Thought about the Old Testament

I read in Haaretz some bullshit from Zipper, the literature editor. (Hebrew readers can see it in
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1164685.html )

Like most literature critics, who can't write great literature themselves, the attack was on how long and boring some truly great literature is. And Zipper chose the Old Testament for attack. While I am no fun of the New Testament, IMO way too much was lost in translation by pretty bad translators with a too strong of an agenda, I have a high opinion of the Old Testament. I'll try to explain it by comparing to what quite a few English speaker view as English classic - Shakespeare.

The first difference I see is the attempt to tell the truth. E.g. the story about King David and Bathsheba was written sometime when kings from the house of David governed Jerusalem. They certainly did not like the story about their ancestors but the story remained in the Bible. Compare that to Shakespeare who treated the ancestors of Queen Elizabeth as right and just and their opponents as villains, e.g. Macbeth and Richard III. (Henry VII found legal excuses to execute some of the rival claimants, even if they made no claims. But if you read Shakespeare, Henry is "the good guy".) Not everything in the Old Testament is historical truth, but my impression is that the people who wrote the text believed what they wrote.

A good example for that is Amos. Amos starts by describing God's judgment of Israel's neighbors. There are sins and punishment for everybody around, Damascus, Philistine, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, all there. Then the prophet from Judah tells about the judgment against Judah. The people in the around him were obviously happy to hear that everybody around, but them, would suffer for their sins. Had Amos been somebody like Shakespeare he would stop right there, get some gifts/donations, and come the next day for a repeat performance. Instead of that he finishes the prologue and gets into the real message:
(I use translations from www.biblegateway.com .)
"For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}.
They sell the righteous for silver,
and the needy for a pair of sandals.
They trample on the heads of the poor
as upon the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
Father and son use the same girl
and so profane my holy name. "

The government don't like Amos' message, and the officials start acting:
"Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent a message to Jeroboam king of Israel: "Amos is raising a conspiracy against you in the very heart of Israel. The land cannot bear all his words. For this is what Amos is saying:
" 'Jeroboam will die by the sword,
and Israel will surely go into exile,
away from their native land.' "
Then Amaziah said to Amos, "Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. Don't prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king's sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom."

Compare Shakespeare to Amos and you see the difference between a talented writer who does not care about the truth and try to please the queen and the audience to a talented writer who has to tell the truth, no matter how upsetting it is.

A related difference is that archeology has the found some Bible related evidence. E.g. Joshua's Altar, see
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-altar-of-joshua.htm
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/118225
And King Belshazzar of Babylon
http://www.bibletruth.org.au/archaeology/index.php
(There are many more sources for both. Google if you care enough.)
Not much luck with finding anything from King Lear. And some mistakes are obvious, e.g. Macbeth Act 1, Scene 2: "Ten thousand dollars to our general use." (There were dollars in Shakespeare's time. Wikipedia claims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar "The German silver Thaler coins that were first minted in 1520." That's probably the reason why no dollars from Macbeth's time has ever been found.)

But the main difference, IMO, is the "quality" of the losers. King Saul, like king Macbeth, talked with a witch before the final battle the doomed him and his house. But Macbeth was led into the losing battle by a double talk which was made, intentionally, to cause him to believe in his victory. Namely:
"Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn
The power of man, for none of woman born
Shall harm Macbeth."

and

"Be lion-mettled, proud; and take no care
Who chafes, who frets, or where conspirers are:
Macbeth shall never vanquish'd be until
Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill
Shall come against him."

King Saul got a much more clear message in 1 Samuel 28, 19:
The LORD will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines."

The character of Macbeth is easy to understand. The witches gave him a false sense of security and so he went to a losing battle. Macbeth reacted in a "normal" way - he was sure in his victory and so he went to battle.

King Saul is a much more interesting character. The Philistines had an advantage in the planes. He could avoid the battle by retreating to Mount Gilboa, using the same strategy as Deborah and Barak had used by retreating to the Mount Tabor till the time was right. Saul could also send his son(s) away from the battle so his house will survive. This fearless and hopeless king, all at once, is a much more interesting character. Saul is not dark as Macbeth (as a witch comments "Something wicked this way comes.") There is plenty of gray. That makes the character more real and more interesting than Macbeth.

Another interesting thing about the Bible is the prophecy. E.g. Balaam prophecy in Numbers 23, 9:
"For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him:
lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations. "

Somebody, about 3,500 years ago, managed to describe the state of the Jews today. I have no idea how he did it, but I have a lot of respect to people who can predict the future, much more than I have to those who lie about the past.