"The Bible and Its Influence" - Just read this on Yahoo news

[Chicken Pot Pie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051130/...ife_bible_dc_1

Has anyone read this news item? Here's the first few paragraphs:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Since the
U.S. Supreme Court banned the promotion of religion in public schools in 1963, the Bible has virtually disappeared from most American classrooms.


But in recent years, as evangelical Christians have grown in numbers and gained political clout in the United States, Bible studies have been creeping back into schools.

Now, a new textbook for high school students aims to fill a gap by teaching the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, in a nonsectarian, nonreligious way as a central document of Western civilization with a vast influence on its literature, art, culture and politics.

"It's not about belief. It's about crucial knowledge and knowledge belongs in our schools," said Chuck Stetson, a New York investment banker who is the driving force behind and co-author of "The Bible and Its Influence" -- a glossy, 387-page book recently released and now being tested in a small number of schools mainly on the West Coast."


I've just started subbing, and I'm interested in the idea behind this concept insofar as "knowledge" of what is in the Bible (as literature, etc.) is concerned. I don't advocate religion, but I do think everyone should know what is there to see what we up against when we try to teach our kids to be freethinkers. I think this could be used - if it were done "correctly" - to show where fundamentalists get their contradictory information. Wouldn't it great to see this ultimately come back to bite fundies by exposing their fairy tales? What do you think?

Kabookie

[c4ts]

You should have to read the Bible, because it is crucial to understanding the Western Literary cannon. It's just that the fundamentalists and such want to pretend like it's some kind of fact book or historical record. Probably because they don't read it themselves.

[Chicken Pot Pie]

Originally Posted by c4ts

You should have to read the Bible, because it is crucial to understanding the Western Literary cannon. It's just that the fundamentalists and such want to pretend like it's some kind of fact book or historical record. Probably because they don't read it themselves.

Exactly! Thank you.

I suffered from culture shock when I moved from the north to the south because they "believe" differently from the very same faith I was raised in. I found out the preachers in the south weren't educated, they just "got called" or "felt the call". That's when I realized from listening to them speak, or mumble, groan and chant as it was, that they only repeated what they thought or heard from other preachers, and never actually read the Bible themselves. Sheesh! I gave up on churches long ago, but held my "faith" until I realized that "educated" preachers or not, all religion is bunk. We owe it to our kids to let the book do it's own talking.

[jimtron]

Well the Bible's influence on the Western world can't really be argued. And teaching about the bible in a non-religious context could be a good thing. I've often quoted (what I would consider) weird passages to people who don't believe they're really from the Bible. And I'd like to see the history of the Bible taught--who wrote and edited it.

In my view, the more the Bible is studied in a secular context, the more odd and disturbing and ridiculous it seems.

[Ladewig]

What age group is the book aimed at?

Given that the good guys in the Bible engage in infantcide, genocide, racism, slavery, incest and a variety of other actions that are quite inappropriate for youngsters, I think they should hold off on exposing this stuff to the younger kids.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

What age group is the book aimed at?

Given that the good guys in the Bible engage in infantcide, genocide, racism, slavery, incest and a variety of other actions that are quite inappropriate for youngsters, I think they should hold off on exposing this stuff to the younger kids.

I think we need another crackpot lawyer to blame all acts of violence on the influence of the Bible instead of video games.

[bignickel]

"It's about crucial knowledge and knowledge belongs in our schools," said Chuck Stetson,"

What crucial knowledge? As far as I'm concerned, it's an awful document history-wise, full of unsubstantiated events and postdated prophecy.

If there is anything 'crucial knowledge' in the book, by all means, EXTRACT it and put it in history books. But there is no compelling reason to bring the whole monstrous thing into the classroom, genocide, racism, infanticide, and all, intact.

Now, if the thing's coming in fully intact for a class called "The Horrors of the Bible: Judeo/Christian Mythology, and it's Terrible Effect Throughout History (Inquisition, Crusades, etc)", by all means, BRING IT IN. That'd be fun!

Otherwise, it's just yet another end run by the thiests to try to get back into the classroom.

[a_unique_person]

There are much better historical books out there, if you want something that half pretends to be history. Seutonius, for example.

[schplurg]

Bignickel, you stole my thunder! I agree with everything you said.

Teach us all how the bible has screwed people up for 2000 years.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by bignickel

"It's about crucial knowledge and knowledge belongs in our schools," said Chuck Stetson,"

What crucial knowledge?

Two thirds of Western Culture, for a start. The two most common sources for quotations in English are Shakespeare and.... wait for it.... the Bible. Much of the interpretive content of literature, including books, plays, films, and so forth, is taken straight from the Bible Just off the top of my head, look at Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea, Dirty Harry Callahan, Raskolnikov, the Green Knight, William Golding's Simon (Lord of the Flies), and for that matter Superman -- all recognized as "Christ figures." I could probably even make a case for Harry Potter being a Christ figure. You may disagree -- but how would you articulate your case without knowlege of the tradition of Christ figures, their history, and their biblical meaning.)

A quick check -- Google for literature and "christ figure" and you get about 35,000 hits.


Then, of course, there's this picture (stolen from the Tate Gallery).

Please describe its significance to the world of art history without mentioning anything Biblical.

Many of the images and parables are almost cliches. There's a towing company near my house called "Good Samaritan towing." Do you know what a "good Samaritan" is? What's a "Samaritan"?
What's a "prodigal son"? What are the "four horsemen of the Apocalypse"? What's a "pearl of great price"? Just how big is a "mustard seed"?

Trying to understand English literature without knowing about the Bible is like trying to understand English literature without Shakespeare -- or for that matter, like trying to understand Italian literature without Dante, or French literature without Descartes, or American political structure without Hobbes and Locke.

Quote:

Otherwise, it's just yet another end run by the thiests to try to get back into the classroom.

On the contrary. It's quite reasonable to study something without believing in it. Do you believe in Hamlet?

[hankalme]

Originally Posted by drkitten

On the contrary. It's quite reasonable to study something without believing in it. Do you believe in Hamlet?

Not Hamlet, but I really want to belive in Elizabeth Bennet, and that she would be into balding, geeky guys in thier mid thirties.



I totally agree with that it is not possible to understand fully the western canon without a working knowledge of the Bible. What I think has happened to bring out the hostile responses is the behavior of the subset of belivers who would use the book as a rulebook, science text, history, or similar, and would force us non-belivers to use it as such.

By all means, and educated person should have some grasp of the Bible, that does not require it to be belived. Reading the article referenced in the first post of this thread, it is clear that is the tack they claim to take. It is enough tomake me want to have a look, as I am typically suspicious of such things, and would like to see for myself that the suject is the bible as cutural base, and not as fact.

Besides, the Bible has all sorts neat stuff in it, especially in the Old Testament. My personal favorite is the story of the rape of Dinah (Genesis chapter 34):

Jacob's daughter Dinah catches the eye of Schechem, son of the local chief, and "he siezed her and lay with her by force"(Gen 34:2). Jacob is of course outraged, but remains calm until his sons get back, and they discuss the matter with the chief, who begs for a peaceful resolution, since Shechem really does love Dinah and wants to marry her.

Jacob's sons say fine, but you and all the men of the village have to be circumcised; they agree and all the men are circumcised. A few days later, while the men are still in pain from the circumcision, Jacon's sons Simeon and Levi show up (an honor reserved for them as Dinah's full brothers) and kill all the men, as they cannot fight back (too busy crotch-grabbing, I guess).

The rest show up and sack the town, taking all the stuff and women and children. Jacob is outraged by his son's actions, but apparantly does nothing about it, though they do quickly decamp to Bethel in chapter 35.

Sounds to me like something from The Godfather. Compressed into about a page...

Cheers,

Hank

[casebro]

Since tribes have leaders, and predate christ, rather than using "christ figure", wouldn't it be more aproppriate to use "leader" in all of the aforementioned cases? How "Leaders have affected Civilization" would be a more secular, and more thorough area of study, no? A book called "History of Leadership" would be more truthful, wouldn't it? Chapters to include "Leaders in Science", "Leaders in Art", Drama, Warfare, etc, etc. And geographic chapters too- "Leaders in China" , India... why restrict you studies to the western world?

Originally Posted by drkitten

A quick check -- Google for literature and "christ figure" and you get about 35,000 hits.

Google for "leader" and you get 367,000,000 hits. I win.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by casebro

Since tribes have leaders, and predate christ, rather than using "christ figure", wouldn't it be more aproppriate to use "leader" in all of the aforementioned cases?

No.

Quote:

How "Leaders have affected Civilization" would be a more secular, and more thorough area of study, no?

Certainly more secular -- but the a central point that you are missing is that Christ is a specific type of leader, and in particular, in many ways almost the antithesis of the traditional tribal leader. Neither Dirty Harry Callahan nor Superman are "leaders" in the traditional sense, as they have no followers, and instead are acting as individual moral agents. The individual struggle against evil on behalf of a greater (and typically unsupportive) society at large is an essential aspect of at least one part of the Christ figure.

But, of course, you can't discuss this in depth without at least a passing knowledge of the original Christ. It doesn't matter whether you consider Him to be literary or literal -- you need to know the original version of the story to understand the rewrites.

And you're right, there is probably a market for a course entitled "The History of Leadership," but it would be a substantially different course, and I suspect not nearly as well-subscribed, simply because the title (and focus) is so vague that it would be watered down to the point of a homeopathic remedy.

Quote:

A book called "History of Leadership" would be more truthful, wouldn't it?

No more than a book called "Particle Physics" would me more truthful than a book called "Evolutionary Biology." It would simply be a different book, but not more truthful.

In what possible way would a book discussing traditions in art and literatue be untruthful? On my shelf I have one book devoted to a critical analysis of "The Name of the Rose" (Umberto Eco), another devoted to the themes of medieval miracle plays, another devoted to the influence of Raymond Chandler's stories on detective fiction. As far as I can tell, the author is under no delusion that Philip Marlowe is or was a real person, but he does infer (correctly, as far as I can tell), that many later authors have not only read Chandler's work itself, but also many of the other works upon which Chandler relied for his narrative traditions.

But let's look more seriously at Eco's work, since that's in many regards a better example. My book mentions (albeit rather quickly, in passing) the debt that Eco apparently owes to Conan Doyle in his construction of the detective character William of Baskerville -- who, of course, is a rather obvious ripoff of Sherlock Holmes, and many of his characteristics are blatantly copied. I don't know of any direct parallels between the narrator Adso and Doyle's narrator Dr. Watson, but it might make for an interesting study if someone were so inclined. My author also looks very closely at the ontological and semiotic traditions of the Middle Ages and the modern era and the
parallels that Eco draws. So far, all very traditional, even mundane, literary scholarship. We expect literary scholars to be familiar with the traditions in which their work lies -- in the case of someone studying Eco, if they don' know dectective fiction well enough to pick up on the Sherlock Holmes parody, they're not competent to be doing this kind of scholarship.

On the other hand, much of the imagery, particularly the imagery used in the monks' dialogue and in the descriptions used by the narrator Adso, are straight out of the Bible. The fundamental structure of the book is that of the Apocalypse (as interpreted in the 13th century for the most part, not the modern interpretations. Is this important? You'll need to know something about the Bible and its interpretations to figure that out), most of Adso's interaction with girls is written through the lens of the Song of Solomon, and the structure of the opening and closing are straight out of the book of John. ("In the beginning was the Word,....")

To understand Eco it is necessary to understand Doyle. But it's also necessary -- and given the relative weights, possibly more necessary -- to understand Revelations. And to understand Revelations specifically, not just apocalyptic myths in general. The Name of the Rose is not structured like Ragnarok and does not quote from Ragnarok. To read this book critically, you need to be familiar with the themes of the Bible.

Multiply this single book by about 2/3 of the literature that an English-speaking high school or college student would be expected to read, and you have some idea of why you might want to teach "The Bible as Literature."

[Kell]

Originally Posted by drkitten

"The Bible as Literature."

Benefit of the doubt; which of these definitions are you using for 'literature' in the above hypothetical course title?

Teaching "The Bible As Influence On Literature And Art" would perhaps be more precise.
And at the same time, how about "Greek Mythology As Influence On Literature And Art"? If the influence of the bible is to have that sort of study devoted to it, surely Bachus, Theseus, et al deserve similar attention.

The bible isn't a cornerstone of western cultural influence because of its inherent worth as a collection of stories. It's because of several hundred years of christinaity being the dominant religion. The writers, painters and so on to which you refer would, had they grown up under a different religion, just have easily drawn inspiration from elsewhere. Of course, the bible is what they did draw influence from, but only because it's what they learned during their formative years. How much of the historical fact of christian dominance would be acknowledged in a course such as "The Bible As Literature"?

I don't mean to be contrary, I'm just a bit uncomfortable with the implication ( or maybe my inference ) that the bible is somehow artistically 'special'.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Kell

Teaching "The Bible As Influence On Literature And Art" would perhaps be more precise.
And at the same time, how about "Greek Mythology As Influence On Literature And Art"? If the influence of the bible is to have that sort of study devoted to it, surely Bachus, Theseus, et al deserve similar attention.

Absolutely. As it happens, the Classics department at my university has been running exactly such a course more or less since they decided the Illiad no longer qualified as content for a "current events" class -- certainly since before I joined the faculty, and I believe since before any of the current faculty members joined. I believe the sociology department even offers a course on non-Western mythologies.

Of course, there's this little problem that in terms of influence, neither Greek nor "non-Western" myths come close to having the literary and artistic influence that the Bible and Christian tradition does. Just as an example, can you name who the first humans were in Japanese mythology? Offhand, I can't -- but everyone, even Japanese biologists, knows the story of Adam and Eve, to the point that "mitochondrial Eve" makes sense as a piece of jargon.

Quote:

The bible isn't a cornerstone of western cultural influence because of its inherent worth as a collection of stories. It's because of several hundred years of christinaity being the dominant religion.

... which makes it no less influential.

Quote:

The writers, painters and so on to which you refer would, had they grown up under a different religion, just have easily drawn inspiration from elsewhere.

Absolutely. And if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather. And children who happen to be born in England get a lot more English history and geography than children who happen to be born in the middle of the United States.

The point is not to understand what would have happened. The point is to undersand what did. Like it or not, Christianity has been one of the dominant philosophical positions for western Europe for the past two thousand years, and through colonialism, one of the most dominant philosophical positions world-wide for two centuries. Everyone anywhere in the world needs to have some basic familiarity with Christianity in order to understand their own local art and literature, just as you need to have some familiarity with the Koran to understand modern Arabic culture. You don't have to believe -- but if you don't even know about it, you're woefully, tragically, undereducated.

Quote:

How much of the historical fact of christian dominance would be acknowledged in a course such as "The Bible As Literature"?

Well, how much of the historical fact of Italian economic dominance is acknowledged in a course on art history? As I recall, quite a bit of it -- but it's a necessary acknowledgement, because Italy is where the Rennaissance happened. Talking about art history without mentioning the Rennaissance, or talking about the Rennaissance without mentioning Italy, is,..... well, not to put too fine a point on it, it's plain bad teaching.

Quote:

I don't mean to be contrary, I'm just a bit uncomfortable with the implication ( or maybe my inference ) that the bible is somehow artistically 'special'.

On the contrary, artistically it may be a piece of (rule 8). So, for that matter, is anything written by Dickens. But I have to know him, painful though it may be, to understand modern literature.

[hankalme]

Originally Posted by Kell

Teaching "The Bible As Influence On Literature And Art" would perhaps be more precise.
And at the same time, how about "Greek Mythology As Influence On Literature And Art"? If the influence of the bible is to have that sort of study devoted to it, surely Bachus, Theseus, et al deserve similar attention.

I would think so. Of course, it occurs to me that was exactly the way such things were treated in my (private) high school. We talked about the Greeks and their myriad influences on art, literature, philosophy, and life in general. We did that at many times in many different courses. The Bible was less talked about, but still there. We did read Romans when talking about the influences on Christianity in the senior humanities class.

I can remember my seventh grade English teacher sending us off to read up on the story of Cain and Abel as we began examining somme work that I cannot remember. Imagine the indignation I felt! We didn't have no $@%^#&% Bible in the house. I -- of course -- ignored the fact that there were several servicable bibles in the school library, and that there were other possible ways to find out about things. So works the mind of a thirteen year old.

Such discussions were restricted to classes treating the humanities, as seems reasonable to me. An education in the western literary tradition is incomplete without at least a cursory examination of the Bible. That impies no requirement to examine the Bible for devotion, only for literary context.

Quote:

The bible isn't a cornerstone of western cultural influence because of its inherent worth as a collection of stories. It's because of several hundred years of christinaity being the dominant religion. <snip>

Indeed, I agree.

Quote:

I don't mean to be contrary, I'm just a bit uncomfortable with the implication ( or maybe my inference ) that the bible is somehow artistically 'special'.

I don't think the inference is correct. Of course the Bible examined as literary influence would have to acknowledge that the long, deep influence comes from Christianity spending several centuries in the west as the dominant religion. Christian diminance did not happen because of some special literary influence of the Bible, rather the reverse.

Anyone who says otherwise is selling something....

Cheers,

Hank

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Kell

Teaching "The Bible As Influence On Literature And Art" would perhaps be more precise.

I should also point out that this is unnecessarily, and probably inappropriately, limiting. Again, even without taking a stance on the truth of the events narrated in the Bible, the Bible is immensely influential in areas outside of (narrowly defined) literature and art. For example, the Bible is the ultimate basis for much that has been written about philosophy, particularly including ethics, and even ethicists opposed to the Bible (and to religion and/or Christianity) such as Voltaire have written much of their work from a standpoint that presupposed familiarity with the Bible and Christian doctrine as an explanatory point of view. Similarly, much of political science has ultimately derived from the Bible -- you can't discuss the idea of "the divine right of kings," the notion of "natural rights," or the causes of the thirty-years' war (and the resulting concept of the separation of church and state) without the Bible hanging around in the background. Whether or not you take the Bible seriously or not, history was written -- and performed -- by people who did, and their writings reflect that.

One way of thinking about it : if I had to name the single book that most influenced history between 1500 and 2000, I would be hard-pressed to find a candidate to replace the Bible. I would like to see what candidates the rest of you come up with....

[Kell]

Originally Posted by drkitten

since they took the Illiad no longer qualified as content for a "current events" class

Quite a while then

Originally Posted by drkitten

but everyone, even Japaneses biologists, know the story of Adam and Eve, to the point that "mitochondrial Eve" makes sense as a piece of jargon.

Good example. I hadn't considered the familiarity beyond the west. I guess it's similar to latin being academically important for - among other things - scientific nomenclature, irrespective of one's opinion of the rise and fall of the roman empire.

Originally Posted by drkitten

which makes it no less influential.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by drkitten

So, for that matter, is anything written by Dickens. But I have to know him, painful though it may be, to understand modern literature.

Understood. And I offer my sympathies

Originally Posted by hankalme

An education in the western literary tradition is incomplete without at least a cursory examination of the Bible. That implies no requirement to examine the Bible for devotion, only for literary context.

Yes indeed.

Originally Posted by hankalme

Christian dominance did not happen because of some special literary influence of the Bible, rather the reverse.

And this, I guess, was my main issue.


I think I got a little wound up about this because I caught a glimpse of yet another christian right-wing subterfuge to insert the bible favourably ( and legally ) into schools. Of course, that is as much my reaction as anything else. Being a creative and bloody-minded individualist, I'm reacting emotionally as well as intellectually. I'm naturally inclined to be more concerned with what can be written than what has been written, and the focus on one source of inspiration perhaps at the expense of others makes me want to excercise some sort of literary positive discrimination in favour of less well known sources. That's my flagrant and not-entirely-rational bias, which would be more at home in art class than art history class.

Thanks to both of you for those comprehensive replies. We seem to be in agreement

[c4ts]

Auerbach demonstrated his idea of "historicity" by comparing the writing styles of the Bible to the Illiad. Later in Mimesis, he could point out Biblical influences on medieval style by their lack of historicity, indicating its philosophical impact on the worldview of the time. Just one example of why it's not enough to simply know summaries of all the stories.

[Euromutt]

Originally Posted by hankalme

An education in the western literary tradition is incomplete without at least a cursory examination of the Bible. That implies no requirement to examine the Bible for devotion, only for literary context.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the publication of this textbook opens a certain can of worms in the form of dogmatically religious types like a chap cited in this article (featured in the OP of this thread on the same topic):

Quote:

On the other side, Dennis Cuddy, a Christian who has worked as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Education, said the book raised doubts about God and prompted students to ask the wrong questions.

"If you are going to teach the Bible, are you going to teach it as if it were the word of God? At the least, it should be taught as truthful. It shouldn't be presented as something that is false," he said.

Leaving aside the question what someone with such an obvious agenda is doing being hired as a consultant by the DoE, I take particular issue with Cuddy's assertion that "at the least, [the Bible] should be taught as truthful" and preferably should be taught "as if it were the word of God." It should be approached objectively and critically, if at all. To hold it a priori as containing any objective truth would be a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause and the Scientific Method. (Moreover, if it's so damn supposedly self-evident that the Bible is the Word of God™ as certain Christians claim, the precondition should surely be unnecessary; after all, it'll be self-evident to the students, right?)

I should add that this does not rule out the possibility of acknowledging that the Bible may contain subjective truths, in the sense that it is, to paraphrase Michael Shermer, a collection of moral homilies as to how we should live our lives, and that a fair number of people subscribe, in whole or (more usually) in part to this prescribed moral code, including non-religious people from societies with a Christian background (for example, atheists such as myself who acknowledge that not murdering, stealing or bearing false witness are Good Things, as is helping fellow human beings in need, even though we don't accept that we wouldn't have come to that conclusion if it hadn't been for God inscribing it on some bits of stone).

[c4ts]

Talking donkies are self-evident! The Bible says so!

[Euromutt]

Surely you mean that it's self-evident a lot people have talked, and continue to talk, out of their donkies.

[hankalme]

Originally Posted by Euromutt

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the publication of this textbook opens a certain can of worms in the form of dogmatically religious types like a chap cited in this article (featured in the OP of this thread on the same topic):Leaving aside the question what someone with such an obvious agenda is doing being hired as a consultant by the DoE, I take particular issue with Cuddy's assertion that "at the least, [the Bible] should be taught as truthful" and preferably should be taught "as if it were the word of God." It should be approached objectively and critically, if at all. To hold it a priori as containing any objective truth would be a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause and the Scientific Method. (Moreover, if it's so damn supposedly self-evident that the Bible is the Word of God™ as certain Christians claim, the precondition should surely be unnecessary; after all, it'll be self-evident to the students, right?)

I agree unreservedly, but we should keep in mind that the Cuddy quotation is a critisism of the book and the curriculum under discussion. My reading of the article is that Cuddy and his ilk are unhappy with the curriculum because it doesn't do anything like hold the Bilble up as any sort of objective truth. It is a book that has a long -- and mixed -- influence on the culture of the west. The objections listed above would be legitimate, if the book in question sought to do so.

I would take the critisism of the text from the likes of Cuddy as a good thing. Anything that would irk such as them must have some good in it.

It is also important to remember that we who like to think of ourselves as critical thinkers shold not be afraid of ideas. To worry that the simple act of studying such an important book as the Bible -- in the appropriate academic environment (not in science class) -- being anything but a good part of a liberal education is to give the Bible, and the fundametalist minority of belivers, more power than they really have.

Originally Posted by Euromutt

I should add that this does not rule out the possibility of acknowledging that the Bible may contain subjective truths, in the sense that it is, to paraphrase Michael Shermer, a collection of moral homilies as to how we should live our lives, and that a fair number of people subscribe, in whole or (more usually) in part to this prescribed moral code, including non-religious people from societies with a Christian background (for example, atheists such as myself who acknowledge that not murdering, stealing or bearing false witness are Good Things, as is helping fellow human beings in need, even though we don't accept that we wouldn't have come to that conclusion if it hadn't been for God inscribing it on some bits of stone).

The idea that behaving morally requires us to have a guy in sky to punish us has always seemed odd to me as well. Again, if the text in question made that assertion, there may be a problem using it (in a US public school, anyway). None of the articles I have read have suggested that is the case. That does seem like an interesting question to discuss in such a class; I recall having similar discussions in our humanities class when I was a senior in high school.

Cheers,

Hank