Clarifications
While reading Bloom, he seems to imply that one can either read the Bible with an eye of faith or with an eye of litature, but they do not come together. Personally, this is not the case, as I read with both. I have long enjoyed the Bible as a work of litature. One of my favorite poems is Psalm 88.
The reasons this is important is that essentially all Christian litature, and most any litature prior to the Reformation, used the Bible as a foundation both as litature and as the basis of faith. This means that, while we are essentially looking at the Bible on as litature, one must always keep in mind that most others who reference it treat it as a work of faith as well. Imagine trying to read Dostoyevsky without having any understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Biblical tradition he came out of.
The second point I would like to make is one of definition, primarily aimed at avoiding any chance of offense or pointless argument (at least pointless to the aim of this course in its strictest sense).
When one is talking about the Bible, everybody seems to have a different viewpoint on the validity and accuracy of the Bible. So, in the future, I will be using the term Biblical Myth. Now, before anyone accuses me of calling the Bible false, please remember that I am an Orthodox Catholic and myth doesn't mean what you think it means.
Myth, in its best definition, is simply the stories and tales that are the foundation for a worldview. Therefore, one might be able to consider On the Origin of Species to be the myth for Darwinism, or the work of Copernicus to be the myth of modern astronomy.
Myth does not, contrary to popular opinion, carry inherent connotations of truth or falsehood. Rather when one calls something a myth it is because it is being examined in light of its foundational nature. No one would argue that the Bible is not the foundation of Christianity and Judaism (at least Orthodox Judaism), and therefore, one cannot help but calling it a myth.
Likewise, no intellegint scholar would deny the historical validity of most of the four books of kings (1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings). Scholarship has reapidly shown that most of the information in these books is valid, paricularly when it comes to listing rulers and wars.
I will be using the word myth with the above definition and would recommend it, simply because if we understand this meaning no one is stepping on anyone else's toes, and we need not debate the actual accuracy of the Bible, something largely unimportant to its litarary merits.
The reasons this is important is that essentially all Christian litature, and most any litature prior to the Reformation, used the Bible as a foundation both as litature and as the basis of faith. This means that, while we are essentially looking at the Bible on as litature, one must always keep in mind that most others who reference it treat it as a work of faith as well. Imagine trying to read Dostoyevsky without having any understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Biblical tradition he came out of.
The second point I would like to make is one of definition, primarily aimed at avoiding any chance of offense or pointless argument (at least pointless to the aim of this course in its strictest sense).
When one is talking about the Bible, everybody seems to have a different viewpoint on the validity and accuracy of the Bible. So, in the future, I will be using the term Biblical Myth. Now, before anyone accuses me of calling the Bible false, please remember that I am an Orthodox Catholic and myth doesn't mean what you think it means.
Myth, in its best definition, is simply the stories and tales that are the foundation for a worldview. Therefore, one might be able to consider On the Origin of Species to be the myth for Darwinism, or the work of Copernicus to be the myth of modern astronomy.
Myth does not, contrary to popular opinion, carry inherent connotations of truth or falsehood. Rather when one calls something a myth it is because it is being examined in light of its foundational nature. No one would argue that the Bible is not the foundation of Christianity and Judaism (at least Orthodox Judaism), and therefore, one cannot help but calling it a myth.
Likewise, no intellegint scholar would deny the historical validity of most of the four books of kings (1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings). Scholarship has reapidly shown that most of the information in these books is valid, paricularly when it comes to listing rulers and wars.
I will be using the word myth with the above definition and would recommend it, simply because if we understand this meaning no one is stepping on anyone else's toes, and we need not debate the actual accuracy of the Bible, something largely unimportant to its litarary merits.
posted by J.M.R. Burgard @ 3:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home