"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Oct 8, 9:15 am, Gene wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:24:40 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:





Well maybe not. But seeing the creation, religion,evolution thread is
getting so long, I thought I'd ask a hypothetical question. Well maybe
it's not as hypothetical , but here goes.

If an English lit teacher was passing out assignments assignments for
students to give a book report. Various books are chosen, some long ,
some short.

OK, the list has several *options* None are specifically required.
Here's a sample list:

"To Kill a Mockingbird"
"All Quiet one the Western Front"
"Gulliver's Travels"
"Moby Dick"
"The book of Matthew"
"Oliver Twist"
"The Trial"

etc, etc.

That is a rather complex question.

Would we be describing the reading assignment as a selection of one
out of seven fictional books? Or, can you choose the non fiction book
versus one of the six novels.....

On the face of it, given that there are choices, it would seem to be
acceptable. However, I would cry fowl on the basis that the class is
*English Literature* which, by definition, are those texts written in
English. If we are going to offer everything translated into English
as fair game, we might as well just change the course title and
syllabus to World Literature.

Given the course title, if the teacher is compelled to offer some sort
of link to a religious text, I think the Book of Common Prayer would
be more appropriate.



Notice included is the Gospel account of Matthew. Would this be
considered as promoting religion?

Probably, due to the limitations of choice.

Christianity is a religion developed from Judaism, all of which
developed in the Middle East, a region that spans southwestern Asia,
southeastern Europe, and northeastern Africa.... and as far as I can
tell really has little to do with "English Literature" either
geographically, culturally, linguistically, philosophically, etc.
Thus, why offering a Christian text as an acceptable "English Text"
without also including the (surely translated) Jewish, Buddhist,
Mormon, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Confucianism, Shinto, etc.,
etc. texts.... without even an honorable mention to Classical Paganism
which WAS the original English Religious Literature.... is a bit
cloudy.

AND! Even if it was required reading. could it be used for literary
purposes only?

I doubt that it could be, in this context.

Authorship/Style? Nobody knows who wrote the Book of Matthew and one
can't really discuss Matthew without inclusion of the other three
gospels, most notably Mark (and the non-extant Quelle source), from
which the Book of Matthew was plagiarized.

So, what are you going to ask the students to *do* with that text in
an English Literature course?
--

Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First off, it wasn't a "bible study", Gene. and it wasn't to be such.
It was like any other book report. to give an over all critique of
what the author was trying to convey. And honestly, I really don't
rememebr what I wrte about. that was in 1972 and I dont' have the
paper.

No one *had* to chose the Matthew account.


Tim, I just want to say that this is a really thought-provoking questions!
It's quite different than trying to discuss the absolute thruth of
something, which could be more of a bible-study class... e.g., here's the
truth, no explanation needed. You could take A Christmas Carol, for example,
and examine it in it's historical context and not just that it's (great)
literature). The reason I mention the latter is because I listened to
Olbermann's hour long Special Comment last night. There was no politicizing
(or not much) and the hour flew by. He mentioned A Christmas Carol in
historical context as compared to today (with the healthcare crisis). I'm
sure it's available somewhere online. If you get a chance, I think it would
be interesting to hear your perspective.

Em

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Oct 8, 12:56*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Oct 8, 9:15 am, Gene wrote:





On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:24:40 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Well maybe not. But seeing the creation, religion,evolution thread is
getting so long, I thought I'd ask a hypothetical question. Well maybe
it's not as hypothetical , but here goes.

If an English lit teacher was passing out assignments assignments for
students to give a book report. Various books are chosen, some long ,
some short.

OK, the list has several *options* None are specifically required.
Here's a sample list:

"To Kill a Mockingbird"
"All Quiet one the Western Front"
"Gulliver's Travels"
"Moby Dick"
"The book of Matthew"
"Oliver Twist"
"The Trial"

etc, etc.

That is a rather complex question.

Would we be describing the reading assignment as a selection of one
out of seven fictional books? Or, can you choose the non fiction book
versus one of the six novels.....

On the face of it, given that there are choices, it would seem to be
acceptable. However, I would cry fowl on the basis that the class is
*English Literature* which, by definition, are those texts written in
English. If we are going to offer everything translated into English
as fair game, we might as well just change the course title and
syllabus to World Literature.

Given the course title, if the teacher is compelled to offer some sort
of link to a religious text, I think the Book of Common Prayer would
be more appropriate.

Notice included is the Gospel account of Matthew. Would this be
considered as promoting religion?

Probably, due to the limitations of choice.

Christianity is a religion developed from Judaism, all of which
developed in the Middle East, a region that spans southwestern Asia,
southeastern Europe, and northeastern Africa.... and as far as I can
tell really has little to do with "English Literature" either
geographically, culturally, linguistically, philosophically, etc.
Thus, why offering a Christian text as an acceptable "English Text"
without also including the (surely translated) Jewish, Buddhist,
Mormon, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Confucianism, Shinto, etc.,
etc. texts.... without even an honorable mention to Classical Paganism
which WAS the original English Religious Literature.... is a bit
cloudy.

AND! Even if it was required reading. could it be used for literary
purposes only?

I doubt that it could be, in this context.

Authorship/Style? Nobody knows who wrote the Book of Matthew and one
can't really discuss Matthew without inclusion of the other three
gospels, most notably Mark (and the non-extant Quelle source), from
which the Book of Matthew was plagiarized.

So, what are you going to ask the students to *do* with that text in
an English Literature course?
--

Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
First off, it wasn't a "bible study", Gene. and it wasn't to be such.
It was like any other book report. to give an over all critique of
what the author was trying to *convey. And honestly, I really don't
rememebr what I wrte about. that was in 1972 and I dont' have the
paper.

No one *had* to chose the Matthew account.

Tim, I just want to say that this is a really thought-provoking questions!
It's quite different than trying to discuss the absolute thruth of
something, which could be more of a bible-study class... e.g., here's the
truth, no explanation needed. You could take A Christmas Carol, for example,
and examine it in it's historical context and not just that it's (great)
literature). The reason I mention the latter is because I listened to
Olbermann's hour long Special Comment last night. There was no politicizing
(or not much) and the hour flew by. He mentioned A Christmas Carol in
historical context as compared to today (with the healthcare crisis). I'm
sure it's available somewhere online. If you get a chance, I think it would
be interesting to hear your perspective.

Em

--
Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll have to look into that.

Thanks!

On 10/9/09 9:38 AM, Gene wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 08:39:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Oct 8, 9:15 am, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:24:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:





Well maybe not. But seeing the creation, religion,evolution thread is
getting so long, I thought I'd ask a hypothetical question. Well maybe
it's not as hypothetical , but here goes.

If an English lit teacher was passing out assignments assignments for
students to give a book report. Various books are chosen, some long ,
some short.

OK, the list has several *options* None are specifically required.
Here's a sample list:

"To Kill a Mockingbird"
"All Quiet one the Western Front"
"Gulliver's Travels"
"Moby Dick"
"The book of Matthew"
"Oliver Twist"
"The Trial"

etc, etc.

That is a rather complex question.

Would we be describing the reading assignment as a selection of one
out of seven fictional books? Or, can you choose the non fiction book
versus one of the six novels.....

On the face of it, given that there are choices, it would seem to be
acceptable. However, I would cry fowl on the basis that the class is
*English Literature* which, by definition, are those texts written in
English. If we are going to offer everything translated into English
as fair game, we might as well just change the course title and
syllabus to World Literature.

Given the course title, if the teacher is compelled to offer some sort
of link to a religious text, I think the Book of Common Prayer would
be more appropriate.



Notice included is the Gospel account of Matthew. Would this be
considered as promoting religion?

Probably, due to the limitations of choice.

Christianity is a religion developed from Judaism, all of which
developed in the Middle East, a region that spans southwestern Asia,
southeastern Europe, and northeastern Africa.... and as far as I can
tell really has little to do with "English Literature" either
geographically, culturally, linguistically, philosophically, etc.
Thus, why offering a Christian text as an acceptable "English Text"
without also including the (surely translated) Jewish, Buddhist,
Mormon, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Confucianism, Shinto, etc.,
etc. texts.... without even an honorable mention to Classical Paganism
which WAS the original English Religious Literature.... is a bit
cloudy.

AND! Even if it was required reading. could it be used for literary
purposes only?

I doubt that it could be, in this context.

Authorship/Style? Nobody knows who wrote the Book of Matthew and one
can't really discuss Matthew without inclusion of the other three
gospels, most notably Mark (and the non-extant Quelle source), from
which the Book of Matthew was plagiarized.

So, what are you going to ask the students to *do* with that text in
an English Literature course?
--

Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First off, it wasn't a "bible study", Gene. and it wasn't to be such.
It was like any other book report. to give an over all critique of
what the author was trying to convey. And honestly, I really don't
rememebr what I wrte about. that was in 1972 and I dont' have the
paper.

No one *had* to chose the Matthew account.

I didn't suggest in ANY way that it WAS Bible study and I noted that
there WAS a choice.

Now, address the point..... what has The Bible got to do with ENGLISH
Literature....

The study of Literature should or could encompass the following
points:

1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized
artistic value.
3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.
4. The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in
a given field: medical literature.
5. Printed material: collected all the available literature on the
subject.
6. Music. All the compositions of a certain kind or for a specific
instrument or ensemble: the symphonic literature.

I attempted to address some of these items to show why the Bible was
not an English text.

How would you address the matter, today.... in the context of English
Literature. The fact of the matter is YOU CAN'T, because the Bible is
NOT English Literature. It had no more right or reason to be included
in that book list than Les Miserables, Der Steppenwolf, or Amori di
Venere or any of the translations of same.

If you discount the religious aspect, the fact remains: the book JUST
DOESN'T BELONG in that group of required reading.


Robert Lowell, who held a precursor Poet Laureate post at the LC in the
1940s, taught a class called "The King James Bible as English Literature."

I took a similarly titled course while pursuing my master's in English.

The KJ bible is a magnificent work in the English language, and many
serious students of English lit consider it English lit.



--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:29:05 -0400, Gene
wrote:

Serious students of cuisine can consider a chilidog as part of the
American Kennel Club,

Nice. I like it!

On 10/9/09 10:29 AM, Gene wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:49:29 -0400, H the K
wrote:




Robert Lowell, who held a precursor Poet Laureate post at the LC in the
1940s, taught a class called "The King James Bible as English Literature."

I took a similarly titled course while pursuing my master's in English.

The KJ bible is a magnificent work in the English language, and many
serious students of English lit consider it English lit.

You can "consider" anything you want, but English Literature is
defined as:

Literature written in English since c.1450 by the inhabitants of the
British Isles.

or

English literature refers to literature written in the English
language, including literature composed in English by writers not
necessarily from England.....

Serious students of cuisine can consider a chilidog as part of the
American Kennel Club, but that doesn't make it so..... that's one big
reason we don't let *students* make those decisions.....

Most scholars of English lit would include the KJ bible. Even wiki does,
under the header, English Literatu

"The King James Bible, one of the most massive translation projects in
the history of English up to this time, was started in 1604 and
completed in 1611. It represents the culmination of a tradition of Bible
translation into English that began with the work of William Tyndale. It
became the standard Bible of the Church of England, and some consider it
one of the greatest literary works of all time. This project was headed
by James I himself, who supervised the work of forty-seven scholars.
Although many other translations into English have been made, some of
which are widely considered more accurate, many aesthetically prefer the
King James Bible, whose meter is made to mimic the original Hebrew verse."


"...one of the greatest literary works of all time."

And it is in English. Therefore, it is English literature.

I studied Rouse's of Homer's Odyssey and Iliad. For many, Rouse's work
is considered a landmark of *English* literature, even though his prose
is based upon translations from the Greek.





--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On 10/9/09 11:09 AM, Gene wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:40:02 -0400, H the K
wrote:

ne of the most massive translation projects in
the history of English up to this time

translation......

TRANSLATION...... Frickin' TRANSLATION!!!!

What's next on the English Lit list.... Hell, we've got Bablefish,. it
is ALL English Lit!!!!


The KJ bible is a bit more than a "translation," as I am sure you well
know. But it is a translation. :)

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On 10/9/09 12:34 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:11:11 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/9/09 11:09 AM, Gene wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:40:02 -0400, H the K
wrote:

ne of the most massive translation projects in
the history of English up to this time

translation......

TRANSLATION...... Frickin' TRANSLATION!!!!

What's next on the English Lit list.... Hell, we've got Bablefish,. it
is ALL English Lit!!!!


The KJ bible is a bit more than a "translation," as I am sure you well
know. But it is a translation. :)

"Interpretation" would be a better word.
It reminds me of Kenny Rogers' facelift.




I've read the NT in the KJ a couple of times as "literature," just as I
have read Homer's works. It's damned good writing.

The "translator/interpreters" did a terrific job.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:29:05 -0400, Gene
wrote:

Serious students of cuisine can consider a chilidog as part of the
American Kennel Club, but that doesn't make it so..... that's one big
reason we don't let *students* make those decisions.....

That is funny... :-)

On Oct 9, 8:38*am, Gene wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 08:39:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:





On Oct 8, 9:15*am, Gene wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:24:40 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Well maybe not. But seeing the creation, religion,evolution thread is
getting so long, I thought I'd ask a hypothetical question. Well maybe
it's not as hypothetical , but here goes.

If an English lit teacher was passing out assignments assignments for
students to give a book report. *Various books are chosen, some long ,
some short.

OK, the list has several *options* None are specifically required.
Here's a sample list:

"To Kill a Mockingbird"
"All Quiet one the Western Front"
"Gulliver's Travels"
"Moby Dick"
"The book of Matthew"
"Oliver Twist"
"The Trial"

etc, etc.

That is a rather complex question.

Would we be describing the reading assignment as a selection of one
out of seven fictional books? Or, can you choose the non fiction book
versus one of the six novels.....

On the face of it, given that there are choices, it would seem to be
acceptable. However, I would cry fowl on the basis that the class is
*English Literature* which, by definition, are those texts written in
English. If we are going to offer everything translated into English
as fair game, we might as well just change the course title and
syllabus to World Literature.

Given the course title, if the teacher is compelled to offer some sort
of link to a religious text, I think the Book of Common Prayer would
be more appropriate.

Notice included is the Gospel account of Matthew. *Would this be
considered as promoting religion?

Probably, due to the limitations of choice.

Christianity is a religion developed from Judaism, all of which
developed in the Middle East, a region that spans southwestern Asia,
southeastern Europe, and northeastern Africa.... and as far as I can
tell really has little to do with "English Literature" either
geographically, culturally, linguistically, philosophically, etc.
Thus, why offering a Christian text as an acceptable "English Text"
without also including the (surely translated) Jewish, Buddhist,
Mormon, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Confucianism, Shinto, etc.,
etc. texts.... without even an honorable mention to Classical Paganism
which WAS the original English Religious Literature.... is a bit
cloudy.

AND! Even if it was required reading. could it be used for literary
purposes only?

I doubt that it could be, in this context.

Authorship/Style? Nobody knows who wrote the Book of Matthew and one
can't really discuss Matthew without inclusion of the other three
gospels, most notably Mark (and the non-extant Quelle source), from
which the Book of Matthew was plagiarized.

So, what are you going to ask the students to *do* with that text in
an English Literature course?
--

Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
*http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First off, it wasn't a "bible study", Gene. and it wasn't to be such.
It was like any other book report. to give an over all critique of
what the author was trying to *convey. And honestly, I really don't
rememebr what I wrte about. that was in 1972 and I dont' have the
paper.

No one *had* to chose the Matthew account.

I didn't suggest in ANY way that it WAS Bible study and I noted that
there WAS a choice.

Now, address the point..... what has The Bible got to do with ENGLISH
Literature....

The study of Literature should or could encompass the following
points:

* *1. *The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
* *2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized
artistic value.
* *3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.
* *4. The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in
a given field: medical literature.
* *5. Printed material: collected all the available literature on the
subject.
* *6. Music. All the compositions of a certain kind or for a specific
instrument or ensemble: the symphonic literature.

I attempted to address some of these items to show why the Bible was
not an English text.

How would you address the matter, today.... in the context of English
Literature. The fact of the matter is YOU CAN'T, because the Bible is
NOT English Literature. It had no more right or reason to be included
in that book list than Les Miserables, Der Steppenwolf, or Amori di
Venere or any of the translations of same.

If you discount the religious aspect, the fact remains: the book JUST
DOESN'T BELONG in that group of required reading.

--

Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
*http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's jsut it, Gene, it wasn't required. it was an option like the
others.

And we discussed many other things in English Lit than just English Lit

On 10/9/09 11:28 AM, Gene wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 07:33:33 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

And we discussed many other things in English Lit than just English Lit

Well, then, what you had was some sort of Socratic Dialog or Seminar,
not an organized class. A proper class has an approved syllabus and
the instructor sticks with that syllabus to make sure the course
objectives are met. A class entitled one thing in which all things are
taught is just a free-for-all.... usually driven by the personal
whims and interests of the teacher. This is the equivalent of
education by ADD........


Uh, I disagree. In the 7th and 8th grade, when we were discussing
Dickens in English class, we also discussed the society in which the
novels were set, and some of the reasons why Dickens chose the subjects
he did. I'm sure we stuck with the teaching plan by doing so.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All