This is addressed to “the Bible is a derivative work with many authors”, not “the derivative works lend sacredness to the Bible”. The Pentateuch may be multiauthor but it still adds up to awfulness. Read the damn thing!
I have done so, over many a loooong Saturday morning in the year-and-a-half of shul attendance preceding my bar mitzvah (as mandated by the council of synagogues in my city). Why are you bringing up literary awfulness in a discussion about where people get a sense of sacredness? One has very little to do with the other.
I’m not sure I’d agree, but I think it’s interesting that the word ‘awful’ seems appropriate here—not just plain ‘bad’. ‘awful’ and ‘sacred’ really should be related concepts.
In that case I’m missing it too. The point about Milton was that Milton can cause people to overestimate the Bible as a bit of poetry. If the discussion of quantity of ideas and intentional links isn’t meant to bear on the Bible’s poetic quality or any other useful merit, why are we talking about it?
The point about Milton was that Milton’s poetry contributes to people’s sense of the bible as a source of the sacred. Byrnema commented that the bible is a derivative work of itself, and this also contributes to people’s sense of the bible as the source of the sacred; he then asserted that a single individual, even one as gifted as Tolkien, would be hard-pressed to replicate the effect. Finally, in a non-sequitur, Eliezer presented the fact that Deuteronomy (a law text, essentially) is less entertaining than the Lord of the Rings as a counter-argument.
I don’t think it’s necessarily that much of a non-sequitur. Great literary works are often praised for their complexity, with the clear implication that this contributes to their being interesting as literature. If the Bible is so rich in complexity, why is it so boring to read?
The answer, of course, is that the kind of complexity the Bible possesses isn’t the kind that’s relevant for judging literary quality. In the case of texts like Deuteronomy, we’re not talking about things like dynamic characters, foreshadowing, ingenious use of language, etc—hallmarks of conscious design by an author specifically trying to create literary art. No, we’re talking about the Bronze Age equivalent of the tax code.
Do you not think that if the Bible really did have this extraordinary, hard-to-reproduce structure that contributed to the sense of the sacred people get from it, it would be more entertaining?
No. I think people think of sacredness as a particular kind of importance. Importance does not require entertainment. (Note that I’m not defending byrnema’s argument—I’m just saying Eliezer failed to address it at all.)
There’s a lot of room, I think, for rationalist analysis of the concept of “genre” and what automatic assumptions it leads us to make about both fiction and reality.
If the Bible had been written in the style of a Japanese monster movie, would people still think of God as the good guy?
I always thought that the heroic literature (Kings and Judges, largely) of the Tanakh gets a lot better when you realize you’re reading the Bronze Age Hebrew equivalent of Pacific Rim or Gurren Lagann:
He knew he’d been beaten, but NO, Samson was WAY too badass to let the Philistines win just because they cut his hair. So he prayed to God, got his powers back and PULLED THE WHOLE FALSE TEMPLE DOWN! How awesome is that?
I don’t think the Bible could be written in any worse style than it is already. The only thing it could do to further sabotage itself would be to visibly not take itself seriously.
I think the bible could just as well have been written this way, and people would take for granted that that’s how sacred texts are supposed to sound. Fanatics would fight bloody wars over the theololgical signifance of Ceiling Cat’s abstention from eating the earth, while more subdued scholars pointed out parallels between this and the Greek myth about Cronos.
Huh. In my estimation, it’s rather rare for you to so egregiously miss the point.
This is addressed to “the Bible is a derivative work with many authors”, not “the derivative works lend sacredness to the Bible”. The Pentateuch may be multiauthor but it still adds up to awfulness. Read the damn thing!
I have done so, over many a loooong Saturday morning in the year-and-a-half of shul attendance preceding my bar mitzvah (as mandated by the council of synagogues in my city). Why are you bringing up literary awfulness in a discussion about where people get a sense of sacredness? One has very little to do with the other.
I’m not sure I’d agree, but I think it’s interesting that the word ‘awful’ seems appropriate here—not just plain ‘bad’. ‘awful’ and ‘sacred’ really should be related concepts.
A non-Bayesian! Burn the heretic!
More seriously, the bible is not uniformly awful—I’m rather fond of bits of Ecclesiastes, for example, particularly when set to music.
In that case I’m missing it too. The point about Milton was that Milton can cause people to overestimate the Bible as a bit of poetry. If the discussion of quantity of ideas and intentional links isn’t meant to bear on the Bible’s poetic quality or any other useful merit, why are we talking about it?
The point about Milton was that Milton’s poetry contributes to people’s sense of the bible as a source of the sacred. Byrnema commented that the bible is a derivative work of itself, and this also contributes to people’s sense of the bible as the source of the sacred; he then asserted that a single individual, even one as gifted as Tolkien, would be hard-pressed to replicate the effect. Finally, in a non-sequitur, Eliezer presented the fact that Deuteronomy (a law text, essentially) is less entertaining than the Lord of the Rings as a counter-argument.
I don’t think it’s necessarily that much of a non-sequitur. Great literary works are often praised for their complexity, with the clear implication that this contributes to their being interesting as literature. If the Bible is so rich in complexity, why is it so boring to read?
The answer, of course, is that the kind of complexity the Bible possesses isn’t the kind that’s relevant for judging literary quality. In the case of texts like Deuteronomy, we’re not talking about things like dynamic characters, foreshadowing, ingenious use of language, etc—hallmarks of conscious design by an author specifically trying to create literary art. No, we’re talking about the Bronze Age equivalent of the tax code.
Do you not think that if the Bible really did have this extraordinary, hard-to-reproduce structure that contributed to the sense of the sacred people get from it, it would be more entertaining?
(edited as requested—cheers!)
No. I think people think of sacredness as a particular kind of importance. Importance does not require entertainment. (Note that I’m not defending byrnema’s argument—I’m just saying Eliezer failed to address it at all.)
There’s a lot of room, I think, for rationalist analysis of the concept of “genre” and what automatic assumptions it leads us to make about both fiction and reality.
If the Bible had been written in the style of a Japanese monster movie, would people still think of God as the good guy?
I always thought that the heroic literature (Kings and Judges, largely) of the Tanakh gets a lot better when you realize you’re reading the Bronze Age Hebrew equivalent of Pacific Rim or Gurren Lagann:
He knew he’d been beaten, but NO, Samson was WAY too badass to let the Philistines win just because they cut his hair. So he prayed to God, got his powers back and PULLED THE WHOLE FALSE TEMPLE DOWN! How awesome is that?
I don’t think the Bible could be written in any worse style than it is already. The only thing it could do to further sabotage itself would be to visibly not take itself seriously.
In case anyone is having trouble picturing what EY is talking about, link
I think the bible could just as well have been written this way, and people would take for granted that that’s how sacred texts are supposed to sound. Fanatics would fight bloody wars over the theololgical signifance of Ceiling Cat’s abstention from eating the earth, while more subdued scholars pointed out parallels between this and the Greek myth about Cronos.