Validity of the Bible: Part 2 (Originally posted June 2007)

Once you begin to consider the reasonability of self-authoritativeness as a method of validating the Bible, you must eventually backtrack to consider also the theologians’ methods of analyzing the texts. In other words, no one can reasonably designate a text as inspired until they have first sufficiently substantiated its more superficial claims, such as the time in which it was written and its authorship. We must never forget the inherent weight of the adjective, divinely inspired. A claim as heavy as this one invites a level of critique probably far more severe than we have yet had to accommodate, and yet we often treat such critiques as trifle annoyances. What a Christian experiences as a bothersome triviality might, for the non-believer, seem an insurmountable obstacle to belief. My question, then, is how these more superficial claims are being tested by researchers within the field. Are the methods employed sufficient? Are the conclusions drawn continuous with the evidence?

As a necessary preface to this discussion, let me cite Richard Dawkins’ argument for how faith can be positively examined by science:

“’The net, or magisterium, of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the old clichés, science gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven (quote by Stephen Jay Gould).’…The moment religion steps on science’s [turf, however,] and starts to meddle in the real world with miracles, it ceases to be religion in the sense Gould is defending, and his amicabilis concordia (lit., friendly agreement) is broken (The God Delusion, pg. 55, 60).”

To paraphrase Dawkins’ argument for our purposes: Although religion might claim certain attributes of itself ‘beyond the realm of science’, there are inarguably certain instances in which the two overlap (such as claims to the age of the earth, the feasibility of Noah’s ark, and - of special concern to our present argument - dates and events cited in biblical texts). Each of these things can be objectively examined within the realm of science, history, or whatever particular field the claims or events happen to infringe upon. However crystal clear this concept might be, and however simple it might sound to distinguish fact from fiction upon these guidelines, the pursuit of truth proves as difficult as ever, as I intend to demonstrate.

Historical researchers often employ science to support or lend credibility to a potential historical truth, but the application of science to the process is limited at best. Historians - or as far as it concerns the Bible, theologians - often adopt a set of criteria by which to analyze the scriptures in order to achieve the most balanced picture of what really happened. Such criteria differs between schools of thought (whether conservative or liberal) and might include such considerations as language used; cohesiveness of thought; literary structure; references to people, dates, or events; plausible influences; cultural conditions; authorship; extent of circulation and reproduction; and archaeological evidence. Historical truth, therefore, is achieved by determining the most likely scenario given the totality of evidence. The items which compose this list of criteria, as well as the priority that each item is given, is going to differ between different schools of thought. One example, and possibly that of greatest consequence to our discussion, deals with the treatment of prophecy. Among conservative theologians, the presence of prophecy within a text might suggest very little in regards to the date of the text; that is to say, prophecy within a text probably holds only little priority in the overall analysis of the text’s age. In contrast, liberal theologians might reasonably consider seemingly prophetic writing as evidence of actual foreknowledge (the writer either experienced or was familiar with the event). There is an underlying assumption, completely justifiable within the secular worldview, that true prophecy (that is, the foretelling of future events) is not possible. From that stance, it might be reasonable to assume that any prophetic passage within a text was either inserted at a later date by an author who possessed knowledge of the particular event - and possibly, whose agenda would benefit from the pretense of prophetic authority - or that the later accounts (i.e., accounts of Jesus’ lineage or nationality) were adapted in order to fulfill the existing prophecy. From the beginning, there is sown within the mind of the evaluator an underlying distrust (it might also be fairly called an objective skepticism) of biblical content. Among conservatives, there is an equally damning presumption of divine inspiration and the authenticity of prophecy. This is how the board is set…our job, then, becomes to find a common ground upon which to intelligently and objectively discuss the matter.

The products of these two methods of biblical analysis are so worlds apart that any comparison between the two would be about as useful as comparing apples to oranges. By the time we get to discussing the conclusions each school of thought has developed, we’ve already wandered too far away from the real important issue. While the products/conclusions are all that matter in science, with history, it’s the assumptions that bear all the scrutiny. While there are certainly reasons certain groups choose to consider particular items in higher priority than others, these reasons are not all equally valid. Justin, since you are more familiar (I’m assuming) with the actual lists employed by liberal theologians versus conservative theologians to analyze biblical texts, would you mind explaining the strengths and weakness of each criteria set? If you could also maybe reference how this whole process has come to exclude certain other texts from that same period (Gnostic gospels, apocryphal books, etc.), I would appreciate it. Also, maybe write something about the Dead Sea scrolls and how their discovery has effected each methodologies claims (i.e., The Isaiah scroll containing messianic prophecy, thus supporting conservative theologians’ assumptions that such prophecies were not edited in, etc.).

Like I’ve previously pointed out, an error in the conservative theologians’ analysis undermines the claim of divine inspiration; conversely, an error in the liberal theologians’ (or secularists’) analysis of scripture potentially opens the door to the reality of prophecy, thus substantiating the Bible’s claims of divine inspiration. Either way, I think within Dawkin’s frame of mind there is room to test the bible to see whose viewpoint withstands the scrutiny (is based on sound reason) and whose doesn’t. If I need to, I’ll cite particular claims made my Dawkin’s refuting the bible’s accuracy and we can deal with those one by one to see what comes up.

Validity of the Bible: Responses (Originally posted June 2007)

Allow me to preface with an apology for any rehashing that may be done in my attempted response as I would like to take this opportunity to organize my thoughts on assorted topics that have at least some relevance to the topic at hand. I feel I have very limited credentials to speak on much of what has been raised and for that reason I will give more treatment to some of the issues than others.

First, as to the origins of the canon. I’m sure it goes without being said that, as far as we know, none of the New Testament writers wrote with the intention of having their works canonized. So how’d it happen? I appreciate your five possible logical explanations for why the NT canon came together and I realize what I am about to say furthers the plight of the skeptic, but is it possible that the gathering of the canon came about by way of supernatural guidance? It would be nice to assume that closer to the event of Jesus’ incarnation there would be a deeper spirituality among God’s people. We are talking about people who supposed lived within just a few generations of the most revolutionary figure in all of history. These people’s great grandparents had seen Jesus. You get the idea. So perhaps their faith was so strong and God’s plan was so out of the ordinary that he used unparalleled guidance by the Holy Spirit to direct those responsible for assembling the canon very specifically as to what to include and what not and so on and so forth.

Moving on to the dating of the Biblical texts. I think the dating of the book of Acts is imperative in the dating of the gospels, which I would say is the most important dates we need to get right. We know that Acts was the second part of a letter written by Luke to “His Excellency” Theophilus. Accepting the assumption that Luke is a reliable historian (which I might add is the normal supposition made when examining the writing of all other historical figures [innocent until proven guilty]) one must wonder why Luke does not include two things in the book of Acts: 1. The Destruction of the Temple- AD 70 2. The death of the Apostle Paul (one of the book’s central figures)- AD 62. If you are willing to follow out the logic, you’d see that the reasonable explanation would be that the book of Acts would have been written before either of these two crucial dates. Going backwards, that would mean that the Gospel of Luke came before AD 62 and since Luke contains parts of Mark, as does Matthew, (Mark being the earliest Gospel) we have the Gospel of Mark being written very near Jesus’ death. Even if you don’t buy into that argument, consider this: Scholars, even liberals, put Mark in the 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s, and John in the 90s (generally). So, that is a window anywhere from about 40-70 years of Jesus’ death. That is two generations at best. Compare that with the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great (I owe such a comparison to Lee Strobel). His two earliest biographies were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after his death in 323 BC. Historians consider these to be generally trustworthy. In the case of Jesus, we are talking about twice as many biographies in less than a fourth of the time.

Finally, in regards to the Bible being “self-authoritative”. We know that the NT’s authority is rooted in the apostles who are the foundation of the household of God (Eph. 2:20). This makes sense since Jesus promised in John 16:13-14, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” So, ultimately, the NT’s authority is rooted in Jesus and we can work backwards from there to hear what Jesus said about the OT like Matt. 5:18 where Jesus claims, “truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” And I am sure you are familiar with tons of other NT verses like that that affirm the OT’s canonicity. I realize that it gets a little hairy to tell a skeptic, “the Bible is the Word of God because it says it is the Word of God and since it’s the Word of God I believe it.” But think of it this way. Imagine in a court of law the prosecutor is making his case for why he thinks the defendant is guilty and the defense attorney rises to object. The judge asks on what grounds does he object and he responds, “On the grounds that the prosecutor who is making this case actually believes the case he is making is true.” That is, analogously, what the authors of the Bible are so often accused of. I think this is especially prevalent when skeptics look at the gospel writers. They claim, “oh, these people had an agenda, therefore the fabricated nonsense they recorded is just that, nonsense.” But to borrow an analogy from Strobel:

Some people, usually for anti-Semitic purposes, deny or downplay the horrors of the Holocaust. But it has been the Jewish scholars who’ve created museums, written books, preserves artifacts, and documented eyewitness testimony concerning the Holocaust.
Now they have a very ideological purpose – namely, to ensure that such an atrocity never occurs again – but they have also been the most faithful and objective in their reporting of historical truth.

So it is with the gospel-writers. I recognize much of my focus has been on the gospels specifically rather than our broader intended scope of the entire Bible, but I really feel like Jesus has to be the starting point in apologetics. Seriously, if we measure time (or used to before they came up with the politically correct BCE/CE crap) according to the time of the man’s death he probably should be where we start when it comes to defending/working out our faith’s issues.

The Validity of the Bible: Part 1 (Originally posted June 2007)

This issue seems, from every angle, to be one of unique ambiguity. For the purposes of this forum, I will focus my questions to the following issues regarding the validity of the Bible: One, the origins of the canon; two, the methods of dating biblical texts by both conservative and liberal theologians; and three, the specific relevancies of the argument (as it effects the authority, reliability, and application of the text for the Christian; and how the perspective of the secularist might be undermined if their assumptions were properly challenged). This is a question which I’m sure others will be better suited to answer, but I’ll do my best to introduce the topic.

As for the origins of the canon (those books included in our modern Bibles and considered to be “inspired” by God), it seems an issue up for debate. It is clear that, even from several thousand year B.C., Jewish believers operated by observance of particular texts considered to be inspired by God. For instance, Daniel 9:2 reads: “…in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the Lord given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.” Also, it is known that certain biblical texts were commonly read aloud at the feasts of Israel. These include Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. If I remember my conversation with you correctly, the entire Old Testament was compiled and canonized - although perhaps not formally - by approximately 300 B.C. The New Testament books were canonized at a later date, the time and circumstances of which I can’t seem to nail down (granted, I’ve only asked around rather than researched the issue personally). If someone could supplement this issue, I would appreciate it.

So, where did the concept of canonization come from? I’m only guessing, but I suppose that part of the explanation involves our innate expectation that God would reveal Himself in a written account, as He has historically and as inferred through the person of Jesus Christ (as supported by the theology of His disciples - see, for example, John 1:1-18). The logic goes something like this:

1. God’s original revelation of Himself came via the Law, originally divinely transcribed on stone tablets and later expanded into written law.
2. God spoke through the prophets, who left written accounts of their prophecies.
3. The Messiah was both foretold in scripture and later validated by it (Luke 24:27, John 13:18, John 19:28, etc.)
4. God described Himself through these prior methods in terms of “word made flesh” (Ps. 119, etc.); this concept was also incorporated into New Testament theology (Heb. 1:1-3, Heb. 4:12, John 1:1-18; Col. 3:16; 2 Tim. 3:16, Rom. 9:17, Gal. 3:8, 2 Peter 1:20)
5. The retrospective evidence of having the word of God prove true in the lives of believers (Rom. 12:2-3, Rom. 2:15, 2 Cor. 3:18, James 1:22-25).

This last point is an example of how the Bible could be considered self-authoritative. If anyone would like to expound on this concept - specifically, how the Bible itself can be a legitimate testimony of its own validity - I would appreciate it. Points 1-4 are hardly worth considering if the Bible’s self-authoritative claims cannot be reasonably validated.

Anyway, it seems that Christians are very comfortable with the interpretation, application, and the concept of scriptural authority (particularly in regards to directing their lives and providing promises of eternal security), but seem alarmingly less clear on how the Bible came to be and from where its authority is drawn. Like my previous points have suggested, the strongest argument I’ve found so far as to the Bible’s validity is one which could very easily be considered a circular argument. As damning as the terminology sounds, I think there’s room to bolster that argument (that the Bible is self-authoritative) with clear logic and sound reason. Indeed, science espouses its fair share of self-authoritative theories as well. Quantum mechanics, for example, relies on a sort of retrospective proof which science seems to regard as quite convincing. As Dawkins writes, “Quantum mechanics, that rarefied pinnacle of twentieth-century scientific achievement, makes brilliantly successful predictions about the real world. Richard Feynman compared its precision to predicting the distance as great as the width of North American to an accuracy on one human hair’s breadth. This predictive success seems to mean that quantum theory has got to be true in some sense…yet the assumptions that quantum theory needs to make, in order to deliver those predictions, are so mysterious that even the great Feynman himself was moved to remark…: ‘If you think you understand quantum theory…you don’t understand quantum theory.’” (The God Delusion, pg. 364-365) Having said that, could the Bible’s authority be of a similar kind as that of quantum mechanics, gaining credence from the fruit it produces rather than upon the claims/assumptions it makes? What are your thoughts on this, since you introduced me to the term “self-authoritative” in the first place?