The bible as literature.

[Dr H]

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.

I am neither angry, nor have I disregarded the Bible in haste. In fact, at last count I had read no fewer than a dozen different versions of the Bible from cover to cover. There aren't a whole lot of Christians who could truthfully make that claim, and to make matters more interesting I happen to be an atheist.

In fact, considering the number of atheists who frequent these fora, Biblical literacy seems to be quite high here, perhaps surprisingly.

Whether any book or story is "good" literature is of course subjective to a high degree. But it is certainly possible to discuss the merrits of the Bible as literature without having to deal with its alleged sacredness, or get bogged down with discussions of inerrancy. Whole classes are taught on exactly this topic.

 

[blobru]

Just call me what I am -- Blobru's straight man.

I'll keep settin' 'em up, you keep the gems rolling.

blobru^tm: the ichneumonwasp's ichneumonwasp... available at finer entomologists' everywhere!

 

[Dr H]

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.

Yahbut... great prose, and even great poetry is being successfully translated all the time. You mention Dumas: he wrote in French, yet his works are regularly read, taught, and appreciated as great literature in English. For that matter, how many people have read The Canterbury Tales in the original Middle English, or Beowulf in the original Old English -- yet they are still read, and considered significant literature.

Parts of the Bible have been around for close onto 3000 years. That's plenty of time to have developed one or more translations that do justice to the art in the original texts. If we're not finding much art in any currently available translations, it's seems likely that it's because there wasn't a whole lot of art there to begin with.

 

[Dr H]

.
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!

Well, not really for "no knowable purpose." He had a side-bet on with Satan, after all.

 

[Hokulele]

I'd argue that the Bible isn't a piece of literature but a body of literature written, edited and translated over a long period of time and only later put together as a single body of work. Since its been put together the emphasis has been mostly on preserving the text rather than creating a unified 'book'.

The bible isn't literature, it is an anthology.

 

[Dr H]

Perfect - this has been one of my main points; that the bible is essential to literature, but it isn't a piece of great literature.

The operative term being "great". Taken as a single unit the Bible is certainly literature, but not great literature. An earlier poster mentioned "the classics;" perhaps one could place the Bible among them. To be "classic" primarily means to be significant in some way; this isn't necessarily synonymous with "high quality".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The operative term being "great". Taken as a single unit the Bible is certainly literature, but not great literature. An earlier poster mentioned "the classics;" perhaps one could place the Bible among them. To be "classic" primarily means to be significant in some way; this isn't necessarily synonymous with "high quality".

Exactly.

I would count Mein Kampf as a literary work too. Certainly not anything I consider "great" (or even "good"), but definitely significant, and definitely something worth at least knowing about.

 

[Lucian]

Yahbut... great prose, and even great poetry is being successfully translated all the time. You mention Dumas: he wrote in French, yet his works are regularly read, taught, and appreciated as great literature in English. For that matter, how many people have read The Canterbury Tales in the original Middle English, or Beowulf in the original Old English -- yet they are still read, and considered significant literature.

Parts of the Bible have been around for close onto 3000 years. That's plenty of time to have developed one or more translations that do justice to the art in the original texts. If we're not finding much art in any currently available translations, it's seems likely that it's because there wasn't a whole lot of art there to begin with.

I've read Beowulf in Old English; no translation does it justice. If you want to get a good idea of what the poem actually says, you really need a prose translation, but that's prose. The verse translations take a lot of license, and no matter how much the poets alliterate, they can't really recreate the meter and poetic style. As for Chaucer, the language isn't that hard. I swear, you don't really need a translation, just a good glossed text.

As for the Bible, like Beowulf and The Canterbury Tales, it is still read and is considered significant literature by many, although it's not my cup of tea. I find it too difficult to ignore the fact that people believe it and do horrible things with it.

As several people have said, the Bible is a compilation by many writers over a long period of time. There are oral traditions that eventually got written down. There are different versions of the same story that got smooshed together at some point. It's kind of like the Poetic Edda, except much more varied and not as much fun.

 

[Lucian]

I'm a confirmed poetry hater, so aesthetically, it means nothing to me.

Okay, so you don't like the Bible as literature, you don't like Homer or Virgil and you hate poetry. It seems to me that your definition of "great literature" may be just a smidge idiosyncratic.

 

[The Atheist]

Okay, so you don't like the Bible as literature, you don't like Homer or Virgil and you hate poetry. It seems to me that your definition of "great literature" may be just a smidge idiosyncratic.

Nope. Just because I hate it doesn't mean I'm unable to critically evaluate it.

I hate lots of great literature, but I wouldn't deny it's great literature.

 

[HawaiiBigSis]

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.

Other people beat me to it, but I took Bible as Lit in college (circa 1976, California State University, Fullerton), and there wasn't a tiny bit of religion in the class. We read the stories, each of them, in two different bible translations (neither of which was KJ), and discussed them as stories, as reflections of their historical times, as literature, and critically evaluating the writing, style, word selection, poetry, etc.

 

[Minarvia]

I don't think it's great literature. In my opinion, it's okay in parts, somewhat entertaining, mostly horrific and disgusting, and sometimes poetic. As a person who can usually read the "driest" books out there, when I was reading it from cover to cover in college it began as somewhat of a joy to me, then disintegrated into a HUGE chore. But I did it. Not quite sure how, as I never did drugs! My favourite part was the end of it. The "Amen." The End. And then I had pizza and Coke and Milky Ways. That was my reward.

 

[slingblade]

I hope you won't completely disregard this piece of literature in haste and anger.

No, what started me disregarding it was being beaten in the head with it. Literally.

Any anger I hold towards the abusive nature of Christianity doesn't invalidate my argument, or the argument of any former-Christian-turned-atheist. And I'm pretty sick of the fallacious insinuation that it somehow does.

 

[ZirconBlue]

There's no rule that says poetry has to rhyme.

Sure there is. It's called "ZirconBlue's First Rule of 'Poetry That I Can Be Bothered About'". Haven't you heard of it?

 

[Nogbad]

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.

Hmmmm - the grass is always greener in the other field and things were better long ago. Good literature translates.

The Bible has numerous authors some of whom wrote very well. There are gems of literature in the Bible but there is some fairly tedious dross too....."skip a bit brother"

 

[Safe-Keeper]

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

There are people who have learned Norwegian just to read Ibsen in the original tongue. This probably applies to lots of other works, too, almost certainly including the religious ones.

 

[Dr H]

I've read Beowulf in Old English; no translation does it justice. If you want to get a good idea of what the poem actually says, you really need a prose translation, but that's prose. The verse translations take a lot of license, and no matter how much the poets alliterate, they can't really recreate the meter and poetic style. As for Chaucer, the language isn't that hard. I swear, you don't really need a translation, just a good glossed text.

OK, you have a point about translating poetry, though I would point out that parts of the Bible are written in poetic form as well.

As for the Bible, like Beowulf and The Canterbury Tales, it is still read and is considered significant literature by many, although it's not my cup of tea. I find it too difficult to ignore the fact that people believe it and do horrible things with it.

As several people have said, the Bible is a compilation by many writers over a long period of time. There are oral traditions that eventually got written down. There are different versions of the same story that got smooshed together at some point. It's kind of like the Poetic Edda, except much more varied and not as much fun.

My point is that great literature is translatable, and while translations can vary wildly in quality, good translations are possible. I notice you didn't demure about Dumas, which is but one of many examples that if a piece of literature has that subjective quality of "greatness," said quality can still be recognized in translation.

If after three thousand years of trying, by hundreds (if not thousands) of people, no translation of a piece (like parts of the Bible) contains that recognizable quality, I'd say it's a pretty fair guess that the quality was lacking in the original.