New Bible Curriculum

I have some doubts. The link you gave says that the course "generally downplayed scholarly theories - about authorship and dates, for example - that offend conservatives." So what does the course actually do? I would feel better about it if it were presented as a comparative religion course, but I doubt that anyone interested in having the bible taught in public schools really wants that.

My concern is that if elective courses are being made available for bible study, why are they not being made available for comparative religious studies? One of the classics of the history of religions is the work by Charles Long(University of Chicago esteemed professor) in the 60's titled: Alpha: The Myths of Creation. It is a very useful, and user friendly, overview of creation mythologies from around the world with historical analysis. It was even brought out in paperback in the early 80's. Is this sort of course too much of a challenge to the indoctrinated thinking of those that are supporting and sponsoring biblical elective classes??

I have mixed feelings about this development. On the one hand, I'd like to see more academically objective teaching of the Bible in the public schools. I generally support the work of the First Amendment Center, and I include the text of their guide, The Bible & Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide, in the course packet for my own mini-course on the Bible in/as Literature.

On the other hand, I have some problems with some of the thinking that has gone into the Bible Literacy Project's new textbook.

For example, the BLP's "Eight Unique Features" page tells us that the book's reviewers include "prominent literature academics as well as high school teachers and scholars from the Roman Catholic, Protestant Evangelical, Mainline Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and Jewish traditions."

I can see what academics and high school teachers have to offer to such a textbook. But in an ideal world, reviewers would be chosen solely on the basis of their academic expertise--on the basis of what they can contribute to the textbook's factual or secular explication of the Bible. No effort would need to be made to represent the various faiths, as has apparently been done here. Any faith-specific contributions or objections such a reviewer might have about the curriculum would be irrelevant. (I'm not saying that religious scholars should be excluded, merely that they, like anyone else, be evaluated in terms of their ability and willingness to help set forth an essentially secular/scholarly understanding of the Bible.)

Any conflicts pitting the secular/scholarly understanding of the Bible against the doctrine of any particular faith would, by virtue of the necessarily secular nature of teaching in the public schools, be decided in favor of the material and historical evidence. Faith-specific input is no more needed here than it is needed in writing a biology or geology textbook.

The BLP also tells us that "Students will use the translation of the Bible with which they are most comfortable." Again, in an ideal world, the student's "comfort" would not be a consideration. In fact, one of the goals of a secular Bible course would be for students to understand the wide variety of, the importance of, and the fundamental issues concerning, the translation of scripture. Any course that subordinates the discussion of translation issues to the comfort level of the students is fundamentally flawed.

Finally, we read that the new textbook "presents a fair and academic presentation of the Bible, without prejudice to a particular view of canon and doctrine."

Say what? If the presentation is truly "fair and academic"--fair, that is, to the evidence--then I don't see how it would NOT contradict "particular views[s] of canon and doctrine." To give just one example: the widely accepted documentary hypothesis (the theory that the Bible derives from the several distinct sources termed J, P, E, etc.) conflicts directly with the doctrine of the Bible as possessing a single divine author. How can one "present" such an essential concept "without prejudice" to a directly contrary view?

A better approach in many ways is not to teach "the Bible" at all but to teach courses like "The Literature of the Ancient Middle East," etc. In these courses, individual biblical texts are taken out of the context that was somewhat artificially created for them by the theologically driven processes of canonization. Instead the biblical texts are placed back into their own historical and cultural contexts and read alongside other ancient texts. But such courses are not really practical (much less politically feasible) at the high school level.

Anyway, we don't live a real world, and if we want the Bible to be taught at all, in anything resembling an objective manner, some compromise will be in order. Perhaps the BLP has found the proper balance.

David-

I haven't had a chance to review the curriculum for myself, but I hope to at some point. I'm sure there will be things in it I disagree with, as there will be things everyone will disagree with. But just a brief look at the folks involved makes me take it far more seriously than the NCBCPS curriculum, which was put together by ignorant hacks (and the curriculum certainly reflects that). I agree that a class in comparative religion would be better than a class about the Bible specifically. Comparative religion study has done much to shape my own views on the subject and I think it is enormously valuable.

As I said earlier, a comparative religion course would almost certainly not be acceptable to those who want to teach "about" the bible in public schools. Comparative religion is too dangerous because it shows the judeo-christian bible in its true context as a collection of mythology not really different from many other religions' stories. Whatever their claims, their true aim is to establish their religious traditions as essential to modern western culture without giving any real understanding of just what those traditions really mean or how they came to be.