Sheshbazzar

I concur

gstafleu

Let's do a comparison. Here is the beginning of the creation myth in the bible:
This is the NIV translation.

Compare it with the equivalent part of Ovid's Metamorphoses:
I would suggest that Ovid, even in this prosaic translation, beats Genesis. YMMV of course. If you get a better (in the poetic sense) translation, like this one by Charles Martin the difference is even greater. (I really like this translation. Martin uses blank verse, which results in a "feel" much like the dactylic hexameters in the original--it preserves the original feeling of "flow" very well. On the Amazon page you can do a Search Inside and see Martin's version of what I quoted above, so have a look and compare.)

So here is a suggestion for you: read all of Book 1 of the Metamorphoses. Compare it to Genesis. Which do you think is better literature?

Gerard Stafleu

Casper

For content overall it sucks. Anything that blathers on for whole chapters about who begat whom is literary pap.

Maybe that is why Gospel of Hermas was more popular back in the day?

Boro Nut

A good question. The bible scores as great literature on many counts.

1 - It's old.
2 - There are few if any pictures.
3 - It has lots of pages.
4 - And very small writing.
5 - It uses very big words like massive, giant, and leviathan.

However, there are some telling drawbacks, which in my opinion disqualify it as great literature. These include:

1 - There is no picture on the front, so you can't tell if it is any good.

2 - There are no rave reviews by leading newspaper critics in the fly leaf, so you don't know if it was any good even after you've read it.

3 - It doesn't appear to have a point.

4 - The main character isn't introduced until chapter 532, and he is killed off seven pages later. Luckily, he is reincarnated in the next chapter, but then he dies again. This is even more of a bummer than the first time. Not only were you expecting him to knack the baddies this time, but instead he falls for the same ambush trick again and gets killed exactly the same way. What a loser.

5 - Repeating this 'rebirth- same old death' scenario two additional times just stretches the readers patience. By this time the suspense has gone, and unlike the hero, you know exactly what's coming. He'll invite the same people to dinner and they'll stitch him up again. I think the point they're trying to make is that yes, he has super powers, but his kryptonite is he has to forgive people. That way they know they can get him every single time. But it's boring. Captain Scarlet got eaten by sharks one week and machine gunned the next. That was much more interesting. And he drove a truck backwards by watching on a telly instead looking out of a windscreen.

6 - There are a few chapters after that, but by now you're going 'Who cares'.

7 - It just ends. You're sat there metaphorically watching the credits and you're thinking 'Is that it?' It sinks in that that is indeed it when they vaguely allude to an upcoming sequel. No chance will I be buying it.

8 - They should seriously have considered consulting Jackie Collins to ghost write the sex scenes. There aren't enough of them and they are all pathetic. I still have no idea which part of a ladies pudenda the pomegranate is.

Boro Nut

neilgodfrey

Well a new book does argue that there is a pearl in there somewhere:

"Mark is one of the pinnacles of Western literature" and "I don't think there's anything like it in Western culture" -- as per my post in another thread yesterday about the New Book on Mark

Neil Godfrey
http://vridar.wordpress.com

Gamera

I disagree. It's almost all narrative. It has very little theology in it. It has attracted theological commentary, and we now view the bible through that lens, but remember, there was a time when there was no commentary and all the audience had where these ambiguous difficult stories.

I think a case can be made that the Book of Jonah is one of the most perfect, most elusive and affecting short stories ever written. The author was a genius.

Gamera

Virtually all narrative texts by traditional societies blather on about geneology. The Norse sagas, superb literature by any standard, usually start with a long boring geneology to set up the main characters.

Editors, mercifully, usually put all that in a footnote.

Gamera

Well de gustibus non disputandem. But honestly, Ovid is paper thin. Like most classical authors he's all surface. Genesis is ambiguous, dark, obscure, psychological. You never have your footing in Genesis and seem to be moving through a psychic landscape rather than a real one. It's like German expressionist film.

There's no comparison in my estimation, but as I say there's no disputing taste in art.

Gamera

If you define "great" as having an impact on culture, there is no disputing the greatness of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. But as literary creations they are also remarkable. There really is nothing like Genesis in the ancient world for its complexity and psychological depth. Gilgamesh, for instance, in comparison, seems psychological naive and primitive.

The body of stories that make up the bible are overwhelming dark and ambiguous, totally unlike Homeric literature, which seems not to recognize any interior world. Everything the characters feel is on the exterior. Everything important in the bible stories seem interior and hidden. After 2500 years nobody still knows what to make of the story of Isaac's binding. It is absolutely impenetrable and disturbing.

This simply suits modern sensibilities more the surface literature of the Greco-Roman world.

The closest thing to it is is Old English literature, which is also dark and brooding, but perhaps more consciously so since it takes place in the shadow and under the influence of biblical literature. Beowulf in particular is dark and impenetrable, especially in the original Anglo-Saxon.

avianwing

The Mahabharata undoubtedly classifies as great literature to me. It may be based on a historical event or not. That is immaterial. It is great literature for atheists and theologists alike.
It is not purely nationalistic but globalistic- the world according to the Mbh was only Bharatavarsha-i.e South Asia. Just as Alexander had conquered his known world, The Kurus had conquered their known world.

At the same time it supports the autonomy and rights of smaller kingdoms as seen in Arjuna's defeat at the hands of his own son.
The Theism of the Mahabharata is more acceptable than the irrational theism of the Puranas or even the interfering Gods of the Iliad.
God is merely a guide and a friend in the Mbh , while your convictions and actions alone determine your fate .
I personally consider it the greatest Literature Humanity has ever produced in any language or country.