IN DEFENSE OF BIBLICAL LITERACY IN ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LITERARY STUDIES _______________________________________ A Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia _______________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts _____________________________________________________ by Timothy Love Dr. William Kerwin, Thesis Supervisor JULY 2017 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled IN DEFENSE OF BIBLICAL LITERACY IN ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LITERARY STUDIES presented by Timothy Love, a candidate for the degree of master of Arts and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Professor William Kerwin Professor David Read Professor John Frymire ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the instrumental guidance of William Kerwin. His assistance in directing my research was unquestionably beneficial, and integral to my findings. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…...……………………………………………………………ii INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...iv CHAPTER ONE Biblical literacy should not be exclusive to religious studies….……….................1 The establishment and decline of biblical theory and biblical literacy in English literary studies……………………………………………….…………….8 The “religious turn” is not necessarily a biblical turn…………………………….16 CHAPTER TWO Identifying and examining biblical allusions..........................................................21 Biblical analysis of Shakespeare’s King Lear.........................................................26 Biblical analysis of Milton’s Lycidas......................................................................35 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………...55 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………....…………………………...56 iv In Defense of Biblical Literacy in English and American Literary Studies *** “…the Bible is probably the most important single source of all our literature. That is certainly the case, and an increasing neglect of the Bible in our secularized times has opened a gulf between it and our general literature, a gap of ignorance which must in some measure falsify the latter.” —Robert Alter and Frank Kermode *** Introduction — I once witnessed a guest speaker give a psychological interpretation of Milton’s Paradise Lost at my university. He, an early modern scholar, used Freudian terms to explain specific Miltonian intentions, avoiding scriptural contexts for the most part of the hour. Needless to say, I was pretty impressed by his unique perspective. The examination was highly scientific and strategically safe—free from religious opinion or theological controversy. I was very much captivated by such a, rare, highly psychosomatic analysis…until the question and answer period started, that is. My sense of awe began to wane after someone in the audience, a fellow early modern scholar, asked the guest speaker a biblical question. Using terms such as “antediluvian,” the fellow scholar attempted to bring Paradise Lost into biblical relevance (how dare he!). Disappointedly, the guest speaker gave a haphazard response, seeming unprepared for such a biblically literate inquiry. Moments later, another scriptural question emerged from the audience, this time from a young, up-and-coming scholar. The guest speaker looked bewildered, as if the v young scholar’s biblical terminology was a foreign language. Upon finishing the question, he waited for an answer…The guest speaker paused, then responded nervously: “Well, I know as much about the Bible as most people do.” This was the bulk of his answer. In other words, his biblical knowledge was, in his view, commonly inept. He felt he shouldn’t feel bad for failing to answer such an advanced biblical question concerning Paradise Lost, because most people, including fellow scholars in the academy, also couldn’t. However, the interpretive limitations incurred by such biblical illiteracy are seriously disappointing, despite the commonality of such scriptural incompetence in academic circles. The issue of contemporary biblical illiteracy poses major problems for English and American literary studies. As sharp declines in basic biblical awareness over the past century persist throughout American society as a whole, deficiencies in academic biblical emphasis swells at the core of incomprehensive English scholarship. Irresponsibly, many scholars let notions of comprehensive textual interpretation via biblical consideration slip in favor of narrow, singular lenses (such as the psychoanalytic lens used by the guest speaker) or focalized critical trends that ignore biblical theory. Academic realizations of biblical illiteracy and consequential declining comprehensive analysis are marked by calls to fuse scriptural study with literary study, or incorporate the significance of biblical knowledge back into academic scholarship. In the mid-twentieth century, the term “Bible as literature” re-emerges1 as a signifier of desires to remedy biblical illiteracy. This remedy incorporates strategies that mesh biblical lenses with secular literary lenses. In The 1 Though Leland Ryken (PhD, University of Oregon and professor of English at Wheaton College), notes that “the phrase the Bible as literature came on the scene in the middle of the twentieth century” (Crossway 1), the term was actually used in the early twentieth century also. vi Complete Literary Guide to the Bible (1993), Leland Ryken and Tremper Longman III call these secular lenses “literary approaches,” and stipulate that scholars have respected the application of literary methods to biblical studies since Old Testament authorship (52-53), even though the term “Bible as literature” doesn’t become popular until the mid-twentieth century. As Ryken and Longman III recognize likeminded efforts throughout history—such as Augustine’s willingness to equate the literary or aesthetic qualities of the Bible to classical writing (55), and Sir Philip Sydney’s proclivity to defend poetry by comparing it with the “literary nature of the Bible” (56)—other scholars use the fusion of scripture and literature as a reputable blueprint or role model for future modern academic study. In her preface to The Bible Read as Literature (1959), Mary Esson Reid suggests that “in the past three or four centuries, more than in earlier periods” (vii) the study of “biblical literature” (vii) has been embraced, fostering notions that “knowledge of this Biblical literature is part of our cultural heritage in the western world, and that unless it is made available in the schools, the majority of young people will miss it” (vii). Here, Reid not only concurs with Ryken that “Bible as literature” lenses were present long before the twentieth century, but she also promotes its immediate emphasis among the posterity of academic study. Unfortunately, the long-lasting bond between literary approaches and biblical studies seems to wane at points in history—such as today—where scriptural knowledge becomes less fashionable, or much less of a priority in secular literary circles. We can thus detect these points in history by locating movements which seek to address biblical disinterest. As it is only reasonable to pursue a scriptural remedy when faced with a biblical deficiency, spotting responses which aggressively incorporate the Bible into literary academics simultaneously identifies periods of inadequate biblical literacy. Requests to promote biblical emphases in vii secular academics, whether meagre or prolific, logically respond to inadequate or diminishing bonds between English literary study and Bible study. The resurgence of the term “Bible as literature” in the mid-twentieth century comes in wake of a rather long period in literary history where “interest in the Bible…can be pictured as an underground stream that finally came to surface around 1960” (Ryken 60). Here, Ryken implicitly describes the state of literary study during the first half of the twentieth century, locating an age of dormant biblical consideration, and a subsequent responding period of scriptural remedy. Ryken goes on to detail this therapeutic period: By 1960 the underground stream had surfaced. The main spokesperson was Northrop Frye. In Anatomy of Criticism, the most influential work of literary theory in our century, the Bible emerged as the chief organizing framework for Western literature…Equally important was Frye’s contention that “the Bible forms the lowest stratum in teaching of literature. It should be taught so early and so thoroughly that it sinks straight to the bottom of the mind, where everything that comes along later can settle on it.” (Educated Imagination 110) (Ryken 61-62) Most interesting to me is Frye’s implication of insufficient biblical education in academic circles before the underground stream of biblical emphasis surfaced in 1960. By claiming that the Bible “should be taught so early and so thoroughly that it sinks straight to the bottom of the mind,” Frye insinuates that the Bible hasn’t been taught early or thoroughly, nor has it been given its due priority. Frye’s sense of immediacy in promoting educational changes speaks volumes about the extent of biblical illiteracy prior to his influential text; a text which calls for aggressive scriptural focus in academia. Reid’s late 1950’s text reflects a pattern of trending calls for biblical remedies during this time. She claims that “all over the country, courses are offered in Biblical literature—units on the Bible are inclined in survey courses, and books on the Bible are more popular than viii before” (vii). The latter phrase, “more popular than ever before,” implies that prior to 1959, some type of scriptural inadequacy or latency was present. This aligns Reid, Frye, and Ryken’s implications of biblical dormancy (pre-1960), as well as their explicit indications of biblical resurgence (post-1960). The pre-1960 biblical latency follows a swath of Victorian interest in biblical theory that, in my opinion, responds to a dip in religious interest during the Enlightenment period. I and other scholars find that this dip repeats in a much stronger manner sometime after the 1970’s, following a two-decade increase of biblical emphasis in the academy. Ryken claims that “the decade of the seventies saw a plethora of high school and college courses in the Bible, usually taught in the English Departments” (61-62). He also asserts that “courses in the Bible as literature became one of the ten most popular high school English electives” and that “anthologies multiplied [,] scholarly articles on the Bible began to appear in literary journals [and] the topic of the Bible as literature became a nearly constant topic at regional meetings” (61-62). But something happened during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s that led to a siphoning of this enthusiasm. There is evidence to suggest that biblical illiteracy in English and American literary circles somehow increased dramatically, and sadly never recovered. Presently, Bible as literature courses are mainly taught in English departments at pitifully shrinking rates throughout American’s top universities and colleges (I have conducted my own research on this matter, and will present it in chapter one of this book). Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, when publishing The Literary Guide to the Bible in 1987, are two prime examples of scholars who observe dramatic biblical illiteracy after the 70’s: To most educated modern readers the Bible probably seems both familiar and strange, like the feathers of an ancestor. They will know, if only in a general way, of its central importance in the ix history of the culture they have inherited: but they will also be aware that in its modern forms that culture has denied the Bible the kinds of importance it had in the past. (1) Notice how Alter and Kermode2 address the “most educated modern readers,” beginning their “General Introduction” by targeting literary academics. Suggesting that the Bible may seem “familiar” and “strange” conveys a deficit in biblical mastery, or insufficient biblical understanding in relation to applicable fields of study. As the latter portion of the quote alludes to a national social culture that suffers from the same type of biblical ignorance, Alter and Kermode see a secular loss for all parties involved. The literary scholar and the common citizen are both ignorant to a central part of their own history. If the literary scholar is unaware of the Bible’s significance in literary history, he or she procures just as much disadvantage as those citizens who can’t fathom the derivational significance of cultural items, or trace the origins of societal culture back to the Bible. Eight years before Alter and Kermode’s text, in 1979, John H. Gottcent also notices a growing gap between the most educated modern readers and biblical scholarship, as well as literary criticism and biblical understanding. Although Gottcent does notice remnants of biblical fervor during the late 1970’s, especially in Bible as literature courses, he doesn’t deny fundamental scriptural inadequacies within literary studies. As a result, Gottcent dedicates his text—The Bible as literature a selected bibliography (1979)—to bridging the gap between secular biblical illiteracy and scriptural mastery, not only conveying a sense of immediate importance concerning biblical literature within the academy, but also signaling the presence of an epidemic. 2 Note: Alter and Kermode are two literary scholars who focus on biblical subjects or the biblical literature. However, Ryken does not consider them to be biblical scholars.