I sincerely apologize for the impression I seem to have created that your grandfather’s text was undertaken flippantly – in all honesty I haven’t read it and thus cannot comment on it specifically. However I can say that James Ackerman’s work may not necessarily have improved the text, based on my familiarity with some of his other research.

Unfortunately what you seem to take issue with is what I am most adamant about – expertise and experience. The point of the list of qualifications, as well as what may seem an unnecessary quibble over translational issues, was that a non expert, by dint of not realizing these problems (which are in truth severe) tends to minimize, gloss, or ignore serious textual inaccuracies which create massive misunderstandings of what the point (i.e. theme) actually is.

Context, truly, is everything, and without providing it one cannot with any truth claim to have presented evidence (which is what teachers of every subject should be doing – giving context and evidence which enable the student to draw conclusions). My great fear is that classes such as are being proposed give neither context nor evidence, but rather force conclusions on students under the guise of “showing connections”.

Also, for example, one need only read a paragraph biography of C.S.Lewis to know that the (severely racist and sexist, but shhhh! we don’t talk about that) author of Mere Christianity would use theological language to evoke moral themes in his fantasies (in which dark people, powerful and independant women, “perverts”, and anyone else who does not toe the party line should be deposed and/or killed). His intent to portray Aslan as a Christ-figure is a matter of social/historical context rather than one of religious understanding – the symbols he uses are drawn from medieval imagery (taken in turn from “pagan” – primarily Assyrian and Egyptian in origin – imagery) not from “biblical” imagery (in spite of his apparently sincere belief that they were). Oh, and as I believe you know already, Christ is not by far the only god ressurected.

My grandfather was knowledgeable in the area of teaching literature to high school students, and had a broad knowledge of the Torah. He paired up with James Ackerman, a professor of the Hebrew Bible at Indiana University, to create the curriculum in The Bible As/In Literature. Both of the authors, who later directed the Indiana University Institute of Teaching the Bible in Literature, were quite dedicated to academic rigor (although I have to admit that I find that a somewhat hilarious concept in the context of high schools, and I went to what I am told is an academically rigorous high school).

The point of the curriculum was not to make high schoolers experts on the Bible, any version. Nor was it to give anyone an impression about

what “the Bible” says about various topics based on a belief that all versions “essentially” say the say thing

The point of the curriculum was to give high school students a working familiarity with the themes present in the Bible, with the basic stories (as well as the fact that the stories, while often similar, do indeed differ from translation to translation and from denomination to denomination), and with the language from different translations.

I take issue with your statement that one cannot have even a vague understanding of what any version of the Bible says without being an expert in various ancient languages, history, and hermaneutics. By that standard, I would be precluded from drawing the obvious comparison to the story of David and Absalom in discussions of Cry, The Beloved Country. I would be precluded from pointing out that Aslan is [SPOILER ALERT!] a Christ-figure in the Chronicles of Narnia.

I agree with you that the Bible (any version) and other religious texts have no place in politics. I guess what I’m not ready to concede is that the Bible (any version) and other religious texts have no place, as works of literature, in high school classrooms.

The variation from version to version, translation to translation to translation (King James – which is an invention, not a translation; NRSV – which varies depending on the particular sect of Protestantism will be using it; etc.) is enormous and those variations are often PRIMARILY reflective of the poetic/metaphorical “interpretations” that the translators go into the translations expecting to reproduce.

I am all for education. But that enthusaism is tampered with the fear that people coming out of this class will have a false sense of objective academic awareness of what “the Bible” says about various topics based on a belief that all versions “essentially” say the say thing.

In order to have even the vaguest LITERAL, let alone interpretive, secular understanding of what any of the versions of the Bible says (laying aside what I take spiritually from my understanding of the primary source documents) I am required to demonstrate fluency in a minimum of 9 languages, to demonstrate a grasp of a 7,000 year span of history (both social and archaeological), and to demonstrate expertise in the Hermanutical process (which is as rigorous as the so-called Scientific Method). Please do not suggest that your high school lit teacher is qualified to explain the significance of “the Bible” as unified/static literature or in literature. This is not meant in any way to cast aspersions on high school teachers (or any other teacher for that matter), but rather to express my sincere reservations that it is possible to teach the topic in the manner suggested for the purpose suggested.

I am much more inclined to support Jill’s suggestion that we get “the Bible” out of politics, where it does not belong in a secular society.

And we’re off to the races! ;)

I studied the Bible in 10 grade honors English (I don’t know if the “regular” kids did). We had a textbook- The Bible As/In Literature. – Jennifer

So did we — with that textbook (and we learned the classic myths as well).

I actually gasped when I read this! You have no idea how happy it makes me, because my grandfather wrote that textbook (I just loaned my copy to a co-worker who is re-reading the Bible). We used it in my 10th grade honors English class as well (which, DAS, was about when yours was too!).

My grandfather was an agnostic, Jewish, English teacher at a public school. He said it drove him bats that none of his students caught the references to the Bible in the literature he was teaching, and that was why he wrote the textbook.

So did we — with that textbook (and we learned the classic myths as well). Except I think we used that book in 11′th grade, but I can’t be sure of that. Nor did we skip over the sexy stuff in Romeo and Juliet. Unless I’m remembering stuff wrong (Jennifer, you didn’t go to LAHS did you? If you did, my “name” is my initials and I’ve red hair and grew a beard, which I still wear, in my senior year, ‘94-’95 … you might remember me then?).

Anyway, though, my parents were worried, given the number of fundies in my school, that the teachers would bow to the fundies and give them an opportunity to use the Bible teaching as prostletyzing time. But everyone managed to be quite objective about it: the Bible was taught as literature and an important source in the Western cannon. It was neither dismissed as superstition nor presented as the One True Word of God(TM).

So the Christian teachers could cover everything else, but would have to get an atheist/Jew/Moslem/etc. in to cover Christianity. That would be great, I think.

I would agree, if I didn’t think that the ones teaching what they don’t believe in wouldn’t just say “it’s all sinful lies” or some such thing… or they might teach it but much in the way that someone throws away a dirty diaper “ew, do I really have to do this?”.