Thanks for the clarification. I apologize if I made a premature judgment. However, the history of western civilization, at least from the perspective of colonial conquests and colonialism as a violent system, has been for the most part a Christian conquest. For example, when Westerners set their foot on the dry land of Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean isles for the first time, they brought the Bible with them, a symbiotic marker between Western culture and Western Christianity. They depicted and expressed themselves as the people of the book and the civilized Westerners, who were bringing the good news of the Bible and Western civilization, correspondingly ( a reality they could not divorce themselves from), to the native savages. This is known as “la mission civilatrice” (“civilized mission”) as the French conquerers called it.

Another example pertains to when westerner Christian missionaries and colonialists went to Africa. Africans’ reception of the Bible was expressed in terms of a mélange of reverence and awe, disdain and bewilderment. Why were such complex attitudes toward Scriptures? Well, the Bible as cargo was rightly identified with the Europeans along with other cargo, and a host of differences the Westerners brought in with them. These include their appearance, speech and worldview. They presented themselves to be “other” in the world of the Africans and thought themselves to be powerful, superior, and civilized. Beyond what has been stated; Africans could not be persuaded the “sacred” could be located in a book as the European missionaries believed and maintained. Inevitably, it was not the European’s perception of the sacred nature of the book that was problematic to the Africans. “It was instead the Europeans’ claims regarding the boundness and the exclusive authority of the book and their emphasis on the past and on the discontinuous, or single, nature of the revelation associated with the book.” Indeed, it was a clash of two different worldviews; these two were irreconcilable.

I stop now.
Lou

I don’t imagine you would be disturbed at the Epic of Gilgamesh or Hammurabi’s Code or Homer’s Iliad, etc., as a part of western civilization. These are all texts that are important as the foundations begin forming for what we call western civilization. The texts from Genesis and Exodus help us “do history” when we’re talking about the first empires of the ancient world (and their cities and cultures).

I don’t think the title needs to imply that this is all the biblical texts are good for, of course, but we can’t deny them a place among other important historical documents in the roots of western civilization.

Finally, well, it’s just a title. Anyone who reads the post, I think, should be able to see that I am not equating Christianity, or anything else, with western civilization.

I’ve been teaching “x” sessions (x = number of class periods you teach each week). This is my last class and I’ve noticed a trend as we’ve gone through (list the myths that you’ve discussed). You guys have great insights and I’m terribly impressed. (Lay it on thick … but keep it in your own words). But when we get to this week and we discuss the Bible, that seems to be a stumbling place and all of us (me included) don’t seem to be able to approach this text with the same sense of objectivity that we do the others. Why do you think that might be?

Or … conversely … cut the class discussion short … leave yourself 10 to 15 minutes at the end and close with this.

Or even open next week’s discussions with this … let them answer it and find the reasons. Work it through together.