. I just don't want the discussion in this thread to be faith-based. There are other threads for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I don't believe a bar of this, either. While it is important as a historical document, given that much of western history has been affected by it, I cannot see the position that the bible aids understanding of anything outside of religion as tenable in any way.

---

Really? Well, stluke's gave a good reply to this statement. I'll simply add a couple of things: Biblical stories were communicated in ways other than just reading the silly book. Hell, illiterate masses went to, well, mass, to hear them told. They saw them on reliefs, windows, etc. . .One hardly even had to read to know many of them. And that's the point. . .as stories their metaphors, their language, their ideas have enveloped our story-tellers for ages and ages.

And in miniature here's something: In my opening post, I mentioned that my re-read of Moby-Dick made me want to re-visit the book of "Jonah" because Melville drew one it one chapter in particular, and the whole story borrows on the Jonah story in that the whale acts as divine agent that is both terrifying and inspiring.

I also teach a graphic novel class at my college. One of the texts that I teach is Watchmen. In that novel there are direct and indirect reference to Job -- I brought in excerpts from the that Biblical book to help the class understand how a particular character in that novel was being developed. Additionally, there are numerous to Blake, the Romantic poet, and his work in Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience -- to address how these works related to the themes and characters in the novel, I had to bring in, again, clips from the Bible as Blake was working directly with Biblical ideas which made Watchmen, indirectly deal with them also. I mean this is comic book, we're talkin' about here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

I might be interested. I have been doing my own literary interpretations of the Bible. . . Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?

---

Nice read Drkshadow -- yes, that is certainly the sort of thing that I have in mind. I also wouldn't mind if the we also addressed how some of the Biblical stories are a part of other things that we've read or reading. But on the whole, yep. That's what I'd like the thread to be about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Other thoughts/suggestions:

1) I would prefer to read the JPS translation of the Old Testament/Tanakh over the KJV.

2) Having read the Bible all the way through once two years ago, and now trying a method where I'm reading it in smaller chunks and responding, I recommend to approach it small chunks at a time. Instead of reading ALL of Genesis and then asking people to post, it is far more fruitful to read Genesis 1 in a single session and discuss, then Genesis 2 in a single session and discuss, two or three psalms, etc.

---

Re Translations: it doesn't really matter to me. I'm planning on using my Oxford Annotated Bible that I purchased in 1993 as an undergraduate.

Re point 2 -- I totally agree. I was thinking about handling the thread sort of like the "poem of the week" thread where we pick a single book -- like Jonah -- to chat about for a while until the conversation fizzles out. Then someone can suggest another book to read and discuss. Personally, I don't really intend to read the whole Bible through, just parts of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtpspur

I have great respect for YOU Comedian so respectfully have to turn down the concept of reading the Bible AS literature. As a believer my opinions would be biased and not in the proper frame of mind for this sort of thing as I believe my doctrinal beliefs would supersde any story discussions. Plus commentaries have somewhat spoiled me on the concept though I highly recommend Matthew Henry's commentary for an overall commoon man's insights. I will say this much almost every theme and story idea can be found in the Bible (if one searches with an open mind) and you have caught the idea well with Melville and Moby Dick and the bible for background and reference points. But as a comics fan can't resist refering you to Jim Starlin'sWarlock series form the 1970s (Marvel) as he writes Adam Warlock as a character almost overwhelmed by predestinationa and the sins of the church in general.Starlin has issues but he is at least inteeliegent and enteratining about it. (Marvel in the 70s--such greta stuff before the corporation began overkill with the X-Men.

---

No problem mtpspur -- I totally respect that. And I certainly don't want to upset anyone with the thread. And I would love to read some of those old Marvel titles. As an aside, did I tell you that I read the first Turok Son of Stone compendium from Dark Horse (based on your recommendation)? I loved it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Considering the impact of the Bible upon subsequent literature, music, and art... even into the present... it seems little more than absurd to suggest that a familiarity with the Bible has no use beyond the understanding of religion.

---

I appreciate that response stlukesguild. And with your post, all of it, certainly the above, I couldn't agree more. It's been a while since I've read the Bible, except for looking up bits and pieces here and there for class and such. I would just like to read a few selected books more deliberately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Considering the hostility toward the Bible suggested by your chosen on-line name, this post, and any number of your past contributions, I would suggest that your contributions would be of use only to ensure the stirring up of controversy and possible closing of the thread, which is undoubtedly your intention anyway.

---

Wrong in every respect. Why would I have hostility towards a book? I don't rate it because it's a terrible book. And I most definitely don't want to stir controversy, although I do realise that my opinion is controversial - albeit no more so than my "I hate Shakespeare" thread.

Nice try though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Thus we are already presented with an example of your limited grasp of Western literary or cultural history.

---

I mentioned its historical importance, but it has no relevance whatsoever to understanding literature today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

It would be incredibly difficult, if not outright impossible, to suggest a single text that has had a greater influence upon the arts of the West for the last 1500 years (for better or worse). Dante's Comedia, Dante's Paradise Lost, the cantatas and masses of Bach, the Sistine ceiling and so much more are rooted in the Biblical narratives. The Biblical narratives combined with the mythologies of Greece (and to a lesser degree Rome) essentially stand as the common narratives of Western culture until the 20th century... and are clearly still thriving.

---

This is why it's important to discuss the subject - so fallacies like that don't remain.

The reason for the bible's position in society and history has everything to do with being pushed by the clergy and nothing whatsoever to do with its literary merit. I repeat - viewed as a book, it is a mess of contradictions, fallacies, plagiarisms, downright fantasy and deus ex machina.

Were it a book being published for the first time in 2010, it would be laughed off the shelves.

It does amuse me that you seem prepared to ignore terminal faults in that book that I am 100% confident you would not tolerate from a contemporary author.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Chaucer certainly predates the King James translation... but then again, are we assuming that English was the sole "relevant" language to the Western culture?

---

It's not the sole relevant language, but it is so far the most important one that all others are dwarfed by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Many critics have noted that Chaucer was a major influence upon the establishment of English as the vernacular literary language, however the impact of his actual writings occurred over time, and in no way rival the influence of the Bible. On the other hand, the Bible is itself a major source of influence upon Chaucer (along with Petrarch, Dante, and Boccaccio).

---

Covered above. Prior to printing presses, the bible was the only book in any kind of mass circulation. That it had more impact than any other volume is a given. I don't accept that means that it has any value other than the historical one, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

...it would again be difficult to argue that the influence of Shakespeare rivals that of the Bible upon the arts and culture.

---

I wouldn't. Same as above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

While the whole of Shakespeare's oeuvre may be superior in aesthetic terms to that of the Bible (an assertion that itself is arguable), the simple fact that the Bible stands as the central text of Christianity and Judaism (albeit the Hebrew Bible or "Old Testament" only), and one of the holy texts of Islam pretty much guarantees that no other book could even begin to approach it in terms of influence upon Western culture.

---

Historically, for certain, but what relevance does it have now? We have moved a bit since those days.

I see you making lots of assertions about the literary value of the bible, so why don't you expand on that subject more, instead of shooting off into history?

If you do that, I would very much like you to factor those inconsistencies, fallacies and outright contradictions that the bible contains.

I compare it in literary value to its near-contemporary Aesop's Fables - also a collection of morality fables. Aesop, in comparison to the bible, is an oasis of clarity against the dross and repetition of the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Considering the impact of the Bible upon subsequent literature, music, and art... even into the present... it seems little more than absurd to suggest that a familiarity with the Bible has no use beyond the understanding of religion.

---

Well, I'll gladly stick by it. I didn't expect to get anonymous approval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

I had to bring in, again, clips from the Bible as Blake was working directly with Biblical ideas which made Watchmen, indirectly deal with them also. I mean this is comic book, we're talkin' about here!

---

This is part of parcel of what I've been saying. When the premise of a book is held as the central tenet of people's lives - as the bible is to billions - it is going to be used as inspiration regardless of how bad a book it is.

Obviously, if discussing a book which has drawn on the bible, it's going to help to read the original bit, but that's hardly a basis for claiming literary worth as a general trait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

This is part of parcel of what I've been saying. When the premise of a book is held as the central tenet of people's lives - as the bible is to billions - it is going to be used as inspiration regardless of how bad a book it is.

Obviously, if discussing a book which has drawn on the bible, it's going to help to read the original bit, but that's hardly a basis for claiming literary worth as a general trait.

---

It would be appreciate if you defined your view of literary worth.

I would be appreciate if you defined your view of literary worth.

That would seem simple enough. The Bible has little literary worth because The Atheist doesn't like it.

I mentioned its historical importance, but it has no relevance whatsoever to understanding literature today.

The ability to discuss a great deal of literature, art, and music depends upon a grasp of the basic narratives of the Bible just as a grasp of the same in India depends upon an exposure to various Hindu texts, or the ability to fully understand much of the art and literature of the Middle-East demands an exposure to the Qur'an and the Shah-nameh. A good deal of contemporary literature, music, and art still builds upon the Bible for the simple reason that contrary to your own beliefs, there are still poets, artists, and composers who are believers... or believe in aesthetic worth of the Biblical narratives and poetry.

SLG (quote)-It would be incredibly difficult, if not outright impossible, to suggest a single text that has had a greater influence upon the arts of the West for the last 1500 years (for better or worse). Dante's Comedia, Dante's Paradise Lost, the cantatas and masses of Bach, the Sistine ceiling and so much more are rooted in the Biblical narratives. The Biblical narratives combined with the mythologies of Greece (and to a lesser degree Rome) essentially stand as the common narratives of Western culture until the 20th century... and are clearly still thriving.

This is why it's important to discuss the subject - so fallacies like that don't remain.

Where is the fallacy? I understand that your concept of critical thought simply involves stating your beliefs as fact, but that doesn't quite cut it in the thinking world. Or perhaps Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy, the Sistine Ceiling, Bach's cantatas... all had nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible?

The reason for the bible's position in society and history has everything to do with being pushed by the clergy and nothing whatsoever to do with its literary merit.

External power certainly exerts an influence. It would be doubtful that The Aeneid would have held such a central position... even without questioning its aesthetic worth... had it been written in Slovenia or Transylvania and not in Rome. Undoubtedly, American art exerts far more influence with regard to its merits (not to question these) as a result of the economic, political, and military centrality of the nation. None of this undermines the aesthetic merits of the works. You assert that the Bible's influence has nothing to do with its literary merit, but you make two assumptions:

1. That the Bible has little literary merit.
2. That artists, authors, composers were not inspired by the narratives and poetic beauty of the Bible.

A great many with perhaps a better grasp of history and the arts than yourself might question your assumptions.

I repeat - viewed as a book, it is a mess of contradictions, fallacies, plagiarisms, downright fantasy and deus ex machina.

Yes... I forgot... repeating a personal belief makes it fact. The Bible, I might point out, cannot be viewed as "a book" because it is actually a collection of books... an anthology, if you will. Like most literary anthologies, it is certainly laden with contradictions, fantasies, fallacies, and plagiarisms? Where did Chaucer and Shakespeare plagiarize their narratives from? Does that undermine their literary worth? When did fantasy and falsehood become a measure of the failings of a work of art?

Were it a book being published for the first time in 2010, it would be laughed off the shelves.

As would The Odyssey, Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy, and most of William Blake... All would be anachronisms in the extreme. Its fascinating that writers as strong as T.S. Eliot, Kafka, Rilke, Faulkner, J.L. Borges, Samuel Beckett, etc... could recognize the literary merit of the Bible... and be profoundly influenced by the same... yet you would have us believe it has no literary worth. Sounds less like anything approaching a serious literary discussion, and more of the personal tirades of someone having had a bad experience with the church.

It does amuse me that you seem prepared to ignore terminal faults in that book that I am 100% confident you would not tolerate from a contemporary author.

I don't ignore the faults of any book... but I recognize that some grandiose works of literature survive in spite of their flaws (ie. Cervantes' horrible... not mediocre... horrible poetry in Don Quixote, the servile Communism of Neruda's Canto General, etc...). Considering your own rare participation in any literary discussions, and your obsession with undermining any discussion of the Bible or religion, one has to question your own goals.

Comedian--appreciate the understanding. AM fully aware that there is an audience for the Bible as literature and much can be made of the imagery especially Song of Solomon let alone Isaiah and Jeremiah. As to Turok--the books just keep getting batter especially when the artisit Alberto Giolitti comes on board starting with issue 24--they are up to volume seven now. Am glad you were pleased with my advice. Strongly also recommend the MArvel Masterworks one volume Black Panther series which reprints the 1070s Jungle Action series. State of the art back then from Don Macgregor. Now back to the thread.

Not relevant today is just idiocy. The whole of the modern Hebrew language was pretty much reconstructed out of the language of the old testament and is now a national language of a country with a vibrant literary tradition - likewise, the Bible is still relevant - with the news obsessed with religion lately, it seems unlikely the book will fade from discussion for a long time.

Beyond that, the thing is well written, if you can read it. As a reader of Hebrew, I see a different angle - it is a poetic narrative, filled with tons of irony and crafty lessons and ideas - it is the single most complete work probably ever written (it has everything, from Epic to romance, narrative to lyric) - likewise, it is one of the foundations of Western culture - just looking at any painting by a major renaissance artist will tell you that better than I can.

So, in order to not derail the thread, shall we agree on a version of the Bible? Simply put, if one does not see the significance or the literary merit of a text, he need not join in in the discussion, and take his unwanted, ignorant polemics elsewhere where somebody cares, other than a thread of people who are trying to get anyway from zealots prohibiting a literary reading of a text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The ability to discuss a great deal of literature, art, and music depends upon a grasp of the basic narratives of the Bible just as a grasp of the same in India depends upon an exposure to various Hindu texts, or the ability to fully understand much of the art and literature of the Middle-East demands an exposure to the Qur'an and the Shah-nameh. A good deal of contemporary literature, music, and art still builds upon the Bible for the simple reason that contrary to your own beliefs, there are still poets, artists, and composers who are believers... or believe in aesthetic worth of the Biblical narratives and poetry.

---

An assertion backed up by two terrible analogies.

Since much of the middle east uses their quran as the basis for all aspects of daily life, you cannot ignore it. While the Hindu texts don't have the same legal position, the near-universal acceptance of them means that you'd be partly right in India as well, although not to the same extent as islamic states.

That just isn't the case in the western world.

I don't doubt many people see the bible as aesthetically pleasing. Lots of people buy Clive Cussler's books as well.

Let's try to be realistic about this rather than throwing around analogies and metaphors. What do English Literature courses at university level teach? You must agree that someone with an English Literature degree is fairly well qualified to say they understand literature?

Here are the Eng Lit courses from Auckland and Victoria Universities.

Note that of 50 or so topics, Auckland Uni has precisely none that deal with bible, while Vic has just the one - Christian Traditions in English Poetry.

Lots of Shakespeare, a bit of Chaucer and almost no bible.

And it's not unique to New Zealand.

How about Salford in Manchester, UK? Nope, not a word.

Or maybe Oxford, home of the English language? Surely they must ensure that students gain an appreciation of the bible so they can understand literature? Nope, not a single word on the bible.

I had no idea what those links would show, but now that I've seen the course listings, I'm confident my premise is not just correct, but very widely admitted. You may be a bit behind the times on this one, because academia overwhelmingly does not put the bible on a pedestal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

A great many with perhaps a better grasp of history and the arts than yourself might question your assumptions.

---

Or maybe not - see above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Considering your own rare participation in any literary discussions, and your obsession with undermining any discussion of the Bible or religion, one has to question your own goals.

---

With a final attempt at the poisoning the well fallacy?

Really, you ought to stick to evidence rather than personal - and incorrect - opinion. If you looked at where my actual posts, you would find that by far my most active posting is in the literature section while my participation in religion threads is minimal in comparison. The "view all posts" button works fine.

That's the second time that same aspersion's been thrown. Pity it's so demonstrably wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's the second time that same aspersion's been thrown. Pity it's so demonstrably wrong.

---

And there's the other one just now!

I'm pleased to see you've given that away and are instead sticking to outright abuse, JBI. Much more honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Not relevant today is just idiocy...

... he need not join in in the discussion, and take his unwanted, ignorant polemics elsewhere ...

... zealots ...

---

@ Atheist -- Your issues seem to be different than those of underlie this thread. The people who look to post here are operating on the assumption that the Bible is a literary work. You seem to question that very assumption, which if played out, will continually take this conversation off topic, which is to discuss the literary nature of the Bible.

Given that your topic seems different than the stated one on this thread, perhaps you could start a thread of your own in which you can discuss whether the Bible is literature, as this seems closer to your interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The reason for the bible's position in society and history has everything to do with being pushed by the clergy and nothing whatsoever to do with its literary merit. I repeat - viewed as a book, it is a mess of contradictions, fallacies, plagiarisms, downright fantasy and deus ex machina.

---

Yes, Homer is faulty of all this. I agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

"As literature" means that the thread would not condone anyone saying that another poster should believe or this or that, or not believe this or that. . . . it also means that we don't bicker about whose preferred faith is correct or incorrect. . .

---

Sorry but normally when people jump into literary discussions yelling that the story 'really happened' and 'must be believed', the common reaction is 'get out of here you're nuts'. Just saying, try it in a discussion of Lord of the Rings, or Animal Farm... If you discuss it 'as literature', people who actually believe it as literal truth should keep that to themselves!

As for the rest, I agree that basic knowledge of the Bible is very important for understanding a lot of literary allusions. Doesn't mean one should have to read the book, it's enough have read the 'Biblical children story books' once for instance. In itself, the Bible is not a work of great literature imo, but if people want to, it's certainly worth discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

An assertion backed up by two terrible analogies.

Since much of the middle east uses their quran as the basis for all aspects of daily life, you cannot ignore it. While the Hindu texts don't have the same legal position, the near-universal acceptance of them means that you'd be partly right in India as well, although not to the same extent as islamic states.

That just isn't the case in the western world.

I don't doubt many people see the bible as aesthetically pleasing. Lots of people buy Clive Cussler's books as well.

Let's try to be realistic about this rather than throwing around analogies and metaphors. What do English Literature courses at university level teach? You must agree that someone with an English Literature degree is fairly well qualified to say they understand literature?

Here are the Eng Lit courses from Auckland and Victoria Universities.

Note that of 50 or so topics, Auckland Uni has precisely none that deal with bible, while Vic has just the one - Christian Traditions in English Poetry.

Lots of Shakespeare, a bit of Chaucer and almost no bible.

And it's not unique to New Zealand.

How about Salford in Manchester, UK? Nope, not a word.

Or maybe Oxford, home of the English language? Surely they must ensure that students gain an appreciation of the bible so they can understand literature? Nope, not a single word on the bible.

I had no idea what those links would show, but now that I've seen the course listings, I'm confident my premise is not just correct, but very widely admitted. You may be a bit behind the times on this one, because academia overwhelmingly does not put the bible on a pedestal.

---

That's not exactly a representative sample. Here is a much longer list of colleges offering a "Bible as Literature" course or a similarly relevant course through the English department this year. At least, four of them have Ph. D programs. One of them is Harvard.

I also didn't come close to exhausting the list of colleges offering "Bible as literature" courses in their English departments in just Spring 2011. There was so many that I got tired after fifteen; the list below is nowhere near exhaustive. There was also quite a few that offered them through their Judaic studies program that I chose to exclude. I also didn't include the many colleges that offered "Bible as Literature" courses within the last five years, which would've been even larger since courses often go on rotation.

One, Two.
Three.
Four.
Five.
Six.
Seven.
Eight.
nine.
ten.
eleven.
Twelve.
thirteen.
Fourteen.
fifteen.

In addition, one need only glance at all those fancy lists telling you what literary works a person should read in their life to see that Harold Bloom, Mortimer Adler, Clifton Fadiman, Good Reading: a Guide for Serious Readers, Martin Seymour-Smith, the St. John's Reading List, recognize the importance of the Bible as a work of literature and a source of inspiration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's also a shame that the atheist feels the need to ignore St Luke's actual engagement with his argument.

The Athiest's Position: "I repeat - viewed as a book, it is a mess of contradictions, fallacies, plagiarisms, downright fantasy and deus ex machina."

1) St Luke dispelled the plagiarism charge by noting Shakespeare rips off his stories, Chaucer rips off Boccaccio, and the ancient Greek playwrights and Roman poets write slightly different versions of the same myths.

The Atheist claimed that we would judge poorly of this in contemporary books, but of course, works like Wicked by Gregory Macguire, Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys, and various other retelling and reworkings of material whose copyright material have lapsed occur all the time and some of it is regarded as having literary worth. So given that both other major literary works of the time and many contemporary works do exactly the same thing there is no real good reason to exclude it on those grounds.

2) Fantasy is next. Shakespeare's The Tempest is a work of fantasy too. So it's Ovid's Metamorphosis. So is Homer's two epic poems. Fantasy novels are still published today. Some fantasy works like Gormenghast and many of Italo Calvino's works to name two such examples have accepted literary merit. So it being a fantasy is not grounds to dismiss its literary merits.

This leaves: contradictions, fallacies, and Deus Ex Machina.

These are harder to address because the atheist doesn't list any specific examples that he has in mind.

Some of these are addressed, though, by St Luke when he notes the Bible is a compendium of different genres and different writers. Any discussion of the Bible as literature always has in mind the documentary hypothesis (JEPD). Since it recognizes that there is minimally four writers for the Torah, writing probably during different time periods and with slightly different theological and ideological viewpoints, there are going to be some contradictions in material. I agree with JBI; it's the ultimate literary anthology book. If Wordsworth wrote one poem in a poetry collection and then another poem that contradicted his emotions and feelings in the same collection, I don't automatically think that constitutes grounds for dismissing the poetry collection. Just because different writers between books contradict each other doesn't necessarily mean this speaks against its literary merits.

Ultimately, though, the Bible has aesthetic merit for the following reasons:

1) A lot of the language and writing is in fact quite beautiful in Psalms, in Proverbs, in Song of Songs, in sections of the various Prophets, in sections of the New Testament, even in Genesis, Kings, and plenty other places.

2) Many of the stories are compelling and still speak to us today. They have a dramatic power as stories. You might not always like the message of the stories, but the stories are still extremely memorable and powerful.

3) And, yes, even some of the wisdom and outlook found in the Bible (the themes) still matter today to people who are both religious and non-religious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

@ Atheist -- Your issues seem to be different than those of underlie this thread. The people who look to post here are operating on the assumption that the Bible is a literary work. You seem to question that very assumption, which if played out, will continually take this conversation off topic, which is to discuss the literary nature of the Bible.

---

I think we should make that the ground rule for participating in the discussion. I'd hate to see this thread hijacked by constant denials about the legitimacy of the bible and biblical events.

I also hope the mods will monitor this thread closely to make sure all the postings center around the discussion of the Bible as a literary work to weed out disruptive arguments and derogatory comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

1) I would prefer to read the JPS translation of the Old Testament/Tanakh over the KJV.

---

I liked your blog (and bookmarked it).

At first I didn't know what JPS was, but found out from the comments on the blog that I think you are referring to The Jewish Study Bible. Although I am not Jewish, this is also my favorite version. It comes with commentaries and footnotes that make the text clearer.

I just finished reading the Book of Jonah, since it was mentioned in the OP. As far as a literary work, this very short story is quite good. I wish I could write as well.

Well, while it is nice, but you can not discuss something as literary merit without finding why and why is often a limit. It is silly to point: the book is writen, you can read anything from literary merit, not just "fiction" or "Poetry", people do it with Herodothus, Plato and heck, Gibbons which literary merit is undeniable. So, if you discuss a book, you have litery merit and Atheist is just point those merits are minimal. He is wrong.

One could just get the gospels (Mathews and John are my favorite, and I have never read the bible in english, so discussing Chaucer or not Chaucer, it is not the question), you can discuss how the works, is a fine example, no european, of the early development of the novel. 900 years before Scherazade you have a full frame story with an oriental storyteller. The gospels arrived in europe before 1001 nights, their influence as narrative and also, as oral development is considerable. Nobody ignores it and the literary merit of the gospels are obvious.

The aforisms and prayers in the Bible were highly copied and instrumental for the same kind of literature in europe, as a matter of style. Not of content only.

If you think the character development, Satan, a fundamental character, is studied from the bible, specially from Job. Jesus is relevant enough to be underlined by Campbell. Those characters have strong literary merits. If you study allegories, few are as complex as Revelations, the biblical allegories are source for much study and nobody ignores it. There reason? Quality. And even, the discipline hebrews developed to study the bible, Cabalah is today studied in many places, exactly because the insight it can give to literary criticism.

We do not need to be like Beckett, that claimed that he only read the Bible, but denying the quality of the work as just a political factor is ignoring that political factor will not make Marx survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

@ Atheist -- Your issues seem to be different than those of underlie this thread.

---

Nope. Please note that the off-track discussion wasn't started by me, but I have now finished with it, being quite satisfied that my last post needs no further comment.

I will also note that your OP stated: because Biblical allusions are vital in any understanding of Western literature.

That has been conclusively shown to be incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

The people who look to post here are operating on the assumption that the Bible is a literary work. You seem to question that very assumption, which if played out, will continually take this conversation off topic, which is to discuss the literary nature of the Bible.

---

No, I agree that the bible is a literary work - just not a hell of a good one, and as I said at the start, I'd like a chapter-by-chapter evaluation of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

That's not exactly a representative sample. Here is a much longer list of colleges offering a "Bible as Literature" course or a similarly relevant course through the English department this year. At least, four of them have Ph. D programs. One of them is Harvard.

---

No, that is completely different - that would be what's known as a red herring.

The fact that biblical literature courses exist does not affect the compelling evidence provided that literature has moved on from the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I liked your blog (and bookmarked it).

At first I didn't know what JPS was, but found out from the comments on the blog that I think you are referring to The Jewish Study Bible. Although I am not Jewish, this is also my favorite version. It comes with commentaries and footnotes that make the text clearer.

I just finished reading the Book of Jonah, since it was mentioned in the OP. As far as a literary work, this very short story is quite good. I wish I could write as well.

---

Glad you liked my blog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The fact that biblical literature courses exist does not affect the compelling evidence provided that literature has moved on from the bible.

---

And from Homer and from Virgil and from, wait, literature does move from?

Frankly, Atheist, there is only one book that can compete as fundamental in western literature as the bible, it is Dom Quixote. Literature is also the study of idioms development, and the translation of bible is quite relevant. And it does not matter if it was political or not, when you study literature translation, you do not mind why, you care of how.

And no book would modify language, define symbolism, etc if wasnt good. Bad stories are easily forgotten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No, that is completely different - that would be what's known as a red herring.

The fact that biblical literature courses exist does not affect the compelling evidence provided that literature has moved on from the bible.

---

Ah, it's always amusing to watch someone try to wiggle out of their own arguments when they've been proven wrong. It's even more amusing when they demonstrate they don't know basic logic. I directly addressed your data points with additional data points demonstrating the opposite of your contention, that's not a red herring.

You wrote:

Quote:

---

"Let's try to be realistic about this rather than throwing around analogies and metaphors. What do English Literature courses at university level teach? You must agree that someone with an English Literature degree is fairly well qualified to say they understand literature?

Here are the Eng Lit courses from Auckland and Victoria Universities.

Note that of 50 or so topics, Auckland Uni has precisely none that deal with bible, while Vic has just the one - Christian Traditions in English Poetry.

Lots of Shakespeare, a bit of Chaucer and almost no bible.

And it's not unique to New Zealand.

How about Salford in Manchester, UK? Nope, not a word.

Or maybe Oxford, home of the English language? Surely they must ensure that students gain an appreciation of the bible so they can understand literature? Nope, not a single word on the bible.

I had no idea what those links would show, but now that I've seen the course listings, I'm confident my premise is not just correct, but very widely admitted. You may be a bit behind the times on this one, because academia overwhelmingly does not put the bible on a pedestal."

---

You asked "What do English Literature courses at university level teach?" as evidence for the fact that the Bible isn't an important part of English curriculums and in understanding English literature.

I demonstrated that in fact plenty of universities, including major ones like Harvard and three other Ph. D. granting universities, do teach the Bible as literature as part of their curriculum for the same reasons St Luke gives, both for its own aesthetic merits in its own right and its vital importance in understanding other literary, music, and artworks, therefore challenging your assertion. You haven't provided any compelling evidence, you've just consistently regurgitated your bad arguments and faulty logic.

In fact, the only one on this thread who thinks you've made anything resembling a good argument is yourself.

Now to deal with the actual subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

It's also a shame that the atheist feels the need to ignore St Luke's actual engagement with his argument.

The Athiest's Position: "I repeat - viewed as a book, it is a mess of contradictions, fallacies, plagiarisms, downright fantasy and deus ex machina."

1) St Luke dispelled the plagiarism charge by noting Shakespeare rips off his stories, Chaucer rips off Boccaccio, and the ancient Greek playwrights and Roman poets write slightly different versions of the same myths.

---

How does that disspell the charge of plagiarism? Because other books do it, it's ok?

You could get around this by explaining why the literature of the bible is superior to those it ripped off, so I'll leave that one open for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

The Atheist claimed that we would judge poorly of this in contemporary books, but of course, works like Wicked by Gregory Macguire, Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys, and various other retelling and reworkings of material whose copyright material have lapsed occur all the time and some of it is regarded as having literary worth. So given that both other major literary works of the time and many contemporary works do exactly the same thing there is no real good reason to exclude it on those grounds.

---

What "exclude"?

My point was that regardless of the re-writes and changes made to individual prints of the bible, it is still a very poor book and would not make the grade if it were brought to a publisher for the first time.

Again, this is one to ponder on the way through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

2) Fantasy is next. Shakespeare's The Tempest is a work of fantasy too. So it's Ovid's Metamorphosis. So is Homer's two epic poems. Fantasy novels are still published today. Some fantasy works like Gormenghast and many of Italo Calvino's works to name two such examples have accepted literary merit. So it being a fantasy is not grounds to dismiss its literary merits.

---

My mistake there - there's obviously nothing wrong with fantasy/fiction - 1984 was fiction, and I've already mentioned Aesop. Fiction as fiction contains most of the best works of literature ever written.

I was meaning the fantasy of making fact out of fiction. Is Moses' entire life a parable? The fiction that Egypt had Israelite slaves shows Moses to be an unbelievable character. Would you accept an autobiography or biography that made false claims, one of which was the central tenet to the entire story?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

This leaves: contradictions, fallacies, and Deus Ex Machina.

These are harder to address because the atheist doesn't list any specific examples that he has in mind.

---

Because it would be nice if we dealt with those on a case-by-case basis, there being so many and I thought we do that on chapter examination.

I can give you a starter for 10 on Genesis 1, however. Is there one god or many gods?

Would Dean Koontz get away with that as a literary device? Or even try it? Are we supposed to accept that the bible is a mystery story where all of the information given about the central character is revealed at the end? Was it written by Clive Cussler?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Some of these are addressed, though, by St Luke when he notes the Bible is a compendium of different genres and different writers.

---

I didn't bother with that, because the compendious nature of the bible is exceedingly obvious and not very relevant.

Given the evidence of the apocrypha alone, it is equally obvious that the bible has been heavily edited since it became the bible and should rightly be viewed as one complete book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Ultimately, though, the Bible has aesthetic merit for the following reasons:

1) A lot of the language and writing is in fact quite beautiful in Psalms, in Proverbs, in Song of Songs, in sections of the various Prophets, in sections of the New Testament, even in Genesis, Kings, and plenty other places.

---

Whether those are the specific parts with value we can look at individually. I haven't disputed that some bits of it are ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

2) Many of the stories are compelling and still speak to us today. They have a dramatic power as stories. You might not always like the message of the stories, but the stories are still extremely memorable and powerful.

---

Sure. Even the creation sequence is entertaining in a Fantasia kind of way and kids will always love Daniel, just as they love Aesop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

3) And, yes, even some of the wisdom and outlook found in the Bible (the themes) still matter today to people who are both religious and non-religious.

---

Whether there are any messages there for the non-christian is moot, but it's not really part of the discussion.

Your other points are exactly the type of thing the discussion is supposed to be about, so once we've settled on a text to use, let's go for it!

I'd like to get an actual discussion going -- I'm starting to regret this proposal, so I want to start it before I back out.

First regarding the fact/fiction nature of the Bible. . .While the Atheist seems to think of this as a damning characteristic of the Bible or of Biblical stories, I could care less. Lots of great works of literature straddle the boundary of fact and fiction -- Homer's Iliad for one is often seen as part myth, part history but the exact line between embellishment or revision and fact is unknown. Thoreau's Walden compiles events spanning two years (and some other episodes in his life) and projects them as occurring in one year for the sake of narrative consistency. Not too long ago I read Maugham's The Moon and Sixpence which is loosely based on the artist Paul Gauguin. . .but I don't need to know which is fact and which is fiction in this text to enjoy story or its language. That some of it is true and some isn't. . . is inconsequential to enjoying the art of story.

And, since we established that no one here is planning to address doctrinal belief in the Biblical stories, then Atheist's obsessive concern about this matter is better fit for a different thread where doctrinal belief is a topic on the table.

So, as was mentioned earlier, I'd like to read individual books of the Bible, rather than trying to trying to tackle the entire work.

May I suggest the book of "Jonah" to start with? It's short and might offer us a viable starting point. I'm open to other suggestions, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Now to deal with the actual subject.



How does that disspell the charge of plagiarism? Because other books do it, it's ok?

---

It wasn't an attempt to dispel that charge. It was an attempt to dispel plagiarism as being used here as relevant grounds for dismissing a works literary worth since we don't dismiss other works' literary worth on those grounds, such as those by Shakespeare, Ovid, the three Greek dramatists, Chaucer, and Milton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

May I suggest the book of "Jonah" to start with? It's short and might offer us a viable starting point. I'm open to other suggestions, however.

---

I'd prefer reading in order. But since it's your project, I would gladly start with Jonah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

I'd prefer reading in order. But since it's your project, I would gladly start with Jonah.

---

Yeah, I've wondered about that too -- I was goin' back and forth about whether we should go in order, which seems logical. But then I worry that we'd never get to latter parts before the thread fizzles out or people lose interest.

Anyone else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

How does that disspell the charge of plagiarism? Because other books do it, it's ok?

---

Yes, like Lautreamont would defend, plagiarism is ok. It is only a concern to moderm day busines when you have to pay for it. Traditional literature derivated oral sources, do not care for it.
More, you can not have charge of plagiarism except there is an authoral dispute, the "Non-authors" of Gilgamesh epic can not be charging the "Non-authors" of Noah story, even because there is no author at all. And any judge, would dismiss those vague charges of plagiarism you do. If you have any, please present the case.

Quote:

---

You could get around this by explaining why the literature of the bible is superior to those it ripped off, so I'll leave that one open for now.

---

Frankly, Shakespeare copied all plot of Romeo and Juliet from other sources and he was superior to it. Modern literary tradition give very little vallue to the original. Some translations are superior also.

Quote:

---

My point was that regardless of the re-writes and changes made to individual prints of the bible, it is still a very poor book and would not make the grade if it were brought to a publisher for the first time.

---

Let me say: a classic is exactly this: a book which merits and vallue are such that they are continuously in print, but not as themselves, but as other works. Homer was lost, gone, forgotten. Then you have Virgil. While Homer was not read, Virgil was keeping it alive. What you it is described is the process of influence, which easily denotes the merits of a book, as no book without merit acts with such strength.

Quote:

---

I was meaning the fantasy of making fact out of fiction. Is Moses' entire life a parable? The fiction that Egypt had Israelite slaves shows Moses to be an unbelievable character. Would you accept an autobiography or biography that made false claims, one of which was the central tenet to the entire story?

---

How ridiculous is to claim to be an atheist and then judge the merit of the writting by its literal significance. Even St.Agustyne was years ahead, saying the truth of the bible is not the same as the truth of history. You are acting like those biblical crazy people who claimed earth is 6000 years old.

And frankly, literature merits do not care if Moses was real or not. It is irrelevant if there is a real troy or not, if there was a real Artur, CharlesMagne, Richard Burton, Napoleon, Da Vinci, Virgil, Dante, Borges and all those pseudo-historical characters. Literature does not care about reality, that is why Gibbon's Rise and Fall is a masterwork of literature, being a book about history. That is why Borges protested that he had no idea which one was true, reality or fantasy.

Quote:

---

Because it would be nice if we dealt with those on a case-by-case basis, there being so many and I thought we do that on chapter examination.

I can give you a starter for 10 on Genesis 1, however. Is there one god or many gods?

---

There is a character in Iliad that dies and latter show up alive again. Tolkien has a similar flaw in his books: he claimed elfs never used the same name again for newborns, and then he had 2 elfs with same names in one of his genealogies. The critery that you mention is good for Dan Brown.

Quote:

---

Would Dean Koontz get away with that as a literary device? Or even try it? Are we supposed to accept that the bible is a mystery story where all of the information given about the central character is revealed at the end? Was it written by Clive Cussler?

---

Dean Koontz would not write a fragmented history that nobody can understand like Goethe did in Lilly and the green snake, nor in a made up miscelanious of idioms like Joyce did, they would probally not leave novels without end like Kafka did. Wanna bet who will be remembered in 200 years?

Quote:

---

I didn't bother with that, because the compendious nature of the bible is exceedingly obvious and not very relevant.

---

To you. Not to the story of literature, obviously.

Quote:

---

Given the evidence of the apocrypha alone, it is equally obvious that the bible has been heavily edited since it became the bible and should rightly be viewed as one complete book.

---

Congratulations, it is also the truth of 1001 Nights, Homer, Shakespeare... Amazing, you just discovered one of the literary merits of the Bible, the merit that Joyce wanted to surpass (and which had nothing to do with political power, but the capacity of the renewing of the bible) and you try to imply it is a flaw.

Quote:

---

Whether those are the specific parts with value we can look at individually. I haven't disputed that some bits of it are ok.

---

Some bits of War and Peace can be easily forgotten too. Happens when you have 2000 pages.

Quote:

---

Sure. Even the creation sequence is entertaining in a Fantasia kind of way and kids will always love Daniel, just as they love Aesop.

---

People love Christ too. He is a well build character. Little can be taken from Moses also. No wonder Carlyle liked him. Samson tale is well round and Salomon is great. Caim and Abel is a milinenar tale. The poetic works like Reveletions of the Song of Songs are very good. However united the bible choose well lots of great characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

Yeah, I've wondered about that too -- I was goin' back and forth about whether we should go in order, which seems logical. But then I worry that we'd never get to latter parts before the thread fizzles out or people lose interest.

---

I will certainly stay with the thread. I flunked bible miserably so I'd love to read the posts and reacquaint myself with the subject. For obvious reasons I wouldn't be able to contribute but it does guarantee you at least an audience of one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

I demonstrated that in fact plenty of universities, including major ones like Harvard and three other Ph. D. granting universities, do teach the Bible as literature as part of their curriculum for the same reasons St Luke gives, both for its own aesthetic merits in its own right and its vital importance in understanding other literary, music, and artworks, therefore challenging your assertion. You haven't provided any compelling evidence, you've just consistently regurgitated your bad arguments and faulty logic.

---

This is hilarious!

You talk of logical fallacies and then post that.

You are defending this statement:

Study of the bible is essential to understanding literature.

Note that "essential". I haven't disputed at any stage that the bible forms part of our literary history, but I have conclusively shown that it is neither essential, nor seen as essential by leading universities.

Posting a few links to American Universities and the US Naval Academy does not in any way negate the evidence I provided.

In fact, even a quick scan of your links shows the likes of Brockport SUNY, which has a paltry one out of 24 papers concerning the bible. Or maybe you'd prefer to consider your own De Paul link, which again shows one paper in an entire course.

I am truly astonished if you cannot see that courses in the bible as literature does not support your position at all.

You appear to be doing a highly effective job at proving my point - when even the bastion of English-speaking christianity, USA, has such scarce attention to the bible in general literature study, its relevance to literature has well and truly passed.

If we can now get off this subject, I'll be the first to applaud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

Yeah, I've wondered about that too -- I was goin' back and forth about whether we should go in order, which seems logical. But then I worry that we'd never get to latter parts before the thread fizzles out or people lose interest.

Anyone else?

---

I have no preference.

Are you planning on starting a new thread or continue with this one?

I read Jonah this morning. It seems to me to be a story of a man who didn't know how to die and, to his horror in the fish, realized that he couldn't even be killed. All he wanted to do was sleep while the people around him wanted him to wake up.

May I seriously urge that a new thread be started for discussing the literary merit of the Bible. While I've appreciated reading some of the excellent responses on this thread, which have confirmed my appreciation for the Bible as literature, the derailment has gone rather far. Perhaps Scher could even split this topic to create two threads.

And I'll read Jonah tomorrow, trying to evaluate it in a new way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

This is hilarious!

You talk of logical fallacies and then post that.

You are defending this statement:

Study of the bible is essential to understanding literature.

Note that "essential". I haven't disputed at any stage that the bible forms part of our literary history, but I have conclusively shown that it is neither essential, nor seen as essential by leading universities.

Posting a few links to American Universities and the US Naval Academy does not in any way negate the evidence I provided.

In fact, even a quick scan of your links shows the likes of Brockport SUNY, which has a paltry one out of 24 papers concerning the bible. Or maybe you'd prefer to consider your own De Paul link, which again shows one paper in an entire course.

I am truly astonished if you cannot see that courses in the bible as literature does not support your position at all.

You appear to be doing a highly effective job at proving my point - when even the bastion of English-speaking christianity, USA, has such scarce attention to the bible in general literature study, its relevance to literature has well and truly passed.

If we can now get off this subject, I'll be the first to applaud.

---

Ah, shifting goal posts. You have to love when desperate people use them to try and get out of their own argumentative jams. See now it's not whether universities teach a course or not as part of their curriculum, but what we really need to look at is how many courses they teach on the topic per a single semester. What?! Only 1 of 24 courses in the Spring is about the Bible! Why it must not be essential at all! Ha! I win!

I'm still astonished that you're making this losing argument that is in disagreement with all the evidence provided, all the opinions of the experts, and all the opinions of your peers on this board with degrees in relevant subjects (art for St Luke and English for me and JBI), after everyone has kindly asked you to stop.

Since it's been agreed that there will be some members are willing to discuss the Bible as a literary work, I will now close this thread.

I would like to remind everyone who is planning to take part in the discussion
that the threads will be heavily moderated.

Please consider this a reminder/warning in advance.

The Comedian> Please start a different thread to discuss each part you will be reading so that the discussion stays on track. I will make the threads "sticky" for easier access.