Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1907-05-02
Why Not the Bible?


If l were appointed committee Of one to
regulate the much-debated question Of col
lege entrance examinations in English, |
should abolish the distinction between Eng
lish A and English B, should erase every
list Of books that has thus far been tried or
suggested, and I should contine the exami-
nation wholly TO the Authorized Version OF
the Bible. This is radical suggestion, but
something may be said in its defense.
The ignorance of college students of bib
lical literature is universal, profound and
complete. The students at Harvard and
Yale, different as they are 10 many respects
from their brothers in small colleges, resem-
BILE them closely here. II all the undergrad
yates in America could be placed in one
room, and tested by common examination
on the supposedly familiar stories of the Old
Testament, I mean on such instances OF
Eden, Noah, Samson, David and Goliath,
Moses and Pharaoh, the results would be
magnificent contribution to America hum
books is almost never the same in two in
stitutions of learning; but ask any teacher
in the United States what luck he has with
the Bible, and be throws up his hands in
despair I inquired of one fine young speci-
men Of American manhood what he thought
Shakespeare meant by the phrase, Here
feel we not the penalty of Adam, and he
replied, sit was the mark put on Adam for
having slain his brother.p To another lad,
who was every inch gentleman, put the
question, Explain the line-0r memorize
another Golgotha, 2 and his face became a
blank: came to his relief with the remark,
s'Golgotha is a New Testament reference.
A light of intelligence illumined his hand
some face. He replied, "It was Goliath.
Instances like these two are Of constant ald
almost daily occurrence in the work OF
American college teachers. 1t ia certainly
unfortunate that the best book ever printed
should be so little known. and that the fire.
quent references to it in practically every
English author should be meaningless.
I would therefore refuse to allow any can
didate to enter a university until he had
satisfactorily passed an examination on the
Bible. The Bible has within its pages every
single kind of literature that any proposed
list of English classics contains. 1t has
narrative, descriptive, poetical, dramatic, ar
gumentative, and oratorical passages. It
covers everything that the ingenuity Of a
committee in arranging for an English A or
an English list could by any possibility
discover. Furthermore, as the case now
stands, books that are proposed by some ex-
aminers are ridiculed by others, either be-
cause they are too difficult, or too simple.o or
because they are not really literature at all.
No such objection could be made to the
Bible. Priests, atheists, sceptics, deyotees,
agnostics, and eYangelists are all agreed
that the authorized version Of the English
Bible is the best example Of English compo-
sition that the world has ever seen. 1t COM
bines the noblest prose and poetryswith the
utmost simplicity Of diotion.
The substitution of selected portions OF
the Bible would be an enormous convent
ence to examination boards. II would stop
the wrangling over various authors and
oyer various editions. 1t would instantly
silence the vast majority of complaints that
any other list Of books Immediately arouses.
It would not in the least interfere with the
more advanced work in English literature
done in college courses. 1t would fit the
needs Of every candidate.
But, besides solving at one stroke host Of
perplexing and complicated problems, is
would remove the universal and disgraceful
ignorance Of the Bible.-Ir of. WflIians Ly
ous Phelps of Yale University, in the Record
of Christian Work.