|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From Critique of Pure Education: A Philosophy for the Home Educator
by Robert W. Watson
The Curriculum:
Enriching the Heart with the Bible
No one can attain to a strong and idiomatic prose style or be able to appreciate fully the masterpieces of English literature without a constant study of the English Bible.--Professor Fred Lewis Pattee, The Foundations of English Literature
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.--2 Timothy 3:15
Perhaps the one enigma that puzzles students of the Gospels the most is how the Hebrew scribes could have missed the Messiah. The scribes were dedicated to preserving the Hebrew culture by copying the various documents of Judaism, including the sacred writings known as the Old Testament. An elaborate procedure for copying was developed, and the checks for accuracy were strictly observed, because the scribes believed that they were handling the very words of God. Indeed, the scribes knew the Scriptures well enough to tell Herod where Christ was to be born. Yet, during his ministry, Jesus Christ vehemently denounced these men and poured the most heated invectives upon them, even more than upon the regimes of Herod and Rome. As for their attitude towards Jesus Christ, the scribes had a mutual hatred, even to the point of their plotting to kill Him. The scribes offer the best example of the consequence awaiting men who possess merely an intellectual knowledge of the Bible. Even though they knew the Scriptures, the scribes failed to know God. The Bible is not to be applied to the intellect, but to the heart. Therefore, if they are to enrich others with grace and wisdom, students must carefully guard their hearts.
If he rejects the Bible, the secularist must seek a non-religious guide by which to guard his heart. While Emerson would do well, perhaps the writings of Benjamin Franklin would be even better. His Autobiography is delightful, witty, and thought-provoking. Even though he was raised a Presbyterian, Franklin seldom attended church services. On the occasions that he did, Franklin found the preaching to be "very dry, uninteresting, and unedifying, since not a single moral principle was inculcated or enforc'd." According to Franklin, the purpose of this dryness was to create good Presbyterians rather than "good citizens." After rejecting the established church, Franklin sets out on his own "bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection." Adopting Plato's idea of developing good habits, Franklin convinced himself that by replacing bad habits with good ones, a man could perfect himself morally. Franklin lists thirteen "virtues," which he would conscientiously apply to his own life. The thirteenth virtue is Humility, which according to Franklin was the imitation of Jesus and Socrates. One who is "bold" enough to attempt his own moral perfection may find humility a bit hard to muster. Nevertheless, if an individual follows Franklin's thirteen virtues, he will no doubt be a "good" person, one whom most people would welcome as their next-door neighbor.
But like any philosopher who tries to use human reason to develop a system of morals, Franklin discovers the heart to be treacherous: "But I soon found I had undertaken a task of more difficulty than I had imagined. While my care was employ'd in guarding against one fault, I was often surprised by another." Such is the human condition, because the "heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:7). Fortunately, man is not left to ponder this question philosophically, since the next verse begins with "I the LORD search the heart." Since the Western tradition rejects the concept of sin and believes that evil is the result of bad habits, most public educators think the answer to society's troubles is just more "education." Whatever is the "bad habit" at the time, whether cigarette smoking, chastity, or Christianity, the solution will always be more education, or in other words, more taxes, more bureaucrats, and more oppression. But as the Hebrew tradition has made clear to Western civilization, men's hearts need transforming, not men's habits.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the most important possession that the student owns is his heart. The heart is the seat of the affections by which the student will reveal his true self. While the student may not be able to know his heart, he certainly can know about the heart. The Authorized Version of the English Bible refers to the heart 833 times in 765 verses. The first mention of the heart is in Genesis 6:5 in connection with evil. The last mention of the heart is in Revelation 18:7 concerning the heart of Mystery Babylon, whose affections center on buying and selling, merchandising in everything from gold to the souls of men, which are regarded as cheap (Revelation 18:12-13). Throughout the Scriptures the unregenerate heart is depicted as unworthy of trust and as an unreliable guide for determining the student's affections. Thus, pure education must deal with the heart first. If his heart is not guarded daily from perverseness, then regardless whether the student reads incessantly from the ancient and modern classics, knows five languages, and writes poetry like a Tennyson or composes novels like a Dickens, the student will have a perverted view of life, perceived as an array of contradictions and strife, like Romeo believed when he declares, "O brawling love! O loving hate!" The student needs a guidebook for his heart, and this guidebook must prove to be reliable, powerful, and timeless.
One question that I generally use for final examinations in my beginning composition classes has the central idea of rescuing books from destruction due to a radical change in society, whether by shipwreck or by tyranny. The students are asked if they knew that they could have only three books to read for the rest of their lives, what three books would they choose, and why. I instruct the students to give reasons why these particular books will help them now and future generations later, if the books were discovered. I have yet to see a student wanting the works of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, or Hume. In addition to this, no student has mentioned a single book about mathematics or science. On the other hand, even though works by Dickens and Shakespeare rank very high on the list of favorites, the indisputable choice that 95 percent of students in my classes want to preserve is the Bible. One would expect this result to be true at a Christian college, but these students are products of the public school and are students at a secular college. In spite of the "bad press" about the Bible, when life gets down to the bare essentials, when getting a good job is no longer a concern, and when buying unnecessary things becomes a thing of the past, the Bible becomes the first choice among those who wish to know something about living.
Now, let us change the question for the home educator. If--for whatever reason--you were allowed to have only one book at your disposal for educating your students, what book would you choose to be worthy enough to be passed onto the next generation? Undoubtedly, like the composition students, the Bible would become the choice of home educators. The Bible is complete with history, with heart warming stories about love, bravery, and devotion, and with words of unmatched wisdom. Between its covers, the Bible has the finest poetry in the world, the most excellent drama, and the most profound philosophical presentations. Above all, humans are told how they can reconcile themselves to God. When Professor Pattee taught and wrote 100 years ago, the word Bible was not misunderstood by anyone. However, Bible is so vague today that it has become a meaningless word unless qualified. Therefore, a follow-up question is required for the home educator: "Which Bible would you choose?" The answer to this question becomes all important for the student, who needs not only a guidebook for his heart, but also material for his soul, mind, and strength.
The answer is a difficult one today because of the multifarious versions of the Bible available. For nearly 300 years, the people of the English-speaking world had but one Bible. But the twentieth century with its rampant industrialism saw a proliferation of books calling themselves Bibles. In spite of the pious reasons for the publishing of the different versions, one has to suspect the love of money to be the leading motive behind the publications. Unfortunately, industrialism has not only infected American Christianity with the overproduction of "new and improved" Bibles, but commercialism has cheapen the roles of music and benevolence in the churches as well. Few would bother with the professional "Christian" musicians and beggars if it were not for the legion of sanctified salesmen who hard-sell the Christian public to buy their products and to support their "ministries." Whether in a pulpit, in a magazine, or on television, advertising has the sole purpose of inciting lust in the consumer to buy something he does not need. Being gullible suckers--according to P. T. Barnum--Christian Americans buy the latest "Christian" symbol, book, or compact disc, because they have been conditioned to accept anything new and reject anything old. Unfortunately for the churches, this "new is better" mentality is a thief and a robber--a thief of values and a robber of culture.
Which Bible should the student use to guard his heart? From a literary and cultural point of view, the Authorized Version of the English Bible stands supreme. The superiority of the Authorized Version is attested to the fact that this book remains the standard by which every new translation of the Scriptures is forced to be measured. New translations have come and gone: Revised Version, American Revised Version, and the Revised Standard Version are just a few. Of course, it is very possible that the expiration of the copyrights might have led to the demise of these versions. In order to keep the money coming in, the publishers introduced a New American Standard Version and a New Revised Standard Version. If history is a reliable indication of the future, then Christians can expect an Improved New International Version several years from now [Note: Since the time this statment was written, the TNIV (Today's New International Version) has been introduced]. Not only is the Authorized Version still the standard for all "Bibles," this book continues to have the presumption as being the best of all Bibles available today. Even the editors at Zondervan remark in the NIV / KJV Parallel Bible that the Authorized Version
…has been, for centuries, the most loved and used translation of the Scriptures, and its ministry of blessing seems destined to continue for many years to come. Its majestic style and rich cadence give it an enduring quality that will live on in our contemporary world. It remains a standard of excellence in Bible Translation.
If this is so, and since the teacher should use only the best materials to educate her students, this fact alone should settle the answer concerning the Bible to be used in the home school.
However, there are other compelling reasons for the student to use the Authorized Version. This Bible is not really a translation, because the work did not start from scratch. Technically, the Authorized Version is a revision of William Tyndale's efforts started in 1525. The Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Bishop, and Geneva Bibles were refinements of Tyndale's Bible, which the Authorized Version finalized 86 years later. During these years England became "the people of a book." Tyndale provided the outline at the cost of his life; the other men provided enrichment and harmony to Tyndale's words. The fifty-four scholars of the Authorized Version were divided into three committees for a total of six companies, which were responsible for different portions of the Scriptures. Each scholar would work independently on his assignment, comparing other translations and offering his own translation only if deemed necessary. The company would then meet to discuss the relative merits of the various passages. Only after there was a consensus to the English words did the panel approve the selection. At this point, the work was reviewed by the other companies. With all of these scholars reviewing the work, the Authorized Version lacks the peculiarities of the previous versions of the Bible. Because no single piece of literature can claim a more wondrous story than the development of the Authorized Version, the student should become acquainted with the history of the English Bible. The lessons taught about devotion, sacrifice, and courage are without equal.
Not only is the Authorized Version the product of very careful scholarship, but the version is the easiest Bible to understand. Modern publishers claim that their versions are easier to read and to understand than the Authorized Version. Yet, how Negev, Magi, and miraculous signs are easier to understand than the south, wise men, and miracles exceed the reader's credulity. Perhaps the biggest complaint against the Authorized Version is the use of thou and ye. The translators of the New International Version make a point to justify their exclusion of these "archaisms," which gives pause for wondering why justification for removing any antiquated and inapplicable words is necessary at all.
As for the traditional pronouns "thou," "thee" and "thine" in reference to the Deity, the translators judged that to use these archaisms (along with the old verb forms such as "doest," "wouldest" and "hadst") would violate accuracy in translation. Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the God-head. A present-day translation is not enhanced by forms that in the time of the King James Version were used in everyday speech, whether referring to God or man.
The NIV translators committed two errors here. First, while the ancient languages did not use "special pronouns for the persons of the God-head," neither does the English in the Authorized Version. The so-called special pronouns are used in the same manner for both God and men. Therefore, violation of accuracy should not have been a concern. And second, a present-day version would be indeed "enhanced" by the English of 1611. Otherwise, why is the note for John 3:7 (NIV) necessary for the reader to know that "[t]he Greek is plural"? The word ye would have made the note unnecessary.
During the Elizabethan Renaissance, the familiar forms of the second person were the singular thou (thee, thy) and the plural ye (you, your). The use of the word you (you, your) was the formal address used out of respect. Shakespeare is fairly consistent using these forms. Characters of superior rank addressed each other with you, as well as inferiors addressing superiors, like Juliet's nurse does when speaking to her charge. On the other hand, when addressing the lower ranks, the superiors used the familiar thou as Juliet does when speaking to her nurse. When addressing each other, lovers always used the familiar thou. The formal and familiar forms of the second person are not unique in English; they appear also in Spanish with the formal usted and ustedes and the familiar tú and vosotros.
By employing exclusively the second person in its familiar form, the scholars of the Authorized Version clarified the understanding of the Scriptures. Anyone who reads the ten commandments in the New International Version could wonder whether the commandments are to the reader personally or to the collective. The reason why there is no doubt about the commandments being individually applied is because the Authorized Version has already helped the other Bible out. A good example of real confusion is in the rendering of the NIV passage of John 3:1-15. Jesus switches from speaking with Nicodemus to addressing several listeners. But without the English familiar forms, the reader would never have known this. Also, God is not addressed in the formal sense, but in the familiar form. You means a distant respect; Thou suggests a close intimacy. The student should develop a relationship of respect for God, but more important, he must cultivate a special intimacy with his heavenly Father. Thou is the better address. If the "scholarship" of the NIV translators is such that they completely misunderstood the use of the English familiar form of the second person as it applied to the Authorized Version, one should wonder if the "hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts" were careless elsewhere.
Those with any literary taste whatsoever recognize the Authorized Version as the greatest literary work in the English language. On the other hand, the modern versions cannot claim to be part of the belles-lettres, because they either did not or have not yet survived the test of time, and they failed to use an elevated language to express ideas. The Authorized Version has endured not only time, but also innumerable criticisms beginning with Hugh Broughton, a scholar who was not invited to join the translators due to his arrogance and self-pride. In 1611, after reviewing the Authorized Version, Broughton wrote, "The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt." Broughton died in 1612.
Not only do the current versions lack the test of time, but modern translators are too concerned with the sense of the words and not with the sound of them. The moment translators become more concerned about pedantry and about putting the Scriptures into the language of the "common man," they have automatically doomed their version to obscurity along with all other cheap "literature." While abundant evidence exists today for the deterioration of the English language, the times of Queen Elizabeth and King James were immersed in poetry. Edmund Spenser, Ben Jonson, and William Shakespeare were household names. From the meanest to the highest stations in life, everyone was thinking, speaking, and writing poetically.
To the English poet, sounds, syntax, and stress are paramount. Not being poets, modern translators fail to appreciate these qualities. For an example, in the New International Version, one finds, "I speak the truth in Christ--I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 9:1). The words speak, Christ, conscience, confirms, and Spirit overload the verse with too many harsh sounds. Even though the beginning of the verse with three iambs is admirable, the translators merely borrowed the syntax and rhythm from the Authorized Version. The phrase I am not lying is insipid and fails to provide any emphasis, which Paul intends in the passage.
However, the Authorized Version states, "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost." Here the verse is softened with the long vowel sounds of say, lie, me and Holy Ghost. Regarding its rhythm, the verse begins with three iambs, and the clause, I lie not, because of its syntax, requires spondees on all three words, which provides the desired emphasis on all three syllables.
Every line of the Authorized Version has these rhythms. The anapests and iambs found in Romans 6:23 and the anapests used in Isaiah 53:1 are not the result of an accident. Lancelot Andrews, a personal friend of Edmund Spenser, is credited with much of the cadence found in the Authorized Version. It is the cadence that aids in public reading and with memorization of the Scriptures. This attention to sounds, syntax, and rhythm in the Authorized Version makes the entire work not one of prose, but one of poetry known as free verse. It was the scholars of the Authorized Version who originated free verse, not Walt Whitman, who is often credited with creating the form. Like Whitman, if the modern versions happen to have a good rhythm or syntax, it is because the words and cadence were borrowed from the Authorized Version.
Regarding accuracy, the Authorized Version is superior as well. Like any other piece of literature, the only legitimate approach to interpreting the Bible is to analyze it as a complete unit in itself. Therefore, what becomes important is the text alone with its internal integrity, disencumbered by external adjuncts. If the text is compared with external sources, then the only result is a melee of subjectivity, because even a fourth-grade student with a Greek lexicon can offer the opinion that a certain word could have been translated differently. What is so scholarly about this exercise? Yet this game is played thousands of times in pulpits every Sunday. If the modern Bibles were to stand on their internal integrity alone, they would have to be rejected for their contradictions and confusion as in Mark 1:2 and Acts 12:3-4, for their historical inaccuracy as in Matthew 2:16, and for their total annihilation of knowledge and truth as in Isaiah 14:12.
What is the conclusion of the matter? In short, time has proven that modern Christians in America have never needed a "new" Bible. For over 100 years noble attempts accompanied by massive advertising have been made to replace the Authorized Version. However, scholars, committees, and publishers have been unable to improve upon the Authorized Version--and they never will. The decline in the appreciation of the English language ensures their failure. For the home educator who desires to offer the best education to her students, the Authorized Version becomes historically significant, because it represents the single book that ended the foundational stage of English by preserving the best of the English language and marked the beginning of modern English. The language needed a vehicle to standardize the spellings and structures found in English. It was the reading of this Bible by the light of millions of candles and fireplaces that educated the common man, promoted the ideas of liberty, led thousands of missionaries around the world, and established the unique American institution of the Christian liberal arts college. The beginning of the English Bible was baptized in the blood of William Tyndale and ended with the poetic genius of scholars who were second to none during their lifetimes or since then. As more Americans lightly toss aside the Authorized Version as irrelevant for today's student, the nation will continue to have disastrous consequences, not only to the hearts of its students, but to the heritage of its citizens as well. May it not be said of home educators that they chose poorly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
