The Bible

T HE common basis of our work in this Society is an interestin the Sacred books called 'The Bible'. From different anglesand along various lines of research we study the text and contextof great literature which Judaism and Christianity regard asauthoritative classics of their faith. More than that; since theSacred Book is a phenomenon of religion in general, and as isolation is a fruitful source of wrong judgment in the historical investigation of ideas and institutions, we decline to detach our SacredBook from similar books of its class in other faiths of the world.Now, in surveying the history of religion, I seem to detect fournegative truths about the Sacred Book. (i) Not every religionpossesses a sacred book. (ii) The sacred book does not lie besidethe cradle of the faith in question. (iii) No religion lives by itssacred book alone. And (iv) no sacred book can be judged apartfrom the specific ethos of the faith out of which it rose and forwhich it exists. Each of these four points would afford elbowroom and more for an address. All I can hope to do is to enquirebriefly how far they are applicable to our own sacred book,The Bible.At the outset I had better say that I quite understand theobjection tabled by some Jewish scholars to the use of the term'Old Testament' in critical discussions within a society like ourown, which embraces both Jewish and Christian members. From' Presidential Address given before the Society of Biblical Literature andExegesis,their point of view, it does imply a religious affirmation or synthesis to which they cannot agree. As a matter of fact, it iscurious that in France and even in England, down to the beginningof last century (as readers of Charles Lamb will recollect), theterms 'Bible' and 'Testament' were occasionally employed forwhat we call 'the Old Testament' and 'the New Testament'.When I use 'Bible' and 'biblical' in their accepted sense, therefore,I simply follow for the sake of convenience the traditional usageof our Society, even although 'Bible' means one thing for a Jewand another for a Christian. The point is, that our commonattitude to a Sacred Book involves belief in a collection of ancientliterature which was originally intended to represent the sourcesand the standards of the religion in question; furthermore, thatthis attitude prompts the desire to apply to its study the ordinaryprocesses of literary and historical criticism.(i) A Sacred Book or Bible, thus defined, is one thing; religiouswritings, however popular or primitive, constitute another. Anumber of ancient religions had no such sacred books at all.Thus, neither the Eddas nor the Pyramid Texts of Egypt werebibles of the people. Neither Greece nor Rome apparently feltany need of a Sacred Book; in the case of Roman religion thenearest analogy, and it is far-off rather than near, would be theSibylline Oracles, and although the Greek Oracles approximateto the notion of a Sacred Book, as being inspired directions forhuman life at the cross-roads, still they are a distant parallel.It may be true, as some scholars like Andrew Lang2 have maintained, that Hesiod's Theogony "was taught to boys in Greece,much as the Church catechism and Bible are taught in England";certainly the reaction of philosophers like Xenophanes andHeracleitus as early as the sixth century B.C. against thedemoralizing effect of veneration for Homer, does indicate thata sort of religious authority attached to the Homeric epics insome circles. But it is only a pretty literary phrase, to speak ofHesiod or Homer as a Bible for the ancient Greeks. No doubt,in some religious movements, such as Orphism and the cult ofIsis, hymns and prayers arose. One or two of the mystery-cults

The bible is a heap of old books written by primitive, ignorant, superstitious savages (PISS),

prove it

Perhaps you know of someone else involved in the writing.

who

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

.

Doc Frank,

PARAGRAPH:  a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering.

.

That dismisses the bible then. Carry on.

Not really, since you claimed "The bible is a heap of old books written by primitive, ignorant, superstitious savages". And, you haven't provide any evidence for that claim.

Also, the use of spaces between separate words would be a good idea.

Relatively primitive, ignorant and superstitious. 

But not necessarily savage.

And the "Bible" is undoubtedly a collection of superstition and ignorance based tales, which mix fact with fiction and fantasy.

Ergo a mythology.

Comparable with other mythologies of the day and also comparable with other older mythologies.

ANSWER THE QUESTION YOURSELF.

Were they advanced or primitive?

Did they have any real knowledge of anything compared to us?

Did they believe in gods and demons and witches and monsters, superstitious.

They thought a woman should be stoned to death for fucking, yeah savages.

What does that mean?

Yes that's what I asked you.

Do you have an answer or just your owl impression.