The "I Hate Shakespeare" Thread.

[stlukesguild]

I asked which literary critics claim the bible or quran is great literature.

No answer.

Seriously... do you know the slightest thing about literature at all? Literary criticism of the Bible exists in such a vast quantity that I doubt even Shakespearean criticism can rival it. Literary Criticism... not religious or theological criticism. Nearly any university in the US... quite probably in the West in general... is certain to offer a course on the Bible as Literature and/or include Biblical texts in any World Literature Survey courses. Among the books which discuss the "great books" and offer suggested essential reading lists, nearly every one includes The Bible or specific Biblical texts. These might include: How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren, The Western Canon by Harold Bloom, Great Books by David Denby, The Lifetime Reading Plan by Clifton Fadiman and John S. Major, Good Reading: A Guide for Serious Readers, Waldhorn, Weber, and Zeiger, editors, Choice of Books by Sir John Lubbock, etc... There are any number of contemporary critics of the Bible as literature including Robert Alter, David Rosenberg, and Richard Elliott Friedman. Beyond the realm of the critic, there are endless Modern writers who have been inspired by Biblical texts... something that speaks volumes about their admiration for the Bible as literature. Among these you might include T.S. Eliot, J.L. Borges, Franz Kafka, Rilke, Nikos Kazantzakis, Michail Bulgakov, etc... etc... Add to this the continual literary translations of the Bible and/or Biblical texts: Robert Alter's The Five Books of Moses, The David Story, and The Book of Psalms, Stephen Mitchell's Job, Chana and Ariel Bloch's and Robert Graves Song of Songs, David Rosenberg's Poet's Bible and Book of David, and David Curzon's anthology, The Gospels in Our Image, which collects modern and contemporary poems structured upon Biblical texts (which again suggests a certain admiration in the poets) and includes poets such as J.L. Borges, D.H. Lawrence, Marina Tsvetaeva, Wislawa Symborska, William Butler Yeats, Rilke, Primo Levi, T.S. Eliot, Czeslaw Milosz, W.H. Auden, Thomas Disch, Richard Wilbur, Anthony Hecht, W.S. Merwin, Dylan Thomas, Paul Celan, Boris Pasternak, Thomas Hardy, etc... Beyond writers there are endless modern composers, painters, and film-makers who were equally inspired by Biblical literature... even when they themselves were agnostics or atheists. But all of these people are but fools. You... the great iconoclast (wannabe) know so much better. The fact of the matter is that your inability to see any aesthetic merit in the Biblical texts stems from your own admitted hatred of religion (enough so to make it plain in your very screen name) that itself verges on a form of racism.

By the way... its intriguing that you can call me out on the fact that I did not offer a list of critics and others who recognize the Bible as great literature (I simply felt that the claim was somewhat embarrassing and beneath acknowledgment) and yet you make some wild claim about the superiority of some vague Latin text that served as the basis for Julius Ceasar... and was clearly so much better than Shakespeare's book... and yet you cannot even think of what it was? Is this the intellectual acumen at work of which you spoke so confidently?

[The Atheist]

Literary criticism of the Bible exists in such a vast quantity that I doubt even Shakespearean criticism can rival it. Literary Criticism... not religious or theological criticism. Nearly any university in the US... quite probably in the West in general... is certain to offer a course on the Bible as Literature and/or include Biblical texts in any World Literature Survey courses.

Yes, I am fully aware of all of that, but I still don't see any links to anyone who calls the bible or quran "great literature".

It seems to me that you're able to list people who were influenced by the bible, but that's quite pointless, since our entire culture is based upon it.

The book itself is contradictory and absurd.

Let's see what the majority opinion is, since you're so concerned with others' views:

Time magazine No bible.

Washington Post No bible.

100 writers list their top 100 books. (Note The Book of Job makes it into the top 100, but not the book which spawned it.

Random House's top 100 and their readers' top 100. No bible.

Best 100 novels of all time.com. No bible, and this list must be fairly authoritative, because it has 1984 at #1.

Esquire's 75 Must-read Books. No bible.

Harvard Books Staff. No bible.

Check out those lists - I see all the important authors in there, Orwell, Shakespeare, Joyce, Greene, Twain, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Nobel & Pulitzer winners, so the lists can't be all rubbish, yet out of all of that, one lousy passage - a whole 23 pages - makes any of the lists.

There are many, many more, if you care to put your misconceptions aside for a moment and look at the bible objectively.

Among the books which discuss the "great books" and offer suggested essential reading lists, nearly every one includes The Bible or specific Biblical texts.

I just don't believe that is true. See the lists above - I looked, but they don't exist. Those people you claim see the bible as essential reading mean it from a theistic perspective, because nobody so far rates it as a book.

Is this the intellectual acumen at work of which you spoke so confidently?

I am very comfortable with my intellectual acumen at this stage, and not remembering quite which Latin text I had read, going back some 30-odd years, isn't going to make me re-think.

Please feel free to post another wall of text, but I'm over the discussion until you provide links and details of literary critics who will claim the bible, as a book, has literary merit.

[JBI]

Do you check the books you quote? Notice that some of them are time-specific, I.E English only, and twentieth century? Do you read what you google? Did you forget that The bible cannot possibly be on a list of best novels, being that they are *gasp* novels? And nice culture bias there, whose opinion are you really taking into account? For such a devout Orwellian, you forget to search who is putting forward these lists, and forgot to consider potential biases I.E. that most are American, and all are English, and many put out by News Papers which have their own agendas. Seriously, that's why these lists will always fail, besides the point that the bible is not one book, so how can it possibly rank amongst single works like that. Despite that, it continues to be the most read book, so your talk leads to nothing.

No one attempting to seriously approach Western literature has not read the Bible, at least in part. No serious critic does not see the profound effect the text has had. No serious English critic can get anywhere really, without the KJV. If you want critics, I can name you major critics, who you probably have never heard of, though are far better examples of critical consensus than the examples St. Lukes gave.

You virtually cannot understand Western Literature without an understanding of the Bible, because the text is so present, in all our thought, whether Christian, Jew, Atheist, or anything else. It is always present in the west, and a great deal of the east as well. The Koran is like that too - it won't go away - it is so central to the whole Islamic, and even surrounding, literary Canon, that to ignore it is not making an aesthetic statement, but I would argue, making a mild islamophobic statement.

Either way, said opinion will lead nowhere but disenlightenment - I think that is what the pseudo-atheists of the day, those with agendas rather than lacks of conviction forget - Atheism for centuries has been seen as a way to expand ones thought, not to shut ones thought out. If we only read those who agree with us, than what good wold reading be?

[The Atheist]

Do you check the books you quote? Notice that some of them are time-specific, I.E English only, and twentieth century?

Oh, mea culpa; one, just one list is both 20th century and English only. The rest are all the best of all time and as I stated, there are hundreds more available.

No one attempting to seriously approach Western literature has not read the Bible, at least in part. No serious critic does not see the profound effect the text has had.

Come on. It forms the backbone of the religion which has been the world's major one for many centuries and as I said earlier, our entire legal and moral system is built on it, so yes it has had a profound effect on life, including literature.

That doesn't make it good literature and the only people arguing that it does are you and stlukesguild. I'm happy for you to belabour under that misconception, but I do note that your attempted refutation contains no authority beyond your own opinion.

No serious English critic can get anywhere really, without the KJV.

Well said - it proves that you're wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. The KJV is wrong in so many places I can't even count them all. It is recognised by only a few insane sects of the christian church.

If you want critics, I can name you major critics, who you probably have never heard of, though are far better examples of critical consensus than the examples St. Lukes gave.

Please feel free to do so, because that's what I keep being told, but getting no evidence for. Do ensure that the criticism is literary and not theological.

I would agree that the bible is the most important book ever written, because it has influenced society for over 2000 years - if you include the OT, but it's a hopelessly poor book; unless you'd like to argue that a book of myths, untruths, contradictions and bad analogies can be great literature, in which case, Dan Brown is no doubt a legend.

You virtually cannot understand Western Literature without an understanding of the Bible, because the text is so present, in all our thought, whether Christian, Jew, Atheist, or anything else.

Assertion without substance. I don't accept a bar of it.

The Koran is like that too - it won't go away - it is so central to the whole Islamic, and even surrounding, literary Canon, that to ignore it is not making an aesthetic statement, but I would argue, making a mild islamophobic statement.

More assertion without substance, although I'd agree that islamists would see it as islamophobia, which is why the fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie. Most people in the places I go to don't see that as a good thing.

If we only read those who agree with us, than what good wold reading be?

This bit is right - and almost all of atheists I know are highly educated biblical scholars; there's no possibility of showing the ridiculous contradictions and absurdities if you haven't read and udnerstood it.

I look forward to your scholarly links to attempt to show that either the bible or quran is rated as superior literature.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh come on Atheist, give it up man, I don't know what you are tying to accomplish here in the long run - I just think you like writing controversial things on forums. I know a University tutor (one from about nine) who you will get on with well, I can give you her number?

Time to pull out and re-evaluate in the face of the posters here who we can all learn from, me included certainly. Let's not push it too far.

[The Atheist]

Oh come on Atheist, give it up man, I don't know what you are tying to accomplish here in the long run.

Well, it started as a simple exercise to show that Shakespeare-love is not universal or even desirable, in many cases.

I'd said about all there was to say on the subject, but some people have started making the laughable claim that the bible is great literature as well.

I'll cheerfully agree to disagree on Shakespeare, but suggestions that the bible has literary merit are just laughable and I won't let that kind of myth be perpetuated. It is rubbish.

Regardless of that, that subject's also done, unless omeone finally comes up with some proof that literature critics see the bible as great literature.

[stlukesguild]

I still don't see any links to anyone who calls the bible or quran "great literature".

What? I need links to prove my point? Any one who has even the least knowledge of literature... which you seemingly purport to have... is aware of the inclusion of Biblical texts among the lists of great books studied in universities... as literature... not as theology... not as history... and discussed by critics and authors.

How to Read a Book
by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren

The Old Testament (no. 2) The New Testament (no. 30)
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtadler.html

The Western Canon
by Harold Bloom
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtbloom.html#theo

Columbia University Reading List, Contemporary Civilization Course:1991-1992
quoted in David Denby's Great Books
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtcolcc.html

Columbia University Reading List, Literature Humanities Course: 1991-1992
quoted in David Denby's Great Books
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtcollh.html

The Lifetime Reading Plan
by Clifton Fadiman (3rd ed., 1988)
In the opening comments the author states that he did not include the Bible on his list of essential books because: "I have assumed that anyone who would read this book is already familiar with the Bible." The Qur'an is listed.
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtfad3.html

Good Reading: A Guide for Serious Readers
Waldhorn, Weber, and Zeiger, editors
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtgood.html

Great Books Index
http://books.mirror.org/gb.titles.html

Undoubtedly JBI... with his greater experience of literary theory and criticism... can come up with an endless array of other serious academic critics who would clearly agree that The Bible is a great work of literature. Yes it is flawed... as is nearly any epic work of art. Yes it lacks a continuity... as should be expected when texts by dozens of individual writers are collected within a single volume... but it contains an endless array of magnificent poetry and narrative.

And what lists do you offer? Two links to reviews of the same book compiled from a poll of British and American writers... in which the Bible most certainly IS included if you check out the entire list:
http://www.toptenbooks.net/list.html

It merely did not make the top-ten list in this popularity poll.

And your other offerings? Random House Modern Library List is chosen only from modern novels. The Bible isn't a novel, and it was written a bit before before the 20th century. The Best 100 Novels list? Again... the Bible is not a novel. Esquire magazine polls and and a poll of the Harvard Book Store Staff? Yeah... those are on the same level of critical merit as Van Doren, Bloom, and Columbia University. You keep trying... and you keep striking out. But don't let that dissuade you.

I just don't believe that is true. See the lists above - I looked, but they don't exist. Those people you claim see the bible as essential reading mean it from a theistic perspective, because nobody so far rates it as a book.

Ah... personal belief. I thought you were against that sort of thing. Only objective proof. Perhaps you should read some of the critics I have listed... and I'm sure JBI could give you a great number of others... before making your claim that they include the Bible solely from a theistic perspective. You might start with Harold Bloom... I'd suggest The Book of J as a good starting point. Bloom makes it clear that it is as literature, not theology, that he values the Biblical texts... especially as a non-believing Jew.

...if you care to put your misconceptions aside for a moment and look at the bible objectively.

And you are a bastion of objectivity when it comes to the Bible... the Qur'an... or any text sacred to any religion? Personally, I think of myself as an agnostic. I find the certainty of the atheist to be just as disconcerting as the certainty of the true believer.

[stlukesguild]

Well said - it proves that you're wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. The KJV is wrong in so many places I can't even count them all. It is recognised by only a few insane sects of the christian church.

Where do you get this stuff? The KJV is undoubtedly the greatest translation (in English) to date of the entire Bible. There are marvelous translations of individual sections. Chana and Ariel Bloch's Song of Songs, Robert Alter's Five Books of Moses and The Book of Psalms (I'd still want the King James version of the former), Stephen Mitchell's Job, etc... The Psalms may have been the least successful portion of the KJV as it translated the Hebrew poetry into English prose... beautiful English prose, but prose nonetheless. This was recognized early on and resulted in endless tranlations of the various psalms by some of the greatest names in English poetry: Milton, Phillip Sidney, Mary Sidney, Thomas Wyatt, Robert Crashaw, Christopher Smart, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, etc... There have been attempts at more accurate and literal renderings of the original texts... but a great majority fall flat, and far too many are just as inaccurate... in other ways. Some are even embarrassingly bad and unintentionally comic. The King James Version, however, is beautifully written and poetic.

[JBI]

Really, just look at the rhetoric intensity of the new Testament - the language is so artistic - is there no merit in that? Is there no merit in rhetorical power?

You seem to deny merit in mythological power, yet nonetheless, the myths are ever present, and refuse to go away.

Really, for all your bickering about how everything is slosh, you fail to provide proof of any texts you believe to be better. Keep in mind, your opinions deserve the same scrutiny, unless of course you believe your opinions don't count, or are too personal, in which case your case against Shakespeare ceases to count. And of course, you won't quote this, because we are in a written sphere, and one only quotes what they want to, as seen by your half-quoting of me to try and make me seem stupid, which St. Lukes picked up upon. Really, if you are going to use quotes, use the full quote, or the full idea.

Really, read The Great Code by Frye, a critic who will not value the Bible, because he realizes you don't need to - it values itself, it is the Western Canon, I would say even more than Shakespeare. Everyone in the West knows at least some of the stories, everyone can understand at least some of them.

Really, I think it is not us who are biased against the religious texts - giving them special treatment, but you - who are biased into devaluing them simply because you don't believe in them, whereas many authors and critics, I think notably of Robert Frost, an Atheist, Thomas Hardy, an Atheist/Agnostic (it seems blurry), Frederick Nietzsche, a borderline nihilist, amongst others have found beauty in the words, and in the lessons. Why can't you? Is it because you don't believe in the texts? Neither do I, at least, not literally, but there is still a truth on a poetic level, a metaphorical level, a mythical level, which is still so relevant.

[The Atheist]

Ah, at last an attempt, thanks very much!

What? I need links to prove my point? Any one who has even the least knowledge of literature... which you seemingly purport to have... is aware of the inclusion of Biblical texts among the lists of great books studied in universities... as literature... not as theology... not as history... and discussed by critics and authors.

The reason I asked for links is because I like to argue what people are saying rather than what I think they're saying, and one way to be sure is to get it down in black and white. Another good reason is that if you want to prove a point, you get the Googlr going. I showed you mine, you show me yours - that's how discussions work, don't they?

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd understand why I know it's in university studies. It has to be - our civilisation is, after all, largely based upon the premises in it, (as I've already said twice) so showing it as essential reading gives it no more literary worth than a road map.

I'm amazed that you can't grasp that immensely simple concept.

Anyway, on to your lists!

How to Read a Book
by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren

The Old Testament (no. 2) The New Testament (no. 30)
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtadler.html

Mortimer J Adler. Author of How to Think About God. Nice impartial-sounding bloke.

Charles van Doren? Are you kidding me? I trust you don't mean the well-known cheat and fraud bloke, because that would be a really bad idea. A proven intellectual fraud. Surely, I have the wrong guy?

The Western Canon
by Harold Bloom
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtbloom.html#theo

Bloom is not heralded by all, even within the realm of academia. He has frequently been accused of elitism atop openly biased subjective opinion throughout his career and especially in his literary commentary

Not my opinion of him.

Aside from that, the you show a list of Bloom's which contains thousands of titles. I could probably squeeze it into the top 5000.

Columbia University Reading List, Contemporary Civilization Course:1991-1992

Columbia University Reading List, Literature Humanities Course: 1991-1992
quoted in David Denby's Great Books

See above for university lists.

Clifton Fadiman The Lifetime Reading Plan
by Clifton Fadiman (3rd ed., 1988)
In the opening comments the author states that he did not include the Bible on his list of essential books because: "I have assumed that anyone who would read this book is already familiar with the Bible." The Qur'an is listed.
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtfad3.html

Unfortunately, I know nothing about this man and can only find that he was a TV personality. Still, I'll grant you that you did indeed manage to find one literary critic who included it in his list. Seeing as he's been dead for a while, I can't find out where he described the book as great literature, and given his university background, I imagine it miight not be. His reading list seems to be an eclectic mix of historical rather than literary gems, so he gets the benefit of the doubt at best.

He seems to have a large number of non-literary works in his list, unless you'd like to argue that the likes of the works of Sigmund Freud and An Introduction to Mathematics are literary masterpieces. (God, I hope not, we're stuck on the bible after starting on Shakespeare!)

Good Reading: A Guide for Serious Readers
Waldhorn, Weber, and Zeiger, editors
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtgood.html

Significant works in literature, history, regional studies, humanities, social sciences, and science.

I'd expect to see the bible in that kind of list. It confers no literary value, however.

Great Books Index
http://books.mirror.org/gb.titles.html

One of many hundreds. Big deal.

Undoubtedly JBI... with his greater experience of literary theory and criticism... can come up with an endless array of other serious academic critics who would clearly agree that The Bible is a great work of literature.

Well, I hope so, because your list is pretty forlorn.

And what lists do you offer? Two links to reviews of the same book compiled from a poll of British and American writers... in which the Bible most certainly IS included if you check out the entire list:
http://www.toptenbooks.net/list.html

It merely did not make the top-ten list in this popularity poll.

Again, making the top 500 is no mean feat. According to you, it's almost the greatest thing ever, so I'd expect a few people to list it in their top 500.

You keep trying... and you keep striking out. But don't let that dissuade you.

No, I'm pretty happy that there are thousands more for the finding. That the ones I provided weren't perfect was sloppy by me, yes, but I haven't seen any critic who has put his name to the bible being literary genius.

I'd suggest The Book of J as a good starting point. Bloom makes it clear that it is as literature, not theology, that he values the Biblical texts... especially as a non-believing Jew.

Interestingly enough, my mother's family were Blooms. I doubt I'll bother reading the book, but I'll accept your word on it. You have one critic of unknown and disputed value who thinks it's a great book.

I find it more than a little amusing that the last entry on Harry's list is your first link!

And you are a bastion of objectivity when it comes to the Bible... the Qur'an... or any text sacred to any religion?

Surprisingly, I am. I have read some marvellous books on religion and I'd cheerfully rate Aquinas' Summae Thoelogica as a masterpiece of literature, yet I think it's the most palpable rubbish ever put to paper.

See, you're assuming wrongly that I have misconceptions because they're religious texts. I couldn't care less what a book is about, but the quran is a hate-text of no merit whatsoever, while the bible is an imprtant historical document, but one which is appallingly badly written, and has been mis-translated - especially the KJV, which your support of just staggers me. The Anglican Church, which was responsible for the translation hasn't even used it for decades because it's so poor.

Another point on the bible - I talked about Shakespeare's lack of originality; well, his pales into insignificance behind the enormity of outright theft of both proverb and myth that is the christian bible.

Personally, I think of myself as an agnostic. I find the certainty of the atheist to be just as disconcerting as the certainty of the true believer.

Which just goes to show that you have no idea what an atheist is, either. Atheism doesn't deal in certainty of any kind, it is a lack of belief in god.

Nothing else.

Really, just look at the rhetoric intensity of the new Testament - the language is so artistic - is there no merit in that? Is there no merit in rhetorical power?

Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.

Parts of the bible, in particular the NT, aren't too bad at all, and some of the passages are indeed beautiful.

The effect is more than considerably spoiled by the inane and incorrect genealogy, Revelation and the above four horsemen of the resurrection. (Among other bits of drivel.)

You seem to deny merit in mythological power, yet nonetheless, the myths are ever present, and refuse to go away.

Is there a point there?

Lots of myths are persistent.

Really, for all your bickering about how everything is slosh, you fail to provide proof of any texts you believe to be better.

In the case of Shakespeare, that's quite right, although quite how I'd prove he was inferior to Orwell, say, I have no idea. I didn't start the thread to prove Shakespeare was inferior to anyone, I was saying that I think he's outdated and overrated. I've provided reasons why I think that, and most of the criticism hasn't been answered.

In the case of the bible, if you want a vastly superior text, try Aesop's Fables. The morality is clearer, it has wide appeal and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the bible will ever do. It doesn't need to resort to subterfuge or blackmail and it doesn't pass the collection plate around on Sundays.

Still, proving it is another thing.

Keep in mind, your opinions deserve the same scrutiny, unless of course you believe your opinions don't count, or are too personal, in which case your case against Shakespeare ceases to count. And of course, you won't quote this, because we are in a written sphere, and one only quotes what they want to, as seen by your half-quoting of me to try and make me seem stupid, which St. Lukes picked up upon. Really, if you are going to use quotes, use the full quote, or the full idea.

I edit quotes for brevity and clarity, not to escape questions. If there's something I haven't answered, please let me know. I'm not trying to make you look stupid, so I don't know why you'd think that.

Hey, and I'm always happy to defend my opinions, that's why I write them and why I always include my personal details in my profile - I stand behind everything I write, from advertisements to essays to posts on the internet.

Really, read The Great Code by Frye, a critic who will not value the Bible, because he realizes you don't need to - it values itself, it is the Western Canon, I would say even more than Shakespeare. Everyone in the West knows at least some of the stories, everyone can understand at least some of them.

Again, you're using it historically, and I've agreed with the historical use for it.

Really, I think it is not us who are biased against the religious texts - giving them special treatment, but you - who are biased into devaluing them simply because you don't believe in them, whereas many authors and critics, I think notably of Robert Frost, an Atheist, Thomas Hardy, an Atheist/Agnostic (it seems blurry), Frederick Nietzsche, a borderline nihilist, amongst others have found beauty in the words, and in the lessons. Why can't you? Is it because you don't believe in the texts? Neither do I, at least, not literally, but there is still a truth on a poetic level, a metaphorical level, a mythical level, which is still so relevant.

As above, to me, the sum of the parts is far more than the whole. Parables and lessons, taken alone, can be great literature, but there are thousands of books out there which have superb messages hidden inside drivel. Even Jackie Collins can make astute and telling observations on human behaviour, but it doesn't make her books worth more than fire-lighters.

Seriously, I don't devalue the bible because it's religious, I devalue it because it's rubbish. Why on earth else are there so many varieties of it? As another example of how I can see the bible without bias, I correspond with the Archbishop of Canterbury (who will tell you that the KJV is flawed, SLG, ) and I have enormous respect for him as a person. On the subject of god, however, I think he's as mad a hatter. (Also see my comments on Aquinas.)

Lacking belief in god/s doesn't stop me from being objective, even on theological literature.

[The Atheist]

Kee-rist, what a long post.

I will accept no liability for eye damage sustained by anyone mad enough to read it all!

[stlukesguild]

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd understand why I know it's in university studies. It has to be - our civilisation is, after all, largely based upon the premises in it, (as I've already said twice) so showing it as essential reading gives it no more literary worth than a road map.

For an atheist I am struck by the manner in which any dialog with you is like arguing with a true believer. You will find any excuse... however improbable... to negate any fact thrown in your direction. Yes... of course. All the universities and colleges that teach the Bible as part of their studies of literature are only doing so because the society is so infused with the Christian religion. None of the professors or critics value the Bible as Literature... except for certain religious fanatics.

Mortimer J Adler. Author of How to Think About God. Nice impartial-sounding bloke.

The Atheist... Nice impartial-sounding bloke.

Charles van Doren? Are you kidding me? I trust you don't mean the well-known cheat and fraud bloke, because that would be a really bad idea. A proven intellectual fraud. Surely, I have the wrong guy?

We are all impressed with your mastery of Google search. Yes, Charles van Doren was the critic who was indicted in (gasp!) a committing fraud on a television quiz show. In actuality, he was a brilliant academic who was fed correct answers by producers of a television quiz show because the good-looking brilliant academic son of well-known critic poet and critic Mark van Doren was great for the show's ratings. He made one bad decision which cost him his position at Columbia University. He went on to work as an editor for the Ecyclopedia Britanica (see? I can use Google too.) and currently is a professor at the University of Connecticut. But of course just as you are certain that Shakespeare's negative figure of Shylock completely destroys his entire reputation, one failing by van Doren completely negates his merits as critic, no doubt.

Bloom is not heralded by all, even within the realm of academia. He has frequently been accused of elitism atop openly biased subjective opinion throughout his career and especially in his literary commentary

Give me a break! What critic is universally heralded? Accused of elitism?! Gasp! Guess what? In case no one has told you ART IS ELITIST. Deal with it. The opinions of Joe the Plumber are completely irrelevant to whether Shakespeare or Mozart or Flavor Flav will last through the centuries.

...you show a list of Bloom's which contains thousands of titles. I could probably squeeze it into the top 5000.

Oh yeah. That must be why he wrote an entire book (The Book of J) devoted to the author of Old Testament narratives... and why he repeatedly places the Bible as the only possible aesthetic rival to Shakespeare... but you couldn't find that on Google. You'd actually have to had read the book.

Great Books Index
http://books.mirror.org/gb.titles.html

One of many hundreds. Big deal.

Again... this is like arguing with a brick wall. Any reason to dismiss the facts... no matter how incredulous it begins to sound.

That the ones I provided weren't perfect was sloppy by me, yes, but I haven't seen any critic who has put his name to the bible being literary genius.

That's largely because you could probably count all the critics you've actually read... and not merely Googled... on one hand... or such must certainly be the consensus when considering your inane comments as to the lack of any serious critic championing the Bible. Add to that the fact the you simply dismiss every candidate put forward as irrelevant... because he or she doesn't suit your argument... and well we once again have a brick wall... and I believe I am tired of talking to a wall.

[JBI]

Honestly, you seem to come off as watered down Orwell and Terry Eagleton, with all the polemics, but without any sense of scholarship. You don't seem to be understanding, or seem to be ignoring, how literary theory or criticism works, functions, or is carried out, in English countries, but also in the world. In truth, you don't seem to understand much of the Bible, or how it relates to literature to begin with.

The fact that you resort to telling people to bring on the "googlr" is quite stupid. Anyone who has any sense of scholarship knows google is for the lazy, and not for the academic. Maybe if you read a little more, instead of trying to be so controversial for the sake of mental masturbation you would appreciate, or at least see the reasons why people appreciate said texts. As it is, you only seem to quote (often misquoting I may add) people, not facts. Giving a list of novels and yelling "see, the Bible isn't on it".

As I have said before, you have no goal other than to hear your own voice. Your discussion goes nowhere, as no one is swayed. Your points go nowhere, as they no one seems to really be buying them but yourself, and the bible's value won't go down because of it, as, like you have said, it is so much our culture. The only real response is as follows.

Really, the only thing your doing is showing some opinions are overrated, not Shakespeare, and not the Bible, and that some people are better judges of literature in general.

You forget to address your own assumptions and beliefs, mainly that criticism is about rating. IT is not about rating, it is about exploring texts - any critic will tell you that, Bloom included. In fact, many critics deliberately shy away from valuing and rating texts, because that is not their job, and is not really the job of such scholarship. You won't find much on Google anyway, as it clearly isn't a credible source for anything scholarly. But you will find countless volumes of Bible criticism, as literature, as fact, as fallacy, as anything. The reason for this, is because it is a very dense book, with many possibilities and interpretations. Everyone who knows literature knows the Bible. To say the Bible is overrated is to ignore the fact that if it is overrated, literature itself is overrated, in which case, what business does one such as yourself have talking on a literature board if they are only here to call anyone who likes it Elitist. All decisions of value are elitist, because they aren't made by the majority of the population, who, ironically, would probably vote the Bible the top book, and for most people, the only book (well, in the Arab world, I think the Koran would win). No atheist critic would ignore the Bible, and most would encourage its reading as aesthetic literature. It certainly beats the alternatives.

[JBI]

Honestly, to put things in perspective - I punched in "The Bible As Literature" into the U of Toronto Catalog, to see what would come out, and I got over 1000 books, many of which (from browsing the front pages) contain titles such as "The Bible as literature" or "reading the Bible as literature" or some other variation. That is, I would note, excluding searches that would provide specific texts of the Bible treated as literature, or other Booleans, such as a study on a particular book, or chapter as literature, or books which simply assume the reader knows they are focused from a literary perspective. The view of The Bible only being read as a religious text is a fallacy to the extreme. The literary perspective has been approached countless times on the Bible.

In truth, there was even this publication amongst the first few pages:


Title
A history of the English Bible as literature /

David Norton.
Imprint
Cambridge, U.K. ; Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Format
Book. xii, 484 p.
Language
English


Not only is the book read as literature, but apparently has a somewhat long history of it being done so as well.

[Logos]

General Mod Note To All:

Please discuss the subject and not each other.

Any further posts not sticking to the subject will be removed.