Bible as Literature Reading Thread?

[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.

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.

[JCamilo]

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.

[Dodo25]

"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.

[Drkshadow03]

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.

[Haunted]

@ 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.

[YesNo]

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.

[JCamilo]

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.

[The Atheist]

@ 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.

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.

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.

[Drkshadow03]

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.

[JCamilo]

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.

[Drkshadow03]

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:

"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.

[The Atheist]

Now to deal with the actual subject.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

[The Comedian]

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.

[Drkshadow03]

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.

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.

[The Comedian]

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?