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

[Aeson]

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.

You're adding a qualification after the fact.

Aneeshm asked if a changed text could be peddled as authentic, and I said that's par for the course. The context was not whether you could say that it's affect on English lit was the same, but whether you could still call it the same.

If Aneeshm had asked whether it would be proper to study a changed text (from the time of effect) in regards to how it had affected English lit, I would have answered that question instead.

[lord of the mark]

what Aneeshm said

"This gives a wrong impression of the Sermon on the Mount"

Given that, AFAIK, every major translation of the bible used by any major Christian group in the last 500 years, includes the lines from the sermon on the mount, and given that the OP mentioned that it was being used in an english class in an Indian school, where, presumably, understanding of common english lit and usage would be of value, I think the answer is that this does give a wrong impression.


Where would you set a limit? If I wrote "Jesus said - and the settlers shall inherit kiryat arba, for that was the seat of David, and the Jews shall inherit it forever" and called it the Sermon on the Mount, would that not be misleading?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I dont think they include the bible in the local english curriculum here.

Yes they do. In fact, at the school you might be thinking of it's specifically taught in sophomore year.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
Not in an English class... a World Lit class, sure. That would include stuff like the Ramayana too.

We covered both in my 10th grade English class.

[Arrian]

Hell, maybe I just blocked it out Or my HS curiculum was different.

I never liked HS English class. I've never liked Lit classes, either, for that matter. I love to read, but having to then opine on THE MESSAGE gets irritating.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Maybe you just studied English in more primitive times.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
what Aneeshm said

"This gives a wrong impression of the Sermon on the Mount"

You'll notice this was not what I responded to. You'll also notice that even there he didn't qualify that as "in regards to it's effect on English literature" as you are insisting the context of my reply must have been.

Given that, AFAIK, every major translation of the bible used by any major Christian group in the last 500 years, includes the lines from the sermon on the mount, and given that the OP mentioned that it was being used in an english class in an Indian school, where, presumably, understanding of common english lit and usage would be of value, I think the answer is that this does give a wrong impression.

Of course it gives the wrong impression... but it doesn't change the fact that it's happened.

(I'm not sure on the sermon on the mount, but the LDS church uses a modified KJV with the Joseph Smith translation. It makes rather important deviations from the standard KJV in interpretation on many points.)

Where would you set a limit?

Who said anything about allowing it at all? You seem to think I'm justifying misleading changes to text, when in reality I'm being derogatory of the accuracy (and in many cases intent) of past translations.

If I wrote "Jesus said - and the settlers shall inherit kiryat arba, for that was the seat of David, and the Jews shall inherit it forever" and called it the Sermon on the Mount, would that not be misleading?

About as much so as your misrepresentation of what I've said.

[Jon Miller]

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

Originally posted by aneeshm

a) It wasn't really a piece of great English literature - it was a simplification of a translation

The King James version is considered a peice of great English literature.

JM

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
We covered both in my 10th grade English class.

I don't think we covered either in my 10th grade English... but we did cover some world lit. That's just because my high school was rather backwards (rural Idaho) and "English" was used to cover virtually everything related to reading/writing.

I'd think more advanced school systems would have better specialization in courses, rather than just having one hodgepodge class with everything lumped together.

[lord of the mark]

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


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

Ok, so you chose to read Aneeshms question outside of the context of the OP, and you decided to equate an educators decision to bowdlerize a text that the kids are likely to encounter later in its intact form, with some 5th BCE redactor's decisions in attempting to reconcile various oral traditions.

Fine, then your statement is correct. Silly, but correct.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In my high school we didn't cover the Bible or whatever in my 10th Grade English class.

[Arrian]

Could it have something to do with lattitude?

-Arrian