Manny's Reviews > The Holy Bible
The Holy Bible (King James Version)
by
by

Manny's review
bookshelves: linguistics-and-philosophy, science, science-fiction, too-sexy-for-maiden-aunts, why-not-call-it-poetry, transcendent-experiences, pooh-dante
Nov 22, 2009
bookshelves: linguistics-and-philosophy, science, science-fiction, too-sexy-for-maiden-aunts, why-not-call-it-poetry, transcendent-experiences, pooh-dante
I've already done a review of the New Testament, so this one will focus on the first part of the book. Looking at other reviews, most of them seem to fall into a small number of categories. First, there are the people who are telling me that this is the word of God, and the greatest book ever written. Second, there are the ones reacting to the first group and telling me that it's worthless. Third (probably the largest contingent), we have the wise guys making flippant remarks. And fourth, we have a few purists recommending or disapproving of particular translations.
I don't really find any of these approaches very satisfying. I can't accept the statement that this is the word of God, and all literally true; to pick one of the standard examples, Joshua's making the sun stand still appears wildly far-fetched. I'm sorry if that offends the Christians in the audience. If it makes you feel any better, I'll offend the Scientologists too, and say that I don't believe that, 75 million years ago, Xenu, the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy, brought billions of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them using hydrogen bombs.
OK, I'll admit that I also like making flippant remarks. But let's try and be serious for a moment, and apply normal critical standards to this work. That involves comparing it other, similar, books. What's similar to the Old Testament? It's a tricky question. To start off with, what genre does it belong to? It was written so long ago that modern categories don't apply. If you attempt to fit it into one of those categories, you find it's a bunch of things: an epic poem, a religious allegory, a history, and a work of science. Now, we think of those as being different. But when the Old Testament was written, they were all mixed up together. In particular, it's easy to forget that "Science", as a concept, is a very modern invention. As recently as the early eighteenth century, they called it Natural Philosophy.
Considered as an epic poem based on a religious allegory, the Old Testament is often brilliant. This is uncontroversial; even Richard Dawkins is happy to agree, and quotes numerous examples in the relevant chapter of The God Delusion. Obvious comparison points are Homer, Dante and Milton. (The only modern author I can think of is Tolkien). All of those are arguably better taken as a whole - in particular, they are more coherent - but, at least in my opinion, the best passages in the Old Testament are better than the best passages in the other books. If you disagree, just, off the top of your head, quote me a passage from The Iliad, The Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost or The Silmarillion which you consider superior to the Twenty-Third Psalm. ("The Lord is my shepherd", if you're no good with numbers). Maybe you can come up with something; I'm curious to see what it is. To me, though, the serious competitor is the New Testament. It's by no means inferior as poetry, and Jesus is a more complex and interesting character than Jehovah. The Old Testament position on moral and ethical issues now seems rather dated, and Jehovah, like Zeus and Odin, often comes across as not much more than a wise tribal chieftain with unusually powerful technology. Jesus, on the other hand, seems entirely relevant even today, and his bold and unconventional ideas still have the capacity to shock and amaze.
Given the popularity of Creationism, I guess I have to say something about the Bible as a work of science. I'm inspired here to follow Feynman's treatment of Newton in QED, which I read last week. Feynman is very respectful towards Newton, and says what a great man he was; but he also points out where Newton got it wrong. We just know more now. Well: put in its historical context, I think that the Old Testament was way ahead of its time. Quite apart from the fact that it's great poetry, Genesis is a remarkably sophisticated creation myth. Consider the first few verses.
To sum up: considering that it was written well over two thousand years ago, the Old Testament is a startlingly good book that's still well worth reading today. Before you knock it too hard, consider how few other books there are from that period that can make similar claims. And, oh yes, I was planning to say something about translations. I think some are better than others, but the point I wanted to make has already been made so much more elegantly by Richard Curtis in his Skinhead Hamlet sketch. I'll hand over now, and let him conclude by giving you his scholarly opinions on the New English Bible.
I don't really find any of these approaches very satisfying. I can't accept the statement that this is the word of God, and all literally true; to pick one of the standard examples, Joshua's making the sun stand still appears wildly far-fetched. I'm sorry if that offends the Christians in the audience. If it makes you feel any better, I'll offend the Scientologists too, and say that I don't believe that, 75 million years ago, Xenu, the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy, brought billions of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them using hydrogen bombs.
OK, I'll admit that I also like making flippant remarks. But let's try and be serious for a moment, and apply normal critical standards to this work. That involves comparing it other, similar, books. What's similar to the Old Testament? It's a tricky question. To start off with, what genre does it belong to? It was written so long ago that modern categories don't apply. If you attempt to fit it into one of those categories, you find it's a bunch of things: an epic poem, a religious allegory, a history, and a work of science. Now, we think of those as being different. But when the Old Testament was written, they were all mixed up together. In particular, it's easy to forget that "Science", as a concept, is a very modern invention. As recently as the early eighteenth century, they called it Natural Philosophy.
Considered as an epic poem based on a religious allegory, the Old Testament is often brilliant. This is uncontroversial; even Richard Dawkins is happy to agree, and quotes numerous examples in the relevant chapter of The God Delusion. Obvious comparison points are Homer, Dante and Milton. (The only modern author I can think of is Tolkien). All of those are arguably better taken as a whole - in particular, they are more coherent - but, at least in my opinion, the best passages in the Old Testament are better than the best passages in the other books. If you disagree, just, off the top of your head, quote me a passage from The Iliad, The Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost or The Silmarillion which you consider superior to the Twenty-Third Psalm. ("The Lord is my shepherd", if you're no good with numbers). Maybe you can come up with something; I'm curious to see what it is. To me, though, the serious competitor is the New Testament. It's by no means inferior as poetry, and Jesus is a more complex and interesting character than Jehovah. The Old Testament position on moral and ethical issues now seems rather dated, and Jehovah, like Zeus and Odin, often comes across as not much more than a wise tribal chieftain with unusually powerful technology. Jesus, on the other hand, seems entirely relevant even today, and his bold and unconventional ideas still have the capacity to shock and amaze.
Given the popularity of Creationism, I guess I have to say something about the Bible as a work of science. I'm inspired here to follow Feynman's treatment of Newton in QED, which I read last week. Feynman is very respectful towards Newton, and says what a great man he was; but he also points out where Newton got it wrong. We just know more now. Well: put in its historical context, I think that the Old Testament was way ahead of its time. Quite apart from the fact that it's great poetry, Genesis is a remarkably sophisticated creation myth. Consider the first few verses.
In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth.People who know about modern cosmology may want to nitpick this. On the other hand, if you had to describe the first few minutes of the Universe to a bronze-age nomad, I'd like to see you do better. You aren't going to be able to explain inflation and nucleosynthesis to them; you'll have to improvise a bit, and take the odd liberty. But, later on, there are definite mistakes. For example, God makes the Earth before He makes the stars. That's just incorrect, and there's no reason why it couldn't have been presented in the opposite order. The author of Genesis hadn't got a telescope, and it was hard to figure this stuff out from first principles.
And the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.
To sum up: considering that it was written well over two thousand years ago, the Old Testament is a startlingly good book that's still well worth reading today. Before you knock it too hard, consider how few other books there are from that period that can make similar claims. And, oh yes, I was planning to say something about translations. I think some are better than others, but the point I wanted to make has already been made so much more elegantly by Richard Curtis in his Skinhead Hamlet sketch. I'll hand over now, and let him conclude by giving you his scholarly opinions on the New English Bible.
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
The Holy Bible.
Sign In »
Quotes Manny Liked
“I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.”
― The Holy Bible: King James Version
― The Holy Bible: King James Version
Reading Progress
Started Reading
January 1, 1975
–
Finished Reading
November 22, 2009
– Shelved
November 22, 2009
– Shelved as:
linguistics-and-philosophy
November 22, 2009
– Shelved as:
science
November 22, 2009
– Shelved as:
science-fiction
November 22, 2009
– Shelved as:
too-sexy-for-maiden-aunts
November 22, 2009
– Shelved as:
why-not-call-it-poetry
April 23, 2011
– Shelved as:
transcendent-experiences
March 29, 2013
– Shelved as:
pooh-dante
Comments Showing 1-50 of 165 (165 new)
message 1:
by
Buck
(new)
Nov 22, 2009 09:11AM

reply
|
flag

No, no, I take it all back. I'm really a X**u agnostic. How can we know the truth about things that are beyond mortal comprehension? I lack faith, that's my problem, and I'm glad to admit it. I'd be so happy if you could just put down that bag of Cheetos and dry your eyes...

I wanted to read the Old Testament but found it hard to get through, so I was thrilled to find this audio version produced by Inspired by Media Group
I really recommend it. I especially loved the voice of God, who sometimes scared me silly. Forrest Whitaker did an outstanding job as Moses, too.

Reviewing the King James Bible is really to review the language of the time and how the translators used it. For sheer beauty, it really is superb.
Great review, Manny. I prefer Cecil B. DeMille as the voice of God. Just saying. :-)

If you're interested, there's an excellent book, Who Wrote the Bible, that examines the political and sociological events of history during that time to explain alot of things concerning why there are 2 versions of some chapters, how the version and who wrote what part is due to the history, etc.

I hate how it's called The 'Holy' Bible.
That's clearly a case of taking one's press a little too seriously.
That's clearly a case of taking one's press a little too seriously.

Stephen, I'm very glad to hear that there's at least one believer I didn't manage to offend!
Aerin, I agree that a ruthless editor could have done useful work here. But if you can't even find someone with guts enough to edit Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or Breaking Dawn, what chance with the Bible?
Eric, there are some great bits in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I felt tempted for a moment to add a 'well-I-think-its-funny' tag before I decided that was blasphemous. For example, did you notice the prohibition against eating owls?
David: at least it's not called The Holy Bible®. Something about casting the first stone?



If you check the actual biblical text, you'll see it's not true that only two of each kind of animal were allowed on the Ark. I'm not sure where this comes from.

In my actual version Noah was allowed no more than 14 animals of each "clean kind" (I guess Dinosaurs were not clean in His opinion). So let's assume the lions were on a dinosaur- and mammoth-diet while traveling on the Ark.

Genesis 6:19-20
"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."
Genesis 7:2-3
"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."



"I have had to take some liberties with the definition of 'cubit,'" Wilkins said, as if betraying a secret, "but I think he could have done it with eighteen hundred and twenty-five sheep. "To feed the carnivores, I mean."I'm not sure how much of this is based on fact. Does anyone know? They appear to have found an argument to get around the limitation to at most 14 members of any species.
"The sheep must've taken up a whole deck!?"
"It's not the space they take up, it's all the manure, and the labor of throwing it overboard," Wilkins said. "At any rate - as you can well imagine - this Ark business has stopped progress cold on the P.L. front..."
As already noted, a good editor might have been appreciated when they finalized the text of the Old Testament.


It is quite uncanny how accurate the beginning of Genesis 1 is, at least compared to all the other creation myths I've seen. I wonder if this is part of the reason why Christian culture developed modern astronomy, and others didn't?

Indeed... but they still didn't dare touch glaring inconsistencies which they were surely aware of, or banish dull passages ("begats and cubits") to appendices. I wouldn't have dared to do it either. But if someone did, the book would definitely be easier and more fun to read.
This kind of thing would be easier to carry out with hypertext. You could turn material into links - not remove it, which would be blasphemous, but just hide it in the default view. Or is that blasphemous too? I'd love to see an expert opinion...



I am quite surprised to see how many people there are on GR who appear to be incapable of appreciating that, whatever you may think about the literal truth of the Bible, it is at the very least a great work of literature. As I said, even Dawkins agrees!
You don't fully understand the Jewish Bible until you read and understand it in the Hebrew. The King James translation is wonderful English poetic license and TERRIBLE for understanding what the Bible says.
Two Creation stories: Unreconcilable, and a brilliant example of how Jews were willing to countenance contradiction and textual struggles from the beginning. The myth of Lilith, named for a Babylonian goddess, comes from the question: So, what happened to that first gal from the first story? She must have been BAD.
Animals in the ark: It can't literally make sense from what we know of the way things work. One rabbinic interpretation on the beyond-pair animals brought along is Noah would need something to sacrifice to God when he hit dry land, and it wouldn't go well if he started snuffing the last remaining animals. Although maybe that's what happened to the unicorns.


Re a good editor, I actually say that as literary text, it stands fine on its own. The two creation stories emphasise different aspects of the Hebrew/Christian god's relationship with man. The first emphasises his grandeur as prime mover and the second emphasises his more avuncular aspects. It's only when you want to treat it as a scrupulously accurate historial document written as news by a single author as a single document with a single authorial intent that you run into complications. But then the more sophisticated bible scholars and believers already know this. :-)
Good review, Manny. :)
As a very liberal Christian myself, I have a lot of trouble with literal readings of the bible, and of how the bible seems to be idolized.
My brief take (D's religious beliefs in a nutshell):
1. The Bible is "true" in that its authors were not trying to willingly deceive. They really believed what they wrote, and it meant something to them.
2. The Bible is simply a collection of books relating the experiences of its authors with god.
3. It is a reflection of the authors and their society, not a reflection of who or what god is.
4. As people of faith today, we should strive to have our own unique experiences with the divine rather than living through those of these ancient texts.
5. No one religion has a monopoly on god.
6. God is bigger than any one religion.
7. All truth - be it religious, or scientific - is God's truth.
That's about it.
Anyhow, good stuff. There seems to be a lot of snarky reviews of religious texts on the Internet.
d.
As a very liberal Christian myself, I have a lot of trouble with literal readings of the bible, and of how the bible seems to be idolized.
My brief take (D's religious beliefs in a nutshell):
1. The Bible is "true" in that its authors were not trying to willingly deceive. They really believed what they wrote, and it meant something to them.
2. The Bible is simply a collection of books relating the experiences of its authors with god.
3. It is a reflection of the authors and their society, not a reflection of who or what god is.
4. As people of faith today, we should strive to have our own unique experiences with the divine rather than living through those of these ancient texts.
5. No one religion has a monopoly on god.
6. God is bigger than any one religion.
7. All truth - be it religious, or scientific - is God's truth.
That's about it.
Anyhow, good stuff. There seems to be a lot of snarky reviews of religious texts on the Internet.
d.

Torah says I can't eat shellfish, camels, pigs, or rock badgers!

Torah says I can't eat shellfish, camels, pigs, or rock badgers!"
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
ROCK-BADGER
Previous - ROCK OF AGES
Next - ROD
r.-baj'-er:
This term is found in the Revised Version margin for "coney," shaphan (Leviticus 11:5; compare Deuteronomy 14:7; Psalms 104:18; Proverbs 30:26). It is a translation of klip das, the name given. by the Boers to the Cape hyrax or coney.


I wanted to add my vote on yet another great review of yours. And add my reassurance as a Christian that you won't burn in hell for that :)
A true believer (that goes for any religion) shouldn't be offended by an honest opinion. A belief easily shaken isn't that strong in the first place.
Anyway, I agree about the dated aspect of the Old Testament (apart from the eye for eye thing sadly still followed nowadays).
On the other hand, the New Testament shows an example nearer to us but harder to follow.

I've thought many times about "an eye for an eye". My reading is that it's really a counsel of moderation: an eye for an eye is enough, you don't need to go any further. It's easy to come up with modern examples where you wish people had followed the Mosaic law.


I also believe the works of Tolkien are scripture, a decidedly minority view. But they give me the exact same feeling of communing with the divine. I know that's a fairly heterodox opinion, but then again I'm a Latter-day Saint, and we believe the heavens are still open. (Disclaimer: most LDS don't recognize JRRT as scripture.)
As a book of science, I agree, the Bible doesn't work well, but does hold a brilliant concise explanation of cosmology for the needs of tribal herders. All truth is part of my religion, whether acquired through science or by revelation. I'm also a little partial to "In the beginning was the song" from the Ainur, rather than the word. But I agree, too, that for radical, shocking doctrine with which the world has still not come to terms, The Sermon on the Mount can't be beat. Not even The Origin of Species by Natural Selection can top it for Subversive Truth that Sticketh in the Craw of Well-Established Worthies. (I confess myself quite unable yet to come to terms with turning the other cheek when struck, nor loving those who despitefully use me.)
I'm no biblical scholar, but I like the approach taken, with the begats and the boring parts, of trying to learn why these things were important enough to the original scribes to be included. That's what I'd like to see explicated in those hyperlinks. And I like the poetic language of the King James Version, even though the original meaning is clearer in other translations (which can also be shown with hyperlinks).
Feynman always impressed me with how willing he was to look at seemingly crazy hypotheses with an open mind, only comparing them to the evidence and never ridiculing their (possibly crackpot) supporters. I believe that to be a property of the highest intelligence, and you demonstrate it admirably here. (My very own crackpot theory of human divinity, and how it fits the evidence, is the topic for a separate post.)

In fact, now I say it in so many words, I'm surprised I haven't had this thought before. It also makes me wonder what other types of writing there are out there which aren't generally acknowledged as literary genres. My first candidate is mathematical proofs.

And, odd as it is to say, since they're written in a language that's mostly pictorial rather than verbal, engineering drawings are a literary genre in themselves. I like to give mine a somewhat snappy and irreverent twist, and add snippets of humor as I may. There are so many dialects and shades of meaning in the various symbols that it constitutes a full blown language with all the complexity of the spoken word, or sign language, and even more dimensions, up to five or six when you count schematic and orthogonal views, as well as the time axis of building the thing.
Mathematical proofs definitely have the rising action, the climax, and the falling action as they taught us in lit class. Such beautiful things they are, with all the parts in place, even purer and more concise than well-written novels, aren't they?
What a fun idea! What other unrecognized genres can you think of?

But going back to Holy Writ as a genre, some more thoughts. First, since we agree that Tolkien is a good candidate, what others can we come up with that aren't already generally acknowledged? Blake and Bunyan are probably close to being accepted now. Some more speculative suggestions:
- Wittgenstein, particularly the Tractatus.
- Sylvia Plath's Ariel. Arguably the first feminist prophetess.
- Lindsay's A Voyage to Arcturus.
- Kjærstad's Seducer trilogy, though I think it's more obvious in the original Arabic. I'm sorry, I meant Norwegian.
I should add that I wasn't able to find anything on the Web about this, though I didn't spend very long searching.

The Book of Mormon is possibly alone in being a 19th c. translation-like-thing. (Joseph Smith often wasn't even looking at the original plates while reading out the translation; in fact much of the time he was staring deeply into a rock that he viewed with his face thrust into a hat to block out other light. But he apparently stated each sentence definitively, with no rephrasings or groping for English words during his dictation, only leaving appropriate pauses to let the scribe catch up.) Its language is reminiscent of the King James translation of the Bible. There are elements that betray the text's passage through a 19th c. American brain, but the majority of it is such as to belie any reasonable explanation as fiction, fantasy, or pure invention by one. It spewed out entire, over the course of a couple of months, from the mouth of a barely-literate farm boy of almost no education. His wife explained her unquestioning belief in the book's divine origin by saying that her husband was unequal to composing even an adequate three-line note accepting a dinner invitation at the time.
Tolkien also described something like the same process. He had no seer stone that anyone knew of, but he said the book came to him from outside himself, and he would have to stop, sometimes, and wait until he found out what happened next. Years before he and his group of close friends all had pledged their lives to letting God do his work through them. They each were dedicated to bringing something of divine utility into the world. Could it be that the genre of holy writ in fact contains an element of communication from some higher intelligence?
See the recent by Elizabeth Gilbert on nurturing creativity. She seems to describe the phenomenon extremely well to our modern sensibilities. Maybe what we're groping toward is some science of hosting and channeling and giving birth to these forces, intelligences, this divinity, or whatever it is, into our mundane material existence. And when it happens to us, nothing else in our lives seems to matter so much. It feels as though it's the very thing we're here to do.
Have you ever yelled at the sky, "Look, I'm doing my part! Now come on and do yours!"?

I like "austerity of diction"! That definitely fits the Tractatus. Less sure about archaic language, though. Why does a holy text have to sound archaic? Do you think they sounded archaic when they were first composed? I must say I had never really thought about that. It should be possible to get opinions on the Q'uran, for example.
Could it be that the genre of holy writ in fact contains an element of communication from some higher intelligence?
I would rephrase that as "must be able to inspire in the reader (or at least in some readers) the feeling that it has been communicated from a higher intelligence". Wouldn't want to prejudge the issue!
I guess I should read the Book of Mormon. I've heard so much about it by now, and I'd like to form my own opinion...

Did we mention Homer yet? The Iliad particularly seems to fall into the genre under discussion.
I'm happy with your rephrasing, since it's more generally applicable than mine.
As for Kjærstad's Rand, you'll just have to translate it yourself, or else finish that program so I can quickly learn the language and read the original. =)
If you read the , do try the test described in Moroni 10:4 and let me know the results. This will be a great experiment.

Agree that the Iliad is also a good candidate!
There is already an English translation of Rand, but when I last checked it hadn't yet found a publisher. Write to the author and tell him that you're another person who'll buy it when it comes out!
I will check out your experiment with Moroni 10:4...

And that was were you lost me. Jehovah is really really different from Zeus or Odin. First of all the last two are certain natural phenomenons, whereas the Jewish God is bigger than the universe and contains/surrounds it. Secondly, God (at least the Old Testament God) is very far from being human while Zeus and Odin are mere super-humans - they might be immortal and have special powers, but they also have very human characteristics/emotions/responses. Not to mention that the Jewish God never shows itself and never gets involved in the history of humanity itself in the way gods influence the lives of mortals in the Iliad, for example. Look at His name alone - it means nothing except to exist, all we know about the Jewish God is that He exists, everything else is hidden, mysterious.