The bible as literature.

[The Atheist]

I've been having a fascinating and surprisingly acrimonious discussion on the bible from a literary perspective only. Surprisingly acrimonious, because the other side isn't even christian.

My position is this:

While the christian bible (and quran) are extremely important historical documents, as works of literature, they are a shocking fail.

The bible, while it contains some excellent wisdom and passages, is garbage - contradictory pulp, full of boringly stupid and incorrect genealogy, poor analogy, based on an single premise of deus ex machina, far too disparate in its content, sexist, racist and bigoted, designed to subdue rather than teach and finishes with an incomprehensible load of old cobblers.

The alternative view is that the bible is unquestionably one of the top ten literary works of all time.

Thoughts?

 

[Nursefoxfire]

I've been having a fascinating and surprisingly acrimonious discussion on the bile from a literary perspective only. Surprisingly acrimonious, because the other side isn't even christian.

freudian slip?

 

[Blackadder]

I never liked anything in the bible apart from edited stories for example for children's bibles.
I am in the it's a failure camp.

But who am I? I also hate Homer, Virgil and the like... So maybe it's just that I don't like the classics

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I've been having a fascinating and surprisingly acrimonious discussion on the bile from a literary perspective only.

Looks like Freud was right once again.

Anyway, the Holey Babble (oops, force of habit) is a pretty boring read. It needs more action. And vampires. With guns, not sparkles.

 

[Dr H]

I've been having a fascinating and surprisingly acrimonious discussion on the bile from a literary perspective only. Surprisingly acrimonious, because the other side isn't even christian.

My position is this:

While the christian bible (and quran) are extremely important historical documents, as works of literature, they are a shocking fail.

The bible, while it contains some excellent wisdom and passages, is garbage - contradictory pulp, full of boringly stupid and incorrect genealogy, poor analogy, based on an single premise of deus ex machina, far too disparate in its content, sexist, racist and bigoted, designed to subdue rather than teach and finishes with an incomprehensible load of old cobblers.

The alternative view is that the bible is unquestionably one of the top ten literary works of all time.

Thoughts?

Just my opinion, but in considering the bible as literature there are parts that have some poetic value, but for most of it I agree that "pulp" is a pretty good description. It's about what you'd expect from a text that a) has a political agenda, and b) has gone through generations of editors, translators, and redactors.

Top ten? As literature I wouldn't even put it in the top 1000.

 

[Roma]

I am a Christian, have been for almost fifty years, and have read the Bible many times.
I think your comments are a tad harsh if you don't mind my saying so.
Some Christians take every word in the Bible literally, some view it as not much more than poetry, like Shakespear, so it is impossible to generalize views held by Christians.
My own personal opinion, as a Christian, is that the Bible is a Holy book and it is written as a history (pretty dismal sometimes) and guide for believers and followers of Jesus Christ.
It is unfortunate that some Christians have used the Bible for their own purposes by twisting the meaning of some teachings to suit their own selfish needs and prejudices.
I hope you won't completely disregard this piece of literature in haste and anger.
Think of the beauty of some of the Psalms or the wisdom in some of the parables, there are some that even the most anti-Christian might be able to find of some worth or interest.

 

[ksbluesfan]

The story of Job is an interesting story. For that period, it's pretty good literature.

 

[Lensman]

The story of Job is an interesting story. For that period, it's pretty good literature.

Bob Heinlein certainly thought so.

 

[The Atheist]

freudian slip?

What? Me? You think I made a typo?

But who am I? I also hate Homer, Virgil and the like... So maybe it's just that I don't like the classics

Funny, I don't like them either. But I do like some of the classics - Clive Cussler, Jackie Collins - you know, the real heavyweight stuff.

Anyway, the Holey Babble (oops, force of habit) is a pretty boring read. It needs more action. And vampires. With guns, not sparkles.

At least there's good doses of sex, incest and masturbation.

Just my opinion, but in considering the bible as literature there are parts that have some poetic value, but for most of it I agree that "pulp" is a pretty good description. It's about what you'd expect from a text that a) has a political agenda, and b) has gone through generations of editors, translators, and redactors.

Top ten? As literature I wouldn't even put it in the top 1000.

Yep, that's exactly where I am. I felt that if I had to make a list of the Best 5000 books, I could squeeze it in.

I think your comments are a tad harsh if you don't mind my saying so.

I agree they're a bit harsh, and I wrote it! It's just the way I write (& talk).

I'm quite sure that if I wasn't quite as harsh in the other discussion, I'd have drawn a lot less dissention.

I hope you won't completely disregard this piece of literature in haste and anger.
Think of the beauty of some of the Psalms or the wisdom in some of the parables, there are some that even the most anti-Christian might be able to find of some worth or interest.

Yes, and I've admitted that at all times. There are some excellent passages, but a few good bits in the dross doesn't make it a good book, as a book.

The story of Job is an interesting story. For that period, it's pretty good literature.

Yep, that's one of the good bits. Pity it starts and finishes with two of the worst bits.

 

[Starthinker]

I've read the bible cover-to-cover but at the time I was reading it with the mindset that it was historical fiction. I don't believe the stories are true but it kind of gives you an idea of what life was like at the time. I did pick up a few bits of wisdom but you can do that with just about any book.

Also, remember it's not a book, it's a collection of books, by different authors written at different times. If you are going to try and read the bible with the mindset that it's a single book with a coherent time line and sequence of events then of course it will appear much more chaotic than it actually is. Keep in mind you are getting different points of view, different styles, and even different histories.

 

[I Ratant]

A book can be considered "great literature" without being factual!
There's lots of those.
Odyssey, Shakespeare, Milton..
The experts that rate these things consider the bible one of the better.
Interestingly, the koran is considered sophomoric at best, due to the innumerable blunders in basic literature in its content.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's a lot of different kinds of literature in the Bible. Some of it does nothing for me (lists of laws, recordings of oral histories, the psalms, for examples), but I find some of it very compelling. The Passion stories I think are some really good fiction. One of my favorite bits is the Agony in the Garden--where the god-man struggles with being a scared and lonely human.

And the romantic, erotic love poem Song of Solomon is nice!

And then there's the literary role the Bible plays by being the scripture of the dominant religion in Western culture for so long--there are biblical references all over the secular literature. Seriously, you can't really read Shakespeare or Milton without a pretty good familiarity with the Bible. You'd miss an awful lot.

Just one little example, in Milton's Sonnet 19 (on his blindness) there's the phrase "that one talent which is death to hide" alluding to Jesus' parable of the talents. If you didn't know that, you'd miss a big part of the poem.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, remember it's not a book, it's a collection of books, by different authors written at different times.

Good point.

Which is why I'd not recommend treating it all as historical fiction, since there are many other genres. (In fact, I'm not sure if "historical fiction" is accurate for any of it. Its relation to history is not the same as that of a Cold War spy novel, for example.)

ETA: For example, a lot of the "Mosaic" books started out as oral history that was fictionalized by different groups (trying to put their spin on things, and even introducing bits that were wholly fictional to treat events that were topical at that time). These several versions of the same stories were then later "edited" together and written down by someone else with another set of motives. Of course, before it got to us, it was translated by other people with yet other motives and many of them taking license with the text.

ETA later: I guess I'm saying I don't like the term "historical fiction" applied to the Bible because it implies that there was at the time another genre of "history" that was very different.

 

[Mister Agenda]

The Bible as literature has much of its value as the source of many 'bits' of good writing that draw on it.

 

[plumjam]

Lost in translation.
I suspect the Bible would be a much better read if I knew Hebrew and Biblical Greek.
They also say that to really appreciate the Koran it's very difficult if Arabic is not your mother tongue. They reckon that in Arabic it is sublimely beautiful.

 

[Piscivore]

Lost in translation.
I suspect the Bible would be a much better read if I knew Hebrew and Biblical Greek.

A point I was about to make.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The story of Job is an interesting story. For that period, it's pretty good literature.

Amusingly enough, I took the Book of Job as literature in grade 10 while a student at a high school run by the Protestant School Board of Montreal about 1956 or so. There were no classes in religion at all on the curriculum and the BoJ was just treated as a story.

I have learned to love the story as an example of how convoluted the thought processes of Christian believers can be.

 

[Piscivore]

And the romantic, erotic love poem Song of Solomon is nice!

Really? People are always gushing about how "romantic" and "erotic" it is, but to me it has always been trite and not a little bit ridiculous. To me it sounds like the sort of pathetic, sappy drivel a moon-eyed callow virgin would write.

Either that or a tarted up bill of lading for a merchant's caravan.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

The bible, while it contains some excellent wisdom and passages, is garbage - contradictory pulp, full of boringly stupid and incorrect genealogy, poor analogy, based on an single premise of deus ex machina, far too disparate in its content, sexist, racist and bigoted, designed to subdue rather than teach and finishes with an incomprehensible load of old cobblers.

You seem to have nailed it there.

 

[X]

Lost in translation.
I suspect the Bible would be a much better read if I knew Hebrew and Biblical Greek.
They also say that to really appreciate the Koran it's very difficult if Arabic is not your mother tongue. They reckon that in Arabic it is sublimely beautiful.

Ya.
People I've talked to who can read Hebrew and Greek say it loses a lot in the translation to English.
The prose and verse can't be copied properly.

It's still full of outlandish stories and mish-mashes, but then, so is any other mythology.

However, it's not my personal taste in literature. Give me Dumas, or Cherryh.