Fair enough about having more manuscripts available. (My understanding of the Eastern Orthodox position is that they hold that the Spirit guided not only the people who wrote the Bible, but to some extent also those who copied, edited, collated and selected the texts, as well as of course the church fathers, which is why they believe that the Received Text which eventually became dominant in the east, did so because it most fully reflected the Holy Spirit).
Regarding the archaic language, there’s an ‘updated’ version of the KJV (the 21st Century King James Version) which is my Bible of choice, it substitutes modern words for obsolete ones while maintaining archaic verb endings and pronouns, the general Jacobean syntax, and other ‘old fashioned’ bells and whistles.
How does it differ from my go-to Bible, which is the New King James Version?
Well, I did see how it differs from a previous post of yours.
But I will use this edit to note that the NKJV was the template for the New Testament of The Orthodox Study Bible, while they translated the Septuagint for the Old Testament.
No I realise that, in the sense that that is technically what it is. When I read, though, I read all of it. It belongs together in a certain sense, as you say, it’s a collection. We call it “The Bible”, though of course there are many different versions. We don’t generally refer to it as “the collection of bible stories” or something. Also, the OP calls it a work.
But… m’kay… I don’t think it’s a very good collection of stories? (I don’t have a problem calling it a work, it’s sold together as one thing and has been together in that form for a very long time. The writers wrote, and then the bible was put together as “a work”. But yeah, if it bothers you, ok: it’s a collection, I realise that.)
(Merriam-Webster: Work, noun 7 a : something produced or accomplished by effort, exertion, or exercise of skill <this book is the work of many hands>
b : something produced by the exercise of creative talent or expenditure of creative effort : artistic production <an early work by a major writer> - doesn’t seem to exclude the bible, particularly?)
While mythology or folk tale might better describe it, I don’t see it as being outside the classification of fiction. The Bible is a collection of narratives that mostly didn’t really happen in the way the are presented. Sometimes fictionalised accounts of events, sometimes just fanciful stories. (Sometimes boring lists.) Most stories contain the elements of plot, characters and place. Fiction seems to fit, literature is broader so also fits.
Obviously there are different ways of reading the Bible. As I said, I read it as I read fiction. I read the Odyssey that way too. I read it for pleasure, and I read to know the stories and characters. I did not read it to study history or religion or language. I didn’t think the Bible was very good, I thought the stories rather poor. The KJV didn’t mitigate what I thought was poor about the stories and the characters, so I conclude that it is not a great work of literature.
Absolutely, de gustibus non disputandem. Everyone in this thread seems to love it: it’s bizar to me. But then everyone seems to like Game of Thrones, eeeugh! And seriously, eating the dark purple wine gums? That’s just wrong. WRONG! I tell ya!
Actually, it’s an opinion and I’m pretty ok with it. But thanks for your concern.
It seems to me a little OTT all these language qualifications that prove that I misunderstood it all along. If only I could understand that it is in fact a collection of not-quite-true narratives, then I would appreciate it? :dubious:
Yes, the Bible is not a novel. But when you read, you compare. If the Bible were the only literature I had ever read and if I knew no other stories, I’m sure I’d think it was marvellous. Compared to other literature, and so much of it exists in novel form, I don’t think it’s all that great. Since we are talking specifically KJV I looked at some works that might be comparable (very broadly). I prefer those works, I enjoyed them as literature. In a way, of course, I compare it to everything I have ever read: from David Foster Wallace to cartoons, the Qur’an to a romance novel, Pepys to LotR to The Gruffalo, the magazines in my GP’s waiting room to Mark Duffield; they all form the giant context with which I read anything. Maybe the KJV is a great work of literature in the context the stories of when the original text was written, or as a religious text, or a fascinating historical document. But in the context of literature: meh, to me.
But as I also already said: it might be hindering me that the language of the KJV is actually incongruous with the ancientness of the text, and that might be better conveyed if I were able to read the Bible in its original languages? I’ll never know, myself, because I doubt I’ll learn those languages. I read the Qur’an in Dutch, I wouldn’t recommend it!
Part of the problem with reading as story - or even a collection of stories - is that about half of it isn’t even in narrative form. You’ve got the long genealogies of course; but there are also long passages of poetry, philosophy, prophecy, proverbs, and correspondence - none of which were intended to tell a narrative but to convey knowledge, wisdom or exhortation.
The OP asked specifically about the King James Bible as a “great work of literature,” which (perhaps confusingly) conflates two things: If you’re talking specifically about the KJV as a work of literature, you’re talking about the language, and its literary quality: what the translators brought to the work; and things like the storyline and the characters are irrelevant to that.
On the other hand, if you’re talking about the Bible, in general, instead of any specific translation, then you’re looking at things like how the stories themselves work as stories. It’s in this sense that the Bible is a collection of works (we do, after all, talk about the books of the Bible), written by different people at different times in different genres; and, as Skammer pointed out, much of the Bible isn’t in narrative form at all.
Out of curiosity, would you refer to the Norton Book of Classical Literature as a “work”? (I don’t mean to imply that it’s an exact parallel, but there’s some similarity.)
If you’re reading strictly for the stories and characters, the KJV’s language might have gotten in the way of your enjoyment, and you might have been better off reading a more modern, “transparent” version.
The works you mentioned in your earlier post (Robinson Crusoe, Gulliver’s Travels, etc.) are roughly contemporary with the translation but far more modern than the content, so it’s not really a fair comparison, if you’re using the same standards, or reading the Bible as if it were a modern novel.
And seriously, eating the dark purple wine gums? That’s just wrong. WRONG! I tell ya!