The bible as literature.

...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.


That's what I've heard. Though I suspect that the raging hatred of non-believers (as in non-Muslims) in the English version I read is probably there in the Arabic, sublimely beautiful or not.
 
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. :(
The story of Job is also passed down from the Master Masons to their daughters and grand daughters. My teen daughter attends her Job's Daughter's meetings at the Masonic Temple and the significance of the story to them is how Job remained patient and faithful in the face of overwhelming and undeserved adversity and was rewarded.
Yes Job's friends were critical and insisted that he must have done something to warrant such misfortune, but that is not the point of the story.
 
The story of Job is also passed down from the Master Masons to their daughters and grand daughters. My teen daughter attends her Job's Daughter's meetings at the Masonic Temple and the significance of the story to them is how Job remained patient and faithful in the face of overwhelming and undeserved adversity and was rewarded.
Does that say anything about how they treat women? why don't they give the same instruction to the sons?
 
...
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.
.
"Abū Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyā Rāzī (Zakariā-ye Rāzi: Persian: زكريای رازی), known as Rhazes or Rasis after medieval Latinists, (August 26 865, Rayy— 925, Rayy) was a Persian[2][3] alchemist, chemist, physician, philosopher and scholar. He is recognised as a polymath[4] and often referred as "probably the greatest and most original of all the Muslim physicians, and one of the most prolific as an author"[5]
...
On the Quran, al-Razi said:

You claim that the evidentiary miracle is present and available, namely, the Koran. You say: "Whoever denies it, let him produce a similar one." Indeed, we shall produce a thousand similar, from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets, which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly. They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter. ... By God what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say: "Produce something like it"?! [1]"
.
Razi was lot closer to the original than anyone here...
 
The story of Job is also passed down from the Master Masons to their daughters and grand daughters. My teen daughter attends her Job's Daughter's meetings at the Masonic Temple and the significance of the story to them is how Job remained patient and faithful in the face of overwhelming and undeserved adversity and was rewarded.
Yes Job's friends were critical and insisted that he must have done something to warrant such misfortune, but that is not the point of the story.
.
Looking beyond the intent, it's merely a fable about a monster diddling his creations for no knowable purpose, other than to do it because he can!
 
The alternative view is that the bible is unquestionably one of the top ten literary works of all time.

Thoughts?


One of the top ten literary works of all time? Which parts?

I don't think it's total **** or I don't think I'd bother trying to figure out how it was put together.

I think I'd put Go, Dog. Go! before Chronicles and parts of Leviticus.

But there are some great stories in there, and I think it is fascinating what went into its construction. I think Mark, for instance, is a very literary work.
 
Does that say anything about how they treat women? why don't they give the same instruction to the sons?
In the story of Job his daughters were given inheritence and valued as the sons.
 
.
Looking beyond the intent, it's merely a fable about a monster diddling his creations for no knowable purpose, other than to do it because he can!
Rabbi Harold Kushner wrote a wonderful book based on the teachings of Job , searches for the meaning of why bad things happen to good people and why God would do this to Job or allow such horrible things to happen to anyone. Essentially the readers must come to ters with Rabbi Kushner's conclusion that God does not allow bad things to randomly happen, that nature is harsh and human beings can be unfairly hurt. Through misfortune Rabbi Kushner explains the importance of faith in God instead of a human desire for justice. There was a purpose for the misfortune that befell Job, God wasn't merely "diddling" with him for his amusement. Please read Rabbi Kushner's book :

http://www.gotquestions.org/bad-things-good-people.html
 
The story of Job is also passed down from the Master Masons to their daughters and grand daughters. My teen daughter attends her Job's Daughter's meetings at the Masonic Temple and the significance of the story to them is how Job remained patient and faithful in the face of overwhelming and undeserved adversity and was rewarded.
Yes Job's friends were critical and insisted that he must have done something to warrant such misfortune, but that is not the point of the story.

I thought the point of the story is that God is a great drinking buddy of Satan's and that it's ok to kill "servants", women and kids and torment a human being as part of a bet.

My bad. Sorry. :p
 
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.
That's the critical statement right there. It's spotty. There are bits of it that are pretty good, and there are bits of it that are terrible. Even The Silmarillion isn't as much a mismash as the Bible is.
 
IMO, calling the Bible literature is just a sneaky way of framing it as acceptable to study in the classroom. You don't see much interest in the Bible as lit in university literature studies. Perhaps in some comparative religion class, or as an elective in a Bible college that is popular. But I doubt you could find a serious literature degree program that took the Bible as lit seriously.
 
Rabbi Harold Kushner wrote a wonderful book based on the teachings of Job , searches for the meaning of why bad things happen to good people and why God would do this to Job or allow such horrible things to happen to anyone. Essentially the readers must come to ters with Rabbi Kushner's conclusion that God does not allow bad things to randomly happen, that nature is harsh and human beings can be unfairly hurt. Through misfortune Rabbi Kushner explains the importance of faith in God instead of a human desire for justice. There was a purpose for the misfortune that befell Job, God wasn't merely "diddling" with him for his amusement. Please read Rabbi Kushner's book :

http://www.gotquestions.org/bad-things-good-people.html

OK. I did that. Unconvincing to say the least. God kills Job's sons to teach him a lesson. Why did He not kill him to teach them a lesson?

God really seems to be a boastful bastard doesn't He?
 
The story of Job is an interesting story. For that period, it's pretty good literature.

That is a good point. Perhaps we should make this "comparative literature".

Genesis, for example, is very much like John Bunyon's The Pilgrim's Progress. Both are highly allegorical and were obviously constructed to illustrate religious principles. Frankly, I hated Pilgrim's Progress quite a bit, but it is definitely in the "classics" section of the bookstore.

Leviticus can be favorably compared with a grocery list with several items crossed out. There are helpful recipes on the back.

Interestingly, Exodus of the Bible is in many ways similar to Exodus by Leon Uris. Both describe a struggle of the Jews against hopeless odds. Both involve at least one "miracle". In the Uris book, it's the UN voting to create Israel.

The story of Job, as kbluesfan points out, is similar to a lot of tales. One might compare it to one of Aesop's fables. It is a fantasy, even containing a dragon, which uses hyperbole to demonstrate a moral. If the stories of Aesop are considered good writing, then so should Job be.

Some of the bible reads like Grimm's Fairy Tales, especially the parts where there is a lot of gore. The story of Elisha in Kings 2 where he curses the forty-two kids and then a bear comes down and eats them, is quite grisly (the story, not the bear) somewhat in the vein of Hansel and Gretel. (The original versions, not the ones where the kids get saved.)

There's some decent poetry in the bible. I like the sexy parts of Song of Solomon. I'd compare it to some of the racy poems (and there are many) of Robert Burns. Psalms, while it has some decent rhythm and metaphors, it gets a little repetitive. It's like Coleridge's classic The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, which drones on and on. Yeah. Water water everywhere. We get it, Sam.

Of course, the meat of the book is The Gospels. It would be interesting to compare the separate telling of the life of Jesus by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, to the William Faulkner masterpiece, The Sound and the Fury. In both cases, it is the same story told through four different sets of eyes. I have to say that TS&TF is far superior though because the tellings are so very different. One is from the point of view of a retarded person. Insert joke here.

But what can you say about Revelation? The best thing I can think of to compare it to is the Star Gate scene/chapter from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Both have wild, nearly psychedelic imagery and both are nearly incomprehensible. Neither seems like it belongs with the rest of the book at all.

So yeah, some of the Bible can be reasonably compared to great literature. A lot of it though, is just plain old deadly boring. And yes, I've read the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
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.

I agree, the children's Bibles are good for the stories; I use them from time to time when teaching RE (religious education) in my UU church. However, any serious study into the Bible is an invitation to logical fallacy city and rationalization. I tried, and failed, and that is part of what lead me away from my Christian upbringing. A buddy of mine attended Yale seminary, the place I was going to attend (I was in "fake it 'till you make it" mode at that time). It's funny, ask any "born again" Christian and they'll tell you the moment of their conversion to Christianity. My conversion from Christianity happened one Saturday afternoon, talking with my seminary student buddy who finally said "baloney" and left. I still have his Oxford Annotated Bible.

eta: Thomas Jefferson actually translated the Greek and Aramaic and wrote what's called "Jefferson's Bible". It's the morals and teachings of Christ without all the woo woo of the New Testament. The last verses, and the end of Jesus' story according to Jefferson, are "63 There laid they Jesus, 64 And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed."

The text can be found here: http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
 
Last edited:
Lost in translation.
I suspect the Bible would be a much better read if I knew Hebrew and Biblical Greek.

True, but changes had been going on for some time (for most of the Bible) long before it reached written form. (Remember, we've got more than one version of many of the stories in the Moses books, and scholars generally agree on the characteristics of the sources of the different versions--you know the J and the P and so on. . . )

I'd say not only "lost in translation" but also "added in translation" and "amended in translation". In the new testament, we've got gospels that were clearly written based on another gospel but with what had to be intentional changes (sometimes corrections of known errors, but other times. . ..)
 
I thought the point of the Bible was its oldness.
Its unreadableness only adds to the mystique.

You can open it anywhere, and read it, and pretend it makes sense.
You can carry it with you everywhere, and even stash drugs in the middle of it, and appear relatively harmless on a bus.

You can roll a joint with the extra pages at the back, if they're that really thin paper.
Kids can learn to use Bible verses as codes to convey information to their friends about certain activities they don't want their mom knowing.

Presidents can use a Bible to add legitimacy to swearing in.
Its not about literature.

Its more like the "Rocky Horror" movie.
You go, and you learn the parts.
Its not about entertainment.
 
OK. I did that. Unconvincing to say the least. God kills Job's sons to teach him a lesson. Why did He not kill him to teach them a lesson?

God really seems to be a boastful bastard doesn't He?

I've known people who claim to have found great consolation in Kushner's book. I read it myself, and it seemed to me that the God in his outlook is not omnipotent (thus doesn't have to answer why he can let such horrible things happen). The message, as I remember it, was that God is there to provide good things, but he can't be blamed for the bad things.

I got the impression that the universe was a LOT bigger than this God, but he's on your side doing his best.
 

Back
Top Bottom