What is the Bible?
In a nutshell, the Bible is a collection of books which were written by many authors over many centuries. A number of different kinds of literature are found in these books, such as poetry, wisdom, apocalyptic, etc. Among these different kinds of literature, the most common, no doubt, is the record of past events. The question is, should the Bible’s account of history be viewed as history, or should it be viewed as something else?
To really be able to answer this question, we need to know something about the intentions of the writers of the books of the Bible. What were their intentions? I only know of three basic hypothetical possibilities.
One possibility is that the biblical accounts of past events were simply made up in a deliberate attempt to promote the writers’ agendas. If this were the case, one would naturally expect to find factual errors and inconsistencies in the text. Also, since many writers were involved, one would expect to find evidence of collusion. Finally, due to the controversial claims by many of the writers, one would expect intense persecutions to have led to the confessions of at least some of them and their supporters that the books contained fabrications.
The main problem with this scenario is that no evidence of such a conspiracy exists. Although the text of the Bible has undergone centuries of scrutiny, no one has shown that the original text contained provable errors. Neither have the writers been shown to have engaged in collusion, and none of them confessed to have been a part of any kind of conspiracy despite intense persecution even to the point of death.
Another hypothetical possibility is that the biblical accounts of past events were not intended to be taken as history, but rather as parables designed to teach various principles, etc. After all, if other ancient writers engaged in this kind of practice, why couldn’t the biblical writers have done the same?
The problem with this view is, again, a lack of evidence. If the accounts of events were never meant to be taken as historical, why such detail in so many instances? Also, major events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (II Kings 25:1-10; II Chronicles 36:15-19) and the conquest of Babylon by the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:25-31) are clearly historical. Furthermore, writers of New Testament books make it clear that they were careful to present the facts of history. In Luke 1:1-4 we read, “Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.” In II Peter 1:16 we read, “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.”
Clearly, then, we are left with one reasonable possibility: the writers of the biblical accounts of events in the past intended to record history accurately. Admittedly, this by itself does not prove that the biblical accounts of past events are accurate. Are these accounts mistaken in any of the details? Without any provable errors in the text, we have no basis for such a conclusion.
To really be able to answer this question, we need to know something about the intentions of the writers of the books of the Bible. What were their intentions? I only know of three basic hypothetical possibilities.
One possibility is that the biblical accounts of past events were simply made up in a deliberate attempt to promote the writers’ agendas. If this were the case, one would naturally expect to find factual errors and inconsistencies in the text. Also, since many writers were involved, one would expect to find evidence of collusion. Finally, due to the controversial claims by many of the writers, one would expect intense persecutions to have led to the confessions of at least some of them and their supporters that the books contained fabrications.
The main problem with this scenario is that no evidence of such a conspiracy exists. Although the text of the Bible has undergone centuries of scrutiny, no one has shown that the original text contained provable errors. Neither have the writers been shown to have engaged in collusion, and none of them confessed to have been a part of any kind of conspiracy despite intense persecution even to the point of death.
Another hypothetical possibility is that the biblical accounts of past events were not intended to be taken as history, but rather as parables designed to teach various principles, etc. After all, if other ancient writers engaged in this kind of practice, why couldn’t the biblical writers have done the same?
The problem with this view is, again, a lack of evidence. If the accounts of events were never meant to be taken as historical, why such detail in so many instances? Also, major events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (II Kings 25:1-10; II Chronicles 36:15-19) and the conquest of Babylon by the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:25-31) are clearly historical. Furthermore, writers of New Testament books make it clear that they were careful to present the facts of history. In Luke 1:1-4 we read, “Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.” In II Peter 1:16 we read, “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.”
Clearly, then, we are left with one reasonable possibility: the writers of the biblical accounts of events in the past intended to record history accurately. Admittedly, this by itself does not prove that the biblical accounts of past events are accurate. Are these accounts mistaken in any of the details? Without any provable errors in the text, we have no basis for such a conclusion.
posted by Dave | 3:07 PM
1 Comments:
For a fascinating discussion of the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, listen to the Unbelievable? program of 9/5/09.
Post a Comment
<< Home