--- On Tue, 9/14/10, [namewithheld] wrote:
> Speaking literally/stylistically, how do you
> (yes you) compare the Koran with the Bible (Old or New
> Testament)?
That's a really hard question to answer because of the variables involved. For instance, which version of the Bible? King James? New Revised Standard? I think as English speakers we all gravitate towards those wonderful King James version wordings. That's the english of Shakespeare, after all, and has a rhythm that pleases our ear even though it sounds archaic.
The Arab world certainly thinks that the Koran is great literature. I don't have enough comparative experience with any definitive texts of either the Koran or the Bible to really say which is better. I've only ever read this one translation of the Koran, and only a small part of that. I don't know if it was done with an ear for language or to preserve literal meaning or what. I will say that it's boring and repetitive and, to my ear, seems to be aping some other style. That is, it seems an IMITATION of a sacred text, not a sacred text itself, if that makes sense. It sounds like someone exhorting troops and trying to inspire them more than anything else. It also appears to be talking down to people, or maybe speaking to a crowd.
The Bible has a wide range of styles, probably because of the wide range of authors over the years it was put together. Both the Koran and the Bible were worked on by different people at different times, but the Koran is more an expression of one man's crazed rantings than the Bible. The Bible seems more a collection of related stories, or chapters in a story told by separate people. The Koran seems to be the collected remembrances of what people heard Mohammed saying at a camp meeting before a battle. The style is flattened both by the fact that it's all about one man's exhortations and the fact that the translation I've got probably was done by good scholars, good linguists, but not necessarily by poets.
Buddhism doesn't really have sacred texts in the sense that the Bible and Koran are held to be the word of God or whatever. However, there are certainly a lot of Buddhist writings that date back 2,500 years or more, many of which are dazzling, thoughtful, insightful and inspiring (and boring, repetitive and stupid in cases). The writing of Dogen in the 12th century and Nargarjuna in the (I think) 2nd century are particularly good in that they stand out as well-reasoned and as philosophically rigorous as anything produced in modern times. I guess the point is that literature of both Buddhism and Christianity seems to be inspired by some transcendant event or individual; whether or not you personally believe what you're reading, you'd agree that the writing makes sense and is well done and could be inspirational.
I don't get that in reading the Koran at all. It sounds like the ravings of a good leader, possibly, but not a transcendant figure. No doubt I'm prejudiced against the Koran by what I know of terrorist Muslims, but at least I've tried to read it and see what they're reading to understand why they think the way they do. Over and over it's just a big mish-mash of "They're gonna get theirs in the end; God is on our side; be good and here's some rules to keep you pure so you win the battle." That's simply not very inspiring to me no matter how it's phrased.
My two cents.
DB
_/\_
