Teaching the Bible as Literature

Teaching the Bible as
Literature in Public High

School (Part 1)
Posted: 11/10/2014 2:24 pm EST Updated: 01/10/2015 5:59 am EST
Anyone who wants to major in the arts and humanities, the natural sciences,
the helping professions, or simply wants to be culturally literate, must come
to terms with the Bible, that literary Mount Everest that has shaped Western
humanity's view of itself and the universe.
It is a book so central to our cultural identity and heritage that a familiarity

with its stories, lessons, and significance is an essential part of being human,
if not for the answers it gives, at least for the questions it raises.
Colleges and universities simply assume a basic familiarity with this

foundational text for anyone laying claim to being an educated person who is
open to the deeper dimensions of human existence.
In today's tabloid world, however, the traditional assumptions no longer

prevail about what areas of knowledge students can be expected to bring to
school from the home, so it devolves on the school to remedy this deficiency
for students' long-term success in this short-term culture.
Because so many seniors no longer possess an understanding of this seminal

book, I developed and taught for almost 30 years a six-week unit on the Bible
as Literature as part of the senior college-prep and AP English curriculum to
prepare graduates more broadly for the college experience.
As may well be imagined, however, teaching the Bible in a public high school
is a daunting endeavor. Students come from all different backgrounds --
Protestants of every denomination, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and
Buddhists, while others profess no religious affiliation or belief at all.
Some come from religious homes, and others do not. Some see the Bible as
the inspired word of God, others as the inspired creation of the human spirit.
Some interpret it literally, others figuratively. Some view it as a positive force
for good in the world; others see in its pages only ignorance and bigotry.
Some view it as the heartbeat of their spiritual lives; others as the worst
superstition ever to curse the face of the earth, responsible for no end of evil
and suffering; and still others have no opinion about it.
In a word, students came from a wide assortment of homes, a microcosm of

our pluralistic, multicultural society, with its multiplicity of different
perspectives, few shared assumptions, and virtually no common ground
about anything, save that their children receive the best education the school
could provide.
Owing to the unique nature of this book, students were initially cautioned to
be mindful of each other's sensibilities when expressing their views. Over
three decades, however, this was never a problem, as students intuitively
sensed the special place this iconic text has in our culture and unfailingly
showed respect for everyone's feelings as they listened with interest about
what those in class had to say.
Students were also reminded of the distinction between "teaching the Bible"
and "teaching about the Bible" in a public school. It is one thing to teach the
Bible as if it were the word of God, and another to teach about the Bible -- its
stories, characters, events, and lessons -- as a human book, and to discuss
the many interpretations that have been advanced over the centuries.
One can teach this book as long as one doesn't seek to promote it as a
religious text, but only to instruct students about its literary nature and
historical background, address the many theories about its meaning, and
explore the range of questions it raises without taking a position on any of
them.
As befits the study of any great literary work, students received an overview
of twenty-five different theories and interpretations that embody different
perspectives about this multi-dimensional text: a book of literature that
raises profound questions about the human condition in a luxuriant
profusion of literary genres; a source of historical and archeological
information about ancient Palestine; a storehouse of folk wisdom and
anthropological insight that illuminates the origins of Middle Eastern
psychology.
A repository of divine revelation that must be interpreted either literally or

figuratively; a book of profound spiritual comfort and meaning for countless
generations; a book teeming with messianic prophecies; a book of
superstition that has inspired hatred, bigotry and persecution for centuries; a
book that has transformed and ennobled the lives of millions; a book full of
contradictions, horrors, and cruelties, which could not possibly have been
inspired by God.
A book which traces the spiritual evolution of a people from primitive

barbarism to ethical maturity; a book that has caused many to lose their faith
in an all-good and loving God; a book that has blocked social and scientific
progress; a book whose purpose is not to teach the truths of science, but
moral and religious truth ("not how the heavens go, but how to go to
heaven"); a book that justifies man's basest instincts of violence and blood
lust.
A book that calls for social justice and revolution (liberation theology); a
book that supports the status quo; a book of sexism, misogyny, and
patriarchal oppression of women (feminist theology); a book whose meaning
must be disengaged from the trappings of its mythological, pre-scientific
worldview and reinterpreted to become intelligible to a modern audience
(demythologization).
A book whose meaning must be sought in the symbolical, archetypal, and

depth-psychological understanding of human existence (C. G. Jung and
Mircea Eliade); a book which embodies the worldview of Neo-Platonism
(Augustine), Aristotelianism (Thomas Aquinas), Romanticism (Friedrich
Schleiermacher), and Existentialism (Paul Tillich and Martin Buber).
A book which embodies the personal, class, national, economic, social,

political, sexual, religious, and denominational concerns, prejudices and
blind spots of those who read their own predilections into this text for cosmic
validation and equate their own agendas with the will of God. In sum,
students were given a sense of the chameleon-like character of this protean
book, which admits of many diverse and contradictory meanings.
Students were then introduced to the core issues of hermeneutics, the study
of meaning and interpretation: Does a book have one or several meanings?
Who decides? The author? Each reader? What if the author is dead and left
no record about what was intended? What if the work is anonymous?
Is meaning read "into" or "out of" a text? Are some meanings right and
others wrong? Who decides? Or does the book provide its own meaning?
And, if so, why are there so many different meanings assigned to the text? Or
are all meanings right? Or just one?
Can a book's meaning change over time and outgrow its author's original
intention or the understanding of the generation for whom it was written? Or
is meaning like a rebellious child who goes his or her own way? Does the
judgment of authority decide a book's meaning? What if authorities differ?
Or is meaning decided by political necessity, changing conditions, or those in
power? How does one prove one's interpretation without circular reasoning?
Students read 20-page excerpts from the Old and New Testaments in "The
Portable World Bible," Robert O. Ballou (Editor), as homework assignments
and submitted ten short reaction paragraphs by discussing a story's
characters, actions or motives, or reflected on the story's meaning and their
reaction to it.
After five assignments, students wrote ten general reactions to what they had
read in the Old Testament and then six similar assignments on the New
Testament. Finally, they chose twenty statements from the editor's
introduction and critically evaluated them. Throughout these thirteen
assignments, students were encouraged to say whatever they wanted.
Student responses ran the gamut from being intrigued, troubled, charmed,
moved, shocked, awed, through being revolted, affirmed, mystified,
empowered, surprised, bored, to being uplifted, fascinated, terrified,
skeptical, and puzzled.
MORE:
BibleScripture Commentary

School (Part 2)
This wide assortment of responses to Part 1had one basic constant --
students were so taken aback by this alien world that they could only express
their ambivalence in mixed accents of shock, fascination, terror, and awe.
What rose to the surface was not so much clarified thought as eruptions of
vestigial childhood memories amidst a torrent of contradictory feelings.
Students with no prior exposure to these stories came to them fresh, not
having been socialized in responding in ways they felt were "appropriate,"
but as they actually felt, as they would with any powerful piece of literature.
With some, one sensed profound inner disturbance, suggesting a reaction to

something unprecedented in their placid middle-class lives that left them a
tangle of troubled confusion, as a mood of foreboding would often give way
to a feeling of calm.
A few seemed to distance themselves from their reactions by aestheticizing

their description of what they were feeling, almost savoring the menace that
had so abruptly broken into their safe, predictable world, yet subliminally
grateful in being thrown into contact with something "fascinatingly terrible."
Others were in a palpable state of what could only be described as religious

exaltation, serenely aglow with blissful beatitude of profound inner peace;
some even gave voice to deeply affecting outpourings of prayer that seemed
to surprise even themselves, coming as they did amidst what should have
been only a mundane homework assignment.
A few gave eloquent witness to their most deeply-felt beliefs -- very moving
revelations that were among the rarest of privileges for a teacher to read.
Others were simply left cold by these biblical stories, shaking their head in
dismay, as it were, or ridiculed them as the effusions of a brutal, pathological
mind, hardly in keeping with a book supposedly having a loving and merciful
God as its author.
Still others seemed transfixed by tales they could only describe as grotesque,
relishing them as ancient examples of "gothic camp," but feeling amply
compensated by readings that triggered such humorous reactions to a
sensibility so congenial to their own countercultural tastes.
Many seemed to have come to the text with rather staid expectations of what
they would find, but were both charmed and exhilarated that their
assumptions had been so surprisingly or, in some cases, even uproariously
upended by the dead-pan horror of some of these stories.
A few students seemed nettled that they were asked to think about these
stories at all, rather than simply reading them passively and succumbing to a
kind of languorous dream; others were inwardly conflicted in that, being
required to think about what they were reading, they were being asked to
engage in something morally wrong.
One shouldn't have to think in the presence of this book, they seemed to be
implying between the lines -- it should command instant assent and
obedience, because the act of thinking before the Almighty was a sign of
irreverence, pride, and rebellion.
In cases like this, I would approach students privately to suggest that if they
felt uncomfortable about having to reflect on the text, they could be excused
from these assignments to do something else. Students were appreciative,
but nonetheless continued submitting their work, sensing that they somehow
had to come to terms with this struggle themselves.
Others seemed grateful in being able to reflect upon stories known solely
from hearsay, but now deemed sufficiently important to be part of a high-
school curriculum. They were both enchanted and puzzled by these stories,
but more than willing to let them speak for themselves despite, or perhaps
because of, their exotic nature.
They eagerly surrendered to what these stories were saying, and to the
unusual way in which they were written, with no preconceptions about what
each was saying, or what they wished them to say, as so often happens with
students unconsciously bent on peopling a story with their own ruminations
that have no relation to the text whatsoever.
Such students were far more apt to read these stories as metaphors pointing
beyond their literal meaning, reminiscent of the phantasmagoric effusions of
Origen of Alexandria in the Early Church.
An occasional student might approach these stories with a Kafkaesque

sensibility, endowing them with multiple meanings that metamorphosed
with every re-reading. This kind of exegesis, however, was exceedingly rare,
as these students tend to surrender in original ways to whatever they see
unfolding before them in each passing moment.
Meaning for these students is forever kaleidoscopically changing at every

encounter with a textual Rorschach, a wondrous ability seldom found with
students raised in a visual culture where few students read.
It would be no exaggeration to say that these stories were a maelstrom of

meanings that churned students up, and any book which accomplishes this
in the blas teenage world of today is, indeed, a gift from the gods.
The reach, thrust, and energy of each class discussion helped students
emotionally to sort themselves out, as they spoke from the heart or listened
intently as classmates made their way through this thicket of disturbingly
dark and magical tales.
Students were encouraged to say whatever they wished, and there was never
an attempt to resolve any question or issue, since the point was simply an
exchange of ideas about stories that had as many meanings as readers.
Students were teeming with questions and creative responses as these

earnest 17-year-olds became part of that Great Conversation with the Past
that would mature and sustain them as they grew into an ever deeper
awareness of what it means to be human.
The following were a few of the questions which students discussed: Do all
religions lead to God? Is one religion as good as another? Does it matter to
God what religion one is as long as one tries to lead a good life? Is God
Jewish, Muslim, Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, all or none of them?
Can religion get in the way of coming to God? Why can't we worship God by
ourselves rather than as part of a group? Can everyone go to heaven, no
matter what religion one is? Does God care what you believe as long as you
try to be a good person? Can you be a good without believing in God or in
heaven and hell?
If God is good, how could he create a place like hell? Why does he allow
infants and children to suffer? Why did he create a cruel natural world in
which animals devour each other? If God is all-powerful, why does he let
earthquakes, tsunamis, and plagues occur?
Do unbaptized infants go to hell? Did Jesus exist? Was he married? Did he
claim to be God? Did he rise from the dead? What happens after we die?
Why are some churches rich when Jesus was poor? Why don't churches give
away their wealth to help the poor? Why do religions have so many rules
when Jesus kept things simple? Why does religion preach hate and distrust
toward other religions?
Why do the Bible and churches treat women like second-class citizens? Why
can't women be priests? Why can't priests marry? Does the Bible condemn
homosexuality?
How do we know that the events in the Bible really occurred? Should the
Bible be interpreted literally or figuratively? Do we know who actually wrote
the Bible? If the Bible is God's word, why did he make it so hard to
understand? Why is there so much disagreement about its meaning?
If we're all children of God, why does he play favorites in the Bible? Did
Moses write the first five books of the Bible, or were they written later by
somebody else? Did the Exodus from Egypt really occur?
Should people of different religions marry each other? Would this difference
of faith confuse their children? Should you bring children up in a religion, or
wait until later when they can decide for themselves?
These daily discussions were always the emotional high point of every class,
as students got caught up in a drama whose energy at times bordered on a
force of nature. It seemed as if students had been waiting for years for an
occasion to discuss these questions without fear of censure and received not
one, but many answers.
When the moment was right, I would give the standard church answers,
along with the standard objections to those answers, as well as what
independent scholarship had to say on such matters. Students could thereby
hear a broad range of opinion and understand how thinking on such issues
was always evolving.
MORE:
School (Part 3)
There were other days when students had an open-ended discussion about a
Bible story they had read or a question that had come up in class. What
follows is a distillation of four often-asked questions and the exchanges they
sparked.
Was it wrong to have one's own opinion about the Bible's meaning? Some
students felt that it wasn't because, as people mature, they would naturally
change their mind about the meaning of the stories they read. If God gave us
a mind, he would certainly want us to use it, especially with a book that
claimed him as its author.
Others disagreed, saying that it wasn't right to have one's own opinion about
what God meant because one might be wrong. One should listen to one's
pastor or rabbi who was trained in such matters.
These stories were just stories with no right or wrong interpretations, said
the first group. It wasn't as though people were going to be tested on them
for the right answer. Stories have many meanings, and different people see
them differently depending on their life-experience.
Even the clergy draw different lessons from them, and would want people to
do likewise since there was no other way of benefiting from stories than by
trying to puzzle out their meaning in a way that would speak to their lives.
That was the beauty of this book - everyone could take away a different
message, for people don't need a middleman between themselves and God,
because he speaks to each person directly.
Others couldn't see how this was possible because if this was God's book, it
could have only one meaning, as would each of its stories, and people have a
right to know what that meaning was. They couldn't just equate their own
reaction with God's "message" to them because they might be fooling
themselves.
Well, maybe a story means different things to different people, because each
person is in a different place, with different needs and problems, so God
would tailor his meaning to each person's situation. It wouldn't make sense if
everyone received the same answer, because not everyone would be in need
of that answer, but of one that would help them.
Moreover, how could any one person claim that he alone knew what God
meant in a particular story or about the Bible in general? It would be
arrogant to claim that only one view was right and that everyone else's was
wrong. How could one person or church dare to speak for God?
But there has to be some authoritative voice to tell people what God means,
because otherwise you'd have no end of confusion about what God wants of
us. Why would God have gone to all the trouble of writing the Bible if he was
going to leave it to each person to decide what he means? You'd have nothing
but chaos. There has to be an objective standard.
Well, maybe God's truth is so big that it can only be grasped by many
different opinions. Perhaps everyone has a piece of God's truth, and the only
way of knowing it is by listening to everyone.
But what if people are contradicting each other? Who would decide which
view was right?
But why should we listen to only one person who claims that he alone has
"the truth"? How does he know? People shouldn't be sheep who blindly
follow what somebody says. It's too dangerous to give any one person or
church that kind of power.
And so it goes for the next several weeks. Nothing is solved, but something
more important happens than getting an "answer" -- students have a better
understanding of a question because they've heard both sides of the
argument.
Since our text also contains excerpts from other world scriptures, a student
asks why we can't discuss those other scriptures as well. Why limit ourselves
to just the Bible, when the Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Muslim, and Taoist
texts also have things of importance to say?
I point out that if students want to have their horizons broadened, they
should read these scriptures. In fact, an entire course on World Scriptures
would open up a fascinating range of new possibilities and set the Bible
within a much larger context, but, unfortunately, we had only six weeks for
our unit, and even that wasn't enough time to do justice to the Bible and its
influence on Western culture. These other scriptures were waiting for them,
and would mean more to them if they read them on their own.
This led to the next question: if God speaks in the Bible, does he speak in
other scriptures as well?
I don't see how he could, says one student, because if your religion is right,
then the others are wrong, so how could God be speaking in them? He can't
be saying different things in them because he'd be contradicting himself.
Well, that's just it, isn't it? Anyone can say that their religion was the only
true one, but, apart from insulting everyone not of your faith, how would you
know that those other religions weren't true as well? It's like rooting for the
home team. Everyone thinks that their team's the best, but what if you had
been raised in a different city or religion?
Besides, what if God speaks to different religions in different ways? That

would account for all the different things he says in their scriptures. Cultures
are different, so God simply adapts his message to these different audiences.
You make God sound like a politician, spinning his message differently for
each religion. It's not as though God needs people's votes to get elected.
Either God has something to say or he doesn't, and if he does, how could his
message be different in all these religions?
But is it? Maybe underneath all those differences, they're all saying the same
thing. Take the Ten Commandments, for instance. Every religion teaches
them, although under different names. Religions share a lot in common, but
people get caught up in all the differences.
But how do you know it's even God speaking in these scriptures or the Bible
itself, and not just something put in God's mouth by the powerful who want
people to believe it?
Like we shouldn't kill or steal or lie, or should honor our parents? Who could
disagree with that? The Ten Commandments are, after all, just common
sense and keep society from going off the rails. What's the hidden agenda?
But what about sayings like "blessed are the poor"? That could have been put
in the Bible simply to keep the poor content with their lot so they wouldn't
revolt, and in the meantime the rich keep getting richer.
But suppose there's no God and that someone made up all this God-talk to
keep people in line. Who's to say that it isn't all made up?
Or that it is? Anything that makes people better than they would otherwise
be is always a good thing. Maybe the basics of every religion are what God
intended, but those other things were added later, and it's those things that
give religion a bad name. How much worse would people be if they didn't
have religion?
But maybe there would be a lot less hatred and misunderstanding if religion
didn't divide people and incite them to violence?
It's not religion's fault if this happens, but people twist something good for
their own selfish ends.
Finally, there are students who, not being believers, wonder why they should
read a book they don't even believe in, about stories that never happened,
and whose author doesn't exist.
Well, let's say you're right, says a student. Does something have to be true to
be interesting? Don't these stories raise important questions that teach great
moral lessons? Take Aesop's Fables. People in antiquity knew that animals
don't talk, but they understood the point of these stories, and that even
though they never happened, the lessons they teach are still relevant for
teaching kids wisdom.
Another student reminds the class that they had just spent nine weeks on the
Greeks, and that as freshmen they had learned about the Greek myths, the
Greek gods and goddesses, and their roles in human affairs. But who believes
in Zeus or the Greek myths today, yet we still study them because they're
great stories with interesting things to say about human nature and life.
They're part of our culture.
Well, it's the same with the Bible. Everybody should know these stories
because they're so much a part of our culture. You have to know what they're
about to be culturally literate, and you have to admit that you really can
understand why people think and behave as they do from what we've been
reading and discussing for the past several weeks.
MORE:

School (Part 4)
The following topics were some of the biblical theories explored in class:
ancient and modern views of how the Old and New Testaments arose; the
nature of biblical inspiration; Old and New Testament authorship; literal and
figurative interpretations of the Bible; the
Creationism/Evolution/Providential Evolution debate; the "Noble Lie" and
the origin of religion; anthropomorphism and biblical language; the Bible's
changing image of God.
The Ten Commandments from a comparative religionist's perspective; the

Hellenization of Early Christianity; Christ's belief about the end of the world
and his intention of founding a church; anti-Semitism in the New Testament;
Jewish and Christian views of the messianic prophecies; the revisionist view
of Pontius Pilate; the demythologization of the Bible; why the Jews could not
accept Christ as God.
After listening to six weeks of unresolved questions, students invariably

asked: "But what is the right answer?" So ingrained was their assumption
that these questions were like mathematical problems with demonstrable
answers, that when told that "it all depends on who you ask," they were taken
aback with surprise and frustration.
Only gradually did they realize that there are no agreed-upon answers but
only opinions, and that scholarship is a battleground of these contested
opinions. Not that those who hold them do so as opinions, since they
obviously believe they are facts. They are opinions because their truth is
disputed by other scholars equally certain that their opinions are facts.
Another form of this same expectation was students' inveterate habit of

consulting that modern Delphic Oracle of infallible truth - the Internet.
Because of early conditioning, students blithely assume that websites provide
objective information on all kinds of questions. When it was pointed out that
many sites are little more than recruitment centers for a political or religious
creed or a denomination's understanding of theological issues, they were
shocked that what they had assumed to be fact was only opinion.
So-called objective accounts of biblical or religious topics would only be

objective to members of a particular denomination or faith, but be dismissed
as propaganda by another persuasion. Even what is sincerely presented as
fact would be, to the opposition, disguised or, more charitably, unconscious
bias posing as fact. Truth and error were in the eye of the beholder, so
students had to exercise care when evaluating such "objective" accounts.
A theory seems true if it's the only theory one knows or is taught. One's
education begins in discovering that there are competing theories, each of
which claims that it's true and may very well be if one accepts its implicit
assumptions. The problem, however, is that these assumptions are
themselves often a battleground of further historical or philosophical
opinions, or theological faith statements, which are rejected by opponents,
who champion their own theories.
Students also have to be especially wary of websites with unsigned articles,
which purport to be disinterested scholarship, but, in reality, may be
propaganda mills for left-wing, right-wing, or centrist views. Every
organization or institution wants to sell its product or viewpoint to an
audience, and such websites may be cleverly camouflaged boot camps for
indoctrinating potential converts.
Moreover, anyone with an ax to grind can set up a website that artfully

packages discontent or paranoia on any conceivable subject. Such websites
have no quality control officers or supervision over content. An article may
be written by a reputable scholar, in which case it will be signed, or be
anonymous or pseudonymous, in which case the author's credentials could
be dubious or non-existent.
Unsigned articles are particularly suspect, if not inherently worthless,

because the refusal to sign one's real name to what one has written suggests
dubious content and dishonest motives. If one goes public with one's views,
one should at least have the courage to stand by them and not hide in the
shadows.
But students must confront an additional problem of another sort. When it is
drawn to their attention that had they been born in a different time and
place, they could very well have been raised in a different religion, and that
the answers they were actually raised with are simply a matter of chance.
This realization always gives rise to much self-reflection.
Religious convictions are often the result of custom and habit, and what
seems the "truth" is more often a matter of what is familiar to a person or
culture than of what has been critically examined oneself. Different religions
and philosophies provide their adherents with reassuring states of mind,
which is why the young should travel outside of their culture to discover that
there is more to the world than one point of view.
Class discussions were always conducted in a way that no one theory ever
prevailed. The more theories students examined, the broader their
understanding of a question became. Which theory was right was never the
issue, and students were surprised that every theory seemed "right," given
the truth of its implicit assumptions with which one would have been raised.
The discovery that so many theories existed was another revelation when
students were introduced to JSTOR, the scholarly online database, which
opened up a world of academic scholarship with its vast ocean of articles.
Every high school in the nation should have a subscription to this vital
research tool that makes scholarship immediate, relevant, and
psychologically real, a sine qua non for aspiring college students. My only
concern, however, is that it is expensive, but it is also an important
investment in student success in high school and college.
These seventeen-year-olds were intrigued that the lifeblood of scholarship
was controversy, difference of opinion professionally argued, and addressing
a broad spectrum of questions. Their intellectual world became suddenly
larger.
Scholarship is not the Temple of Truth, but a Tribunal of Inquiry, where one
can find any number of scholarly theories convincingly presented with
reasoned arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals in English and other
major world languages.
Scholarship, like science, is open-ended, never resting in the delusion of

attaining the truth, for if it did, it would no longer be scholarship, but
ossified dogma, the enemy of inquiry, and the death of free thought. Like all
dogma, it would be the graveyard of the soaring spirit that refuses to be
caught in a net of decayed theories that have outlived their time and poison
the present by keeping it chained to dead generations.
Scholarship makes students skeptical, cautious, and less provincial in

outlook. It schools and seasons their judgment by ushering them into a
dimension of discourse that widens their horizons and lifts their vision
beyond the diversions of high school to the intellectual challenges that
beckon from college.
It makes them aware of the arbitrariness and questionability of officially

enshrined doctrine that denies the very existence of other theories that
threaten those in authority. Specifically, students become increasingly
dissatisfied with the quality of classroom instruction because other theories
are rarely acknowledged, let alone taught, thereby creating the impression
that there is no controversy about what they are learning.
Students begin to wonder whether what they are being taught is even the
truth, or the whole truth, but only one theory among many, which are being
kept from them. They ask themselves why their teachers are being denied the
necessary class time by federal and state education departments to explore
these theories because teachers are required to cover so much material that
makes it impossible to intelligently deal with questions in depth. Not that
these theories are necessarily true, but they exist as alternatives to
educational dogma, and yet these theories are seldom acknowledged because
those in power have a vested interest in suppressing them.
Only when students are presented with competing theories can they discover
their minds and learn what true education is -- being caught up in the
colorful drama and clash of ideas. Only then can they understand the
complexity of questions as opposing theories engage the mind to arrive at the
truth, rather than being left with the presumption that problems have but
one simple answer, the one they are taught in their textbook.
It is much easier for government today to simply destroy young minds and
theirschools with its destructive policy of standardized
testing and privatization for fear that students, properly taught, would
receive a real education and learn to think for themselves. Instead, students
must endure a narrow ideology that promotes the agenda of the corporate
state that silences future critics by its present assault upon the mind of the
young.
Truth has no allegiance to anyone or anything, but goes its own way, and no
ideology, philosophy, creed, or government policy should control, suppress,
dictate, or limit its search. But government today serves the rich and the
powerful and trashes true education as dangerous to the privileged few by
mandating in its stead indoctrination that ill-prepares the young for college
or places it beyond their reach by predatory student loans. Schools, colleges,
and universities are having their mission as institutions of learning
radically compromised, and government aids and abets it.
With searing words and seraphic vision, Bertrand Russell memorialized for
all times the sacramental agency of unfettered thought: "Men fear thought as
they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin, more even than death.
Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible. Thought is
merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habits;
thought is anarchic and lawless, indifferent to authority, careless of the well-
tried wisdom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid."

School (Part 5) -- The
Changing Image of God
During the years I taught this six-week unit on the Bible as Literature, many
students were troubled by the behavior of God in the earlier books of the Old
Testament, where he is depicted as a cruel Warrior God who commands all
manner of horrible things. This image gradually changes until, in the later
books and the New Testament, God becomes more forgiving and merciful,
more loving and, finally, "Our Father."
Students wondered how one might explain this cruelty, which gradually
softens, and then disappears. Other students saw no change whatsoever, but
felt that God's actions were always appropriate to what the occasion
required. What follows is an extended version of a student handout that
describes six theories that attempt to answer this question of God's changing
image.
One. The Old Testament God of wrath and vengeance was so different from
the New Testament God of love and forgiveness that, according to Marcion
(c. 84 - c. 160 CE), they were simply two different Gods. He rejected the Old
Testament entirely because, among other reasons, he felt that its negative
depictions of God were gravely insulting to the God of the New Testament.
Moreover, he feared that the young would be coarsened by the example of

God's violent behavior and so be encouraged to violence themselves. He
accepted as authentic only a portion of the Gospel of Luke and 10 Epistles of
Paul, purged of their Old Testament references.
His critique of the Old Testament was so radical that it prompted the new
Church to rethink its relationship to the Old Testament, which it nonetheless
retained for two principal reasons - its messianic prophecies, which it
believed were fulfilled by Christ, and its venerable antiquity, which lent the
Church much-valued prestige and legitimacy in its mission of converting a
world that reverenced ancient religions. He also forced the Church to
determine which books were canonical in the slowly emerging New
Testament.
Declared a heretic, he founded his own church that continued in existence

for a few more centuries.
Two. Biblical passages which depict God performing morally repugnant

actions or issuing shocking commands are not to be interpreted literally, but
allegorically. Alexandria in Egypt was the center of this allegorical school of
interpretation, which was highly regarded in the ancient world.
Two celebrated proponents of this method were Philo, a renowned Jewish

scholar, (c. 20 BCE - 40 CE) and Origen, a prolific Christian author and
teacher (185 - 254 CE), who defended the Old Testament against Marcion by
allegorizing its difficult passages.
God's violent actions were reinterpreted as the struggles of the Christian

Church against evil or as symbols of the soul battling sin. As God destroyed
the enemies of the Jews in the Old Testament, so too must we show no mercy
in combating our evil tendencies.
This was the same solution used by the Greeks in earlier centuries to
allegorize those parts of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey which were thought to
depict immoral behavior on the part of the gods. These stories were judged
as unsuitable for children, who would be scandalized by such offensive
actions.
Three. God, at times, did indeed do harsh things, but with justification. The
recipients of his divine wrath had been warned by God, yet willfully persisted
in their wrongdoing and had to be punished. These were brutal times and
man was hard-hearted, so God had to be stern with him.
Although from a human perspective it may seem that God's actions were
cruel, we do not know the complete circumstances that prompted God to
behave as he did, nor can we see the big picture because we cannot know the
mind of God. As creatures, we cannot presume to judge the Creator, the
Giver and Taker of life. We must humbly submit ourselves to his inscrutable
will.
Four. God's revelation of himself to man was gradual and progressive. In the
beginning, God had to deal with man harshly because he was at a primitive
stage of development, and harshness was the only language he understood.
He could not understand, respect, or take seriously a kind and merciful God,
for such qualities would have been signs of weakness in man's eyes.
However, over time, as man became more civilized, God began to treat him
differently by gradually revealing the more loving and forgiving aspects of his
divine nature made manifest by his prophets and his psalmist David in the
later books of the Old Testament.
This theory of Progressive Revelation also explains the seeming moral

contradictions in the Bible. The earlier books contain a primitive ethic
suitable for man at an early stage of his ethical development, but as man
progressed morally, God slowly raised the bar of ethical standards for which
man was now ready.
These later commandments were meant to replace God's earlier moral

injunctions, which man had now outgrown since he had now reached a more
advanced level of ethical conduct. When viewed in this light, there is no
moral contradiction between the earlier and later books of the Bible, because
the earlier code was no longer in effect in this gradual process of man's moral
evolution inspired by God.
Five. The Greek philosopher Xenophanes (c. 570 - c. 478 BCE) once wrote
that if horses had hands and could paint, they would paint horses as gods.
So, too, man creates his gods in his own image. A primitive warrior tribe
creates a primitive warrior god, for this is the only god such a people can
understand. As this people matures and becomes more civilized, however, so
would its god.
"Theology is anthropology," said the German philosopher, Ludwig Feuerbach

(1804 - 1872). The theology of a people directly reflects the moral
development of a people which has created its god. Man makes God in his
own image. As he morally evolves by listening to his spiritual leaders,
prophets and priests, so does his god. Gradually, the primitive qualities of
this god disappear, for now such traits are seen as unworthy of him.
Six. God's behavior in the Old Testament is not meant to be taken literally.
All such depictions of God are simply anthropomorphic - depictions of God
in human form, behaving in human ways with human emotions, which
human beings can understand. According to this view, God is so infinitely
beyond man's limited powers of comprehension, so ineffably transcendent in
nature, that he cannot be captured in language.
Yet language is the only means we have of describing him, but in using words
we must also be mindful that they say more about us than they do about
God. We see God as "through a glass, darkly," but not as he is. No adequate
conceptual or linguistic means exists to do him justice.
Biblical language is, according to this view, but a halting, feeble, futile
attempt to grasp what is elusive, so we must make do with picturing him in
human ways, which cannot describe his infinite mystery.
It is for this reason that we should never be troubled by unflattering

portrayals of God in the Bible. God is not "angry" or "jealous." Nor does he
"harden Pharaoh's heart." We become angry and jealous, and harden our
hearts.
God is pictured as doing horrible things to describe, as it were, the depths of

his "anger" at human transgressions in order that we could imagine in some
faint way how we have "displeased" him and repent. God is beyond words,
metaphor, or philosophy. He is the Unknown, the Unknowable, the Hidden
God, the God of the mystics, and we should not literalize such childish
depictions of him.
***
After having students quietly read and digest these theories, I asked them to
comment on each of them in light of the following four questions: (1.) Do you
find this theory convincing or not, and why? (2.) What would be the
emotional advantages and disadvantages of holding this theory? (3.) How
would you go about proving this theory is true? (4.) If the other five theories
were persons, how would they respond to each theory?
We spent about 15 minutes discussing each theory in this way. Each theory
was preferred by some students and rejected by others, and students were
especially attentive to the reasons given. The discussion lasted two or three
classes.
Some years there was a clear consensus about which theories students felt
would be preferable today, and other years when there was no such
consensus. Students were surprised that such theories existed and how they
clarified thinking on such questions.

School (Part 6) -- Three
Theories of Morality
First, some background. At the beginning of my senior college-prep and AP
English courses, I gave a nine-week introduction to critical thinking and the
classical Greeks. Beyond the study of fallacies, statement classification, and
different ways of refuting an argument, students also learned how to
critically evaluate the competing claims of theories that purport to answer
the same question. One such question that was of utmost importance not
only to the Greeks, but also to the biblical vision of human existence was
what makes a life moral. What follows are four assignments intended to have
students begin thinking critically about three such theories.
*****
There are different ways of classifying theories of morality. The following

represents one possible classification: Platonism, Situationism, and Moral
Relativism. Each theory is briefly outlined, along with objections.
Platonism: There is an objective, absolute, immutable, eternal moral order
which exists independently of man. Man's actions must conform to this
moral order for his behavior to be moral. A properly formed conscience puts
him in contact with this realm and its moral principles. These moral
principles or laws apply to all men, at all times, in all places, and in all
situations. Man has only to apply these principles to each situation to
determine what he should and should not do. Left to himself, man would
only err and commit evil. Obeying these moral laws is often difficult, but
necessary, if he desires to lead a moral life. There can be no exceptions to
these laws, since there can be no compromise with evil.
Objections to Platonism: (1.) There is no evidence that such an objective,
eternal moral order exists. Simply claiming that it exists is not proving that it
does. (2.) If man can know only what can be empirically verified, how can he
know that such a moral order exists, since this realm is beyond the realm of
empirical verification? (3.) If one were to claim knowledge of this moral
realm by means other than empirical verification, what would be the basis
for this claim? (4.) Would this other source of knowledge merely assume that
this absolute moral order existed, or invoke some other means of
verification?
(5.) Such a presumed moral order would foster a checklist mentality, which
would mechanically apply abstract laws and principles to situations which
might be legitimate exceptions not meant to be covered by these principles.
(6.) Such an uncritical application of rigid moral principles could result in
reflexive judgments, rather than a nuanced and sensitive evaluation of the
uniqueness of each moral situation. (7.) This approach to morality could
engender a state of psychological infantilism whereby an individual might
flee from the personal responsibility of ethical decision by applying rigid
moral principles. (8.) Such a moral theory might cause a person to become
harsh and inflexible with oneself and self-righteous toward those who did
not share one's definition of "true morality."
(9.) Such a system of morality is simply an excuse to judge and condemn

others to make oneself feel morally superior. (10.) Such an approach to
morality merely fulfills the neurotic needs of those who want to control and
subjugate others to themselves through fear and guilt, and to sanctify this
behavior in the name of an "objective moral order." (11.) Such a morality
appeals to the insecure who need the comfort of fixed and certain answers in
an uncertain universe. (12.) The preceding negative psychological effects on
the human personality prove that the moral theory that causes them cannot
be true. How could a moral theory which claims to be true cause meanness,
pettiness, and warped personalities?
Assignment One: (A.) Evaluate each of the above twelve objections. Are
they valid? If so, why? If not, why not? Be specific and detailed. Do you feel
that you could rebut any of these objections? If so, please do so. (B.) Are
fallacies present? If so, what are their technical names, and explain why
wouldn't they be valid objections? (C.) List the emotional advantages and
disadvantages of holding Platonism as a moral theory. (D.) What conclusions
do you draw from this assignment?
*****
Situationism: This is also known as Situation Ethics or Contextualism.

There is an absolute moral order, but its laws are not meant to be applied
mechanically to every situation. Each situation is different and must be
judged on its own merits and in light of its unique set of circumstances.
These circumstances alter the manner in which each case must be handled.
Moral laws and principles are not so much absolute and unchangeable
standards as initial points of departure which illuminate the general moral
contours of each situation to a certain degree. Every factor and circumstance
in the overall situation must be taken into account. One must consider the
entire context and each case in all of its aspects before coming to a final
decision.
Objections to Situationism: (1.) How does one know that moral laws are
not meant to be applied strictly in every case? The claim that they aren't is
simply an assumption which cannot be proven. (2.) How would one know
that one weren't deluded into thinking that a particular situation was an
exception to an unchanging moral law? (3.) Would sincerity in thinking that
a particular case was an exception constitute legitimate proof? (4.) How
would one know that one were not simply rationalizing a secret desire to
escape the burden of a demanding moral law, and that this secret desire
wasn't creating one's "proof"?
(5.) Situationism is simply a thinly disguised excuse to commit wrong and
appear blameless to oneself. (6.) Situationism is merely self-gratification
which parades about as a "moral theory." (7.) Situationism reflects an
inability or unwillingness to live up to the exacting moral standards of an
absolute moral order which one knows exists but refuses to accept. (8.)
Situationism is an open invitation to live an immoral life in the name of
"enlightened moral theory." (9.) If everyone followed the example of the
situationists, the results would undermine sound moral principle and the
foundations of civil order.
Assignment Two: Evaluate the previous nine objections as you did above
with Platonism.
*****
Moral Relativism: There is no objective, absolute moral order - only the

icy silence of a brutally indifferent universe. Man does not discover any such
moral realm; he invents it to suit his need for sanity and psychological
balance. His moral systems differ from age to age and culture to culture.
These systems permit him to cope and survive in a meaningless universe.
Morality is simply the means man uses to control himself lest social chaos
result. Man's temperament, drives, needs and wishes determine the kind of
morality he fashions for himself. Climate, environment, economics, history,
culture, and social institutions all contribute to shape his moral ideas. Man is
simply the unwitting creature of his conditioning, as are his ideals, beliefs,
values, and moral systems.
Objections to Moral Relativism: (1.)There is no evidence that such an
absolute moral order does not exist. Simply denying that it exists is not
proving that it doesn't.(2.) If man can only know what he can verify
empirically, how can he know that such a moral order does not exist, since
this order is, by definition, beyond the realm of empirical verification? One
could only claim that if such a non-empirically verifiable order did exist, one
could not know of its existence. One could not deny that it existed, because
there could be no means of determining empirically whether it did or
not.The claim that it doesn't exist is simply a positivistic act of faith.
(3.)If one were to deny that such a moral order existed, on what basis would
one make this a priori denial? Would it be an arbitrary assumption that it
didn't exist? (4.)Would attempts to deny its existence be examples of circular
reasoning, since one would be appealing to "proofs" which already assumed
as proven the very thing one would be trying to prove; namely, that such a
moral order didn't exist?(5.)In denying the existence of such an objective
moral order, one would simply be trying to escape the moral burden and
responsibility which that moral order enjoins.(6.)Would one be rationalizing
one's own desires to do wrong with a clear conscience?
(7.)Moral Relativism is nothing else but self-gratification disguised as "moral

theory."(8.)Moral Relativism reflects an inability or unwillingness to live up
to the exacting moral standards of an absolute moral order which one knows
exists but refuses to accept. (9.) Moral Relativism is an open invitation to live
an immoral life in the name of "enlightened ethical theory."(10.)If everyone
followed the example of the moral relativists, the results would undermine
moral principle and the foundations of civil order.(11.)Morals may differ
from age to age and culture to culture with respect to non-essentials, but the
basic moral principles remain the same despite superficial differences.
(12.) Even if one were to grant that morals do change with respect to
essentials from age to age and culture to culture, this would not necessarily
prove that there is no objective moral order. It would only mean that some
ages and cultures were or still are in the process of developing from an
erroneous moral code to one that is progressively more objective, and that,
given more time, they would have discovered or will discover the objective
moral order, or that those ages or cultures which have not discovered this
objective moral order were simply in error because they refused to accept
what they inwardly knew to be the true moral order.
(13.)Man discovers, he does not create or invent this objective moral order. If
he does not discover it, this is because he is insufficiently morally sensitive,
mature, or developed.(14.)Man's needs, drives, and desires have been
implanted in him to help him discover this objective moral order. He would
not have these needs and drives if the object to which they correspond did
not exist.(15.)If there is no absolute moral order, man is no more than an
animal devoid of dignity and ultimate purpose.
Assignment Three: Evaluate these fifteen objections as you did above with
Platonism and Situationism.
*****
Concluding Assignment: This last assignment asked students to: (A.)

show how they would go about proving the truth of any one of these three
moral theories; (B.) discuss three major conclusions they drew from
critiquing them; (C.) discuss what they discovered about the nature of proof?
After this last assignment was submitted, I waited a week and conducted a
discussion about what students had learned - especially whether there had
been any surprises. Needless to say, students were taken aback that all three
theories could be critically evaluated in the same way and that none was
favored over the other. What was unsettling to them was that this kind of
critical analysis, by definition, does not take sides.
They recognized the presence of a number of fallacies in the "objections,"
and understood how much of their own thinking was also fallacious; and
that, once again, they were left on their own as to which of the three moral
theories was the "right answer." They also understood the pull of emotion in
both accepting and rejecting a particular theory, as well as the need for
struggling to free oneself of this emotional influence.
Completely surprising to them, however, was the discovery of how difficult it

is to prove something without, at the same time, arguing in a circle by using
"proofs" which already assume as true the very thing one is trying to prove.

School (Part 7) -- Motives for
Doing a Good Deed or Leading
a Good Life
In Part Six, I described four theoretical assignments for students to begin
thinking critically about three moral theories. My purpose wasn't to "sell"
students on the merits of any one of these theories, but to show the
difficulties in proving any of them.
Today, I'd like to discuss another exercise that asked students to think about
motives for doing a good deed or leading a good life. Again, this was not to
suggest the desirability of any one motive; it was simply to point out that
there were different kinds of motives, some of which were doubtless already
prompting their behavior without, perhaps, their even being aware of it.
I first cited two hypothetical cases. Mr. White informs his local hospital that
he wants to donate 50 million dollars to build a new wing, but only on
condition that it's named after him. Mr. Black wants to do the same thing for
his local hospital, but only on condition that his name be kept secret. They
are both good deeds, since in both cases much good will be done. But is one
of these deeds better than the other? Students weighed in on both sides of
these questions.
Then I gave two more examples. If someone intends to help a person and,
through no fault of his own, ends up hurting him, has he done a good deed?
Likewise, if someone wants to harm a person, and then, to his surprise, ends
up helping him, has he done a good deed? The class differed in their
reactions to these cases as well.
A brief discussion ensued about whether it's the deed itself, the intention
with which the deed is done, or the consequences of the deed that determine
whether an act is good. Again, opinions differed.
For the balance of the class we had a leisurely discussion about 20 motives
for doing a good deed or leading a good life. Students took a few minutes to
quietly consider the following motives:
1. Inability to say no. One is easily pressured, shamed, manipulated,

intimidated, or embarrassed into doing good deeds, even though one doesn't
want to do them. One seems swept away by some inner compulsion of being
unable to say no.
2. Virtue is its own reward. One doesn't drink, overeat, smoke, or dissipate
oneself in any way because one wants to stay healthy and avoid an early
grave.
3. Fear of going to jail. One doesn't want a police record to hurt one's chances
of having a successful life.
4. Hope of heaven. One lives a good life because one wants to enjoy the
rewards of heaven.
5. Fear of hell. One wants to avoid hellfire at all costs because one doesn't
want an eternity of pain.
6. Ambition to become a saint. One wants to go down in the Guinness Book

of World Records for being a saint. One goes to heroic lengths to be kind to
everyone because one is inwardly driven and refuses to be a runner-up in
anything. Success is being number one, and being number two is failure.
7. Feeling good when doing good. One helps people in order to enjoy the
good feeling of helping them, and it's this warm inner glow that one is
seeking.
8. One wants to advance one's reputation of being "a good person." One
waits until the cameras are rolling to help someone or do something that will
attract attention and cause one to be admired.
9. One helps others because one needs to be needed and will do anything to
get this kind of "high" because it validates oneself as a person.
10. Sense of duty - doing good is simply the "right thing to do." One does it
even though one doesn't feel particularly enthusiastic about doing it, but
overcomes oneself because it's one's duty.
11. One simply wants to be kind and helpful to others - period.
12. One wants to work off guilt feelings for being wealthy. One feels blessed
at having been given so much and wants to "give back" by helping others or
doing charity work.
13. The expectations of one's role, position, or office require it. It comes with
the territory and one would look bad by not doing it.
14. One wants to set a good example for others because there's so little good
done in the world that one wants to make it a better place.
15. One wants to make others feel obligated by doing them favors. When one
needs help, one can rely on them.
16. It would look good on one's college application or business resume.
17. One does a good deed to avoid the guilt feelings that would result if one
didn't do it.
18. Love of God, the desire to please him, and not wanting to offend him in
any way.
19. One helps others in order to escape from oneself and one's troubles. One
feels bored and wants to distract oneself by escaping into the troubles of
others.
20. One does charity work because it would advance one's business or career
prospects.
*****
We then discussed each motive, with a view toward considering it as a
"worthy" or "unworthy" reason for performing an action. There were some
motives that virtually everyone considered "worthy" (2, 10, 11, 14, 18) or
"unworthy" (3, 5, 6, 8, 15, 16, 20).
There were other motives about which students differed (1, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17,
and 19). Some saw them as "worthy," and others viewed them as "unworthy."
The explanations given for both points of view, while making sense, did not
convince those who disagreed with them. As William Blake said: "Both read
the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white."
I then took all the "worthy" motives and asked students to rank them
according to what they felt was the best motive in descending order within
that grouping, -- 11 and 18 were tied for first place, followed by 14, 10, and 2.
I then repeated the process with the "unworthy" motives, starting with what
students felt was the unworthiest motive -- 3 and 5 were tied for first place as
the very worst motive, followed by 15, 8, 6, with 16 and 20 tied for last place.
*****
Throughout the process of ranking motives within both categories, it was

apparent that some students were churned up as if undergoing an inner
catharsis or examination of conscience, since peer feedback is always
crucially important to teenagers.
Class discussions of this sort always require a slow, methodical tempo,

enhanced by frequent pauses to enable students to digest what they are
hearing from other class members. The technique of pausing is
indispensable in the classroom since, without it, students feel rushed and
disinclined to engage in discussion. Nothing so conveys the importance of a
topic as the dignified pacing of the questions asked, or so trivializes the
respect that should be accorded to student opinions as unwarranted haste.
This is especially true in America because we Americans are uncomfortable

with silence. To insure a reflective discussion, a teacher needs to be willing to
wait up to 10 or 15 seconds so students have the necessary time to think
before they can say something meaningful when questions are being
explored for the first time.
Toward the end of class, the moment seemed right to ask one final question.
"You sometimes hear this objection about motives: When you consider how
few good deeds are done in this world, you shouldn't look a gift horse in the
mouth, but simply accept a kindness when it's offered and not be concerned
about the possible motive. Just be grateful and don't complicate matters by
wondering why someone is doing it."
To which students responded, in essence, "But motive makes all the

difference in the world! You want to think that someone is helping you for a
selfless, and not some selfish, reason. Because if you felt that someone was
helping you for some selfish reason, you'd rather they wouldn't help you at
all!"

School (Part 8) -- Why the
Jews Didn't Accept Jesus as
the Messiah
One of the most vexed questions for my students over the years was why the
Jews never accepted Jesus as the Messiah or as God. So I sat down and wrote
out the following explanation that tried to shed some light on this question
for them.
In essence, the reason why the Jews did not accept, indeed, could not accept,
Jesus as a divine Messiah was that accepting him as God would have gone
against the entire Jewish tradition. The Jews were monotheists, who
believed in only one God. Throughout antiquity they were continually
surrounded by peoples who were polytheists, who believed in many gods. It
was precisely their monotheism, their belief in only one God, which set the
Jews apart from all other peoples in the ancient world.
In the face of centuries-old political pressure and religious persecution, the

Jews struggled to maintain their belief in one God, thereby preserving what
they felt was a special revelation made to them by God. Polytheistic religions,
which worshipped many gods, were, to the Jews, idolatrous.
This is the reason they could not accept Jesus as God. Accepting him as a
divine being would have meant that there were two Gods, not only the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their traditional God, but also Jesus, whom they
were now being asked to accept also as God.
Accepting him as divine would, therefore, have been tantamount to

repudiating the most basic belief of Judaism, monotheism, and surrendering
to the pagan belief of polytheism. All the persecution the Jews have
undergone over the centuries was because they had the courage to hold on to
their most sacred belief and were even willing to die for it.
Jews and Muslims believe that the belief in the Trinity (God the Father, God
the Son, and God the Holy Spirit), Mary, the angels and saints is simply a
thinly disguised form of polytheism. Scholars of religion maintain that the
belief in Mary as the mother of Jesus is only a variation on the Earth Mother
Goddess worship widespread throughout the ancient Mediterranean world.
The angels and saints are minor deities in the Christian pantheon.
Moreover, there was nothing in Jewish religious tradition that suggested that
the Messiah would ever be a divine being, for that would have gone against
the notion of monotheism. Rather, the Jewish Messiah would be a human
being, a holy person, to be sure, but a human being nonetheless.
The Old Testament honorific title, the "Son of God," did not mean to the
Jews what Christians understand by this phrase. To Jews, this term simply
designated men who were to be accorded reverence because of their unique
relationship to God, but not because they were supposed to be divine beings.
When Christians read the term "the Son of God" in the Old Testament,
they're simply reading a later Christian understanding of that term back into
the Old Testament, which did not have this Christian meaning at all.
To Christian claims that Jesus fulfilled all the Old Testament messianic
prophecies, the Jews responded that, on the contrary, he had fulfilled none
of them. The prophecies Christians cite as proving Jesus was the Messiah,
the Jews dismissed as either too vague in nature to refer specifically to the
Messiah; referring to someone other than the Messiah; as quotations
wrenched out of context; as not fulfilled by Jesus at all; or as inventions
inserted into the New Testament to create the impressions that Jesus had
fulfilled certain Old Testament passages when, in fact, he had not.
Furthermore, not only did the Jews not accept Jesus as the Messiah in the
Christian sense as a divine being, but they also refused to accept him as the
Messiah in the traditional Jewish sense as a political deliverer from centuries
of oppression by various foreign powers. According to their messianic
prophecies understood in this Jewish sense, Jesus failed to fulfill any of these
as well.
Jesus was not the only Messiah rejected by the Jews. There were other
Messiahs as well, both before and after the time of Jesus whom the Jews also
rejected, not only in the ancient world but through the intervening centuries
as well, perhaps a few dozen of them.
This raises the theory of whether the New Testament itself is anti-Semitic,
since the traditional Christian understanding of the Jewish treatment of
Jesus is based solely on the New Testament. Those who contend that the
New Testament is anti-Semitic advance the following argument:
The very people to whom Jesus belonged and who could have validated his
claim of being the Jewish Messiah rejected him completely. This rejection of
Jesus by his own people was both a great embarrassment and a grave threat
to the Early Church, since the continuation of the Jews as the Chosen People
drew into question the legitimacy of this new Church as the new People of
God.
Therefore, according to this theory, the Church had to undermine the

continued legitimacy of the Jews as God's Chosen People by inventing a
number of biblical passages which were given divine authority by being
falsely attributed to Jesus himself.
There is the famous anti-Jewish libel in the Gospel of John. This provided
the Church's explanation for why the Jews rejected Jesus as God's son, and
why Jesus himself had rejected the Jews. The Jews were said to be the
incarnation of the devil, for who else would murder God's son?
"Why do you not understand my speech? Because you are not able to listen
to my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father
you want to do. . . . . . He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do
not hear, because you are not of God (John 8: 43-44, 47).
This "Jews as devils" passage claims divine authority by being placed on the
lips of Jesus. The three other Gospels, written closer to the time of Christ's
life, attribute no such saying to him about such a startling claim. Such a
passage, it is argued, was a later invention of the Church to discredit the
Jews, for if Christ had indeed uttered these words, one of the earlier Gospels
would have certainly mentioned it.
The various negative Gospel accounts of the Pharisees as the opponents of

Christ, and Christ's denunciations of the Pharisees as hypocrites and
oppressors of the Jewish people (e.g., Matthew 23:13-39) are, according to
this view, also historical falsifications. These hostile depictions of the
Pharisees are creations of the period decades after Christ's death when the
Early Church was in conflict with the Pharisees because of the Church's claim
of having replaced Judaism.
It is argued that this later mutual recrimination and hostility between

Judaism and the Early Church were backdated to the time of Jesus when
such hostility had not yet arisen. The Church could thereby strengthen its
case against the Jewish leaders by having Jesus himself denounce them,
when, in fact, he had not.
The following Gospel chapters are often cited as containing negative

portrayals of the Jews: Matthew 12, 21, 23, 27; Mark 14,15; Luke 11, 22, 23;
and John 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 19.
In depicting Christ's Crucifixion by the Romans, this theory alleges, the

writers and editors of the Gospels distorted what actually happened. The
Jews were made responsible for the execution of Jesus, not the Romans. And
not simply the Jews who were standing before Pontius Pilate, but all Jews,
everywhere, then and forever.
To fix this blame of collective guilt on the Jews, the following verse was
invented and put into the mouths of the Jews: "His blood be upon us and on
our children" (Matthew 27:25). This quotation has come down the centuries
as the principal accusation against the Jews and the greatest reason for
Christian hatred of them - the Jews as Christ killers. This is the passage
which legitimized the persecution, torture, and murder of Jews by Christians
for 2,000 years.
The Gospels are the only sources of information on the Crucifixion and the
events leading up to the death of Christ. According to this theory, these
sources are not concerned with historical accuracy, but are, rather, works of
religious teaching and propaganda, designed to strengthen the Christian
faithful in their belief and devotion.
With respect to the trial of Jesus before Pilate, there is no official transcript
of the proceeding, no reliable testimony, other than the Gospels themselves,
which have their own agenda. That agenda was that the Early Church needed
to placate the Romans.
This desire stemmed from Rome's hostility toward the Jews because of the
Jewish War against Rome from 66-70 CE, which culminated in the Roman
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 CE. The resultant Roman anti-
Jewish feeling tended to make every Jewish group an object of Roman
suspicion, hostility, and hatred.
This Roman hatred of the Jews explains why the Early Church wanted to
distance itself from the Jews in the eyes of the Romans, who might otherwise
be tempted to see the Church as just another Jewish sect, a splinter group,
which might promote further resistance against Rome.
The Church, therefore, needed to send a signal to the Romans that it was not
such a Jewish sub-group, but an entirely different religion, which was not
subversive to the Roman Peace. It took pains to make this clear to the
Romans by other New Testament passages, notably "Render therefore unto
Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21) and "Slaves, be subject
to your masters" (Ephesians 6: 5). In other words, this new Church was
saying that one should pay taxes to Rome and that slavery was acceptable.
Because of this need for Roman acceptance and support, the Church also
tried to conciliate Rome by minimizing the responsibility of Pontius Pilate
for the execution of Christ. It did this by placing all the blame on the Jews.
The Roman governor, Pilate, is portrayed as virtually blameless throughout
the entire affair: he is a just man, an innocent victim who tried his best to
have Christ released, but is finally thwarted by the angry mob.
This sympathetic portrayal of Pilate as a righteous man who most reluctantly

yields to Jewish pressure is contradicted by two contemporary Jewish
authors, who depicted him as exceedingly brutal and cruel toward the Jews.
(Philo, Embassy to Gaius; and Flavius Josephus, Jewish Wars, 2; Jewish
Antiquities, 17-18.)
The Gospel of Luke (13: 1-2) also makes mention of a group of Galileans
killed by Pilate. Pilate was finally recalled to Rome after killing a group of
Samaritans. It was thought that his continued presence in Judea would
provoke further Jewish rebellions. These negative portrayals of Pilate
contradict the positive image of him as set forth in the Gospels.
The theory that the New Testament is anti-Semitic finally claims that the
tradition of Western anti-Semitism, from the Christian persecution of the
Jews over the centuries to the Nazi Holocaust itself, is completely
unthinkable without the religious and theological justification provided by
the New Testament.
Far from making persecuting and murdering Jews a crime, an immoral deed,
or a sin, the Gospels were responsible for making such deeds acts of
Christian virtue. To the extent to which this claim is true, the New Testament
deserves much of the blame for the fate that has been visited upon the Jews
since the death of Christ.

School (Part 9)
Aphorisms 1
Aphorisms are an excellent way of encouraging critical and creative
responses when teaching about the Bible. These quotations offer thoughtful
reflections by world authors on a broad range of religious questions. This
exposure to different outlooks from other times and places was designed to
help students overcome the insularity of an exclusively 21st-century middle-
class, American view of the world.
I gave students about 700 of these throughout the six-week unit for class
discussion, homework or extra-credit assignments, or general background
reading. Students were given ten minutes at the beginning of class to read
about 70 of them and choose a few about which they might like to say a few
words. The remaining 30 minutes were spent on sharing their reactions.
A student would read an aphorism and say whatever he or she wanted. There
was no right or wrong answer. A student might agree or disagree with the
aphorism and briefly state why, explain what it meant, or develop whatever
implications were deemed appropriate. Students listened and then offered
another view of that aphorism or moved on to another.
It was always a relaxed, mellow, yet highly instructive discussion, probably
one of the few times in an American high-school classroom when normal,
hyperactive 17-year-olds could slow down and step out of time for 40
minutes to quietly read, reflect, and comment upon some of life's Big
Questions.
An English humanities class should sometimes be an oasis of calm, a

tranquill place of meditation where nothing dramatic need happen, only the
drama of self-discovery as one considers the perennial issues that keep us
human in a world of confusion. Hopefully, students left class a little bit
changed.
As a teacher, I believe that it is critical that college-prep and AP high-school

seniors hear a wide variety of viewpoints on whatever they're taught. Not
that these views are necessarily true, but that these views exist, and a quality
education demands that students hear as many of them as possible to be
prepared for the intellectual challenges of college life.
To do otherwise is to insult their integrity by indoctrinating them into only

one point of view rather than training them to think for themselves. Students
must be able to critically engage with the onslaught of conflicting claims that
await them in college, or they will not survive.
Gemara
If two men claim thy help, and one is thy enemy, help him first.
He who weds for money will have delinquent children.
For everything there is a substitute, except the wife of thy youth.
The life of the mother takes precedence over the life of the unborn child.
A child is inclined to exaggerate its own importance.
A man, who does not teach his son his trade, teaches him robbery.
Take care of the children of the poor, for they are the ones who advance
knowledge.
A man is forbidden to eat until he has fed his beast.
The thief becomes law-abiding when he can no longer steal.
Whoever neglects to visit a friendless sick person is as if he shed his blood.

He who gives alms in secret is better than Moses.
Poverty is more burdensome than fifty plagues.
Midrash
Better is he who gives little to charity from money honestly earned than
someone who gives much from wealth gained through fraud.
Before a man marries, his love goes to his parents; after he marries, his love
goes to his wife.
If a man combats the wave, it overpowers him. If he permits it to roll over
him, the wave passes on.
Woe to high position, for it takes the fear of heaven from him who occupies
it.
In the beginning, sin is like a thread of the spider's web; but in the end, it
becomes like the cable of a ship.
To cause another to sin is even worse than to slay him; it is to bring about his
death not only in this world but in the next.
From the hour that a man thinks in his heart of committing a sin, he is
faithless to God.
Slander is as bad as murder.
He who steals a man's confidence is chief among thieves.
When the wicked are in trouble, they are penitent; but when their trouble is
ended, they return to their evil ways.
If one man says to thee, "Thou art a donkey," do not mind; if two speak thus,
purchase a saddle for thyself.
Zohar
Neglect not thine own poor in order to give to strangers who are poor.
Who are the pious? Those who consider each day as their last and repent.
He who loves without jealousy does not truly love.
A man should build himself a home, plant himself a vineyard, and then bring
into the home a bride. Fools are they who marry while they have no secure
livelihood.
Honor thy father and thy mother, even as thou honorest God; for all three
have been partners in thy creation.
No one is poor as he who is ignorant of the Torah and its commandments,

for this is all that can be considered as wealth.
There is no true justice unless mercy is part of it.
What is the sign of the proud man? He never praises anyone.
The ideal man has the strength of a male and the compassion of a female.
Blaise Pascal
The heart has its reasons of which the mind knows nothing.
Truth on this side of the Pyrenees may be heresy on the other.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from

religious conviction.
There are two kinds of men: the righteous who think they are sinners and
sinners who think they are righteous.
You would not be looking for me [God], if you did not already possess me. So
do not be anxious.
It is not good to be too free. It is not good to have all one needs.
Man's condition: inconstancy, boredom, anxiety.
All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone.
Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of
things beyond it.
Two excesses: to exclude reason and to admit nothing but reason.
The eternal silence of these infinite spaces [of the heavens] fills me with
terror.
Man is only a reed, the feeblest thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed.
The way of God, who disposes all things with gentleness, is to instill religion
into our minds with reasoned arguments and into our hearts with grace, but
attempting to instill it into our hearts and minds with force and threats is to
instill not religion but terror.
Voltaire
The comfort of the rich depends on an abundant supply of the poor.
Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and a few are able to
raise themselves above the ideas of the time.
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes, the greater is their power to harm
us.
If you have two religions in your country, the two will cut each other's
throats; but if you have thirty religions, they will dwell in peace.
Theology is to religion what poisons are to food.
Life is a shipwreck, but we mustn't forget to sing in the lifeboats.
It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished, unless they kill
in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
Men will always be mad and those who think they can cure them are the
maddest of all.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.
Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do.
It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are

wrong.
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

It is not truth in whose possession a man is, or thinks he is, which constitutes
the worth of a man, but rather the honest effort he has made to find it out.
For it is not by the possession of truth that his powers are expanded, but
rather by its investigation. Possession makes us complacent, indolent, and
proud.
If God were to hold shut in his right hand all truth, and in his left hand
nothing by the ever restless quest for truth, though with the condition of my
erring forever, and if he were to say to me, "Choose!" - I would bow humbly
to his left hand, and say, "Father, give! Pure truth is for Thee alone!"
Henri Frederic Amiel
Do not despise your situation; in it you must act, suffer, and prevail. From
every point on earth we are equally near to heaven and to the infinite.
The man who insists upon seeing with perfect clarity before he decides, never
decides. Accept life, and you must accept regret.
It is not what he has, nor what he does, which directly expresses the worth of
a man, but what he is.
It is dangerous to abandon one's self to the luxury of grief; it deprives one of

courage and even of the wish to recover.
There is no curing a sick man who believes he is healthy.
Truth is violated not only by falsehood, but also by silence.
The man who has no inner life is a slave to his surroundings.
To shun one's cross is to make it heavier.
Life is short and we never have too much time for gladdening the hearts of
those who are travelling the dark journey with us.
Nature is unjust and shameless, without morality and without faith. The
human conscience, however, revolts against this law of nature, and to satisfy
its own instinct for justice it has imagined two hypotheses - the idea of an
individual providence, and the hypothesis of another life. In these we have a
protest against nature, which is thus declared immoral and scandalous to the
moral sense.
Simone Weil
To be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the
human heart. Unless one has placed oneself on the side of the oppressed to
feel with them, one cannot understand.
Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being.
Whoever takes up the sword shall perish by the sword. And whoever does not
take up the sword shall perish on the cross.
A hurtful act transfers to others our own self-degradation.
Evil, when we are in its power, is not felt as evil, but as a necessity, or even a
duty.
I can, therefore I am.
We must not wish for the disappearance of our troubles, but for the grace to
transform them.
What scares me is the Church as a social thing. Not only because of her
stains, but by the very fact that it is a social thing.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Silence in the face of evil is itself evil - God will not hold us guiltless. Not to
speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.
We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of
injustice; we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.
The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves its children.
Earthly possessions dazzle our eyes and delude us into thinking that they can
provide security and freedom from anxiety. Yet all the time they are the very
source of anxiety.
The first service we owe to others is to listen to them.
See the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the
outcast, the suspects, the maltreated, the powerless, the oppressed, the
reviled - in short, from the perspective of those who suffer.
Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians
should give more offense, shock the world far more than they are doing now.
The Christian should take a stronger stand in favor of the weak rather than
considering first the possible right of the strong.

School (Part 10) - The Noble
Lie
"The Noble Lie," known also by its Latin name of "Pia Fraus," was another
theory students considered in their study of the Bible. In ancient times, the
theory goes, there was so much violent crime that leaders despaired of
controlling it. Murder, rape, theft, and lying were so rampant that mankind
was destroying itself. So the leaders invented the story that the gods, angered
by this lawlessness, had appeared and given them laws to insure moral
behavior. If people disobeyed these commands, they would be punished both
here and hereafter. This threat terrified people into obedience since it was
the gods themselves who had given these laws. The leaders lied, but for a
noble cause -- to save their people from extinction.
Comparative religionists might view this theory in the following way:
Country/City, God/Angel, Recipient, Law/Scripture, Date

Egypt, Thoth, Menes, Laws, c. 3040 BCE
Mesopotamia, Shamash, Hammurabi, Code, c. 1750 BCE
Israel, Yahweh, Moses, Ten Commandments, c. 1280 BCE
Sparta, Apollo, Lycurgus, Constitution, c. 700 BCE
Rome, Egeria, Numa Pompilius, Laws, c. 700 BCE
Arabia, Gabriel, Muhammad, Koran, c. 610 CE
New York State, Moroni, Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, c. 1830 CE
*****
I gave the above chart to students and asked them to interpret it in different
ways. After a few minutes, they offered four interpretations:
1. These Gods/angels gave these laws or scriptures to all the recipients.
2. Only one God/angel in different guises appeared to all the recipients.
3. Only one God/angel appeared to only one of the recipients.
4. None of these Gods/angels appeared to anyone.
Students thought that Number One was possible, but that few in the West
would accept it because most believe in only one God.
Number Two was also possible because God could have adapted himself to
each culture.
Number Three was likewise possible, although every culture would view
itself as the only recipient.
Number Four embodied the Noble Lie.
*****
As an example of how one historian saw the Noble Lie as maintaining order
in the ancient world, I quoted Edward Gibbon's celebrated passage from The
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "The various modes of worship
which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as
equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as
equally useful."
I then asked students to critique this theory, based on their nine-week study
of critical thinking and the classical Greeks. Their response was that it was
only a theory since there was no empirical evidence to support it. It was also
a fallacy of origins, which presumed what might have given rise to these
religious codes, but, again, presumption was not fact but groundless
speculation, which purported to explain what transpired in some mythical
past, yet offered no proof.
Were the theory true, would it have been morally justifiable for the leaders to
lie to their people? Some thought that it wasn't, because lying is always
wrong and that this behavior could degenerate into habitual deceit. Others
thought that it was justified because it was the lesser of two evils - a lie is
better than the destruction of a people.
Did the Ten Commandments deter crime today? A few students thought that
they did, given the high incidence of crime, while most thought that fear of
prison and loss of reputation were the more likely deterrents.
I mentioned Sigmund Freud's The Future of an Illusion, which discusses the

therapeutic need for the belief in God and an afterlife to give humanity hope
and meaning in an unjust world. Some students rejected that these beliefs
were illusions and dismissed Freud's view as either an "ad hominem" or a
fallacy of origins, since he equated the psychological motives for holding
these beliefs with their alleged falsehood.
Other students claimed that people believe in God and an afterlife only
because they are conditioned to do so from childhood, but that they could
just as well be conditioned not to believe them.
Others felt that these two beliefs served the needs of the powerful to have
people bear up under poverty or oppression, thereby making religion a
means for controlling a population. Others dismissed this reasoning as an ad
hominem or a fallacy of origins because the promotion of religion to
neutralize rebellion doesn't disprove the claims of religion, but simply
illustrates the political uses to which religion can be put.
Could people act morally if they thought there weren't a God and an afterlife?
Some students felt that most people couldn't, whereas others disagreed.
Atheists lead moral lives, and believers in God still commit crime.
Others thought that crime had more to do with poverty or environment than
with religious beliefs. Growing up in a culture of violence or war would
predispose some to act in criminal ways, but others cited that the wealthy
also commit crimes in times of peace. Human beings were too mysterious to
be pigeonholed into neat little theories.
What about the theory of determinism -- that people lack free will and are
compelled to do things over which they have no control. Some saw this as
only an excuse for wrongdoing, while others thought that determinism would
undermine the legal system, which assumes the ability to choose freely
between right and wrong.
If there was no free will, would government publicly admit it since criminals
would claim that they were forced into crime by an inner compulsion?
Students felt that no government could afford to make such an admission.
Would that mean that the belief in free will is a Noble Lie? Students weren't
sure.
Was something wrong because society says it's wrong, or does society say it's
wrong because it is wrong? (Long silence, so I rephrased the question.) If
God exists, are certain actions wrong because he says they're wrong, or does
he say they're wrong because they are wrong? (No response.)
If it's the first option - that things are wrong because God says they're wrong,
does that mean that they aren't wrong in and of themselves, but only because
God says they are, and that he could just as easily have said the opposite?
(No response.)
And if it's the second option -- that God says certain actions are wrong
because they are wrong, does that mean that God has no say in the matter at
all, but is simply telling us that right and wrong exist independently of his
saying so? Put another way, is God forced to go along with something that
has already been decided by the nature of things and over which he has no
control? (No response.)
I concluded class with the following reflections. Do you see how all of these
questions are interconnected -- the Noble Lie, its justifiability, the survival of
a society, the Ten Commandments as a deterrent against crime, free will and
determinism, the nature of right and wrong, responsibility before the law?
They are among the many questions that have been argued about for
centuries, and an education entails knowing about these controversies, and
about how the Bible fits into this broader cultural conversation that has been
going on in the West since before the Greeks.
These are questions that go to the heart of what it means to be human in this
or in any century. The Bible keeps these questions alive, not so much by the
answers it gives as by the many questions it provokes in the reader,
questions which are rarely if ever raised in our modern world.
Any book that does that is well worth the reading.

School -- Part 11
Aphorisms 2 - Suspending Judgment
In choosing aphorisms, I always made a point of exposing students to
different viewpoints and cautioned them not to accept any aphorism as true
until they had critically evaluated its claim. I suggested that they think of at
least three strong arguments both for and against each aphorism's truth. It's
a good way to give students practice in critical reading while suspending
judgment - an indispensable skill for college and life.
While students were discussing these aphorisms, I withdrew to the

background and simply allowed things to happen. An easy informality
descended on the class as each student spoke and the others listened. If there
was a particularly insightful aphorism that might otherwise be passed over, I
would ask students to comment on its meaning. However, I was usually
silent lest they become dependent on the teacher, thereby undercutting the
purpose of these discussions - accustoming them to think for themselves
while speaking in class.
If asked to explain an aphorism, I would first ask for a volunteer, briefly
comment myself, or suggest that it was sometimes good to cultivate the
mystery of things by waiting until the meaning suggested itself at some later
time.
*****
Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child
cannot be a true system. - Thomas Paine
Prayer does not change God, but it changes him who prays. - Soren
Kierkegaard
The god of the cannibals will be a cannibal, of the crusaders a crusader, and
of the merchants a merchant. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide. - R.
W. Emerson
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty God, or no

Gods. -- Thomas Jefferson
The unbeliever believes more than he thinks, the believer less than he thinks.
- Franz Grillparzer
We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us
love one another. - Jonathan Swift
Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind. - Albert

Einstein
Dogma is nothing else but the express prohibition of thinking. - Ludwig

Feuerbach
I want nothing to do with any religion concerned with keeping the masses
satisfied to live in hunger, filth, and ignorance. - Jawaharlal Nehru
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the belief that the gods are on
the side of the Government. - Bertrand Russell
There's a Bible on that shelf here. But I keep it next to Voltaire - poison and
antidote. - Bertrand Russell
I read the Bible to understand what is happening today. - Elie Wiesel
It belongs to the depth of the religious spirit to have felt forsaken, even by
God. - Alfred North Whitehead
The Church is by definition countercultural. If the Church is singing the

same tune as everybody else, who needs it? - Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk
A good life is the only religion. - Thomas Fuller
Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two
are not rivals. They are complementary. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
You may go over the world and you will find that every form of religion
which has breathed upon this earth has degraded women. There is not one
which has not made her subject to man. - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
God makes everything out of nothing. But the nothingness shows through. -
Paul Valery
The wish to pray is in itself a prayer. - George Bernanos
God preordained for his own glory and the display of his mercy and justice a
part of the human race to eternal salvation without any merit of their own,
and another part in just punishment of their sin to eternal damnation. - John
Calvin
How can great wisdom care so little about the torments of innocent
creatures? How can a merciful God allow all this to happen and keep silent? -
Isaac B. Singer
Religion has not civilized man, man has civilized religion. - Robert G.
Ingersoll
I can't believe in a God who only saves people who live in certain latitudes. If
I had happened to be born in Delhi, I'd probably be a Hindu, or in Iran a
Muslim. - Archbishop Robert Runcie
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. - Shakespeare
As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport. -
Shakespeare
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world,
just as it is the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the masses. -
Karl Marx
All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them, are based on the
concept of God as a senile delinquent. - Tennessee Williams
My father considered a walk in the mountains as the equivalent of church-

going. - Aldous Huxley
No one has the capacity to judge God. We are drops in that limitless ocean of
mercy. - Mahatma Gandhi
There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it. - George
Bernard Shaw
It is not disbelief that is dangerous to our society; it is belief. - G. B. Shaw
You cannot criticize the New Testament. It criticizes you. - John Chapman
The true Christian is in all countries a pilgrim and a stranger. - George

Santayana
The Bible is literature, not dogma. - G. Santayana
He loses nothing who loses not God. - George Herbert
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? - Ben
Franklin
The biblical point of view . . . proclaims that the way, the real way, from the
creation to the kingdom is trod not on the surface of success, but in the
depths of failure. - Martin Buber
The religion of one seems madness to another. - Thomas Browne
Children need models rather than critics. - Joseph Joubert
We can believe in our own religion without having to feel that it is the sole
repository of truth. - Arnold Toynbee
Profound ignorance makes a man dogmatic. - Jean de La Bruyere

Despise the flesh, for it passes away; be solicitous for your soul, which will
never die. - Saint Basil
All religions are ancient monuments to superstition, ignorance, and ferocity.

- Baron D' Holbach
The danger of success is that it makes us forget the world's dreadful injustice.
- Jules Renard
What mean and cruel things men do for the love of God. - W. Somerset
Maugham
I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn
human actions, but to understand them. - Baruch Spinoza
You are not a human being in search of a spiritual experience. You are a
spiritual being in immersed in a human experience. - Teilhard de Chardin
Neither great poverty nor great riches will hear reason. - Henry Fielding
All God wants of man is a peaceful heart. - Meister Eckhart
Suffering is the substance of life and the root of personality, for it is only
suffering that makes us persons. - Miguel de Unamuno
Augustine
In the absence of justice, what is government but organized robbery.
Love [God] and do what you like.
What does love look like? It has the hands to help others. It has the feet to
hasten to the poor and needy. It has the eyes to see misery and want. It has
the ears to hear the sighs and sorrows of men.
Thomas Aquinas
There is but one Church in which men find salvation, just as outside the ark
of Noah it was not possible for anyone to be saved.
The things that we love tell us what we are.
That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more
abundantly, they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell.
If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is
much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one
convicted of heresy.
Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed
tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the male sex, while the
production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.
Martin Luther
I more fear what is within me than what comes from without.
I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I
have placed in God's hands that I still possess.
A theologian is born by living, nay dying and being damned, not by thinking,
reading and speculating.
The fewer the words, the better the prayer.
LaoTzu
Darkness within darkness - the gateway to all understanding.
He who is contented is rich.
Silence is the source of great strength.
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.
Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone
deeply gives you courage.
Health is the greatest possession. Contentment is the greatest treasure.

Confidence is the greatest friend. Non-being is the greatest joy.
Simplicity, patience, and compassion - these are the greatest treasures.
It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow
the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty
as his own nature reveals it, never errs.
Life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes. Do not resist them - that
only creates sorrow.
Let reality be reality. Let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they
like.
Only those who know internal peace can give it to others.
Michel de Montaigne
How many things served us yesterday for articles of faith, which today are
fables!
Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm, and yet he will be
making gods by dozens.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.
The laws of conscience, which we pretend to be derived from nature, proceed

from custom.
It is putting a very high price on one's conjectures to have someone roasted

alive on their account.
Immanuel Kant
Enlightenment is man's leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is
the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another. Such
immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack
of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided
by another. Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own intelligence! is
therefore motto of the Enlightenment.
Through laziness and cowardice a large part of mankind, even after nature
has freed them from alien guidance, gladly remain immature. It is because of
laziness and cowardice that it is so easy for others to usurp the role of
guardians. It is so comfortable to remain a minor!
If I have a book which provides meaning for me, a pastor who has conscience
for me, a doctor who will judge my diet for me, then I do not need to exert
myself. I do not have any need to think; if I can pay, others will take over the
tedious job for me. The guardians who have kindly undertaken the
supervision will see to it that by far the largest part of mankind . . . should
consider the step into maturity not only as difficult but also as very
dangerous.
Victor Hugo
Adversity makes men, and prosperity makes monsters.
Our acts make or mar us; we are the children of our deeds.
Have no fear of robbers or murderers. They are external dangers. We should
fear ourselves.
Prejudices are the real robbers; vices the real murderers. The great dangers
are within us. Why worry about what threatens our heads or purses? Let us
think instead of what threatens our souls.
Who gives to the poor, lends to God.

School -- Part 12
Aphorisms 3 - Critical Thinking
Students also received aphorisms for extra credit and homework. In the
assignment below, students reacted to any 10 aphorisms from each of the
three featured authors by giving two reasons why they agreed or disagreed
with each aphorism. I also asked students to say a few words about each
author's outlook, limitations, and bias.
It's essential that seniors learn not only to support their opinions with
specific reasons and generalize on the basis of concrete data, but also to get
underneath the intangibles of what an author is saying and what that says
about an author's mentality.
Too many students reach senior year without having learned these skills and
skate over surfaces on facile clichs. Senior-year teachers are a school's last
quality-control officers who must give students practice in learning these
skills, which should be taught in freshman year and reinforced every year
thereafter.
Albert Schweitzer
A good conscience is the invention of the devil.
No one has a right to say to another: Because we belong to each other as we

do, I have a right to know all your thoughts.
Not one of us knows what effect his life produces, and what he gives to
others. That is hidden from us and must remain so, though we are often
allowed to see some little fraction of it so that we may not lose courage.
Anyone who proposes to do good must not expect people to roll rocks out of
his way, but must accept his lot calmly if they even roll a few more upon it.
A man is ethical only when the life of plants and animals is as sacred to him
as that of his fellowmen, and when he devotes himself to all life that is in
need of help.
To the man who is truly ethical all life is sacred, including that which from
the human point of view seems lower on the scale.
Reverence for life is the highest court of appeal.
Humanitarianism consists in never sacrificing a human being to a purpose.
Evil is what annihilates, hampers, or hinders life.
Search and see if there is not some place where you can invest your
humanity.
The highest knowledge is to know that we are surrounded by mystery.
A man must not try to force his way into the personality of another.
To plunge your whole soul in Bach is exactly the same as doing theology.
Bach, like every lofty religious mind, belongs not to the church but to
religious humanity, and... any room becomes a church in which his sacred
works are performed and listened to with devotion.
The great men are not those who solved the problems, but those who
discovered them.
Whenever any animal is forced into the service of man, the sufferings which
it has to bear on that account are the concern of every one of us.
Have no fear of natural science - it brings us nearer to God.
All thinking must renounce the attempt to explain the universe. We cannot
understand what happens in the universe. What is glorious in it is united
with what is full of horror. What is full of meaning is united to what is
senseless.
Whoever is spared personal pain must feel himself called to help in
diminishing the pain of others. We must all carry our share of the misery
which lies upon the world.
Sometimes our light goes out but is blown into flame by another human
being. Each of us owes deepest thanks to those who have rekindled this light.
The first step in the evolution of ethics is a sense of solidarity with other
human beings.
Do something wonderful. People may imitate you.
Example is leadership.
Seek always to do some good somewhere Every man has to seek in his own
way to realize his true worth. You must give some time to your fellow man.
For remember, you don't live in a world all your own. Your brothers are here,
too.
I have always held firmly to the thought that each one of us can do a little to
bring some portion of misery to an end.
The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives.
Constant kindness can accomplish much. As the sun makes ice melt,
kindness causes misunderstanding, mistrust, and hostility to evaporate.
Do not let Sunday be taken from you. If your soul has no Sunday, it becomes
an orphan.
There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats.
He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lakeside.

He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word:
"Follow thou me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfill for our
time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or
simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which
they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they
shall learn in their own experience Who He is.
Carl Gustav Jung

People will do anything, no matter how absurd in order to avoid facing their
own soul.
Too much of the animal disfigures the civilized human being; too much
culture makes a sick animal.
All religions are therapies for the sorrows and disorders of the soul.
One of the main functions of organized religion is to protect people against a

direct experience of God.
Psychological and spiritual development requires a greater capacity for

anxiety and ambiguity.
Children are educated by what the grown-up is and not by his talk.
Man needs difficulties; they are necessary for health.
Man cannot endure a meaningless life.
Meaninglessness inhibits fullness of life and is therefore equivalent to illness.

Meaning makes a great many things endurable - perhaps everything.
Loneliness does not come from having no one about one, but from being
unable to communicate the things that seem important to oneself, or from
holding other views which others find inadmissible.
Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or

morphine or idealism.
The most intense conflicts, if overcome, leave behind a sense of security and
calm that is not easily disturbed.
Where love rules, there is no will to power.
It depends on how we look at things, and not how they are in themselves.
The greatest and most important problems of life are all fundamentally
insoluble. They can never be solved but only outgrown.
It is a fact that cannot be denied: the wickedness of others becomes our own
wickedness because it kindles something evil in our own hearts.
I have treated many hundreds of patients. Among those in the second half of
life - that is to say, over 35 - there has not been one whose problem in the last
resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life.
We cannot change anything until we accept it. Condemnation does not
liberate, it oppresses.
The least of things with a meaning is worth more in life than the greatest
things without it.
In each of us is another whom we do not know.
If a path before you is clear, you're probably on someone else's.
The time is a critical one [being about 35 years old], for it marks the
beginning of the second half of life, when a metanoia, a mental
transformation, not infrequently occurs.
A doctor is effective only when he himself is affected. Only the wounded

physician heals.
Life is a battlefield. It always has been and always will be; and if it weren't so,
existence would come to an end.
Real liberation comes not from glossing over or repressing painful states of
feeling, but only from experiencing them to the full.
You are what you do, not what you say you'll do.
Unless you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you
will call it fate.
Mistakes are, after all, the foundations of truth, and if a man doesn't know
what a thing is, it is at least an increase of knowledge if he knows what it is
not.
La Rochefoucauld
We all have sufficient strength to bear the misfortunes of others.
A refusal of praise is a desire to be praised twice.
Excessive eagerness in paying off an obligation is a kind of ingratitude.
We think very few people sensible except those who are of our opinion.
We should often be ashamed of our noblest actions if all their motives were
known.
In the adversity of our best friends we often find something which does not
displease us.
Our virtues are most often merely vices in disguise.
Reconciliation with our enemies is only a desire of bettering our condition, a

weariness of contest, and a fear of some disaster.
What we call liberality is most often only the vanity of giving, which we like
better than the thing we give.
In jealousy there is more self-love than love.
What renders the vanity of others insupportable to us is that it wounds our

own.
However much laziness and timidity keep us in the path of duty, virtue gets
all the credit for it.
We are so used to disguising ourselves to others, that finally we disguise

ourselves to ourselves.
Those who fancy they have merit take a pride in being unfortunate to
persuade others and themselves that they are worthy to be the butt of
fortune.
The pomp of funerals is more for the vanity of the living than for the honor of
the dead.
The evil that we do does not attract to us so much persecution and hatred as
our good qualities.
Self-interest, which is accused of all our crimes, often deserves to be praised

for our good actions.
When our vices leave us, we flatter ourselves with the belief that it is we who
have left them.
We weep to have the reputation of a tender heart; we weep to be pitied; we

weep to be wept over; in short, we avoid the shame of not weeping.
We acknowledge little failings only to persuade ourselves that we have no

great ones.
No one deserves to be praised for his goodness unless he has the strength of
character to be wicked. All other goodness is generally nothing but indolence
and impotence of will.
If we conquer our passions it is more from their weakness than from our
strength.
We would rather speak ill of ourselves than not talk of ourselves at all.
Teaching the Bible As

School (Part 13)
The Demythologization of Scripture
The universe struck terror into primitive man. Hostile forces lurked
everywhere, leaving him in fear and uncertainty. So he created myths -
stories that brought him meaning and comfort. Sickness, disaster, and death
now had a reason. These had lost their irrational nature and were explained
by the myths. When his fields remained barren, when his animals fell sick,
when his child was taken in the first bloom of life, he "knew" these things
happened for a reason and purpose.
Perhaps he had broken a taboo, entered a sacred precinct, or somehow

offended a god. Whatever the reason, he "knew" he had done something
wrong, even unknowingly, but done all the same and was now being
punished. Or perhaps it was simply "the will of the gods," to whose
inscrutable ways he must humbly submit.
This mythological framework explained not only the events in his life, but
also those of the universe. The creation of the world, the change in the
seasons, and natural disasters were all explained by the myths. He need
never search for an answer - his myths told him why and granted him peace.
His myths enabled him to face the Unknown. By fitting everything into his
mythical scheme of things, he could assign meaning to whatever occurred
and move forward. No matter what befell him, they gave him courage and
the strength to endure. Life was not random and senseless, but in the hands
of the gods. But most of all, the myths silenced the whispers that came in the
night that, perhaps, there might be no purpose at all.
He also "knew" that the earth was flat; that the sun moved around the earth;
that there existed a three-storied world, with the gods above, man on earth,
and demons below; that angels carried messages to him from the gods; that
demons lurked in the darkness to lead him astray or possess his soul; that
miracles could happen; that prophets and soothsayers could foretell the
future; and that bliss or torment awaited in the world to come.
Such was the view of the ancient world according to Rudolf Bultmann (1884-
1976), one of Germany's pre-eminent theologians and New Testament
scholars. Since antiquity had this prescientific view of the world with its
mythical understanding of human existence, it was only natural, argued
Bultmann, that the New Testament authors shared this outlook as well.
The problem is that modern man does not, with the unfortunate result that
he cannot properly understand what the Scriptures are saying because its
obsolete view of the world gets in the way. It has become an obstacle for
grasping the message the Gospels at one time conveyed, but no longer can
because, since the advent of science, its readers inhabit a different world.
They cannot identify with New Testament people, whose lives were
encompassed by malignant spirits plotting their downfall; who were helpless
to save themselves except through the intervention of a divine redeemer who
had come down from beyond this fallen world as the Son of God, pre-existent
from all eternity, a savior born of a virgin, but who expected that the world
would end during his lifetime; who died on the cross to atone for the breach
between man and God, descended into hell, rose from the dead, and
ascended into heaven to expiate some primordial wrong incurred by the first
parent, Adam; whose descendants were also guilty of an Original Sin by
being born, and living in expectation of the cosmic woes of the End Times
and the Final Judgment by one coming upon the clouds of heaven, who
would decide the fates of both the living and dead, of whom those who had
proved loyal to their savior would join him forever in the Kingdom of God,
while the rest were consigned to the fire which would never be quenched.
Bultmann claims that this is a story familiar to New Testament times when
such apocalyptic and Gnostic redemption myths were all too real, but a story
and the manner of its telling many today cannot understand, and about
which they can only shake their head in dismay. A time of angels and
demons and demonic possessions; a time of prophecies and miracles when
the laws of nature were routinely suspended - yet this is not the world of
today when many cannot believe such things, which seem bizarre, dreamlike,
and strange.
Men and women today live in cityscapes of disenchantment and crime,

where the laws of cause and effect are never suspended, and where they are
far removed from the world and outlook of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Many cannot relate to the bucolic, idyllic Gospel landscapes because their
scientific worldview makes it hard to take seriously. The unfortunate result,
laments Bultmann, is that they lose patience and fail to attend, to their
irreparable loss, to what the Gospels are saying.
To win these people back to discover the treasures of the New Testament,
Bultmann suggested that we must draw a distinction between the underlying
message ("kerygma") of what the Gospels are saying and the prescientific
language in which their message is couched. Scripture must be
"demythologized," or shorn of its mythical worldview, in order to become
intelligible to a modern audience who will profit from that message now
obscured by its obsolete way of seeing the world.
Every age must discover the Gospels anew by finding a way of making their
meaning intelligible and relevant to a new generation with its view of the
world. Bultmann found that language in Martin Heidegger's philosophy of
Existentialism, which dealt with the here-and-now world as experienced by
contemporary men and women, who have a right to understand what the
Gospel is saying in a way that makes sense to them.
Bultmann's Marburg Sermons: This World and the Beyond contains clear
examples of how the Gospels can be preached in a way that helped his
congregation cope with Hitler, World War II, defeat, and the destruction of
Germany. Later readers have also found in Leo Tolstoy's novella, The Death
of Ivan Ilyich, a moving portrayal of a man who realizes too late that his
entire life has been devoid of meaning and purpose for the things in life that
really matter.
Many living today cope with an uncertain world where social and political
forces threaten them from all sides, and the only certainty is the bitter
struggle of survival against conditions that seem beyond changing. Many
confront death after a meaningless life, which they try to forget by diversions
that make their existence even more hopeless. They are plagued by questions
about how to remain true to themselves, how even to know who they are or
how to keep themselves whole in a world that tears them apart; where they
are hard-pressed to find even a rudimentary code of values, and so they
heroically struggle to cobble one together from the wreckage of their lives in
cities or suburbs, amidst poverty, wealth, unemployment, sickness, broken
marriages, and alcohol; where loneliness is pandemic, and their desperate
attempts to reach out in real conversation soon become a ritualized keeping-
at-bay, and heartfelt words turn to chatter that masks who they are.
These are but a few of today's demons and furies never addressed by the New
Testament's outdated language and view of the world, which Bultmann
wanted to strip away from what, to many, remains a sealed book. He wanted
pastors to talk about the personal crosses that people daily carried by
applying the healing balm of the Gospels to the wounds of today.
Making the Gospels relevant to the personal needs of one's life was a basic
pastoral problem faced by the clergy in the modern world, and
demythologizing the New Testament was simply his attempt at solving it. He
encouraged pastors to relate their preaching more closely to the lives of their
people.
However, he felt that some pastors might not even be aware of this problem
because, growing up with the Gospels, they naturally assumed that their
people did too, but many did not because of the changing times and
conditions of the 20th century. And if they were aware, they might lack the
confidence to preach in this way trained as they were in a traditional manner
when pastors were dealing with different congregations, which knew their
Scripture since childhood at home.
Seminaries also needed to address this problem by preparing pastors for

these new congregations, many of whom lacked a Gospel background. This
called for a new kind of evangelization, a new way of instructing people in
reading the Gospels in a way that fostered a more mature spirituality.
He was convinced that there existed an audience only too eager for the Word
to be preached in the way they wanted to hear. They were looking for
guidance in unlocking the Gospels for their personal needs, rather than what
seemed irrelevant intrusions into their lives from a past that had nothing to
say to their modern times.
It should be stressed that Bultmann was also very much aware that there
were many in Europe, the Americas, and other parts of the world where
Christians resided who experienced none of these problems. These men and
women were at home with the Gospel and, although they, too, lived in the
present, they had no difficulty in understanding its message because they
saw in its language a beautiful poetry that imparted strength and comfort by
continual reading.
However, these were not the people Bultmann was talking about, but
millions of others who, for whatever reason, couldn't identify with the Gospel
world or make sense of its message. This was the audience he wanted to
reach.
It goes without saying that Bultmann's agenda unleashed a firestorm of

controversy from every quarter. Some thought that he had gone too far with
his critique of biblical language and doctrine, aspects of which he claimed
were no longer meaningful in the modern world, and that in his attempt to
save Christianity, he was unwittingly destroying it.
Others lamented that he had not gone far enough by failing to draw the
ultimate conclusions that flowed from his theory -- that although he rejected
the virgin birth, the atonement, the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension
of Jesus, he continued to believe in revelation and the divinity of Jesus.
Others believed that he had, indeed, rescued Christianity for many modern
men and women, and that, thanks to him, many read the Gospels and
understand that what they are reading is simply a metaphorical expression of
a spiritual vision of life, a symbolical expression that, regrettably, is too often
literalized when interpreting the Gospel to congregations in search of
nourishment, but given only abstract theology that leaves them unmoved.
Still others claimed that he had turned his back on the Gospel message,
reducing it to a philosophical fad, whereas the Gospel was an experience that
transported them beyond the things of this world to become one with God.
Whatever he accomplished, for good or ill, New Testament scholarship has

been transformed forever because of his influence. Such biblical
developments are important for college-prep and AP high-school seniors to
know about a book that still is alive and evokes such diverse reactions after
thousands of years. His theory of demythologization enabled students to
understand how the past is an infinitely malleable substance, the lessons of
which can be made to relate to the modern world despite the disparity
between the past and the present.
School -- Part 14
A phorisms 4 -- The Greeks on the Ethical Life
The Greek view of the ethical life is an interesting contrast to that of the
Bible's. A different tone and mood pervade these aphorisms than what one
finds in the Old and New Testaments. More significantly, the motivation for
leading an ethical life is worlds apart from that of biblical morality.
These aphorisms seem surrounded by a profound silence which invites the

reader to think about the implications of what is being said. There is little
emotion in the language employed, but simply an appeal to the mind for
quiet reflection. Thinking through the meaning of each aphorism is the only
portal one can enter to move beyond the marbled words to the pulsating
humanity behind them.
Students had already been exposed to the Greek mind and sensibility during
the first nine weeks of the course when they studied Edith Hamilton's classic,
The Greek Way, supplemented with interpretations by Johann
Winckelmann, Jacob Burckhardt, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ulrich von
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Gilbert Murray, Werner Jaeger, and Pierre
Hadot, as well as extensive training in critical thinking throughout the nine
weeks. But these aphorisms opened up a deepened awareness of the Greek
temperament, as well as underscoring the marked contrast between this
worldview and the biblical understanding of human existence.
In this assignment I asked students to discuss three questions: the difference

between the Greek and biblical motivation for an ethical life; the strengths
and weaknesses of each motivational system; and the student's opinion as to
which system would be more effective in motivating ethical behavior, and
discussing the reasons why.
With respect to the third question, it didn't matter which system was chosen;
what mattered was the cogency of the reasons for choosing it.
For extra credit, a student could argue the opposite case as well.
Epictetus
Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants.
What matters isn't what happens, but how you react to what happens.
There is only one way to happiness -- cease worrying about the things which
are beyond our control.
Circumstances don't make the man, but only reveal him to himself.
Who is rich? Whoever is content.
Be careful about what images and ideas you let enter your mind.
All of philosophy is contained in only two words: endure and renounce.
God has entrusted me with myself.
As you think, so you become.
When misfortune befalls you, ask yourself how you can use it to become a
better person.
It is difficulties that show what we are.
Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to happen, but, instead,
want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well.
Keep company only with those who uplift you - those who call forth your
best.
We cannot choose our external circumstances, but we can always choose how
we respond to them.
Don't seek what is good from without, but seek it within yourself, or you will
never find it. The trials we endure introduce us to our strengths.
Plato
The greatest wealth is to live content with little.
People can either nourish you and help you grow as a person, or stunt your
growth and make you wilt and die.
Be as you wish to appear.

The body is a tomb.
Employ your time in improving yourself by other men's writings, so that you
shall gain easily what others have labored hard for.
Worthless people live only to eat and drink; people of worth eat and drink
only to live.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad
people will find a way around them.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life
is when men are afraid of the light.
Let parents bequeath to their children not riches, but the spirit of reverence.
The first and greatest victory is to conquer yourself.
No evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death.
No one knows whether death, which people fear as the greatest evil, may not
be the greatest good.
The unexamined life is not worth living.
Good actions give strength to ourselves and inspire good actions in others.
Riches can never make a bad man at peace with himself.
God knows best what is good for us.
We cannot be better than in seeking to become better.
Aristotle
Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.
Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.
To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.
The antidote for fifty enemies is one friend.

Misfortune shows those who are not really friends.
Time crumbles things; everything grows old under the power of Time and is
forgotten over the passage of time.
It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting

it.
Man is a goal-seeking animal. His life only has meaning if he is reaching out
and striving toward his goals.
The aim of the wise is not to secure pleasure, but to avoid pain.
The ideal man bears the accidents of life with dignity and grace, making the
best of circumstances.
Youth is easily deceived because it is quick to hope.
The young are permanently in a state resembling intoxication.
The young have exalted notions because they have not been humbled by life
or learned its necessary limitations.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence is not one act, but a habit.
The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the
dead.
Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.
Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth.
Democritus
Happiness does not dwell in herds of cattle or in gold.
By desiring little, a poor man makes himself rich.
One must compare one's own life with that of those in worse cases, and
consider oneself fortunate, reflecting on their sufferings and being so much
better off than they.
Virtue consists not in avoiding wrongdoing, but not even wanting to do

wrong.
Do not say or do what is base, even when you are alone.
Courage makes misfortunes small.
Epicurus
We must free ourselves from the prison of everyday affairs and politics.
It is useless to ask the gods for what one can obtain for oneself.
It is better to be free of fear and lying on a bed of straw than to own a couch
of gold and a lavish table and yet have no peace of mind.
Live your life without attracting attention.
Euripides
Moderation is the noblest gift of heaven.
This is courage in man -- to bear unflinchingly what heaven sends.
Happiness is brief.
The designs of heaven are indeed frightening and inscrutable.
Time will show what you are.
Take heart. The gods bring mortals many good outcomes even from
desperate situations.
If gods do anything shameful, they are not gods.
How quickly the gods upset the fortunes of the prosperous!
Understand mankind's condition and do not grieve beyond measure: You are
not alone in being visited by misfortune.
You cannot prosper without effort; and it is shameful for a young man to be
unwilling to work hard.
Men's anger from disaster is terrible, and their hearts begin to lose their way.
Do not provoke the gods, but be content with your lot. Desire for the
impossible makes many lose what they already have.
Since you are mortal you must expect also to suffer as mortals do; do you
claim the life of a god when you are but human?
A grieving heart is unstable.
Events will take their course; it is not good being angry at them.
Do not consider painful what is good for you.
The good and wise lead quiet lives.

Sophocles
Each one of us must live the life God gives us.
Nothing abides - the starry night, our wealth, our sorrows pass away.
Man is nothing but breath and shadow.
Grief teaches the steadiest mind to waver.
Chance rules our lives, and the future is unknown.
Fate has terrible power. You cannot escape it by wealth or war.
Children are the anchors of a mother's life.
Aeschylus
Call no man happy until he is dead.
Wisdom comes only through suffering.
Heraclitus
It is not good for men to obtain all that they wish.
Moderation is the great virtue, and wisdom is to speak the truth and act
according to nature.
A man's character is his fate.
No one encounters prosperity without also encountering danger.
Silence, healing.
Fate rules all.
Everything changes, and nothing abides.
Good character is not formed in a week or a month. Day by day, what you
choose, what you think, and what you do is who you become.
Protagoras
Education does not take root in the soul unless one goes deep.
Man is the measure of all things.
Concerning the gods I have no means of knowing either that they exist or
that they don't exist, nor what sort of form they have. There are many
reasons why knowledge on this subject is impossible, owing to lack of
knowledge and the shortness of human life.
Xenophanes
Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all things that are disgraceful
among mortals, stealing and adulteries and deceiving one another.
If horses had hands and could paint, they would paint horses as gods.
Diogenes
He has most who is content with least.
The stomach is the Charybdis of life.
Time is the most valuable thing that a man can spend.
Like a shepherd, madness drives the multitude wherever it wants.
Poverty is the unintentional teacher of philosophy because what philosophy

tries to instill with words, poverty compels by the power of facts.
The foundation of every state is the education of its children.
Pindar
The present will not long endure.
If any man hopes to do a deed without God's knowledge, he errs.
Creatures of a day, man is but a shadow's dream.
Good cheer is the best of healers.
O my soul, do not aspire to immortal life, but seek the limits of the possible.
School -- Part 15
Concluding Reflections
The Bible as Literature was part of a senior humanities English course that
began with the Greeks and critical thinking, continued with the Bible, and
concluded with a survey of British literature and an in-depth study
of Hamlet. By familiarizing themselves first with the Greek and biblical views
of the world, students achieved a broader perspective on many of life's
perennial questions than would have been possible in a traditional college-
prep English program.
In this age of specialization, high schools rarely teach the big picture, a sense
of the past, an appreciation of classical Greece and the Judeo-Christian
heritage, and their relevance to a fuller understanding of the modern world.
The beliefs, values, and ideals of antiquity have nourished Western
consciousness for over two thousand years, and no educated person can
afford to be uninformed about these rich traditions and the added
perspective they bring to our times. Without knowledge of the past, students
would be condemned to a narrow provincialism that knows only the present.
It is because of the centrality of classical Greece and the Bible in fashioning

the Western mind that the first four months of the course were devoted to
exploring these two worldviews that gave students a sense of the historical
context from which Western culture arose and of the past's enduring
influence into the present. Students then explored literary Modernism, the
Victorians, Romanticism, the Enlightenment, the Restoration, Shakespeare,
the Renaissance, the Medieval and Anglo-Saxon Ages.
To deepen their understanding of modernism--the prevailing zeitgeist and

third worldview explored in the course, AP students also read
Euripides' Medea, Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, James
Joyce's Portrait of the Artist, G. B. Shaw's Saint Joan, and Samuel
Beckett's Waiting for Godot, as well as Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice,
and Moliere's Misanthrope.
The Bible as Literature introduced students not only to the Bible, but also to
some of the controversies that have played about this towering monument
for the past two centuries. It also exposed students to the world of
scholarship that transformed their understanding of learning from a
dilettantish affair to an organized and disciplined exploration of questions
that only deepened their fascination about this mysterious text. The
availability of JSTOR's immense body of scholarship provided students with
the stimulus for pursuing their interests, while learning to prepare a research
paper with lawyerlike arguments, counterarguments, rebuttals, and
supporting citations.
Critical-thinking skills are relatively easy to learn, and with continual

practice they become a permanent acquisition; the challenge is having the
courage to apply them to questions with real-life implications. Knowing
numerous theories with pro and con arguments, detecting fallacies, and
refuting arguments can be empowering for college-bound seniors. Moreover,
encountering theories that test one's convictions can be an exhilarating
introduction to the life of the mind.
Grappling with a wide range of questions made students realize that the
abdication of thinking begins with an allegiance to one school of thought, as
though the ocean of truth could be contained in a thimble. The motto of the
course was to "think for oneself" by avoiding any tradition that would relieve
one of the responsibility of finding one's own answers. Better to learn all the
traditions, have them talk to each other, and listen with an open mind.
The course explored the strengths and weaknesses of alternate answers to

many questions, but took no position on any of them. The class was not
about finding answers, but understanding questions. Which answer was
correct was the concern of the students. The course tried to open minds, not
close them with answers. By discovering that every question had plausible
answers, students gradually understood why people of integrity could
disagree with each other.
They also came to realize that the answers one group grows up with seem
true because they're the only answers that group knows and has been
socialized into believing, but that other answers also exist and are believed in
just as sincerely by other groups. Once students understood the role of
chance in human existence, how the culture into which one is born virtually
predetermines one's beliefs, and how schools reinforce that outlook, they
adopted a new caution about what they were taught, taking personal
responsibility for what they accepted.
They became more motivated to read and inquire, more skeptical about
statements that claimed to be true. They recognized the importance of
freedom of thought and why it is often suppressed or discouraged by ruling
elites. The institutions of society--government, media, and schools--were
seen as witting or unwitting agents in fostering attitudes that encourage
conformity and discourage dissent.
By the end of the year, students realized that one's knowledge about virtually
everything consists of theories, and that one believes these theories because
one has years of living invested in them, or because of social conditioning,
group acceptance, vested interests, authority figures, fear, or the fact that
they provide hope or courage in the struggle of life.
High-school seniors ask themselves many of the questions raised in the

course, but rarely have a forum to explore them without fear of censure by
teachers. They would find it simulating to be encouraged to say whatever
they want, develop confidence in expressing and supporting their views, and
receive training that prepares them to hit the ground running from their first
day in college with their ability to critically evaluate whatever they're taught.
Unless, that is, they wish to be brainwashed by liberal and conservative

professors, who "profess" the truth as they see it. With few exceptions,
professors don't air both sides of a question, since they expect students to
evaluate what they hear. Some may take questions, and a few may even
welcome objections, because they want students who question.
With today's college sticker-shock prices, however, students who don't insist
that professors give both sides of a question, or don't ask them for reasons
that support their views, or don't ask hard questions aren't getting their
money's worth. Professors are only too happy to discuss their positions,
especially to interested students who refuse to be convinced without
evidence, and are paying top dollar for the right to be satisfied.
To prepare its college-prep students for college, every high school in the
nation owes them a thorough training in critical thinking across the
curriculum from freshman year. Critical thinking is life's ultimate survival
skill, and if students don't learn it in high school, they'll be too set in their
ways to learn it in college.
The purpose of a college-prep program, especially in English, history, and

other social-science courses, is not to teach students what answers are right,
but to train them in how to deal critically with answers and theories that
claim to be right. Students don't come to class to be brainwashed, or teachers
to make converts, but to talk students through the course material in such a
way that they can decide for themselves which view is right.
Critically presenting as many viewpoints as possible is the essence of

teaching. Anything else is indoctrination, especially teaching only one
viewpoint, implying that others don't exist, are unimportant, or wrong.
Schools don't exist to train the memory, but to equip students for life with
the training to deal critically with an infinity of claims, some of which are
true, and others which are not. Address this issue of critical thinking, and
American secondary education could be improved overnight.*
In that sprawling, variegated bazaar of life, there is bewildering throng of

contradictory theories, creeds, and philosophies that huckster their claims in
the hope of acceptance as they beguilingly intone their unrivaled virtues.
Happy are those who have at their side those two wise counselors, Caveat
Emptor and Buyer's Remorse.
If certitude is the sign of truth, then everyone who is certain about anything
is right, as are those who hold contradictory answers to the same question.
Only gradually does one come to discard such conclusions and discovers that
certitudes are not proofs at all, and that it's not inherited answers that
educate, but questions and the personal struggle to find the answers to those
questions oneself.
In his essay on "Truth," Francis Bacon begins, "What is truth? said jesting
Pilate, and would not stay for an answer." This battle-hardened legionary,
who had risen through the ranks to become Roman governor of Judea,
cynically asks this mysterious young carpenter from Galilee a question that
goes to the marrow of life, but as a man of affairs, he is off to "more
important matters." But for an 18-year-old, it is a question to keep asking
oneself, or for anyone who would remain eternally young.
########
*It should be noted that U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan would fight
this initiative tooth and nail since he is already dismantling the traditional
curriculum that, for generations, has served our nation well. It makes no
difference to him that government intrusion in the classroom is not only
unconstitutional but also, in this instance, ideologically-driven to advance an
agenda of privatization. Against the wishes of parents across the country, he
continues to mandate standardized testing and common core standards, the
first steps toward destroying public schools andreplacing them with charters,
which are already diverting billions of tax dollars annually to private
investors.

Teaching the Bible as Literature

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching the Bible as Literature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching the Bible as

Literature in Public High

It is a book so central to our cultural identity and heritage that a familiarity

Colleges and universities simply assume a basic familiarity with this

In today's tabloid world, however, the traditional assumptions no longer

Because so many seniors no longer possess an understanding of this seminal

In a word, students came from a wide assortment of homes, a microcosm of

A repository of divine revelation that must be interpreted either literally or

A book which traces the spiritual evolution of a people from primitive

A book whose meaning must be sought in the symbolical, archetypal, and

A book which embodies the personal, class, national, economic, social,