Now that the dust has settled, is it really that good?
The prose is mostly not very good.
How come Jews, for a culture that revels in a book, has such poor literary works?
>>25343682Caine is a madman. How can you lie to 'god' like that?
>>25343682Yes
Erich Auerbach, "Odysseus' Scar">We find the same contrast if we compare the two uses of direct discourse. The personages speak in the Bible story too; but their speech does not serve, as does speech in Homer, to manifest, to externalize thoughts—on the contrary, it serves to indicate thoughts which remain unexpressed. God gives his command in direct discourse, but he leaves his motives and his purpose unexpressed; Abraham, receiving the command, says nothing and does what he has been told to do. The conversation between Abraham and Isaac on the way to the place of sacrifice is only an interruption of the heavy silence and makes it all the more burdensome. The two of them, Isaac carrying the wood and Abraham with fire and a knife, “went together.” Hesitantly, Isaac ventures to ask about the ram, and Abraham gives the well-known answer. Then the text repeats: “So they went both of them together.” Everything remains unexpressed.>It would be difficult, then, to imagine styles more contrasted than those of these two equally ancient and equally epic texts. On the one hand, externalized, uniformly illuminated phenomena, at a definite time and in a definite place, connected together without lacunae in a perpetual foreground; thoughts and feeling completely expressed; events taking place in leisurely fashion and with very little of suspense. On the other hand, the externalization of only so much of the phenomena as is necessary for the purpose of the narrative, all else left in obscurity; the decisive points of the narrative alone are emphasized, what lies between is nonexistent; time and place are undefined and call for interpretation; thoughts and feeling remain unexpressed, are only suggested by the silence and the fragmentary speeches; the whole, permeated with the most unrelieved suspense and directed toward a single goal (and to that extent far more of a unity), remains mysterious and “fraught with background.”
>>25343721>I will discuss this term in some detail, lest it be misunderstood. I said above that the Homeric style was “of the foreground” because, despite much going back and forth, it yet causes what is momentarily being narrated to give the impression that it is the only present, pure and without perspective. A consideration of the Elohistic text teaches us that our term is capable of a broader and deeper application. It shows that even the separate personages can be represented as possessing “background”; God is always so represented in the Bible, for he is not comprehensible in his presence, as is Zeus; it is always only “something” of him that appears, he always extends into depths. But even the human beings in the Biblical stories have greater depths of time, fate, and consciousness than do the human beings in Homer; although they are nearly always caught up in an event engaging all their faculties, they are not so entirely immersed in its present that they do not remain continually conscious of what has happened to them earlier and elsewhere; their thoughts and feelings have more layers, are more entangled. Abraham’s actions are explained not only by what is happening to him at the moment, nor yet only by his character (as Achilles’ actions by his courage and his pride, and Odysseus’ by his versatility and foresightedness), but by his previous history; he remembers, he is constantly conscious of, what God has promised him and what God has already accomplished for him—his soul is torn between desperate rebellion and hopeful expectation; his silent obedience is multilayered, has background. Such a problematic psychological situation as this is impossible for any of the Homeric heroes, whose destiny is clearly defined and who wake every morning as if it were the first day of their lives: their emotions, though strong, are simple and find expression instantly.
>>25343682it doesnt apply. the bible is not sone fucking mass market paperback to be giving a rating out of ten on yoyr fucking goodreads account with a snarky review wth gifs from fucking doctor who and supernatural. ita the word of god, o GOZ. GOD.
>>25343682It had some cool concepts and storybeats, and some of the prose was god-tier depending on the translation, but the package as a whole feels haphazard.
>>25343685>>25343688I see. SureNow let's hear what an actual writer thinks of it>>25343721Is that one from Mimesis? I think remember that one. I should finish going through that
>>25343688why do you say it's a poor literary work?
>>25343775>Is that one from Mimesis?Yep
>>25343682>Now that the dust has settledAre you kidding me? It's hardly begun to be discussed
>>25343743You could have just said 'I score it 10/10'
>>25343682It’s primitive Bronze Age myths but also not entirely worthless either. The Mosaic books have some interesting ideas to reflect on mixed with nonsense like thou shalt not wear two different fabrics and thou shalt wash after an emission of semen.
>>25343682Yea, it's that good. Problem is you'll only realize it's that good when you believe what it says. You can have an IQ of 200 and still be placed in the midwit range of pic related if you don't believe what you read, because without faith the lights go out. This is not me making stuff up, this is what the Bible says of itself. It's a bear trap of a book.
>>25343685>>25343682I like how the Bible reads as a book. I guess I'm just not too much of a fan of how the novel has evolved over the centuries. I get bored by the stuff praised as good story telling. I'm not sure what else reads like this rather than where prose writing went instead. And no I'm not begging for a McCarthy reference or a Melville just because they were inspired by KJV style. That's not really what I'm talking about.
>>25343682when you read enough by a human the words blend together and you know that human. but the Bible continues to have interesting details after a decade of studying it
>>25343923>thou shalt not wear two different fabricsceremonial law, the purpose isnt spelled out>thou shalt wash after an emission of semenwell its good advice to take a shower
>>25343923>nonsense like ... thou shalt wash after an emission of semen.This guy's dick stinks
>>25343682Start with the Greeks.
>>25343682>>25344067Basically, it's a half-assed rip-off through and through.
>>25343682It's a fascinating book if you get into literal translations it becomes a history book
>>25343923>It’s primitive Bronze Age myths but also not entirely worthless either.No, it's a history book describing technologically beings they called elohim.It's on par with the greeks
>>25344055does that count as anti-cum-driven prose?
Leviticus (and Deuteronomy to a lesser extent) is unironically an eye-opening philosophical text.In an era where Hammurabi style draconian punishments were the norm, there is only a single instance where a punishment involves cutting off a hand; if a woman tries to crush a man's nuts if her husband is fighting him.>inb4 stoning is le cruelSplitting hairs. People graduating from stonings to burning people at the stake, or drawing and quartering them.
>>25344124Wait can you elaborate on that
>>25344067>>25344085Schizophrenia
>>25344649Not that guy, but the Old Testament is God revealing himself to the Hebrews, them being stupid, and Him being patient. I've started reading Warren Carroll's history of Christendom and the first book does a great job of showing just how different God is from all the other gods of the time. How much mercy He and compassion he offers.
>>25344656>he hasn't studied comparative religionIt's all the same shit in different forms. Yours is nothing special.
>>25344759I have, it's mostly LITERAL schizophrenic pattern matching shit and as unreliable as everything else in the social sciences.
>>25343682the KJV is good not because they translated anything particularly accurately but because they did it with flair
