I know this is meant as an empty joke, but... there's a particular type of article I enjoy, where in order to describe concept X, the author applies it in some

I know this is meant as an empty joke, but... there's a particular type of article I enjoy, where in order to describe concept X, the author applies it in some unusual (and perhaps absurd) context, being very careful to keep all the usual logic of X intact. I would greatly enjoy reading an article explaining libel law with the bible as an example. (Particularly as someone who's never read the bible very carefully -- I could learn about both!) I know, for instance, that (at least in some jurisdictions) if a claim is so absurd that it's obviously false, so that any reasonable reader would assume it's meant as hyperbole, then you can't be liable for it. Would that apply to the horrid things claimed of Nebuchadnezzar? There's some nasty stuff written about Saul, but then, he's a public figure. I think the author of the bible can't be sued for that unless it was written with "actual malice", right? If there are any theologians-turned-libel-lawyers reading this... please!