Why I want all our children to read the King James Bible

[cleanhippie]

Why I want all our children to read the King James Bible

The good book should be read as a great work of literature – but it is not a guide to morality, as the education secretary Michael Gove would have us believe

Richard Dawkins
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 May 2012 16.30 EDT

For some reason the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) was not approached for a donation in support of Michael Gove's plan to put a King James Bible in every state school. We would certainly have given it serious consideration, and if the trustees had not agreed I would gladly have contributed myself. In the event, it was left to "millionaire Conservative party donors".

I am a little shocked at the implication that not every school library already possesses a copy. Can that be true? What do they have, then? Harry Potter? Vampires? Or do they prefer one of those modern translations in which "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, all is vanity" is lyrically rendered as "Perfectly pointless, says the Teacher. Everything is pointless"? That is Ecclesiastes, 1:2, as you'll find it in the Common English Bible. And you can't get much more common than that, although admittedly the God's Word translation provides stiff competition with "absolutely pointless" and the Good News Bible challenges strongly with "useless, useless".

--snip--

A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian. In the week after the 2011 census, my UK Foundation commissioned Ipsos MORI to poll those who had ticked the Christian box. Among other things, we asked them to identify the first book of the New Testament from a choice of Matthew, Genesis, Acts of the Apostles, Psalms, "Don't know" and "Prefer not to say". Only 35% chose Matthew and 39% chose "Don't know" (and 1%, mysteriously, chose "Prefer not to say&quot . These figures, to repeat, don't refer to British people at large but only to those who self-identified, in the census, as Christians.

European history, too, is incomprehensible without an understanding of the warring factions of Christianity and the book over whose subtleties of interpretation they were so ready to slaughter and torture each other. Does the eucharistic bread merely symbolise the body of Jesus or does it become his body, in true "substance" if not "accidental" DNA? Prolonged wars have been fought over how we should interpret the words allegedly uttered at the Last Supper. Three bishops were burned alive just outside my bedroom window in my old Oxford college for giving the unapproved answer. Centuries-long schisms were based on nothing more serious than the question of whether Jesus is both God and his son, or just his (very important) son. Even bloodier wars were fought against a rival religion that sees him not as God's son at all but just reveres him as a prophet.

--snip--

Whatever else the Bible might be – and it really is a great work of literature – it is not a moral book and young people need to learn that important fact because they are very frequently told the opposite. The examples I have quoted are the tip of a very large and very nasty iceberg. Not a bad way to find out what's in a book is to read it, so I say go to it. But does anybody, even Gove, seriously think they will?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/19/richard-dawkins-king-james-bible?fb=optOut

[patrice]

1. It should also be regarded as part of the Humanities, along with Sir J.G. Frazer's

(un-abridged) The Golden Bough.

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Golden_Bough.html?id=pRDqoO_5HhEC

[exboyfil]

2. It is difficult if not impossible to undertand

western literature without an understanding of the Bible. My understanding of literature increased tremendously when I started reading the Bible regularly. The Christian Bible covers both the Old and New Testament so some of the oldest stories known to man are included in knowledge of the Bible. You mention The Golden Bough - the Bible reflects archetypes of western culture. Such archetypes will be found in other foundation literature of other cultures.

[DonCoquixote]

3. I am quite surprised

Pleasantly so..

I would also add that by the time someone leaves college, they should know a bit of the talmud, and yes, the quran, as the abrahamic faiths are what infleunce western culture. of course, throw in the Illiad as well.

[daaron]

4. Nice. I must say I concur - though I'd throw some additional reading in the mix.

The Abrahamic religions are indeed the most influential religion, but they didn't pop into existence out of the head of Zeus -- it's almost impossible to appreciate the historical context of Abrahamic religions without reference to Sumerian, Egyptian, and Syrian religious influences from Gilgamesh to the Avesta and on.

Further, it's a jaundiced, narrow view of the Abrahamic religions that limits itself to orthodox texts, only. Apocrypha and heresy profoundly shaped the direction of religion over time.

[Igel]

15. That's good if the goal is to understand the context of the "Abrahamic religions."

If the context you're seeking to understand is simply Dante or Milton or even Chaucer or Dostoevsky, the Talmud and Qur'aan are simply quite pointless.

But then again, to understand the Talmud and Qur'aan you need to understand the social and polical milieu of the ME from 400 BC to about 200 AD and 500-700 AD, respectively, as well as the position of Aramaic and its relationship to Hebrew and NW Semitic in general.

For a proper context for those you need to know about Assyria and various other nations and migrations, as well as the Canaanitic texts.

Then again, one might consider trying to understand the Phoenicians' religion as being a bit far from Chaucer. Since one has to stop some place, the first big break is probably the best bet. And that would be just about where Dawkin's stops.

[daaron]

16. "Since one has to stop some place..." Fair enough.

I 'spose it's a matter of personal preference and how much time one wants to spend. Dawkin's point is well-taken though -- a minimum threshold ought to be the KJV or at least somewhere in F. Bacon's neighborhood.

[rug]

5. In the nine days since this was published, has he also called for the Quran to be included?

"A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian."

Or does he think it is unnecessary for native speakers of English to know nonEnglish literature?

[cleanhippie]

6. You should ask him.

[rug]

7. Since you're here and it's you who reposted this nine days later, I'll ask you.

Should the Quran be taught in public schools?

[mr blur]

8. No, and not the Bible, either.

Which is not to say they shouldn't be dicussed, but not taught, as if they were fact and not - at the most - philosophy. Or, indeed, as myth and not fact or history.

The OP was about the Elizabethan English language used in the Bible; do try to keep up.

[rug]

9. Do you think there should be a course on the Bible as literature?

As well as a course on the Quran as literature?

And no, I did not miss his point that familiairity with English literature is the hallmark of nonbarbarism. It reminded me once again why I dance on the bones of the British Empire.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. But missed the point you have...

I assume you are referring to this:

A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian.

Short of illiteracy, I cannot for the life of me understand how you arrived at the conclusion that such a statement is a proclamation of western cultural and intellectual superiority. It is not. The statement speaks only to the literary merit of the KJV, and Dawkins' opinion is that this translation of the Bible is amongst the finest examples of English literature. He's speaking to the superiority of the book amongst other English works, not the superiority of the English themselves.

As the context of the statement is English literature, the Quran - being Arabic literature - is decidedly irrelevant.

[cleanhippie]

14. Missed the point? No, he did'nt, it's just passive-aggressive bullshit.

[rug]

22. Really, if you accuse one of bullshit it's best to post it directly to that person.

You wouldn't want to be accused of passive aggression.

[cleanhippie]

23. Oh, are you an expert at it?

[rug]

25. QED

[cleanhippie]

26. QED

[rug]

21. An emphasis on English literature only is the heritage of empire.

[cleanhippie]

12. Yes.

But only in a comparative religion class. The same would apply to the bible or any other religious text.

[dimbear]

10. The KJV is important because unicorns. The only currently widely available Bible with unicorns.

I fear for the future of unicorns without the King James, and its majestral cadences.

[struggle4progress]

17. I have been told repeatedly how very interested Mr Dawkins is in evolution, and yet he

Last edited Mon May 28, 2012, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

seems to spend an extraordinary amount of time blathering about his theories of European history in the last thousand years

Unfortunately, the time he has thus taken, from thinking about evolution, seems not to have led him into careful thinking about the history, despite his blather. It is true three were burned near Balliol College: Bishop Hugh Latimer and Bishop Nicholas Ridley on 16 October 1555, and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer a few months later on 21 March 1556. And it is also true that religious differences played some role in their condemnations -- but Dawkins' sneering summary

Three bishops were burned alive just outside my bedroom window in my old Oxford college for giving the unapproved answer

does not begin to explain the political intricacies of high church office in the days of Henry VIII and after

Latimer (for example) had already twice been in the Tower of London (under Henry VIII), prior to his arrest and condemnation under the Catholic Queen Mary

And, upon the death of Edward VI, Ridley aligned himself with the supporters of Lady Jane Grey, preaching sermons identifying Mary and Elizabeth as bastards and signing letters granting the throne to Jane, a matter not well-regarded by Mary's proxies after Lady Jane, the Nine Day Queen, had been deposed as a pretender

Cranmer wandered the intricacies of Henry's court and Henry's succession as dangerously as the others. Cranmer had declared Henry's marriage to Catherine void and Anne Boleyn queen; later, Cranmer declared Henry's marriage to Anne void. Cranmer was an ally of Thomas Cromwell, who had himself engineered some number of executions before falling from Henry's grace, for convincing Henry to wed Anne of Cleves. Cranmer managed, further, to support John Dudley as regent when Edward Seymour was deposed in 1550 -- and Dudley was central to the sad affair of Lady Jane Grey. Edward Seymour, of course, was beheaded in 1552, as his brother Thomas Seymour had been in 1549, as Thomas Cromwell had been in 1540 (with his head displayed on a spike at London Bridge), as Anne Boleyn had in 1536, and as John Dudley would be in 1553 and Lady Jane Grey in 1554

[laconicsax]

18. You sure used a lot of words to simply say, "Dawkins is right, but I don't like him."

-Latimer was convicted and executed for doctrinal reasons ("giving the unapproved answer&quot .
-Ridley and Cranmer were convicted and executed for political reasons ("giving the unapproved answer&quot .

So to be clear, you attack Dawkins for "blathering" about historical events, but can't seem to come up with a concrete example of this blather other than a factually accurate statement about the Oxford Martyrs.

[struggle4progress]

19. I do not think that "Dawkins is right" but rather that "Dawkins is superficial"

After the supporters of Mary had deposed Jane (for example), it was a foregone conclusion that Ridley would die: the only question was when and how: of course, the actual social and political processes, of accusing him, and trying him, and convicting him, and executing him, involve the specifics of his own status in the society of his time.

[mr blur]

20. He's an evolutionary biologist, not a history professor,

and also a damn fine writer/user of the English language which, I think, gives him some authority to pontificate on the value of the KJV as literature.

[laconicsax]

24. That's a load.

Dawkins is "superficial" because he cited an example of why understanding Christianity is a vital part to understanding European history rather than give a detailed analysis of the history of the various conflicts and sociopolitical factors that played a role?

I can only imagine how long Dawkins' article would have to be to qualify as not superficial by your standards.