Christians and Mythology (Part 6: Recovering)
The series so far.
As many of us brought up in the Christian tradition can attest, there is a regrettable familiarity that comes from constant contact with Christianity. This includes everything from the order of service, to the songs we sing, and even to what we read in the Bible. As terrible as it feels to admit this, I don’t think I’m alone in saying that the force of the gospel wears off once in a while. Amazing grace is not so amazing the millionth time you’ve heard it. Speaking of this desensitizing, Bradley Birzer writes that there are many “things we have taken for granted or which have become commonplace.”1
This is not because we have fallen away as apostates, but it is hapless condition of human beings: We need constant refreshing and reminding that we are the recipients of a truly amazing inheritance. Meeting weekly as a body of believers is one way to remind us of the riches that we have in Christ, but repetition doesn’t always do the trick.
In 1947 J.R.R. Tolkien’s essay “On Fairy-stories” appeared in a collection published by Oxford University Press. This essay put forth Tolkien’s vision for what fairy-stories2 were and what benefits they could bring to readers. One of his main points included the concept of “recovery.” According to Tolkien, we need to see things, not merely in addition (i.e., week after week), but from a new position. We are characters in a marvelous story, and Tolkien firmly believed that the creation and reading of fairy-stories could awaken us to the wonder of reality.
Tolkien describes this new sense of wonder as a “regaining of a clear view…. We need…to clean our windows; so that the things seen clearly may be freed from the drab blur of triteness or familiarity—from possessiveness.” Tolkien continues:
This triteness is really the penalty of “appropriation”3: the things that are trite, or (in a bad sense) familiar, are the things that we have appropriated, legally or mentally. We say we know them. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Recovery is a concept Tolkien borrowed from G.K. Chesterton (who himself had picked up the idea from Charles Dickens). One dim and cloudy day, Dickens saw the word mooreeffoc on the window of a door. It was a door he had passed many times, but he couldn’t recall having seen that word there before. However, it took him only a split second to realize that he was viewing the word “coffeeroom” from the other side of the pane.
This startling experience caused Dickens to stop and examine the door, something he would have otherwise had no cause to do. Just as we often do in church, with a ho-hum attitude we tend to look right past the “ordinary” things of life, from the miracle of our beating heart, to the fact that a god once walked among us.4 To use Tolkien’s wording, mooreeffoc “was used by Chesterton to denote the queerness of things that have become trite, when they are seen suddenly from a new angle.”5
Similarly, when literary critic Cleanth Brooks read the British Romantics, he noticed their “preoccupation with wonder—the surprise, the revelation which puts the tarnished familiar world in a new light”:
In his preface to the second edition of the Lyrical Ballads Wordsworth stated that his general purpose was “to choose incidents and situations from common life” but so to treat them that “ordinary things should be presented to the mind in an unusual aspect.” Coleridge was to state the purpose for him later, in terms which make even more evident Wordsworth’s exploitation of the paradoxical: “Mr. Wordsworth [purposed] to give the charm of novelty to things of every day, and to excite a feeling analogous to the supernatural, by awakening the mind’s attention from the lethargy of custom, and directing it to the loveliness and the wonders of the world before us …” Wordsworth, in short, was consciously attempting to show his audience that the common was really uncommon, the prosaic was really poetic.6
Because of the Fall, we do not see things as clearly as we should, and for Tolkien, the point of “recovery” was a “return and renewal of health”7—a sort of postlapsarian convalescence. It is true that in regeneration Christ removes the veil from our eyes (2 Cor. 3:16), but just as sanctification is a process, we have a need for a constant removing of the veil—not so much the veil of unbelief as the veil of familiarity. Russian Formalists might have called this process “defamiliarization”—that is, helping familiar ideas or objects appear in a new light.8
To aid in this veil-removal, Tolkien suggests that we “meet the centaur and the dragon, and then perhaps suddenly behold, like the ancient shepherds, sheep, and dogs, and horses—and wolves. This recovery fairy-stories help us to make.”9 C.S. Lewis also recognized the essential nature of “defamiliarization.” In one of his essays, he writes the following, describing our veils of familiarity as “watchful dragons”:
I thought I saw how stories of this kind [fairy tales] could steal past a certain inhibition which had paralysed much of my own religion in childhood. Why did I find it so hard to feel as one was told one ought to feel about God or about the sufferings of Christ? I thought the chief reason was that one was told one ought to. An obligation to feel can freeze feelings. And reverence itself did harm. The whole subject was associated with lowered voices; almost as if it were something medical. But supposing that by casting all these things into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday school associations, one could make them for the first time appear in their real potency? Could one not thus steal past those watchful dragons? I thought one could.10
In his review of The Lord of the Rings, C.S. Lewis wrote, “This excursion into the preposterous sends us back with renewed pleasure to the actual.”11 Mythology is a form of reification—making something abstract more concrete or real.
While we’re talking about looking at things from another angle, let’s look at this issue itself from another angle. This fall I am teaching several sections of a freshman writing course at a community college. One of the standard pieces of writing advice I give to students is to write a draft well before the due date, and then give their brains time to forget about it. What often happens during last-minute “revision” is that the student skips over blatant mistakes because he reads what he thinks he wrote—what he meant to write. But when he comes back to the paper once his brain has relaxed and forgotten, he is able to analyze it, as if for the first time. This is why true “revision” (literally, “seeing again”) requires a kind of template reset.
I am not suggesting that we take a break from our Bible study or weekly church meetings. But I am suggesting that mythology can provide this template reset that is necessary to see life afresh with a childlike wonder. Tolkien says that “we need recovery,” and “a taste for [fairy-stories] may make us, or keep us, childish.”12 Even through our reading life we can recover our amazement of grace when we see it again for the first time.13
Notes
1 J.R.R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2003), p. 38
2 Again, I am using a broad definition of mythology, which includes fantasy, fairy tales, etc.
3 Tolkien’s use of appropriation is different from my use of the word in Part 2.
4 Even the fact that I used a small g for God can make us think of, say, Greek gods. Our jaws would drop if we saw a Greek god walking among us, and that minor lettering change—far from trivializing Christ’s deity—can make us exclaim, with a new sense of astonishment, “Wow—it’s like that!”
5 All of the above Tolkien quotes are from “On Fairy-Stories” in The Tolkien Reader (New York: Del Rey, 1986), pp. 77-78.
6 “The Language of Paradox” in The Well-Wrought Urn (Orlando: Harcourt, 1970), p. 7
7 The Tolkien Reader, p. 77
8 Russian Formalists looked to Tolstoy as their ideal literary artist, a writer who uniquely stripped away the “automatic” feeling (one we often get while mindlessly driving a car) and jolted us into perceiving something familiar as if for the first time. See here for more on this “making strange”
9 The Tolkien Reader, p. 77. Similarly, G.K. Chesterton writes in Orthodoxy (New York: Random House, 2001; p. 51): “[Fairy] tales say that apples were golden only to refresh the forgotten moment when we found that they were green. They make rivers run with wine only to make us remember, for one wild moment, that they run with water.”
10 “Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What’s to be Said” in Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories (New York: Harvest/HBJ, 1975), p. 37
11 Qtd. in Faerie Gold (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2005), p. 278
12 The Tolkien Reader, p. 77
Jeremy Larson Bio2
Jeremy Larson earned a BA in creative writing (English minor) and an MA in English, both at Bob Jones University. He has taught high school and college English for several years, and he and his wife and daughter recently moved to Waco, TX, where he will begin PhD studies in English at Baylor University (with a dual concentration in religion and literature). He blogs occasionally at The Mundane Muse.
- 150 views
He was messed up on infant baptism, too. :)
(It is almost endlessly interesting to me though, the different ways people construe the term “lie.” What seems obvious is that we need a word for what people are doing when they communicate information that (a) they know is false (b) they intend to pass off as truth. It also seems obvious to me that in English the word for this is “lie” and that the term does not apply to (a) info people don’t know is false or (b) there is no intent to deceive. But Augustine had this knack for looking at things very differently from most people!)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Augustine was a fan of Lawrence Block.
Augustine was well aware of the different types of falsehood. He put into the Western theological vocabulary the distinction between fallax (unintentional falsehood) and mendax (intentional falsehood). In Contra Mendacium, he condemns all lies, including several types of “charitable lies” that some Christians had accepted. He even interprets lies by Old Testament saints as allegories. It’s not entirely clear why Augustine thinks this way, but his strong perception of God as Truth and his understanding of language as a system of real signification has something to do with it. Fiction is a lie, because its signifiers do not point to a real, signified thing. Some of the thinking seems to me to parallel Bauder’s ideas against theater. Augustine’s teaching on lying, but not on fiction as lying, became the majority report in Western theology for 1,000 years.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
worth not much, I know …
fantastical elements used in the Bible, like in Judges 9 where the trees, vine and bramble are conversing with each other in a made up story…
neither here nor there, but i think our imaginative faculties are linked to our ability to have faith and believe. if we could never imagine something outside of what we see, could we have faith?
anyway, that was all dusted off from Anne, the creative writing major, lo, these many years ago …
[Charlie]Augustine was well aware of the different types of falsehood. He put into the Western theological vocabulary the distinction between fallax (unintentional falsehood) and mendax (intentional falsehood). In Contra Mendacium, he condemns all lies, including several types of “charitable lies” that some Christians had accepted. He even interprets lies by Old Testament saints as allegories. It’s not entirely clear why Augustine thinks this way, but his strong perception of God as Truth and his understanding of language as a system of real signification has something to do with it. Fiction is a lie, because its signifiers do not point to a real, signified thing. Some of the thinking seems to me to parallel Bauder’s ideas against theater. Augustine’s teaching on lying, but not on fiction as lying, became the majority report in Western theology for 1,000 years.
Great info. I didn’t know Aug. did that much work on the topic.
I take it his views on fiction are not central to his teaching on truth/lying as a whole… since the intellectual/theological tradition after him was comfortable excising that part?
(Interesting stuff on fallax and mendax here. … in their view, looks like both fallax and medax are intentional but the intentions are different)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[pvawter]I’m not sure anyone can totally abstain from all non-biblical pursuits (is there a list somewhere?). However, the Bible certainly and clearly points out what we are to be focusing upon. Where you draw the line is probably well away from “how much can I be distracted and still be focusing on what God clearly wants me to be doing?” I think the argument of total abstinence misses the point. It is a direction and intention and purpose.I’m sure you think I’m being obtuse, but you have asserted that nothing other than Scripturally defined and encouraged activities are acceptable for the believer. Your argument seems to require total abstinence from all non-biblical pursuits, doesn’t it?
I would say that the Bible is much more narrow than we tend to be about how we spend all of our time (or even our words, since we will give an account for every idle word). Are you arguing that we just spend our lives being entertained, instead of “losing our life” for Christ’s sake? I don’t get how you can argue that (and I doubt if you would).
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Aaron Blumer]God could have created a gray box for the human race to “have dominion” over. But He didn’t. Instead, he gave him a rich and fertile garden and told man to cultivate it. There was no Bible then, no Great Commission, no church.
And yet God said it was “very good.”
You infer this, but “very good” was before sin entered into the world. Sin changed everything, including our focus.
[Aaron Blumer] What does that mean to us now? It means that the Bible and the Great Commission are means to a higher end: the glory of God through His creation. The Fall sets up Redemption as a huge part of that… to the praise of the glory of His grace.But none of that reverses or nullifies God’s heart for a people that knows Him, loves Him, serves Him by cultivating the creation—by using God-given imagination and energy to make new things out of what He has provided.
I beg to differ. You will find no mandate to “cultivate creation” developed in the Word. You find that men are tempted (and usually yield to) the worship of creation (worshipping the creature rather than the Creator). Jesus did not push the cultivation of creation. He pushed the making of disciples, the taking up of one’s cross, and the losing of one’s life for His sake. Paul did not push the cultivation of creation. He pushed redeeming the time (because the days are evil), and practiced such warning people night and day with tears. (And you can without doubt repeat this sentiment for John, Peter, and Jude, and probably others.)
[Aaron Blumer] So the question is not “How can we prove fiction has value?” It’s “Can we prove that any broad category of human creative output does not have value?” We have to frame the question in the truth or there’s little chance of answering it correctly.I disagree here too, Aaron. Either question is answered by nothing but speculation, unless you desire to use what the Bible does say, rather than what the Bible doesn’t say. We can explore the far reaches of the universe, arguing that it might yield some value some time somewhere. However, it misses the point of what God has said we are to be busy doing and focusing upon.
[Aaron Blumer] Secondly, I zeroed in some questions earlier for Kevin, one of which was along the lines of “Are fiction and Scripture inherently competitive?” I’m still not sure I can fairly summarize your answer, Kevin.
- But if they are inherently competitive, then we should pile all the fiction we’ve got—Les Miserables included—and burn it.
- If they are not inherently competitive, then the question becomes what are the criteria for evaluating good uses of fiction and poor uses of fiction, or what are the criteria for evaluating good works of fiction from bad works of fiction. Which leads to the question, why should fiction that is longer and more imaginative be regarded as inferior to fiction that is shorter and less imaginative?
Aaron, the primary argument is against thinking fiction helps to reset or restore us to allow us to understand the Bible. THAT is the argument, and my objection. You are arguing against something that is not my point. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that it is unable, without fiction, to effect change in the minds of men. Man-written fiction is not the Word, and so it is most certainly inferior to the Word. Regarding the use of fiction in ways that God neither used, discussed, or mandated, I would say the monkey is on your back to say that we should use it. As I have stated elsewhere, this necessarily causes us, in my reasoning, to be distracted from the focus we have been commanded to have on the Word. At what point is the reading and study of fiction something that takes us from what we are to be doing, thinking upon, etc.? I don’t have that answer, but I don’t suspect that becoming experts in fiction takes us down the right path.
[Aaron Blumer] But going back to the beginning of the argument—what basis do we have for thinking fiction is inherently competitive with Scripture? Nobody reads the Bible 7x24.I thought that was a requirement for SI staff. ;>D The Bible doesn’t say “read the Bible 7x24, does it? It does say, however, we are to meditate on it day and night. Our minds are to be occupied with the truth. Is that 100% obtainable? No, but focusing upon [insert whatever past time here] can most certainly distract us from doing so. Does that make any particular past time wrong? No (and that’s not the point of my primary objection). It is that all things are to be done with a proper focus. Once we become absorbed in God’s creation rather than God, we are idolatrous, even if it’s enjoying creation in any of its forms.
[Aaron Blumer] And it’s clear that Paul did not read only the Bible.
I don’t think you can say this with certainty. We do know that he was trained as a Pharisee prior to his conversion. We do know that he was aware of the writings of his time. However, to say that he read things other than the Bible has no support. Using this is like using Paul’s references to sports (as a means of teaching) to suggest that he was a die-hard sports fan. One does not require the other. Interestingly, Paul doesn’t exhort us to study Homer’s Odyssey or other such work in order to be able to have our minds reset or restored, or discuss the characters in any fiction available to him in his day.
[Aaron Blumer] But even apart from reading, our creation tells us that we’re intended to engage in other activities, especially creative ones—not just because we have to, but because it’s “very good.”Prove this from the NT, my friend. You are building things from a pre-fall mindset.
[Aaron Blumer] So there appears to be no valid argument in this thread for rejecting fiction in general or for rejecting fantasy fiction in particular.You still argue a point I have not made in my primary objection. However, I believe the monkey is still on your back (sorry for using that twice - I’m not very creative) to argue that we should be using our time, mental energies, and creative abilities on such things.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Kevin Subra]As I have stated elsewhere, this necessarily causes us, in my reasoning, to be distracted from the focus we have been commanded to have on the Word. At what point is the reading and study of fiction something that takes us from what we are to be doing, thinking upon, etc.? I don’t have that answer, but I don’t suspect that becoming experts in fiction takes us down the right path.
Kevin,
sorry to steal a quote from your response to Aaron, but I think it appropriately illustrates why I’ve taken issue with your response to this article. While you maintain that you don’t believe complete abstinence to be the right response to fiction, you declare that it “necessarily causes us…to be distracted from the focus we have been commanded to have on the Word.”
You are correct that I would not argue that we should spend our lives being entertained instead of losing our lives for Christ’s sake, but my argument from the beginning is that there is not a necessary conflict between the two. In other words, losing our lives for Christ doesn’t necessitate a stark and somber existence.
I do agree with you that 21st century Christians face a powerful temptation to make entertainment their idol, but that has been true of men all through human history. If it is not entertainment, then it is something else. We ought to warn each other to beware of the danger of idolatry, and since almost anything can supplant God as supreme in the believer’s life, we ought to constantly evaluate ourselves in light of God’s Word. This includes the influence of any and all entertainment we enjoy.
[Anne Sokol]neither here nor there, but i think our imaginative faculties are linked to our ability to have faith and believe. if we could never imagine something outside of what we see, could we have faith?
anyway, that was all dusted off from Anne, the creative writing major, lo, these many years ago …
Mrs. Sokol,
If you spend enough time on SI, rest assured that somebody will come along and post something to the effect that your ministry or chosen field of study (unless it is straight Bible) has no place in the ministry of the current church.
(Says the music major and Minister of Church Music of 25 years experience in churches from Illinois to Florida. :-))
God bless us all.
Rev Karl
I’m fine with what you say. My “necessarily” argument is simply one of capacity or logistics rather than anything else. If we busy ourselves with or occupy ourselves with something such as fiction, how can it not keep us from focusing on the Word? If I am to be meditating on the Word day and night, how does this happen if I am meditating upon something else fictional? (I’m asking you, not arguing against you.)
Another question, which poses itself (in my mind): Why, if I avoid reading fiction to enhance, reset, or resolve my mind regarding Scripture, does that only leave me with a somber existence? Is Scripture that empty to you? I find it the most fascinating book on earth, and have found nothing more deep or more exciting. (And my argument has primarily been against the premise of the article, not against fiction per se. You and Aaron have been the ones pursuing the all or nothing fiction fight.)
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
i don’t have time or inclination to get deeply into this discussion, and i was reading the one with hannah and the creativity and home business thingy too,
and i don’t know, kevin subra, sure fiction and creativity can all be used for sinful purposes, just like s-x or food or cars …
God is the creator, it is the first thing we see him doing, the first way we are His (redemption is the second). we create too. is it the main way we see our lives? sure not. but is it a valid perspective to include in our life view? sure.
i’m home schooling my kids, i read them a made-up story about birds to teach science concepts—The Burgess Bird Book. I read them Aesop’s fables to teach moral sayings, we read stories from history about Alexander the Great, for example, I’m sure some of it is made up.
most of a good education is reading widely… . .
[Anne Sokol]i don’t have time or inclination to get deeply into this discussion, and i was reading the one with hannah and the creativity and home business thingy too,
and i don’t know, kevin subra, sure fiction and creativity can all be used for sinful purposes, just like s-x or food or cars …
God is the creator, it is the first thing we see him doing, the first way we are His (redemption is the second). we create too. is it the main way we see our lives? sure not. but is it a valid perspective to include in our life view? sure.
i’m home schooling my kids, i read them a made-up story about birds to teach science concepts—The Burgess Bird Book. I read them Aesop’s fables to teach moral sayings, we read stories from history about Alexander the Great, for example, I’m sure some of it is made up.
most of a good education is reading widely… . .
Erm? I must have missed that term in my public school education. ;>D
I have not argued against using a made-up story to teach about birds. Or to teach kids to read, etc. My objection (have I said this before) is with the premise of the article, where fiction can be used to reset or resolve in some way that Scripture cannot and therefore suggests that Scripture is insufficient.
Would you agree, Anne, that we are to focus on some things, which would necessarily keep us from focusing on other things? If your kids are reading about birds, their not watching TV, or doing math for that matter. That’s my point on that.
I do not want to cross threads. I’ll let you and Hannah continue on that discussion. I promised to bow out. I see no mandate or suggestion in Scripture that our pursuits should be in that direction (as an end in itself), and I see lots of clear commands to do all sorts of other things. I just have to opt to lean in that direction.
I think the discussion misses my objection to this thread, and really doesn’t address my arguments in this thread, so I’ll just leave what I’ve said to stand.
[Anne Sokol]I’ll wait for some Biblical support on that one. ;>D I’ve heard “readers are leaders” too, but that doesn’t necessarily mean readers are Biblical leaders. In the mean time, I think Col 2:8 has enough to say. I’m dumb enough to need much more time in the Word, and I’m impressionable enough with a Bible-verified wicked and deceitful heart not to trust anything but God’s Word to point me in the right direction (and even then I get it wrong much of the time!).most of a good education is reading widely… . .
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Kevin Subra] I have not argued against using a made-up story to teach about birds. Or to teach kids to read, etc. My objection (have I said this before) is with the premise of the article, where fiction can be used to reset or resolve in some way that Scripture cannot and therefore suggests that Scripture is insufficient.can you find the exact quotes in the article that you are referring to?
[Kevin Subra]i’m not sure why you are implying that you’re somehow dumber than the average Christian, too gullible and naive to be able to read things other than the Bible. We all depend on the Word of God and the teaching of the Holy Spirit to guide us. There is a certain wonderful joy in knowing the truth and being able to enjoy many other things because we know the truth.[Anne Sokol]I’ll wait for some Biblical support on that one. ;>D I’ve heard “readers are leaders” too, but that doesn’t necessarily mean readers are Biblical leaders. In the mean time, I think Col 2:8 has enough to say. I’m dumb enough to need much more time in the Word, and I’m impressionable enough with a Bible-verified wicked and deceitful heart not to trust anything but God’s Word to point me in the right direction (and even then I get it wrong much of the time!).most of a good education is reading widely… . .
i really enjoy being a grown up and having discernment and being able to read widely and glean helpful things out of what I read. … A few weeks ago a read a booklet by Henri Nouwen (sp?) about fundraising, he is some catholic dude, i don’t know much about him, and there are objectionable elements to his life I later learned. What he wrote also wasn’t perfect theologically. But, God used it to help me probably more than anything in my life, to date, on the subject of fundraising. And I’m glad I have the discerning maturity to read it and get the help from it I needed.
ps. read all that with a nice tone of voice, nothing intended to be mean or snarky.
The premise of the OP is that a constant diet of anything tends toward an insensitivity to that thing. The Bible can become a chore, a textbook. If I understand him correctly, he is not assigning any kind of spiritual illumination or eternal value, so to speak, to ‘mythology’, or fiction. What he asserts is that we use books other than the Bible to broaden our perspective, our knowledge base, and gain a better appreciation of Scriptures. As in, sometimes when you ‘walk away’ from something, and come back to it, your mind is ‘clearer’.
Do you (general ‘you’) ever stop thinking about something in order to gain clarity? I do that all the time. Of course, sometimes clarity comes at 2am, which is very inconvenient.
So, I can see his point. I attended a Christian high school and then Bible college, and there were times I took the Bible for granted and did not view it as the divine Scriptures, but as just another assignment. We are faulty humans, and can become desensitized to anything of which we have a steady, unbroken diet. It is reasonable to propose that Scripture is also one of those things that we can take for granted. An appreciation for good literature can increase our appreciation for the Bible by refreshing our perspective. I certainly gain a further appreciation for creation every time I read anything science related- Isaac Asimov or Brian Greene- and I think it is entirely possible that whether we “eat, or drink, or whatsoever we do”, we CAN do it in the name of the Lord.
I’m currently reading The Shadow of a Great Rock by Harold Bloom. This guy is as lost as a golf ball in high weeds, but in this book, he asserts that the King James Bible is “the sublime summit of literature in English”. Obviously we know that the Bible is much more than that, but I think my point is that we can gain an appreciation for Scriptures by broadening our literary horizons. I wouldn’t know what Mr. Bloom was talking about if I didn’t have some knowledge of Shakespeare and other literary classics. The Bible compared to any other book that has ever been produced is a supernatural masterpiece, for lack of a more glowing term at the moment. But by that very statement, I have to have something to compare it to in order to make any sort of comparison. Assertions based on limited knowledge do not lend any credibility to one’s argument.
Discussion