The Bible and historical accuracy

[Lisa Simpson]

My niece missed the last week of school before Spring break due to illness. Her social studies teacher gave my sister-in-law a history test to be taken over the break. My niece did the test today. Imagine my surprise when these were three of the questions:

Name three of the 10 Commandments
Why did Moses break the stone tablets with the 10 Commandments?
How long did the ancient Israelites wander the desert?

Putting aside issues of separation of church and state, is there enough historical accuracy in the OT to be taught as history?

BTW, last trimester, the students learned about ancient Egyptians and their gods were treated as myth.

 

[Piscivore]

My niece missed the last week of school before Spring break due to illness. Her social studies teacher gave my sister-in-law a history test to be taken over the break. My niece did the test today.

What grade?

Putting aside issues of separation of church and state, is there enough historical accuracy in the OT to be taught as history?

Signifigantly less than what was in "Gone with the Wind."

 

[LostAngeles]

My niece missed the last week of school before Spring break due to illness. Her social studies teacher gave my sister-in-law a history test to be taken over the break. My niece did the test today. Imagine my surprise when these were three of the questions:

Name three of the 10 Commandments
Why did Moses break the stone tablets with the 10 Commandments?
How long did the ancient Israelites wander the desert?

Putting aside issues of separation of church and state, is there enough historical accuracy in the OT to be taught as history?

BTW, last trimester, the students learned about ancient Egyptians and their gods were treated as myth.

It sounds like an Orgins of Western Civ class so yes, those things do have a place in being taught. About. Not as fact, but as things that were a major contribution to western civilization.

I distinctly remember the JesusRebeccas in my school doing an oral report on Saul on the road to Damascus.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Re: Re: The Bible and historical accuracy

What grade?

6th grade.

My son didn't learn this when he attended the same middle school, but he was in the honors program and may have had a different curriculum.

 

[Z]

My first grader is home-schooled through the K12 program, which has lessons provided virtually via the Internet, and supplemented with material that they UPS to us.

Anyway, he studied Early Hebrew Mythology as part of his history class. They start with discussions about Mesopotamia, touch briefly on the existence of Egypt, then move into the mythologies surrounding Biblical stories (and throughout, they refer to it as the Hebrew Bible). It's presented as 'formative myth'.

They do the same when the focus shifts to Egypt - we studied the legend of Osiris, among others; on to Greco-Roman history, and we studied the Trojan War - including the origin story involving Eris Discordia, among others.

The point is, Bible stories have as much place in a History class as any other myth, and as long as they are presented as such, I have no problems with it. A culture's myths and legends are as formative as environment and politics, and understanding historical nations means understanding their myths and legends, too.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

My problem is that it is not being presented as myth. The Egyptian gods were treated as mythological, but Moses and other stories from the OT are being treated as true. That's why I wondered how historical it really is.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

Just have her answer....

Name three of the 10 Commandments

Which set? Exodus 20:3-17 or Exodus 34:12:26?

Why did Moses break the stone tablets with the 10 Commandments?

According to Exodus 32:19, Moses was angered by the actions of the people while he was upon the mountain. But how the people knew their actions were wrong is morally ambigious without knowing what the tablets said.

How long did the ancient Israelites wander the desert?

While there is no historical evidence that the Israelites were in Egypt and later wandered, the Bible states that they wandered for 40 years.

 

[Meadmaker]

There is not enough historical accuracy in the OT to be taught as history. None of the events in the OT prior to David can be verified in even vague terms. For example, archaeology suggests that there never was a conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, and that the walls of Jericho had fallen long before Joshua ever got there. Furthermore, there's no historical evidence of Joshua except for the Bible itself.

If these things are taught "as fact" I would have a real objection to this stuff. If, on the other hand, the section dealt with the development of religions in general, and Judaism/Islam/Christianity was one of those religions, it might be ok.

Will next week's homework feature a question like, "Why did Mohammed go to the mountain?" or "What did Siddartha see when he and his charioteer left the castle?" If so, then they aren't really being taught "as fact", just as elements of a story that is central to the development of a religion.

It would be a bit like asking, "Why did MacBeth kill Duncan?" While there might be some historical truth to the story, the question actually refers to a character in a play, not the actual, real, MacBeth.

 

[Dan Beaird]

...
Putting aside issues of separation of church and state, is there enough historical accuracy in the OT to be taught as history?
...

History is much more than a chronological list of events. History also explores the cause of events and explores the general context of events and causes when making the leap from what happened to why it happened.

Where religions are culturally significant, it is necessary to understand the religion as part of the historical context. So in this respect religion is a valid topic for historical inquiry. This includes an understanding of legends and myths, not just legal and moral impact of the religion on society.

Since the bible is the principal source for the Judeo/Christian legends, it is a valid historical document even if it does not reliably record actual historical events.

Because Christianity is still a living world religion and ancient Egyptian religion is dead (not counting assorted neo-pagans who get it all wrong anyway) it is understandable that Christianity would be given extra consideration to avoid offending believers or contradicting beliefs. This is courtesy, and not necessarily historical dishonesty although it could sink to that level.

There really isn't much chance that you'll offend someone by accidentally mixing up Anubis and Wepwawet in a textbook. You probably won't get off so easily if you make a similar mistake with Christian lore.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Did your sister-in-law have a clue they were studying Bible stories before this test came up?

 

[Lisa Simpson]

My sister-in-law knew they were studying the Bible. But she's not one to make a fuss, even though she disagrees with the Bible being taught in a public school.

My objection is not that they are talking about how Christianity influenced Western Civilization. They are learning that the OT is fact. In other words, it is as much of a fact that Moses brought down the 10 commandments as it is that Adolph Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany.

 

[Dan Beaird]

My sister-in-law knew they were studying the Bible. But she's not one to make a fuss, even though she disagrees with the Bible being taught in a public school.

My objection is not that they are talking about how Christianity influenced Western Civilization. They are learning that the OT is fact. In other words, it is as much of a fact that Moses brought down the 10 commandments as it is that Adolph Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany.

That's not really a fair comparison. We're talking about two entirely different periods, a historical period (Hitler) that abounds with all sorts of first hand and documentary evidence and a prehistorical period (Moses) which has only legend available to support it.

Documented legends tend to be the end product of the oral histories of a culture. There's really not much difference between teaching that Moses brought the commandments to the Israelites than there is in teaching that Romulus and Remus founded the city of Rome or that Hector fought Achilles before the walls of Troy. There is no historical record for any of these events one way or another, there is just legend.

Legends serve a purpose: they set context for cultures. The difference is, as pointed out above, the source of the legend in this case is also the holy book for living religions and so deserves more care and respect than say the Illiad or Beowulf.

Because of that consideration I don't believe it is polite to say: Legend says Moses had a lunch meeting with God and brought back the 10 commandments, nor do I believe it is right to say that Moses did in fact bring the law to the Israelites. He is a legendary lawgiver just like Solon and Lycurgus. Considering the importance of the law to a culture it is fitting that such legendary accounts of origin should be taught.

Would you complain if the students learned of the Trojan War? How about the founding of Athens, Sparta, Rome or Britain? Every culture has legends surrounding their origins and prehistory. These are worthy subjects for study, and while they are not difinitive or accurate sources of historical information they are valuable. History is, after all, an art and not a science.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Would you complain if the students learned of the Trojan War? How about the founding of Athens, Sparta, Rome or Britain? Every culture has legends surrounding their origins and prehistory. These are worthy subjects for study, and while they are not difinitive or accurate sources of historical information they are valuable. History is, after all, an art and not a science.

Fine, I will agree my comparison wasn't good.

As to the above question, yes. If they are treating the founding of Athens, Sparta, Rome or Britain as legend, but treating the OT as fact. Which they are. If they were treating the OT as legend, I wouldn't disagree.

Is the OT is the only historical source for the ancient Israelites?

 

[drkitten]

Documented legends tend to be the end product of the oral histories of a culture. There's really not much difference between teaching that Moses brought the commandments to the Israelites than there is in teaching that Romulus and Remus founded the city of Rome or that Hector fought Achilles before the walls of Troy. There is no historical record for any of these events one way or another, there is just legend.

Except that I've never seen it taught as fact that Hector fought Achilles, or that Romulus and Remus founded the city of Rome. We were never taught when exactly the Danish royal family was haunted by ghosts. When we discussed whaling in science class, no one presented the idea that Moby Dick was a documentary, and no one tried to convince me that anyone in colonial Massachusetts ever had to wear an embroidered "A" for adultery.

There's nothing wrong with learning the content of legends --but the students must also learn that they are legends. A teacher who tells students that the battle between Hector and Achilles actually happened should not be teaching.

Would you complain if the students learned of the Trojan War?

If they learned about it in history class instead of World Lit? Vehemently.

 

[Dan Beaird]

...
Is the OT is the only historical source for the ancient Israelites?

Pretty much, if you want to call the OT a historical source. My opinion is that it is a collection of cultural legends mixed in with religious rituals, advice and laws.

The events in the OT should be taken as historical with the understanding that the authors freely change or invent historical events to fill in gaps or make a point.

Really no different from Herodotus in many respects. A comparison reading might be of value. Prior to Thucydides (and for quite a number of historians afterwards) history has always been more about what should have happened than what actually happened.

History, I'm afraid, is not about The Truth. History is mostly a collection of anecdotal evidence about the past. Dealing with any period that contains no surviving first-hand accounts of events you are technically dealing with legend.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I know history is not the truth. I majored in History in college. But we are talking about 6th graders. Who are not being taught that the OT is legend. 6th graders have a different maturity level and ability to understand myth vs. reality than college students.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Except that I've never seen it taught as fact that Hector fought Achilles, or that Romulus and Remus founded the city of Rome. ...

Because I never heard or saw the actual lesson that was taught or read the history text this came from, I assumed that this was not presented as historical fact. I really doubt that the Teacher stood in front of the class and said: "Listen kids, Moses brought the tablets down from Mt. Sinai to present the Law, writ by the very finger of God, to the Israelites". I just can't see that, although I could imagine a teacher of a religious persuasion presenting the information in a manner which made them think so. In my opinion that is inappropriate.

There's nothing wrong with learning the content of legends --but the students must also learn that they are legends. A teacher who tells students that the battle between Hector and Achilles actually happened should not be teaching.

Why on earth would you say that? Just because something might not actually be true never stopped Herodotus from slipping a ripping good yarn into his history. We're talking about teaching kids. At this point I would much rather get them excited about a subject that way too many people consider boring than involve them in a debate about the relative value of historical sources.

If they learned about it in history class instead of World Lit? Vehemently.

I guess I see this as sort of the same issue as the Evolution is just a Theory argument. While saying Moses is just a Legend is factually true, it is not the entire truth. People generally make the same incorrect assumptions about the meaning of legend as they do about the meaning of theory. For many people these events, historical or not, are an article of their faith. We do not have to believe the same thing, but we should treat it with respect where we do touch upon it in studies.

 

[drkitten]

Pretty much, if you want to call the OT a historical source. My opinion is that it is a collection of cultural legends mixed in with religious rituals, advice and laws.

The events in the OT should be taken as historical with the understanding that the authors freely change or invent historical events to fill in gaps or make a point.

So with the understanding that none of it might be true, it's a historical source.

And for next week, we will study early English history through the magic of T. H. White's The Once and Future King.

 

[Dan Beaird]

I know history is not the truth. I majored in History in college. But we are talking about 6th graders. Who are not being taught that the OT is legend. 6th graders have a different maturity level and ability to understand myth vs. reality than college students.

Lisa:
I guess my question is: What exactly was your niece taught? What was the source? Was she told to read the Pentateuch and given instruction to accept every word as fact?

The way I see it, and I may be wrong, she was taught the biblical account and then was tested on what was taught. For all we know the teacher may have started out the instruction by saying "this is what the bible says, but it's just a cultural legend. You'll be tested on it."

My point is that 6th graders should learn history from stories, not by memorizing dates and places. Yes, eventually they will need to learn that Lincoln didn't free all the slaves and that Columbus didn't discover America, but that can wait a little can't it? They're only a couple years past The Cat in the Hat.

 

[drkitten]

Why on earth would you say that? Just because something might not actually be true never stopped Herodotus from slipping a ripping good yarn into his history.

Because we've progressed beyond Herodotus in our standards of performing (and teaching) history.

If you want Herodotus to teach my children history, then I hope that yours get treated by Galen when they go to the hospital.

I guess I see this as sort of the same issue as the Evolution is just a Theory argument. While saying Moses is just a Legend is factually true, it is not the entire truth.

No, it's exactly the opposite issue. The lengthy (and ultimately correct) response to a controversial claim such as Evolution is just a Theory or i]Moses is just a Legend[/i] is to look at what the available evidence is and to critically evaluate it. If for some reason (for example, you're strapped for time and teaching 6th graders that aren't that epistemologically sophisticated), then you present as fact what can be supported by a preponderance of evidence, and you present as fiction the ripping good yarns. This isn't difficult; most of my fellow students in first form knew the differences between the "stories" we got in reading class and the "facts" we got in science.

People generally make the same incorrect assumptions about the meaning of legend as they do about the meaning of theory. For many people these events, historical or not, are an article of their faith. We do not have to believe the same thing, but we should treat it with respect where we do touch upon it in studies.

I see no reason to respect the presentation of falsehood as truth.