« CNN and the Faith Meme
Main
How Long Do You Think It Took to Negotiate These Few Words? »
April 15, 2008
A Complete Course
Kevin Wilson at Blue Cord and Charles Halton at Awilum are reflecting on how and what to teach in a Hebrew Bible survey course. Their thoughts provoked nostalgic memories.
Gerald Larue at USC taught the only Hebrew Bible survey course I ever took. That was in 1964. I still have my notes. From those notes, it looks like we read most of the Hebrew Bible (in English). 1 and 2 Chronicles and Esther were not assigned and we only read about half of the minor prophets and just selections from Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Job. Only a few of the Psalms and parts of Proverbs were assigned. The one semester length class met three times a week. Larue taught it once a year. Not to leave anything out, he required a term paper that related some part of the Bible that wasn' assigned to some part that was. We had to choose our paper topics from a list of ten or so choices. We were required to take into account both the primary literature and some secondary material from a bibliography that Larue provided. I wrote on the portrayal of David in Samuel/Kings verses his portrayal Chronicles. We also read most of Norman Gottwald's A Light to the Nations (a few years later I think Larue was using his own textbook) and a couple of chapters, about half I'd guess, of Theophile Meek's Hebrew Origins. Anyone who messed up an exam or didn't do as well as they wanted to on the term paper could write a book report on Davie Napier's Song of the Vineyard for extra credit. I did it for insurance. While I did quite well, this was by far the hardest class and perhaps the most rewarding class I ever took at any level. Despite (or because of) its well-earned reputation for difficulty, it was also one of most popular humanities classes on campus. It met in one of the largest lecture halls. Each time Larue taught the class, it filled the hall. There were no discussion sections: just old-fashioned text, lecture, paper, and exam format. TAs helped with grading but Larue looked at all A and all F exams and papers and a sample of the others. The TAs also led optional review sessions before each exam. Each of us had a required one on one with him to discuss our papers. Scheduling this was a bit of a nightmare for us as well as Larue. Even as a senior, I felt lucky to get into the class. It was that popular.
I'm not sure a class like this would work today but it sure did in the mid sixties.
This class provided my first contact with the true definition of a complete course, "Everything that wasn't covered in the texts and lectures was covered on the exams." Actually, Larue taught a very exciting if rigorous class and was a fair grader. At least I thought so. The two exams and the final were half multiple choice and about half short answer with one short essay. Several years ago, I was reminiscing with one of my fellow students about this class that we both took together. He too was a senior engineering student in need of one last humanities elective. He recalled that a caption to an illustration in Gottwald contained the answer to one of the test questions. I didn't consciously remember this little tidbit but I did wince when my friend brought it up.
Posted by Duane Smith at April 15, 2008 7:55 AM | Read more on Hebrew Bible |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2472
Comments
Sounds like a great class. Some of the best classes I have taken were very demanding--the good things in life are very rarely easy to obtain.
Posted by: Charles Halton at April 15, 2008 6:14 PM
I agree that I have learned the most from the most demanding classes. But I really wonder if creating demanding classes in today's college environment will help fill the classroom. If so, I'm ready to pile on the work because my enrollments are looking bad for next year already. Early registration started a few days ago and I'm still sitting on empty, last I checked. :(
Posted by: Alan Lenzi at April 15, 2008 8:13 PM
Two points are worth mentioning. 1) Larue taught the class for quite a few years before I took it and in so doing, he had created a buzz about the class that is extremely hard to develop in a short time. 2) Larue cultivated a kind of mystique about himself that was the source of considerable on campus speculation. Was he a Christian? Did he believe in god at all? Was he a socialist (or worse)? Or was he actually a conservative believer who approached the Bible in the way he did because of an academic requirement of some kind or another. He actively fostered this kind of controversy. The truth is that he was/is a fairly active free thinker. He once said of himself, "Igtheist, atheist, non-theist, secularist, naturalist, rationalist, humanist, freethinker. And, if I have omitted any of your favorite skeptical labels, well I am one of those, too." He didn't hide his skepticism. He warped it in a passion for his subject that left undergraduate students confused. How could anyone who knew the Bible so well and spoke of it so passionately be a non-believer? How could a believer see so many contradictions and problems in something he was so passionate about?
Posted by: Duane at April 15, 2008 8:55 PM
Larue's stuff, and that of Napier, are available online I believe. I've liked very much what I've read of both.
Posted by: John Hobbins at April 16, 2008 3:19 PM
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.