Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 16:40:15 -0500
From: Eric Yost <103423.421-AT-CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: PLC: LitCrit of OT and NT


In response to Metkin's request for personal reactions, I'll state that the
King James translation has significant literary merit.  It is very
beautiful.  Among modern translations, the New Jerusalem Bible strikes me
as having the best sound.  The Book of Ecclesiastes, Job, and Daniel are
sections I re-read.  Much of the NT is corrupted by Paul's vageries.

Of religious scriptures I have read, the major Upanishads (Nikilananda
trans. or Radhakrishnan trans. but definitely not the Yeats) have had the
greatest influence.  The Bible may well be what CG Jung called it, a
premature sharing of eastern mysticism with western barbarians.  

It's too complicated to place parallel literary and spiritual judgements on
a text.  The Bible has great characters, great plot development,  and some
pretty snappy wordplay (e.g., "Israel" may be translated as "God
strives.").   But if it doesn't speak to your heart, what good is it?

Taoism has a neat twist: all religious scriptures are considered sacred in
taoism.  Thus, while we associate taosim with Lao Tse's text or maybe even
Chuang Tsu's texts, taoism has canonized hundreds and thousands of texts,
including the Bible.  

Or as the Bhagavad-Gita says, "To one who has attained enlightenment,
sacred scriptures are as useful as a bucket of water in a flooded field."  

Now, I gotta go out and get me some enlightenment.  Yeah, some of that
enlightenment would be real good 'bout now.

Eric Yost
Grumpy Town


     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---