One more thing I'd note:

Even if I allowed the Psalms to be considered "good" poetry, all 150 or so of them...

Well, a pretty famous author (well, several, in fact, with variations on the phrase) once said--

A single swallow does not a summer make.

And the same rings true here--

Even if I were to say, miraculously, "Yes, 'Psalms' is a great collection of poems and should be read by everyone, why, those 150 poems are better than Shakespeare's 154 sonnets, by golly!" and the sun then exploded, because then we WOULD be at the end of the world and solar system as we know it...

That would NOT make the whole Bible "worth reading" in terms of literary merit.

For background for a lot of literature, history, and culture to follow?
Yes.
For good literature, even if I granted all the Psalms as good poetry?
Not by a long shot, there are still so many books and so much poor literature in there...

Oh by the way, while we're talking about the Bible as literature, Ecclesiastes is another thing that comes to mind, that absolutely must be read. Some of the most sublime writing ever put to (whatever they wrote on back then).

"Thine eyes are like the Fishpools in Heshbon, by the Gates of Bath-Rabbim" is currently 0 for 3 as a chat up line. Mind you, hitting on nuns is difficult at the best of times...

No, not reading that ...... too long !!

Seems like Christians hijack every thread and turn it into a Jesus fest.

Aww that's hardly fair Putin when this thread was obviously created in response to Mutejus' daily bible thread.

@obi - What is so hard to accept that "the Bible" isn't a book? You could put shakespeare inthe middle of some really bad crap written in the same time period and call it "The 16th Century Lit Bible" and have the same issues. Each book needs to be taken on it's own literary merit. Yes, some of them are, literary-wise, utter crap (Numbers is the only thing more boring than plowing through the Silmarillian for instance, and I've done both), but each book should be judged on it's own as a literary work.

Also, recall that it wasn't written in English and the translators were a little too worrried about "conveying the message" and so *not* worried about "convey the poetic/artistic feel".

Draugnar said "You could put shakespeare inthe middle of some really bad crap"

I think the body of the works of "Shakespeare" is such. It is not all written by the same person.. Pretty evident to me actually.

and "Also, recall that it wasn't written in English and the translators were a little too worrried about "conveying the message" and so *not* worried about "convey the poetic/artistic feel"."

Yes. Especially the typical thing that happens in translation, which happens with the NT too, is that it gets over-poeticised, and literaturified. When you read the original, you get more the feeling that it is actual men riding on donkeys over dusty roads and Jesus of Nazareth downright quarreling with people.
When it is read now in church it is turned into something over-real, an "hour of devotion" and ceremonial solemnity.

And I see every new translation aggravates this tendency towards taking out the meaning all those actions had for the men in their time and their place, and cementing the prejudicial "solemnity" of it all.

OK...

I'm not even going to touch that "Shakespeare not written by the same person" bit as, well, we've had that debate before, and ultimately, it comes down to an overwhelming consensus of literary scholars PLUS the fact that no other author is subject to this sort of "give me absolute proof you wrote every letter of this" scrutiny (Thomas Dekker, Thomas Middleton, Thomas Kyd...a lot of Thomases, sure, but still, the point is, with them and other Elizabethan playwrights and poets, and in previous eras of authorship as well, the same level of proof is not demanded as is the case of Shakespeare naysayers, and before someone says "Well, why do you then require so much proof of the bible and their authors, Obi, see, you have a double standard!" I'd like to remind everyone that no one--not even Shakespeare-fanatic me--has ever claimed that Shakespeare's words are the almighty perfect words of a divine being and should serve as guidelines for how to live out life and if you violate the 10 Commandments of Hamlet or whatever there's no sin and punishment and all that, ie, Shakespeare does NOT claim to be an all-perfect author...no matter how much he thumbs his nose in people's faces sometimes in his sonnets as to how awesome he thinks his poetry is) and all that...

SO!

On we go...

"What is so hard to accept that "the Bible" isn't a book?"

Simple--

They compiled it--the Council--as a book, and intended it to be read as one canon made up of many volumes; as such, since they wanted the books to connect and have continuity, if I see logical errors that affect the work...

You can't have your cake and eat it too...it's either one canon or many separate stories...

But Obi,

The Norton Anthology is edited and compiled to be a book, but we don't bind all of them together and say "The Norton Anthology isn't worth reading because of all the structural chaos and it's got some works in there that are pretty bad." You of all people should know that a canon is by definition a collection of works. Literary Canon means the works that are worthy of reading for their literary merit. We don't kick the Illiad out on the basis that people once believed it. Period. And if you tried there would be a lot of people from middle grades up telling you to take a hike because it's a great story. I taught "Phaeton, Son of Apollo" and "Arachnae" & mentioned Tantalus, Sysiphus, and Promethues today. They are specifically stories that warn against crossing the gods. Both main characters come to sticky ends for crossing the gods, and they were intended to be believed as from on high. If we're to whitewash all mythology from literature then we're cutting ourselves of from the values of ancient man as a tool for study and comparison with ourselves.

And when did the "whole Bible" become the focus of this discussion? I thought our focus was the Bible as literature, not the entirety of the Holy Bible as a required reading. There is a huge difference there. Are you retreating to a more defensable stance? I maintain that the Holy Bible contains works of great literature that are worthy their place in literary canon. I have never suggested that the entire Holy Bible should be a part of literary canon. Yet I read Job in college and it was a good story that has literary merit and gives an insight into what it's like to be human. More importantly it gives insight into what it was like to be human 3,000 years ago.

Job is interesting to me because in contrast to the stories above, it's about doing what you know is right, not just doing what you're told. That shows an elevation along the continuum of Moral growth, If Job bought into his wife's advice to "curse God and die" or his friends' taunts that he "must have sinned and didn't want to admit it", but Job stays resolute and maintains his innocence. He knows what is right and he knows he's done it. He doesn't blame God nor does he blame himself. Job is so far from being a battered wife that I cannot get your idea about that one. He simply never makes the statement that it's his fault in the way that you suggest. It's not in the "Book of Job" at all. Not only is the morality not repugnent it shows a great leap in morality above the other stories. They operate on Kohlberg's pre-conventional "How can I avoid being punished" level of moral development. Instead of running from the punishment he's taking for doing the right thing Job arguably operates on the Conventional (good boy attitude). There is even evidence in his statement to his wife "Would you take only the good and not the bad as well" that Job eschews Social contract thought and goes right up to principled conscience in his patience. Far from being a story about a manipulative God that wants Job to suffer so that He (God) can feel good about himself. Job's trials show us a morality that is independent of personal gain. Job doesn't even appear that he's working toward a big house in Heaven. He does what is right because it's right.

**They (the Greek myths Phaeton, and Arachnae) operate on Kohlberg's Pre-Conventional...**

"Seems like Christians hijack every thread and turn it into a Jesus fest. "

We we're invited to this thread, weren't we Obi? :-)

I've made the atttempt to delve into that really long set of posts. Wow.

I'm actually interested in your interpretation of Job. I can feel symapthy for your indignation. Within the contest of Judaism though, how does one show a protagonist to be completely cut off from all support. He loses wealth, home, family members, his wife's support, his friend's respect. This all happens to isolate Job in a way that is utterly complete. So that only then can Job emerge as a character who has suffered everything imaginable, and walked out of it carrying a banner that states clearly. "It is not for any personal gain that I maintain righteousness."

God has given permission for Job's trials because this story cannot happen without that permission. The devil has to receive permission to test Job, because it simply won't work any other way. An omniscient God simply has to know what the devil is up to. By the same token Job is the one who can make a powerful statement about morality. Unlike so many other stories in which gods strike down proud, or cruel, or adulterous, or otherwise misbehaving mortals Job gets struck down for doing the right thing. If you want to scare the peons into submission you don't tell them that.

Job says something I believe to be unique in that that time period, and it's an empowering message. It states that Job can distinguish right from wrong, and Job can judge himself and know his own heart and actions, but most importantly that there is more to morality than avoiding punishment or seeking gain. Job endures punishment that in not deserved, and loses all because only then can he emerge as the guy who lost all but didn't abandon his moral principles.

This story simply cannot make the powerful and unique statement that it does without God giving permission for Job to endure trials. An omniscient God in this story opens himself for the very indignation you toss his way, but how can the theme "there is more to morality that avoiding pain and seeking pleasure" be made? The devil says "If you let me test Job, I'll make him curse your name" and I can imagine God's response "No Job won't, but Obiwan sure will".