We’re not just illiterate about the Bible

Guest Post by Morbo

A new book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know — and Doesn’t by Stephen Prothero argues that Americans are basically illiterate about the Bible. That’s not a surprise — but it ought to be. The United States, after all, is one of the most religious nations on the planet.

How is it that Americans can be so religious yet ignorant of the book they claim to venerate? We’ve all seen the surveys: Most people cannot name the four gospels and can’t say who delivered the Sermon on the Mount.

Prothero argues in his book that we should remedy this with Bible classes in public schools. He wants this done in a non-sectarian and legal way. That’s good, but I still think he’s misguided.

For starters, the problem is not biblical literary but cultural literacy across the board. Simply put, there is a lot Americans don’t know. Surveys have shown that most people can’t say when World War II was fought or even which nations opposed us. Other surveys have found people essentially clueless on basic scientific issues. (For more on this, see Morris Berman’s 2000 book The Twilight of American Culture.) Why single out the Bible when we have much remedial education to do?

When a person is unable to say whether a passage comes from the Bible or Shakespeare, it means he does not know the Bible very well. This is shame — but it’s also a shame that he doesn’t know Shakespeare.

Furthermore, I would argue that scientific illiteracy presents a much more dangerous threat. Unable to grasp even the basics of the scientific method, many people remain gullible and unable to make informed decisions about nutrition, health care, global climate change and many other issues. A person’s inability to recognize a biblical allusion in a work of literature is unfortunate, but it rarely affects public policy.

Finally, we must face a hard reality: There is no way these classes are going to happen without a lot of metaphorical bloodshed.

People tend to assume that what they believe about the Bible is true — even if absolutely no facts back that up. Public school Bible classes require teachers to present all interpretations of the Bible as equally valid — but not all are. No serious Bible scholar, for example, believes the gospels are contemporaneous accounts of the life of Jesus. Mark was written around 65 A.D. John may be as late as the 90s. Some scholars argue for somewhat earlier dates — putting Mark around the year 50, for example. No serious researcher believes these accounts were dashed off a few months after Christ died.

That’s just one example. Fundamentalists insist that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament. This is rather hard to swallow, since Deuteronomy 34:5-9 describes the death of Moses.

Fundamentalists have a bad habit of using classes “about” the Bible to promote their particular — and unsupportable — views of what the Bible is and how it came into existence. A North Carolina organization, the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, has been promoting this con for years. The group claims its curriculum is merely objective information about the Bible. In fact, it was devised by TV preachers and reflects the fundamentalist line.

What are these classes going to be like in rural Alabama? If you were a member of the liberal United Church of Christ living there, would you feel OK about sending your child to such instruction?

Religion can be discussed across the curriculum when it’s appropriate. A course in European history needs to talk about the Crusades and the religious wars. A sociology class examining race relations should talk about the religious impulse that motivated many during the struggle for civil rights. An art appreciation course can talk about the great works of Christian art. Students in a poetry class can read Gerard Manley Hopkins without fear.

Cordoning off the Bible for special, allegedly objective, classes sounds nice in theory. In practice it will be nearly impossible to pull off in some parts of the country as the culture wars rage. I’m skeptical that it can be done, but if some schools want to try, two things must be done first: The courses should be made elective, not mandatory, and someone should be watching closely to make sure the teaching doesn’t lapse into preaching.

A sociology class examining race relations should talk about the religious impulse that motivated many during the struggle for civil rights.

It should also go equally deep into the religious justifications for slavery (19thC) and misvegnation laws (20thC), and probably more than mention the Christian Identity movement and the relationship there between religion and views on race. Finally, neglecting the US’s “most segregated hour” would be a mistake.

  • So much for previewing before posting. “Misvegnation” should have been “miscegenation

  • My fundamentalist ex-brother-in-law was required to teach a Bible as Lierature class in a public high school. He did it,and he was fair and objective, but he didn’t like it. To him, the Bible is not literature: it’s revealed truth. Therefore he preferred to not teach it at all.

    I’m not sure that all fundamentalists would be as principled as he was. They might see a “Bible as Literature” class as a chance to teach revealed truth.
    It’s expecting an awful lot of human nature to put people who are strongly committed to certain views in the position of having to teach those views in an objective, noncommitted way.

    I don’t think I could teach a course on American politics, for example, whithout sounding sarcastic about Republicans.

  • We live in a complex world, and ordinary people have enormous distractions available. If you could eliminate 24-7 coverage of the latest blond bimbette minutia, you might find some time to force the basics of the scientific method down the unwilling throats of the couch potatariot, but only if you’ve already established a dictatorship.

    WRT teaching religion in public schools, I do think a decent survey course in comparative religion ought to be part of the high school curriculum, provided they cover religions objectively and in rough proportion to their popularity among the world’s population. (Which also means they’d spend at least a short chapter on atheism.)

    Also there ought to be at least elective education on the history of religion, which would give an opportunity to discuss how christianity fits in with other earlier religions and uses tropes from them (virgin birth, messiahs, etc.) You could discuss the ways that current christian holidays (like Christmas) borrowed from nonchristian sources. And you could present the apocryphal gospels and other works from antiquity that didn’t make it into the New Testament.

    All of this would give students a perspective on the subject that they wouldn’t get at their local megachurch, and which is sorely lacking.

    Of course the fundies would try to hijack this, but frankly we need to find the spine to stand up to them, and if we can’t do it here I don’t know how we expect to do it elsewhere.

  • Fundamentalists insist that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament. This is rather hard to swallow, since Deuteronomy 34:5-9 describes the death of Moses.

    Is this the origin of the term Ghost Writer?

    The ironic thing is all of the big name Talevangicals are illiterate about the Bible or they would not have touched BushBrat with a ten foot pole and they sure as hell wouldn’t promote crap like the National Day of Prayer. Shit like that goes directly against the Bible and if I know this and they don’t, what does this say about their claim to have God’s ear?

    My excessively liberal private school had a required course on the Bible. Parents objected for a number of reasons. 80-85% of the students were Jewish so they weren’t pleased. A lot of Christian parents thought it was sacreligious and of course the Atheists and Agnostics were hacked off no end. But it was probably one of the more interesting classes I took and it would have given Dobson et al fatal fits.

    We analyzed it the same way we’d analyze any other piece of literature, we compared Bible stories to stories from other religions (Does any religion from the Middle East NOT have a great flood myth? How many religions DON’T have a dying/reborn god myth?); we were encouraged to analyze all of the inconsistencies (starting with where the hell Cain’s wife came from), look at the impact the Bible still has on society (women = bad) and so on. Plus there’s a lot of hanky panky in the Bible.

    However, there’s no way to clone Helen K. (our English teacher) so as much as I think such a class does have value, I don’t trust the average teacher to conduct the class in the way it should be. That is, guaranteed to give Dobson et. al near fatal fits. But I do encourage my fellow lefties to give it a read. Not only will it help you understand the enemy, and reveal his hypocrisy, but nothing pisses off a Bible Banger like a godless librul who knows the Bible.

  • There are many better books to use in literary classes…so why use this one?

    Come on…the Bible is a religious tract written by unknown people over many years and then subjected to countless revisions and translations. It does not belong in public schools any more than any other religious tract….except …as one of many in a comparative religion class.

    Possibly it would be a great case in point for a critical thinking class.

  • “Is this the origin of the term Ghost Writer?”

    wouldn’t that by “holy ghost writer”?

  • “… whether a passage comes from the Bible or Shakespeare”

    The Bible was translated into English, under a commission appointed by King James. Their work culminated with its publication in 1611. James had little to do with it, other than lifting the death penalty then assigned for translating the Good Book and insisting that the translators’ scholarly fights not show up in footnotes or anywhere else.

    William Shakespeare (1564-1616) would have been a contemporary of those translators and probably knew them well. The year prior to the publication of the KJV he would have turned 46 years of age.

    Now, look up Psalm 46 and prepare to solve a puzzle. If you count 46 words in from the beginning you’ll come across the word “shake”. Contrariwise, counting 46 words in from the end gets you to “spear”.

    The guess is that this may have been a birthday present from the translators is to the Bard of Avon. They certainly enjoyed word play in the those days, and it did make much use of the number 46, the number of the birthday celebrated.

    I’ve often wondered what today’s fundamentlists (emphasis on “fundament“, esp. def. 2) would think if they learned of this.

  • In a perfect world, I think it would be lovely to have students learn about the Bible. I think to attempt to downplay its significance in our collective cultural and political histories is to deny reality. Of course, the difficulty would be finding teachers that would be able to teach it in an objective manner. Certainly, the fundies do not want someone objective teaching it so it may a no go in any event.

    I’m jealous of some of the classes that some of you have had on the subject. I’ve always loved history. I had a catholic step-father and also went to catholic school for several years, have an episcopalian mom, an agnostic-now-catholic sister, an agnostic brother who plays at being a church-goer because he at least wants his kids exposed to it so that they can make their own decision, an atheist father, fundamentalist speaking-in-tongues aunts and uncles and I’m married to a Jewish woman.

    For me, I am none-of-the-above. I believe that your faith (or non-faith) is your own damn business and I have no business telling you what to believe and vice versa. I am a big believer in the idea that your rights extend as far as my body. I have the right to extend my hand in a fist but not if hits you in the nose (or gives you an immediate apprehension of a striking for my lawyer friends).

    Based on all that, you can’t tell me that religion doesn’t play an important role in our society. Even if you are an atheist, you are surrounded by religious types on a daily basis. My wife has made me realize just how often Christians assume that this is their country.

    I agree that it’s really sad that someone doesn’t know the difference between Shakespeare and the Bible. I think it’s horrible that people don’t know when WWII was. (I have actually stopped having the conversation with people where I ask them incredulously if they’d heard that people don’t know something like when WWII was only to hear them say that they didn’t know either.) I think that the answer is always more education. I feel like America’s fundies are the equivalent of muslims in the madrassas – no other information seeps in so how could we expect them to think otherwise?

    Thinking about the scientific method, I was actually having a discussion with a catholic friend about that lost tomb of Jesus thing. There was so much opposition to whether it was real or not, was Jesus married, did he have kids, etc. I can’t understand the concept of not challenging your faith, your beliefs, your views.

  • I find it hard to believe that there would be any debate or hesitancy to provide for inclusion of OBJECTIVE studies of the Bible in public coursework, especially in a blog where there has much well-deserved criticism of the ignorance of both the American public and American government of Islam. Just as the lack of understanding of Sunni, Shiite, and Wahabi forms of Islam cause all of us to make poor policy decisions as a nation, so too does the lack of understanding of the Bible in ALL of its various forms and the different approaches to it have caused us to not understand where others inside and outside of this nation are coming from in terms of their philosophies and values. Do I want everybody to be able to quote scripture? No! But I do want people to be able to know how to intelligently investigate and research such information so that we can understand where each other is coming from. True, fundamentalists will reject this. But I strongly believe that such an education will relegate fundamentalists to an isolated minority status (but not destroy such movements). I do not ask that people believe the Bible (that’s what churches and religions are for), just that they are acquainted in an intelligent way with a major cultural influence in both our society and our world. Would I support such education about the Koran or Talmudic literature? Sure! And such coursework, whether as stand-alone courses or themes included in broader courses, should include both the beauty and the blemishes; otherwise, such coursework is not objective.

    Bottomline, I don’t want myself or anyone else to be taught in a public school what to believe. Instead I want to learn what others believe and why so that I can interact with a culturally and religiously diverse world in an informed and respectful way and be effective as a result.

  • I’m afraid that the 46th psalm story above is a myth. Usually it is cited as evidence that the Bard contributed to the King James Bible. But there is no historical evidence to support that claim. The translators that we know of were all in a different social class and there is no evidence of friendship or acquiantance.

    Also, although most people cite the myth with William being 46 in 1611, Ed gets it right, 1611 was a year off. More to the point, the translation itself appears to have not happened in 1610 either. It appears to have been taken, verbatim, from a contraband translation done somewhere around 1590.

    The fact that so many people find 46 46 46, when someone was almost 46 so compelling is probably another good point in the ‘let’s focus on weak science, not scripture’ column.

    -jjf

  • I forgot to mention, I ultimately am with Phonatic. I don’t see anything wrong with religious studies in school. The way I see it, watching the evolution from early Christian texts to Pauline doctrine, the changing roles in gender (even the Vatican concedes that Mary M. was an important follower, not a prostitute), and even the many schisms, all give great insight into human nature and fallibility in our understanding of history.

    If you are a believer, fine, you’ll be one step closer to God. If you are a scoffer, fine, you’ll still have better insight into the birth of several modern cultures, and be one step closer to a better understanding of yourself.

    Regardless, unless your brain is downright smooth, watching the inevitable twisting and shifting of one man’s influential words, will give you better insight into why the scientific method is both prudent and necessary…

    -jjf

  • ditto Homer

    The Bible constitutes so much of the moral and philosophical foundation of western thought that it’s a virtual must for anyone trying to understand the world in which we live.

    Also the New Testament – claimed by the fundamentalist right as the One Revealed Truth – clearly describes a communalist leader who specifically rejects pretty much all of the basic goals of the political right. A clear unfiltered reading of the teachings of JC would necessarily have very grave consequences for the Bush tax policy for starters.

  • I can see a place in learning about the bible, but it also depends in how it is done. I had a Jesuit priest teach me in 9th grade about taking the bible in proper context. Jesus preached to the uneducated and the illiterate. How does one teach folks like this? Speak to them in their vernacular use parables (stories), hence all the stories of shephards and sheep. The folks he spoke to knew much about these critters because so many in the region raised them for food.

    There was a numerology of the times as well. Earth created in seven days? Well, seven was considered a “perfect” number at those times. Seven of anything, sheep, children, wives, meant perfection. How long did it take to create the world? The perfect amount of time, as demonstrated by the number seven.

    What about all the references to fourty days and fourty nights? Again, many of these folks the bibles spoke to didn’t know how to count. If I speak to you and we count everything on our fingers and toes, together we have fourty digits to count on. Fourty, therefore, is the verbal equivalent to “a whole lot of” or as Carl Sagan said in his day “billions and billions.” The number is not meant to be taken literally.

    Context is a great thing and biblical literalists lose the true meaning of things. Jewish food laws made great sense in the days before refrigeration, but are not as necessary now. The revolutionary thoughts of a man who lived in a country occupied by a foreign army and under foreign rule to seek peace, help the poor and turn the other cheek? Now that’s revolutionary and truly liberal in any day and age.

  • One could easily spend an entire course on the parables as they were understood by contemporary Jews. We are too far removed from that culture to understand the context, and so miss much of the meaning.

    What does it mean, for example, to compare the Kingdom of God to a mustard seed? We all should spread the seeds of the kingdom? The kingdom starts small but grows exponentially? Sure, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that mustard is a weed, and no one would go out of his way to plant it. Perhaps the comparison implies that, once the kingdom has taken root, there is no getting rid of it. Something like kudzu, perhaps…?

    I am not a Jew, but I deeply admire the way in which they engage the text rather than accept it at face value. Scripture is a living thing, and there is no end to its meaning.

  • You could bring up interesting points though. Like Ehud, the assassin, who directly violated several commandments to do his dirty work, and became one of the 12 judges because of it. Or how it is easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. Kind of puts the estate tax in perspective.

  • I find it hard to believe that there would be any debate or hesitancy to provide for inclusion of OBJECTIVE studies of the Bible in public coursework, especially in a blog where there has much well-deserved criticism of the ignorance of both the American public and American government of Islam.

    I think you’re missing the point of this. You seem to think the question is, “Should we have objective Bible studies in public schools?” I agree with you, we should. It’s a bigger influence on our culture and history than any dozen other books. But the more interesting question, which most people here seem to be concerned with, is, “Given that objective Bible studies in public schools are difficult and unlikely to happen, which would we prefer: biased ones, or none at all?”

    Objective classes would be good, but none at all would be better than biased ones. Individual towns and school districts with those unusually good teachers people have mentioned in this thread may be able to pull off objective Bible studies. In 20 years (or whenever), such good teachers may be so common, or literalist movements may be so marginalized, that it could be a general practice. Today, though, if comparative religion classes in high schools became much more common option than they are, I think half of them at the very least would quickly degenerate into evangelizing.

  • Comments are closed.