It has been said that Homer was the Bible of the Greeks. The remark exactly misses the truth. The Greeks fortunately had no Bible, and this fact was both an expression and an important condition of their freedom. Homer's poems were secular, not religious, and it may be noted that they are freer from immorality and savagery than sacred books that one could mention.

As learned commentators view
In Homer more than Homer knew.

Indeed, in many respects Hebrew literature was far more dynamic than Greek. Greek texts, from Homer onwards, were guides to virtue, decorum and modes of thought; but the Hebrew texts had a marked tendency to become plans for action.

The customs of both the Greeks and Hebrews in that heroic age were often alien to their respective descendants in the classical periods. We shall have to bear in mind that the gulf separating classical Israel (of the great Prophets) from classical Greece (of the scientists and philosophers) must not be read back into the heroic age when both peoples formed part of the same international complex.

Homer excels in Genius, Virgil in Judgment. Homer as conscious of his great Riches and Fullness entertains the Reader with great Splendor and Magnificent Profusion. Virgil's Dishes are well chosen, and tho not Rich and Numerous, yet serv'd up in great Order and Decency. Homer's Imagination is Strong, Vast and Boundless, an unexhausted Treasure of all kinds of Images; which made his Admirers and Commentators in all Ages affirm, that all sorts of Learning were to be found in his Poems. Virgil's Imagination is not so Capacious, tho' his Ideas are Clear, Noble, and of great Conformity to their Objects. Homer has more of the Poetical Inspiration. His Fire burns with extraordinary Heat and Vehemence, and often breaks out in Flashes, which Surprise, Dazle and Astonish the Reader: Virgil's is a clearer and a chaster Flame, which pleases and delights, but never blazes in that extraordinary and surprising manner. Methinks there is the same Difference between these two great Poets, as there is between their Heros. Homer's Hero, Achilles, is Vehement, Raging and Impetuous. He is always on Fire, and transported with an immoderate and resistless Fury, performs every where Miraculous Atchievements, and like a rapid Torrent overturns all things in his way. Æneas, the Hero of the Latine Poet, is a calm, Sedate Warriour. He do's not want Courage, neither has he any to spare: and the Poet might have allowed him a little more Fire, without overheating him. As for Invention, 'tis evident the Greek Poet has mightily the advantage. Nothing is more Rich and Fertile than Homer's Fancy. He is Full, Abundant, and Diffusive above all others. Virgil on the other hand is rather dry, than fruitful. 'Tis plain the Latin Poet in all his famous Æneis, has very little, if any Design of his own ...

The text of Homer about the Mycenaen Age with its memories of the Trojan War, and the Hebrew text covering from the Conquest through David's reign, cover ground with much in common geographically, chronologically and ethnically.

The differences between Buber and Hegel far outnumber their similarities. But they are at one in their opposition to any otherworldliness, in their insistence on finding in the present whatever beauty and redemption there may be, and in their refusal to pin their hopes on any beyond.

"For a long time the human instinct to understand was thwarted by facile religious explanations, as in ancient Greece in the time of <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/search/search?q=Homer" rel="nofollow noopener" title="Homer">Homer</a>, where there were gods of the sky and the Earth, the thunderstorm, the oceans and the underworld, fire and time and love and war; where every tree and meadow had its dryad and maenad."

Like—but oh, how different!

The Greek “point of view” in both art and chronology has little in common with ours but was much like that of the Middle Ages. (p. 64)

It is a pretty poem, Mr. Pope; but you must not call it Homer.

There should be as much difference between the worldling and the Christian, as between hell and heaven, between destruction and eternal life.

The bible is comprised of many writings, from many ages and many authors, which are then divided into conflicting Testaments or philosophies. The Adepts who constructed it were, of course, under the scrutiny of higher ecclesiastic authorities and therefore had to be extremely careful regarding what to write, what to translate and how to do so. So, apologists for the bible's thousands of direct contradictions should quit wasting their time studying dead languages and attempting to turn the last generation of young White men into monkish, love-thine-enemies, turn-the-other-cheek scholars. Monks are the last thing we need right now. Many bible errors, especially those of a mathematical nature, are deliberate constructions designed to call attention to the coding system, for example, the difference in the number and names of patriarchs in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 with 14 more in Luke.

To explain Homer with Homer