Should part of the Bible be included in the government's H.S. English curriculum?

[aneeshm]

I remembered this right now, and I've been thinking about this a bit.

In a secular country, should the government's curriculum-setting body, which decides the curriculum for schools affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, have passages from religious books?

I remember that in high school, we had the Sermon on the Mount as one chapter in our English book.

Now I have a couple of objections to this:

a) It wasn't really a piece of great English literature - it was a simplification of a translation
b) It was edited - they removed the bits about fornication and adultery (I liked those bits - why get rid of them? You think that 16 year olds can't handle someone telling them not to fornicate or commit adultery? ). This gives a wrong impression of the Sermon on the Mount, and a Christian could consider it quite offensive that such disrespect could be shown to his holy book by deciding willy nilly what is good and what is bad. It is also misinformation - people come to really believe that what they read was what was authentic.
c) It was anti-Semitic - they didn't remove the bits about the Jews being hypocrites
d) It was from the Bible, which is a Christian religious book and thus should not really be taught to high school students, because it violates the separation of Church and State. Best that the state not include any religious material at all, instead of including stuff from one and going down a slippery slope.




What is rather hypocritical is that if someone suggested putting something from a Hindu religious text in the syllabus, there would be a huge hue and cry about how education was being compromised by some religious agenda . It's actually happened before, too. I'd bet the same thing would happen in America is someone suggested putting Christian religious stuff in schoolbooks.

[lord of the mark]

I dont think they include the bible in the local english curriculum here.

I would say that anyone who hasnt read certain famous passages from the King James translation of the bible, and, for that matter, from the Book of Common Prayer, is going to miss some references in later english literature, and some common english idioms.

I suppose someone could say the same thing about other classics that are neglected.

[Kontiki]

No.

[Arrian]

There certainly wasn't any bible reading in my school curriculum. I got to that later, in a college class on the Old Testament (or Torah, if you prefer ).

The only context in which I could see it being useful for an English class is as LotM suggests: themes that were common to English literature.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
There certainly wasn't any bible reading in my school curriculum. I got to that later, in a college class on the Old Testament (or Torah, if you prefer ).

The only context in which I could see it being useful for an English class is as LotM suggests: themes that were common to English literature.

-Arrian

Agreed. But would that not be justification for including things from Hindu texts which have shaped English writing in India? That's a very slippery slope we're going down here, when anyone with an agenda can insert their own religious stuff into the syllabus if they control the central government.

Also, how can they simply remove two lines and not mention it, and still call it the sermon on the mount?

[Arrian]

I'd see nothing wrong with having a chapter of the bible and a chapter of some Hindu text side-by-side in the classroom as examples of literature. But of course I'm not religious, and have no identity axe to grind.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Not in an English class... a World Lit class, sure. That would include stuff like the Ramayana too. Homer is a mainstay in US High Schools, and there's not that much difference to anyone who isn't a believer. It's just stories/mythology.

Though if they put Exodus (the begats) in... they deserve to be shot.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'd see nothing wrong with having a chapter of the bible and a chapter of some Hindu text side-by-side in the classroom as examples of literature. But of course I'm not religious, and have no identity axe to grind.

-Arrian

The point is, both of them wouldn't really be English literature, would they? They'd be translations or simplifications of translations.

I'd rather religion was left out altogether.

And the point remains - can you edit holy texts willy-nilly and still peddle them as authentic?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Agreed. But would that not be justification for including things from Hindu texts which have shaped English writing in India? That's a very slippery slope we're going down here, when anyone with an agenda can insert their own religious stuff into the syllabus if they control the central government.

Also, how can they simply remove two lines and not mention it, and still call it the sermon on the mount?

I would think youd have classic Hindu texts in the original in a Sanskrit class. Is there a standard English translation of the Vedas or the epics that has had as profound a place in Indian English lit as the KJV and the BCP have on British and American lit?

[Arrian]

The translated Bible certainly had an impact on English literature, aneeshm, despite not being originally an English text.

I would question the impact of Hindu translations on English lit, but in India perhaps it's significant enough an impact to include in the classroom, I don't know.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Originally posted by aneeshm
And the point remains - can you edit holy texts willy-nilly and still peddle them as authentic?

I think that's basically par for the course isn't it?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I would think youd have classic Hindu texts in the original in a Sanskrit class.

We didn't have any religious stuff in Sanskrit class.

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Is there a standard English translation of the Vedas or the epics that has had as profound a place in Indian English lit as the KJV and the BCP have on British and American lit?

I don't think so.

But nobody is addressing the other point - how can you call it the sermon on the mount when you just edited the damn thing to fit your prudish agenda?!

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Aeson


I think that's basically par for the course isn't it?

Not really, at least not in India. An entire science of linguistics, which is in some ways even now more refined that linguistics is in the West, was built up simply to preserve the Vedas as they were, including the knowledge of how to pronounce them. These books are spectacularly uncorrupted.

[Aeson]

No doubt at some point holy texts get set virtually in stone. I'm simply questioning whether they are the same as when first spoken/written? For any sufficiently old text, or oral tradition that later became text, it would seem rather unlikely that they've remained unchanged from conception.

There is absolutely nothing keeping someone from changing a translation, and using it as their own holy text in any case.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Aeson
No doubt at some point holy texts get set virtually in stone. I'm simply questioning whether they are the same as when first spoken/written? For any sufficiently old text, or oral tradition that later became text, it would seem rather unlikely that they've remained unchanged from conception.

There is absolutely nothing keeping someone from changing a translation, and using it as their own holy text in any case.

But thats irrelevant. Id be the first to tell you that there are significant issues in the KJV translation, as opposed to the Hebrew text - and we could get all deep into the Masoretic Hebrew, the Septuagint Greek, and the Dead Sea Scrolls text if you want. Not to mention the likelihood that all those derived from earlier oral traditions. But if youre reading the bible for its influence on ENGLISH lit, the Hebrew text is not directly relevant (well maybe for Milton, or Tolkien, or a few other folks who read the text in Hebrew) For the most part the KJV WAS the text that was read by the writers who matter, and its the KJV that you need to read to understand the tradition they were operating in, or rebelling against, even IF the KJV has issues.

So Aneeshm is correct, if you want to get a sense for what English writers mean by the Sermon on the Mount, you need to read the text as they would have seen it.

Of course you could simple note "abridged version" or something.