Great, but why would reclassifying the bible as fiction require anything by Shakespeare to be reclassified?
Could define your terms a little better for clarity. For instance the myths about Hercules was not religious practice, but was more akin I’d say to Dantes Inferno, which again is not religious practice (and nether is religious text of any sort). , but both, as I understand them, seemed to be in what may be called religious fiction, works derived from the culture of a particular religion. Is that what you mean?
Because there’s no metric by which the Bible is fiction but Shakespeare is not.
I’m just not understanding the metric by which Shakespeare is not already considered fiction.
I’d prefer translated primary source document. It’s an historical document that requires interpretation in a classroom. That’s the way it was presented in my high school at least. They had an easier time of it in some ways, as I didn’t know anybody in high school spouting biblical inerrancy.
Primary source documents are in contrast to secondary source documents such as textbooks or history books.
Pretension. “Literature” is something read by a self-proclaimed elite who look down on those who read “fiction”.
Something that would amuse the hell out of Shakespeare if he knew about it, given that he was exactly the sort of writer for a popular audience that proponents of “literature” sneer at.
Not at all. The Greco/Roman multi-god structure was an active religion. That numerous writers over centuries wrote about the activities of the gods - just as much moral fables as anything in the Bible - is not comparable to a poem satirizing contemporary morals. The Greeks had voluminous amounts of poetry and drama doing similar satires. Those are not either myths or religions, but literature, as Dante’s works are.
A religion is a religion based solely on contemporary beliefs. If Christianity dies out and Jesus becomes part of a past mythology to a future people it does not cancel out that it was an active religion for a period.
For almost all modern purposes outside certain academic writing, fiction is prose. Drama and poetry are not fiction, but separate arts. None of the three are nonfiction. All four might be part of literature, however, although including nonfiction in the definition is rapidly becoming - if not already completely - outmoded. Nobody lays down these rules, of course, just as nobody decides how language evolves, but I believe the descriptions accurately convey current thought.
Both are valid religions, that one is no longer practiced does not negate that it has been part of human culture and intertwined with human lives that defined that culture. I’m not seeing the distinction between current and no longer current religions in this context.
Which brings us back to “Why would recategorizing the Bible to ‘fiction’ require recategorizing Shakespeare?”
I find these two quotes contradict one another.
Beats me. I can’t find anyone else who is suggesting that it happens. What I see is people saying fiction v nonfiction is the wrong way of looking at multiple categories.
I think someone upthread was making a sorta sarcastic or cynical point. Parapharasing …
- The bible is clearly (to me) fiction. The people wanting to teach the bible in public schools believe it to be non-fiction. If we’re going to re-label the bible as non-fiction, I suppose we need to do the same with Shakespeare. Ha ha; we’ll never see that happen! /s"
Basically the conversation gets a bit wonky when you have people honestly discussing an issue that was meant dishonestly by the uninvolved third parties that inspired it.
Yep. From upthread:
Well, it doesnt. But the argument was that the Bible is either myth and legend and religion- or it is literature, like Shakespeare. Then people (Including you)argued that Shakespeare is fiction- which it isnt.
So the claim here was that anything with magic etc in it is fiction, and the counter argument was that Shakespeare has plenty of that sort of stuff, but it is not fiction.
And we categorize Herodotus and such as non-fiction, even if parts are not true.
Are we also going to categorize the Quran, Bhagavad Gita, all the Sutras, not to mention Plato and most of the ancient Greeks, Norse eddas, greek Myths and all that as fiction?
Yes, parts of the Bible are Myth and legend, parts are religious observances, and parts are history.
In other words- either the book is complete and entirely true or it is fiction? Is that the idea here? In which case the non-fiction parts of the library will be very small.
Of course it is. Why wouldn’t it be?
The OP talks about “teaching the Bible as literature,” he means as opposed to teaching it as religious indoctrination. He’s not using it as a category, he’s using it as a pedagogical approach. The argument the OP is making is, when using this pedagogical approach, the Bible should be explicitly labeled “fiction.” While fiction is often a subcategory of “literature” alongside things like “drama” and “poetry,” the OP is using it in the sense of, “shit that actually happened” versus “shit people just made up.” In that simple binary, Shakespeare mostly wrote fiction, although his histories would probably be categorized as non-fiction, depending on how strictly you’re defining your terms.
The problem with this idea is that binary is too simple. It’s more useful to distinguish between “religion” and “fiction” than it is to lump them together. Much like how, with Shakespeare, it’s more useful to put all of his plays together under a separate “drama” subcategory, instead of trying to divide them between “fiction” and “nonfiction,” it’s more useful to put religion in its own category, instead of lumping it in with fiction. But if someone feels “religion” is insufficiently distinct to deserve its own category, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they must think the category of “drama” must also be discarded.
Some Shakespeare has stuff like that. Plenty of his plays have no supernatural element at all.
Can you explain the contradiction you see.
No special existential place exists for Christianity. It is one of maybe a million religions invented by humanity. History has made it a fabric of society in many places, but history also made a place for a variety of other religions, now and in the past. Those no longer revered religions may be called myths and legends but were often completely equivalent to Christianity in their times and places in regards to “society, culture, authority, status”.
When you say that myths and legends never achieve the state of being “interwoven” yet a future mythic Christianity would be considered “intertwined” you give a special place to your religion that you deny to thousands of earlier religions that totally consumed their societies. That is a contradiction.
Have you read this thread? All Libraries and most bookstores i know of categorize Shakespeare as Literature.
I ask this question of those who think the Bible should be considered “fiction”- are you going to say the same about the Quran, Bhagavad Gita, all the Sutras, not to mention Plato and most of the ancient Greeks, Norse eddas, and greek Myths. Calling the Quran “fiction” is something few dare to do.