Is The Bible Still Relevant Today?

[Stavros]

To begin with, the Bible is not 'a book' but a collection of books written hundreds of years apart. Secondly, it is an edited collection of books, because other texts from the same period have been deemed to be 'false' or of doubtful authorship. The New Testament in particular owes its current form to the Bishop of Lyon, Irenaeus who in 180 AD declared that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the gospels and any other text heretical. Also known as: YOU MUST NOT READ THEM!! Thirdly, the literary beauty of the King James Version owes as much to translators such as William Tyndale as it does to whatever the original Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew text says, about which there are volumes of exegesis as withering to deal with as the Hadith in Islam, and the commentaries on the Hadith and the commentaries on the commentaries. In effect, in many celebrated passages of the King James version, what one is admiring is Tyndale's gift at writing/translating in English, the original is something else.

Looked at in terms of the history of ideas, the Bible, as with most sacred texts, suggests a commonality across humanity in its concerns with the origins of life, the purpose of life, the rules that govern kinship and marriage, property rights, dietary regimes, sexual behaviour, the theory and practice of sacrifice, and so on. On this basis, the Bible is a social and political document, because it is undoubtedly written by human hands. The Bible can be deeply problematic, not least because it is a collection of different narratives, sometimes differing accounts of the same event.

The Bible is relevant as a literary text, as a source book for anthroplology, and as a means of undermining the claims that some people make to live their life by it, as the Bible offers in total, a confusing set of rules and regulations, and the reality is that the same people who claim to live by it, pick and choose the rules and regulations that suit them.

For what it's worth, I prefer Shakespeare,who most likely used the Geneva Bible published in 1560, possibly the Great Bible of 1539 and the Bishop's Bible of 1568.

[trish]

No doubt the Bible has had enormous literary influence and continues to have some literary influence (though considerably less so) on Western writers. The Bible was the first book published by the very first printing presses. It was often the book that children learned to read from, often because it was the only book in the household, sometimes the only book in the entire community. Milton, Shakespeare, Dickens and Melville are just some obvious examples of great writers who have borrowed biblical stories or been driven by biblical themes.

But as a work of literature in and of itself... well just try reading it sometime. The plots are confused, characters are largely undeveloped, it jumps into stories without providing background...it’s a miracle anyone can follow it. Except for a few books, it was not written with style or presentation in mind. It was written by amateur historians and moralists jotting down their memories and conclusions as briefly as possible on a limited supply skin or papyrus for safekeeping. At least that’s the way it reads. A literary accomplishment it is not. To say that it is would be like saying “Old MacDonald Had a Farm” is a masterpiece of musical composition.

But yes, it is necessary to know the Bible if you want to understand much of Western literature. I suspect, however, it’s influence is diminishing.

As a source of moral authority, Americans still turn to the Bible, even though few Americans actually have read it. Yet as others have said in this thread, there was morality before the Bible and morality seems to spring from a source independent of religious feeling and spirituality. From nearly the time of Gutenberg up to about the twentieth century The Elements of Euclid was the second most published book in the world. There were years when it outsold the Bible. Philosophers, ethicists, moral thinkers, just plain thinkers took the axiomatic method and the rules of logical inference to heart. It might be argued that in some ways The Elements has been more influential than the Bible. From our space probes to our practical appliances, from our science to just the way we think and apply everyday reason, the logic and geometry of Euclid is the real source of Western genius. The lunatic ramblings of a Middle Eastern desert god have been a centuries old detour.

[loveboof]

To begin with, the Bible is not 'a book' but a collection of books written hundreds of years apart. Secondly, it is an edited collection of books, because other texts from the same period have been deemed to be 'false' or of doubtful authorship. The New Testament in particular owes its current form to the Bishop of Lyon, Irenaeus who in 180 AD declared that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the gospels and any other text heretical.

Yeah that's an interesting fact that is almost always overlooked. Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou (the biblical scholar from the debate I posted) mentioned a story of Jesus striking someone to the ground, killing them, and then resurrecting them - from one of the non canon gospels.

This is one of the reasons it is so crazy to accept the bible literally. How can something like 45% of Americans believe in the Adam & Eve story? This is scary to me!

But as a work of literature in and of itself... well just try reading it sometime. The plots are confused, characters are largely undeveloped, it jumps into stories without providing background...it’s a miracle anyone can follow it. Except for a few books, it was not written with style or presentation in mind. It was written by amateur historians and moralists jotting down their memories and conclusions as briefly as possible on a limited supply skin or papyrus for safekeeping. At least that’s the way it reads. A literary accomplishment it is not. To say that it is would be like saying “Old MacDonald Had a Farm” is a masterpiece of musical composition.

But yes, it is necessary to know the Bible if you want to understand much of Western literature. I suspect, however, it’s influence is diminishing.

Exactly. That is why I meant it as a compliment when I referred to it as an influential work of literature. The bible is quite infantile compared to other influential works of literature!

[broncofan]

It might be argued that in some ways The Elements has been more influential than the Bible. From our space probes to our practical appliances, from our science to just the way we think and apply everyday reason, the logic and geometry of Euclid is the real source of Western genius. The lunatic ramblings of a Middle Eastern desert god have been a centuries old detour.

I think us people of the book have won a convert. You admit he authored the book in all its forms but you attempt to shroud this admission in libel about his mental state. We have a veritable fallen hungangel on our hands.

I think what is valuable about the bible is its insights into the human condition. This is what makes it valuable as a matter of literacy and not necessarily morality. We see allegories that demonstrate the jealousy of one brother towards another, a father favoring one son but being willing to sacrifice him based on other considerations/hallucinations, people overcoming bitter oppression by holding onto a system of belief however unbelievable. On this latter point, many an oppressed nation has used the same tactic when facing a situation where they have no other hope. It is not necessarily the belief that there is a supreme being that is significant but that there is a source of good, a source of reason in the world.

But there is the problem. Even the few stories I've told require the submission of one's ability to reason to this Middle Eastern lunatic. If he commands you to murder your son, you have failed as a man of faith if you hesitate. And the morality that is consistent with secular morality relies on falsely invoking the authority of an omniscient being rather than standing up to our mind's critical processes.

Would we say that in order to make a point we were sure was correct we could cite to sources that did not exist? The use of the almighty is that kind of ruse; what's more because it achieves these ends without any burden to appeal to our common reason, people must accept all of its dictates. The Abraham story, even though I know it has many interpretations, seems to me an appeal to man to abdicate his skepticism. Why then should anyone get to choose what parts they like and don't like?

[trish]

Touche’. I should have said, “The imagined ramblings...” but I didn’t and you got me.

[trish]

I think what is valuable about the bible is its insights into the human condition.

Perhaps. But it is not unique in this capacity. There are hundreds of thousands of histories, novels, poems and plays that that are well written, more engaging, deeper than the bible that give us insights into the human condition. I am not convinced the bible owes it's position of past influence in western literature to any intrinsic literary merit other than the mere happenstance of the hold Christianity itself had on the West from the time of Constantine.

[Prospero]

Now if you'd said that..."When considering it's relevance today, I'm talking about the Bible as a source authority."

And to Stavros -yes I certainly prefer the iterary qualities of Shakespeare too.

[broncofan]

Perhaps. But it is not unique in this capacity. There are hundreds of thousands of histories, novels, poems and plays that that are well written, more engaging, deeper than the bible that give us insights into the human condition. I am not convinced the bible owes it's position of past influence in western literature to any intrinsic literary merit other than the mere happenstance of the hold Christianity itself had on the West from the time of Constantine.

Yeah it was certainly well promoted! But we have to remember these are very old stories and I am a believer in evaluating things in their context because man has limits. I don't have nearly the biblical literacy I should have but I've sat down with the Gideon's in a cheap motel room and the stories have an eery resonance at times.

The language in the Old Testament is sometimes terse, there is an obsession with geneology and family trees, but when we get to actual stories we feel the dilemmas of the characters as they would have felt them had they actually experienced the events. And the invocation of God, though dubious in terms of morality, might well be seen as a very good literary device. It's only a shame because I've always liked tales where the tyrant is slain at the end, but let's just say it doesn't have a feel good ending. Yes, I see what you're saying though that it gets a great deal of benefit from its broad dissemination and force-feeding to the masses.

[trish]

And the invocation of God, though dubious in terms of morality, might well be seen as a very good literary device.

True enough. It worked for Charlton Heston, and millions of viewers.

[broncofan]

Now if you'd said that..."When considering it's relevance today, I'm talking about the Bible as a source authority."

You're right that this means nothing as far as its literary merit. I think it has a good deal considering when it was written, the psychological conflicts of the characters, the infusion of a message through symbolism.

I think it has some relevance to its moral authority though because the bible must at some level take itself as a serious nonfiction document if it is to appeal to believers. The source authority is God and cannot be questioned. I'm just saying in terms of morality, I don't think we can accept the proposition that something is inherently right even if we agree with it. It has to be right with some relationship to its support in fact or reason. We have no other way of determining that.

Edit: I'll also say in terms of its relevance it is quite good if it is the first systematic defense of a lot of its commands against theft, murder, adultery. I don't know if it is. If Jesus was the first to promote "turn the other cheek", "love thy neighbor" or he instilled a passive stance with regard to conflict that permeated his and other cultures. Even if it leads to post facto justification, if it created a consensus against some of the proscribed things in the Old Testament and led people to respond to conflict by turning the other cheek I wouldn't quibble over the methodological problems. I think the problems I have with accepting authority speak more to those instances where the bible takes a stance that is counter to modern wisdom or where it leads to stances on things the bible did not address but that can no longer be dealt with in purely logical terms because of the way it justifies them.