TRFG - Doubt 7 - You can't take the Bible literally
The Challenge
I see much of the Bible’s teachings as historically inaccurate. We can’t be sure the Bible’s account of events is actually is what really happened.
[M]y biggest problem with the Bible is that it is culturally obsolete. Much of the Bible’s social teaching (for example, about women) is socially regressive. So it is impossible to accept the Bible as the complete authority Christians think it is.
The Argument
While many people would admit that there are great stories or sayings in the Bible, they would also say that you “can’t take the Bible literally” today. What they mean by this is that the Bible is not entirely trustworthy because some (or maybe even most) parts are either scientifically impossible, historically unreliable, or culturally repressive.
Some scholars argue that the New Testament gospels originated as oral traditions handed down by the church and that they were finally written down hundreds of years after the apostles or any other eye witnesses were around to authenticate the stories they contained. It is argued that early church leaders were sure to keep the stories about Jesus that supported their positions in debates held by their community. Contrary depictions of Jesus contained in other documents were suppressed by these leaders in an effort to consolidate and protect their power in the church. Lately, we have been uncovering some of these suppressed documents (e.g. the gospels of Thomas and Judas) which contain a different story about the life and mission of Jesus. Because of this, it is almost impossible to know what parts of the gospels are factual and which are legend. Further, it is widely believed that the gospels contained in the Bible are historically unreliable and consist primarily of legends.
The Response
In such a short post, we cannot possibly hope to cover the evidence for every book of the Bible. Instead, we will concentrate on examining the authenticity and reliability of the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) which describe the life and teachings of Jesus.
To begin, it must be noted that the timing of the gospels is far too early for them to be legends. The gospels were written at the very most 40 to 60 years after the death of Christ 1. This is now nearly universally recognized by scholars though it was a point of much debate during 18th and 19th centuries. The significance of this is that for a legend to take hold, all the eyewitnesses of an event, their children, and probably even their grand-children need to be long gone. Otherwise, they can stand up and refute the claims being made. The gospels routinely name eye witnesses to the events of Jesus’ life. For instance, Mark notes that the man who carried the cross of Jesus, Simon of Cyrene is the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21). These men were active in the early church and they could vouch for the story Mark was telling. Luke explains how he interviewed eyewitnesses while developing his account (Luke 1:1-5). Since many of these eyewitnesses would have still been alive at the time Luke wrote his gospel, they could have refuted what he wrote if it had been fabricated.
Next, the content is far too counterproductive for the gospels to be legends. If the purpose of the gospels was to promote the policies of the early church leaders and build their power, they do a pretty poor job. The disciples are repeatedly depicted as displaying jealousy, slowness to believe, and cowardice. We are told that two women were the first to report that Jesus had risen from the dead. Why would the disciples admit to this if it were not true, given that women had a much lower standing in the community? Further, the fact that Jesus was crucified would have been a terrible story to make up. Upon hearing this, listeners from both Jewish and Greek culture would have automatically suspected that Jesus was a criminal deserving to die.
Finally, we note that the literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend. As C.S. Lewis explains
I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, and myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know none of them are like this. Of this [gospel] text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage … or else, some unknown [ancient] writer … without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative…
What he is saying is that it wasn’t until the last 300 years that fiction began to contain details which served no purpose other than to make the story more realistic. If you read the epic poem, The Odyssey, you will not see any characters noticing the rain or sighing as they walk. These details are included in fiction works today because they make the story more believable, but they were never included in ancient fiction.
In the gospels, we are told all kinds of details. In Mark 4, we are told Jesus was asleep on a cushion. In John 21, we’re told that Peter was 100 yards out in the sea when he saw Jesus on the shore. In John 8, as Jesus listened to the men who caught the woman in adultery, he drew in the sand. We aren’t told what he wrote or why he did it. None of these details serve to further the plot or character development. Richard Bauckham has noted that all of these stories bear the signs of recollective memory. “Recollective memory is selective - it fixes on unique and consequential events, it retains irrelevant details, it takes the limited vantage point of a participant rather than that of an omniscient narrator, and it shows signs of frequent rehearsal.” All of this points to the fact that the events contained in the gospels actually happened and that the gospels are a reliable history.
The Quotes
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.
F.F. Bruce
I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, and myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know none of them are like this. Of this [gospel] text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage … or else, some unknown [ancient] writer … without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative…
C.S. Lewis
Gospel scholars, from the form critics onward, [believed] that early Christians in the transmission of Jesus traditions would not have made any distinction between the past time of the history of Jesus and their own present because oral societies do not make such distinctions. This is untrue.
Richard Bauckham
The Questions
Question 1 Shawn argues, “The Bible was compiled hundreds of years after Jesus. The books it contains were chosen to support the ruling party’s view. There is no way we can trust the Bible.” How would you respond to Shawn?
Question 2 Bernard wonders, “How can we know who Jesus really was?”
Question 3 Do you agree that we should expect God to take stands and enforce rules that run counter to our sense of how things should be done? Why or why not?
Question 4 Jenny contends, “The Bible is too culturally repressive to be believable. How can I believe the Bible when it promulgates an ancient view of women?” What would you say to Jenny?