The Bible is unreadable

[mal4mac]

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

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

[Virgil]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

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

[Red-Headed]

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

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

It's still a funny play.

[mal4mac]

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

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

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

[mal4mac]

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

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

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

[mona amon]

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

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

I read this one some time back - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=O...age&q=&f=false (The Literary guide to the Bible By Robert Alter, Frank Kermode). It's a collection of essays by different people. There must be more out there.

[mal4mac]

I read this one some time back - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=O...age&q=&f=false (The Literary guide to the Bible By Robert Alter, Frank Kermode). It's a collection of essays by different people. There must be more out there.

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

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

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

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

[bigben]

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

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

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

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

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

[Virgil]

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

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

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

[JCamilo]

What makes anything about bible not literary?

[mal4mac]

Clearly the Bible was not meant as a literary work.

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

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

Could you recommend one?

[Virgil]

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

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

Could you recommend one?

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

[NickAdams]

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

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

[Red-Headed]

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

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

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

Shakespeare was definitely funnier...