Is the Bible Great Literature?

[Eclogite]

I was prompted to initiate this poll when I read the following incidental remark in another thread:

I think the Bible is the greatest work of literature ever written,

I was taken aback by the comment, then recalled that it is a view I had heard often expressed. In many cases it was uttered in the same way people say "we only use 10% of our brains", or, "in the Middle Ages everyone thought the Earth was flat". Thus, it is often a cliched, ill considered position.

 

I wondered if those who espouse the view have read the Bible in the original Greek and Hebrew. Have they read the Koran in Arabic, or the Rig Veda in Sanskrit? What of the great secular works? Shakespeare's plays in English, Don Quixote in Spanish, War and Peace in Russian. When these are considered then it seems to me a quite remarkable claim.

[pgrmdave]

I think that parts of the Bible are well written, and parts are not. I think that overall it is not terrible, but not great. I would not be quick to label anything the 'greatest' literature because I haven't read everything, nor is it an objective opinion.

[cwes99_03]

Sorry, my vote goes along with my beliefs. The reason I place it as the greatest is that so far as I believe/know it is the only piece of literature which offers the ability to have eternal life in perfection.

[Buffy]

Much of it is really hard to take, but lots of great works are and in many cases do that for a reason (all those "begats" are not all that different than the "turtles crossing the deck" chapter of "Moby Dick"). I always insist it is an *essential* piece of literature to read if you expect to understand most of the other great western literature that has ever been written: a lot of Faulkner will go right over your head without it.

 

On the other hand, its *purpose* is not to be literature, and thus I think those like cwes and questor are justified in their opinion that it is the greatest because of its transcendent properties (which I think cwes expresses quite eloquently above). That's cool in my book, but I'll take "As I Lay Dying" or "Go Down Moses" any day...

 

Literarilogically,

Buffy

[pgrmdave]

It's also likely one of the most important, arguably the most important, book in western culture. I can't think of many works of literature which have changed history as much...

[Eclogite]

I am not questioning its importance as a religious work. I am questioning its value, in the languages in which it was written, as the greatest work of literature ever written. (Substituting created for the second written would make it read better, but I don't intend to fall into that trap.:eek: )

 

Providing an opportunity for eternal life may be a good thing, but it does not of itself make it a great piece of writing.

 

Oops, perhaps I should vote in my own poll.

[Pyrotex]

...it is an *essential* piece of literature to read if you expect to understand most of the other great western literature that has ever been written...

I agree with Buffy and several others.

After a decade of being made to "study" the Bible (a chapter here, a few verses there...), I took it upon myself to read the whole thing straight through, while in graduate school one summer. Now normally, this is what you do with literature; you read it the way it was (purportedly) written, beginning to end. When I was done, I flipped the book open to Gen 1 and started over again. Read the whole thing twice in two weeks.

 

My first reaction was that the Bible seemed a completely different book "reading" it, as opposed to "studying" it. When you're busy trying to match up what Luke meant in chapter 9 by comparing it to a dozen verses in Samuel and Proverbs, it's really hard to see the "story" that Luke is trying to write. I found (surprise! :eek: ) that "reading" the Bible caused me to see most of it for the "first time"--even though I believed I knew it well already.

 

My second reaction was that much of it is tedious and repetitive. And the places that I found "inspiring" were few and far between. Though Ruth tells a great story, it is in some respects a real slog. Reading the lesser prophets is somewhat like chewing rubber bands.

 

Third and last, there were instances where a Bible character, who had been a hero of mine since Bible School, appeared to be far less savory when I read through their whole story in one sitting. Samson comes readily to mind.

 

I have done the same to the writings of J.R.R Tolkien and Shakespeare and Kipling. I read The Illiad. Their authors actually seemed to have a better grasp of what was at the heart of "being" a human being, but maybe that's just me.

 

I did enjoy reading the Bible, for the most part, and I like the fact that I have read it so thoroughly. But I wouldn't say it was great English literature. I would say it was great ancient Hebrew literature.

[infamous]

I am not questioning its importance as a religious work. I am questioning its value,

I don't quite see the difference between importance and value.

 

Webster's defines important as:

 

"meaning a great deal; having much significance or value.

 

Could you explain what your reasoning is for making a distinction between the two words.............Infy

[Bio-Hazard]

King James' bible is the best.

[Eclogite]

I don't quite see the difference between importance and value.

You are focusing on the wrong words. Please select the sentence below that you find clearest. They all mean approximately the same to me.

 

I am not questioning its importance as a religious work. I am questioning its value as the greatest work of literature ever written.

I am not questioning its value as a religious work. I am questioning its value as the greatest work of literature ever written.

I am not questioning its importance as a religious work. I am questioning its importance as the greatest work of literature ever written.

I am not questioning its value as a religious work. I am questioning its importance as the greatest work of literature ever written.

 

Or, I don't think it is the greatest work of literature ever written. Equally I do not think that in any way detracts from its value as a religious work. The two are completely different things, with different criteria.

[Pyrotex]

...I am not {here, in this thread} questioning its value as a religious work. I am {here} questioning its value as {a great} work of literature...

They pretty much all say the same for me, too.

[cwes99_03]

I am not questioning its importance as a religious work. I am questioning its value, in the languages in which it was written, as the greatest work of literature ever written. (Substituting created for the second written would make it read better, but I don't intend to fall into that trap.:rolleyes: )

 

Providing an opportunity for eternal life may be a good thing, but it does not of itself make it a great piece of writing.

 

Oops, perhaps I should vote in my own poll.

 

Ok, so I'll take a better stance that, the original writings as they may have been made (of the OT) are not still in existence, but only copies of them. That said, the copies are written either in Greek or in ancient Hebrew, two languages that have been dead or evolved over the last 2000 years. If you want to look at it then I would look at the different versions such as you have of the King James and others. Then the questions of accuracy in translation come up.

 

So maybe your question wasn't completely thought through. Otherwise clear my confusion, please. :hihi:

[questor]

let's get serious. how do you compare a compilation of stories, poems, allegories, myths and legends written 2000 years ago with the works of Shakespeare writing in the 1500's and using a lot of information from and referrals to...the Bible. i'm not demeaning Shakespeare, but the Bible gives the whole picture...history, law, religion, lessons to live by and inspiration

for millions of people. you can deem it uneccessary or contradictory, but you can't deny its importance in the history of man.

[InfiniteNow]

I'm not really into fiction, so... :friday:

[Edella]

... the Bible gives the whole picture...history, law, religion, lessons to live by and inspiration

for millions of people. you can deem it uneccessary or contradictory, but you can't deny its importance in the history of man.

 

This is true Questor,but how does that make it great literature?I think the individual reader is the one to decide.

...how do you compare a compilation of stories, poems, allegories, myths and legends written 2000 years ago with the works of Shakespeare writing in the 1500's and using a lot of information from and referrals to...the Bible.

Not sure of your point here,is it one of originality?

Claims have been made that some biblical stories may have been influenced by other religions and myth:

 

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/Mithraism/mithra.htm

I offer this as an example, not proof.

[Qfwfq]

The Bible is certainly a great and important work of literature, but I don't go for overstatements, and it is certainly, as Buffy points out, fundamental to western literature and culture along with the classics (especially Greek).

 

Regarding Dave's point, I'd say the Qur'an has had at least as much bearing on history. Certainly the two of them together have shaped things in most of the globe.

[Racoon]

The Bible is historically significant. (true or not)

 

But in terms of "Great Literature"?? - not really :rain:

 

Too many plots

Too many names

Too many religious statements

Too much for entertainment purposes.

 

The story is too convoluted! :hyper:

to make it a nice, smooth read.

 

Great Literature reminds me of Steinbeck, Twain, Dickens, Dostoevsky, Hesse.

to name couple

 

But considering the Age of the Bible, it is a *Classic*

It has stood the test of time and it is probably read more than anything else in English.

 

Besides, who even wrote the Bible?

I don't see an authors name?