The bible as literature.

[blobru]

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.

Some of the poetry sure suffers; so hard to rhyme "infidel" in English:

we no like you, infidel!
we no like you... since ya smell?

just not the same

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

Most of the Bible's pretty close to that, really: starts out Do, God. Do! followed by long passages of Beget, Jew. Beget! Then the much-beloved Die, God. Die! (in quadruplicate), and finally End, World. End!

 

[TX50]

As Samuel Johnson [probably never actually] said:
"[It] is both good and original. Unfortunately, the parts which are good
are not original and the parts which are original are not good."

 

[Hokulele]

The writing was OK.

The peer review process sucked.

 

[The Atheist]

But I doubt you could find a serious literature degree program that took the Bible as lit seriously.

Dunno, but I'm in the process of finding that out.

Interestingly, Exodus of the Bible is in many ways similar to Exodus by Leon Uris.

Uh, I think that was the whole idea.

Hansel and Gretel. (The original versions, not the ones where the kids get saved.)

Disney - it's all their fault. The Little Mermaid, even The Hunchback of Notre Bleeding Dame had to be sanitised.

The whole point was to teach kids that sometimes, there are monsters, and it's more likely to be your stepmum than the wolf.

You could well be right, but you gotta admit that King James geezer couldn't write for toffee.

Haha! Glad someone mentioned silly James.

One of the antis thought KJV was the defnitive bible version in English. I thought that pretty much summed up the level of argument, myself.

It's funny, ask any "born again" Christian and they'll tell you the moment of their conversion to Christianity.

I wish I could find it funny.

(I do know what you mean, though. I met up with a bloke I'd been very pally with in our youth and he was almost as bad a debaucher as me. roll on 15 years to when we met up and he was dead-set scared of me! He'd found god - and yes, he did tell me where and when - but he knew I hadn't and had gone from a bloke I'd had 2M 2F orgies with, drinking beer out of a woman's.... body, to thinking I was possessed by Satan.)

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.

Ah... I love deconversion stories.

Thomas Jefferson actually translated the Greek and Aramaic and wrote what's called "Jefferson's Bible".

Thanks for that!

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. . ..)

Another home run to Joe!!

You can roll a joint with the extra pages at the back, if they're that really thin paper.

Been there, done that; not as good as rice paper, but waaaaaay better than money.

Well Silly, of course he couldn't, the word "toffee" did not enter the English language until1825!

Toffee^WP

Most of the Bible's pretty close to that, really: starts out Do, God. Do! followed by long passages of Beget, Jew. Beget! Then the much-beloved Die, God. Die! (in quadruplicate), and finally End, World. End!

You forgot, "Rot in hell forever, you vile unbelievers! And your children, and your children's children, and even their kids too!"

 

[slingblade]

This may have already been said. I did read the other posts, but I admit I skimmed some, and may have missed it.

The bible is not the literature. The bible informs literature. You'd have a hard time quite grasping everything in Milton or Shakespeare without knowing their reference point, and it was often the bible. Especially in Milton's case, I think you may agree.

This is how it was explained to me in my own high-level literature courses, and I can accept that. How true it is, I've no idea. I've not taken a bible as lit course, so I don't know first-hand what's taught.

But, again, it does make sense to have some background in the bible, so that you can better understand much of the literature, the real literature, that followed it and sprang up from it.

ETA: For instance:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert.

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?


Now. Critically analyze that without knowing the referent. I dare you.

 

[arthwollipot]

Agreed. Much of "western" culture has roots in the Bible. Take a look through any standard list of phrases and you'll see many from the Bible.

Here's one: http://www.hbu.edu/hbu/DBM_Commom_Phrases.asp?SnID=2

The Bible has always been a source of much "pop culture".

 

[RandFan]

Lots of crap. Lost of great stuff. Creation, as an alegory, is an amazing piece of literature for its time. Humans became as gods, gained the ability to know good from evil, who learned that they were mortal and thereby became mortal.

It's truly unfortunate that religion tarts it up.

 

[Andronicus]

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.

A quick internet search indicates lots of schools teach the course The Bible as Literature. For example, the University of Michigan and Yale University. (Both of which, I would suggest, offer "a serious literature degree program.")

http://www.yale.edu/english/undergraduate-courses.html
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/cg/cg_detail.aspx?content=1720ENGLISH401001&termArray=w_09_1720

(Confirmation bias?)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I stand corrected.

 

[The Atheist]

The bible is not the literature. The bible informs literature. You'd have a hard time quite grasping everything in Milton or Shakespeare without knowing their reference point, and it was often the bible. Especially in Milton's case, I think you may agree.

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.

Our society's been based on the morality and teachings of the bible for quite a number of centuries, so it has to have a bearing on all art forms. And everything else.

Now. Critically analyze that without knowing the referent. I dare you.

Well, it appears to be some bloke attempting to paraphrase Revelation.

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

 

[gtc]

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'.

Given this, it doesn't surprise me that it doesn't have the characteristics of great literature but I think individual books of the Bible have merit as pieces of literature or poetry or what not.

 

[slingblade]

Well, it appears to be some bloke attempting to paraphrase Revelation.

Which you assume because of your familiarity, however passing, with said book of the bible, yes. So, a course examining the bible and its place in literature might not go amiss for some.

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

It was Yeats. And I believe he was using Revelation as a metaphor for WW I and his society's reaction. No, I'm wrong by 100 years or so. Ignore that, I'm tired. G'nite!

 

[lionking]

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.

When I read part of the Silmarillion (I only got through about 20 pages) my first thought was "this is as bad as the Bible".

 

[Tricky]

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'.

Given this, it doesn't surprise me that it doesn't have the characteristics of great literature but I think individual books of the Bible have merit as pieces of literature or poetry or what not.

Then I guess the analog for the Bible as a whole would be Naked Came the Stranger^WP

 

[quarky]

Bible, schnible.

(Just had to write "schnible")

 

[Piscivore]

And I believe he was using Revelation as a metaphor for WW I and his society's reaction. No, I'm wrong by 100 years or so. Ignore that, I'm tired. G'nite!

No, that's correct.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Most of the Bible's pretty close to that, really: starts out Do, God. Do! followed by long passages of Beget, Jew. Beget! Then the much-beloved Die, God. Die! (in quadruplicate), and finally End, World. End!

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

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

 

[ZirconBlue]

The writing was OK.

The peer review process sucked.

Much like the works of Ayn Rand, the Bible is in serious need of a good editor.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert.

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?


Now. Critically analyze that without knowing the referent. I dare you.

Meh. It doesn't even rhyme. (Well, he rhymed "hand". . . with "hand".) I like the word "gyre", though.

Agreed. Much of "western" culture has roots in the Bible. Take a look through any standard list of phrases and you'll see many from the Bible.

Most of the rest are from Shakespeare or Casablanca.

 

[slingblade]

Meh. It doesn't even rhyme. (Well, he rhymed "hand". . . with "hand".) I like the word "gyre", though.

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

None of my first- and second-place winners rhymed.

 

[slingblade]

No, that's correct.

Oh, lol! I was soo out of it last night, I read the date of his birth as the date of his death. Thought, "well hells, if he died in 1865, he couldn't have been writing about WW I; better change my post."

Thanks for letting me know I still have a brain cell left.

Ok, so, to reiterate, he was using Revelation as a metaphor for WW I.