Bible as Literature Reading Thread?

[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?

[Jassy Melson]

I for one would be interested in this.

[YesNo]

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.

[L.M. The Third]

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.

[The Atheist]

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!

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.

[Drkshadow03]

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.

[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.

[stlukesguild]

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.

[The Comedian]

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

[The Atheist]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

[Drkshadow03]

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.

[stlukesguild]

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.

[mtpspur]

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.

[JBI]

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.

[The Atheist]

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.

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

Or maybe not - see above.

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.

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.

Not relevant today is just idiocy...

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

... zealots ...