![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bunrabSo I was reading "Voice of Reason," the newsletter of Americans for Religious Liberty (http://www.arlinc.org), and there was an article about a proposed Bible curriculum, "The Bible In History and Literature" which the Odessa, Texas schools are considering, and several districts in Texas already offer. A professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University reviewed the curriculum and concluded that it was pervasively sectarian, evangelical Christian, and not appropriate for public schools. I am not surprised at these conclusions. But it got me to thinking.
If one were to attempt to design a truly educational and not-promoting-religion "Bible in History and Literature" course, what should it look like?
For one thing, it should include more than one translation of the Bible. In fact, I'd begin such a course with the teacher asking students "What language was the Bible written in?" and seeing what kind of answers I got. Then start in on the history part of things by explaining the several different languages that different parts were written in; where those languages were located, and what those locations over the span of the time the parts were written says about migration, civilization, urbanization, improvements in shipping and increased trade routes, etc.
Another part of the "history" side of things would be to take a couple of events - say, something that happened in the Old T., and something that happened in the New, and discuss those events in historical context. And I don't necessarily mean huge events. Take, for example, the wedding at Cana. What were weddings like then - do we have other descriptions of them from other sources? Do we have any way to tell whether what was being described was a "typical" wedding? If not, how did it differ? What was marriage about in those days? Did the woman take her husband's last name? (Trick question, since last names didn't exist; this would lead perhaps to a discussion of what we consider "traditional" marriage and how recent our traditions are, how little they are rooted in history despite people trying to defend traditional marriage because "that's the way it's always been done." Avoid this part if you want to avoid all controversial possibilities.)
What other historical works are there from the same time periods? (Josephus, for instance.) Who translated them? Do the events sound like the same events? Are there things that are incosistent?
Discussion of a few archeological expeditions; what the agenda was of each, and whether they found something that supports their agenda, and whether other people found stuff that didn't support it. How is archaeology used to verify or falsify written history?
And then the literature part: several different translations of the Bible, for starters. A discussion of how translations by people whose primary interest is theology differ from the translations by those whose primary interests lie in literature or in the study of whichever original language is being translated - Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek. Point out some differences and similarities. Then, take one of the texts and compare the language in the translation to that in other documents written at the same time. That is, does the King James version sound like other documents written during the period (early 17th century)? Did the writing come out somehow different because it was allegedly inspired, or is it much the same style as secular writings - did the translaters go with the idiom of their times? And how might that affect what we believe to be the "literal" meaning? Then take the same chapter or verse in another translation, done later. Say, Young's Literal Translation 1862. If that's hard to find, why is that? Is the language out of date? More or less so than the King James? Why do we think that? Same questions - how does the English used in that translation compare to the common styles of writing of the day? Then one that's a bit newer, American Standard Version, 1901. Yet again the same questions. And a fairly modern one, say, New International Version, 1978. Same questions. And then compare the several versions side by side. What similarities? What differences? Do the students have any idea of which ones are most in use, and where each is used? And, at the time each translation was made, what problems, controversies, etc. occurred because some people disagreed with the translation?
Some use of Web sites, of course, especially to hunt down things like the Jesus Seminar, and some of the newer translations that are being done by individual scholars (Robert Alter, e.g.) and some who have only translated a few chapters so far, not published as a full book. (Ancient Hebrew Research Center, e.g.). I personally find that Alter's translation is a bunch of beautiful wordage regardless of one's belief in the subject matter.
That's more than enough for a one-semester survey course, right? Nothing terribly controversial, nothing that either promotes or denigrates any particular religion (other than the existence of a Bible course at all as compared to a Quran course or a Hindu-scriptures course.)
If one were to attempt to design a truly educational and not-promoting-religion "Bible in History and Literature" course, what should it look like?
For one thing, it should include more than one translation of the Bible. In fact, I'd begin such a course with the teacher asking students "What language was the Bible written in?" and seeing what kind of answers I got. Then start in on the history part of things by explaining the several different languages that different parts were written in; where those languages were located, and what those locations over the span of the time the parts were written says about migration, civilization, urbanization, improvements in shipping and increased trade routes, etc.
Another part of the "history" side of things would be to take a couple of events - say, something that happened in the Old T., and something that happened in the New, and discuss those events in historical context. And I don't necessarily mean huge events. Take, for example, the wedding at Cana. What were weddings like then - do we have other descriptions of them from other sources? Do we have any way to tell whether what was being described was a "typical" wedding? If not, how did it differ? What was marriage about in those days? Did the woman take her husband's last name? (Trick question, since last names didn't exist; this would lead perhaps to a discussion of what we consider "traditional" marriage and how recent our traditions are, how little they are rooted in history despite people trying to defend traditional marriage because "that's the way it's always been done." Avoid this part if you want to avoid all controversial possibilities.)
What other historical works are there from the same time periods? (Josephus, for instance.) Who translated them? Do the events sound like the same events? Are there things that are incosistent?
Discussion of a few archeological expeditions; what the agenda was of each, and whether they found something that supports their agenda, and whether other people found stuff that didn't support it. How is archaeology used to verify or falsify written history?
And then the literature part: several different translations of the Bible, for starters. A discussion of how translations by people whose primary interest is theology differ from the translations by those whose primary interests lie in literature or in the study of whichever original language is being translated - Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek. Point out some differences and similarities. Then, take one of the texts and compare the language in the translation to that in other documents written at the same time. That is, does the King James version sound like other documents written during the period (early 17th century)? Did the writing come out somehow different because it was allegedly inspired, or is it much the same style as secular writings - did the translaters go with the idiom of their times? And how might that affect what we believe to be the "literal" meaning? Then take the same chapter or verse in another translation, done later. Say, Young's Literal Translation 1862. If that's hard to find, why is that? Is the language out of date? More or less so than the King James? Why do we think that? Same questions - how does the English used in that translation compare to the common styles of writing of the day? Then one that's a bit newer, American Standard Version, 1901. Yet again the same questions. And a fairly modern one, say, New International Version, 1978. Same questions. And then compare the several versions side by side. What similarities? What differences? Do the students have any idea of which ones are most in use, and where each is used? And, at the time each translation was made, what problems, controversies, etc. occurred because some people disagreed with the translation?
Some use of Web sites, of course, especially to hunt down things like the Jesus Seminar, and some of the newer translations that are being done by individual scholars (Robert Alter, e.g.) and some who have only translated a few chapters so far, not published as a full book. (Ancient Hebrew Research Center, e.g.). I personally find that Alter's translation is a bunch of beautiful wordage regardless of one's belief in the subject matter.
That's more than enough for a one-semester survey course, right? Nothing terribly controversial, nothing that either promotes or denigrates any particular religion (other than the existence of a Bible course at all as compared to a Quran course or a Hindu-scriptures course.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-19 11:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-20 05:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 03:49 am (UTC)You were afraid? Of what?
no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 05:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-20 01:55 am (UTC)I'd also like to see the sources deconstructed, like Jews do with the Talmud, using textual clues to weasel out the purported authors.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-20 05:13 am (UTC)(Don't mind me. I'm feeling cranky.)