The Lead

Is the biblical narrative true in the same way that a mathematical theorem is true? Is it true in the same a natural law is true? What about a historical account of an event? What about an eyewitness account?

Even on this moving scale of "truth" the question of how the Bible compares to similar documents has become an increasing preoccupation in relationship between the Church and Society. There are Christians who claim the Bible is literally, inerrantly true similar to claims some Muslims make that the Koran is true. There are Christians who, like Anglicans, will say the Bible "is the Word of God contains all things necessary for salvation". And there are Christians who approach the Bible with a strong sense of skepticism.

Could the problem be that we are trying to use the wrong norm when we speak of Biblical truth? David Lose, the author of "Making Sense of Scripture" argues that we are. He writes, in part, in an essay posted last week on Huffington Post:

"The dubious nature of biblical 'history' and 'science' and the multiple discrepancies among the four evangelists led to a great schism in Christianity, each side assuming that truth is equated unequivocally with facts. On the liberal side of the divide, scholars concluded that because the Bible was not factually accurate it was in a profound sense not true. Witness, for instance, Bart Ehrman's recent post on who wrote the Bible (and, for that matter, his entire literary career). Conservatives, on the other hand, asserting that the Bible was obviously true, concluded that it therefore must be factually accurate. Hence, they have written tomes that rival the Bible itself in length that engage in intellectual gymnastics in order to iron out all the 'so-called' discrepancies in Scripture.
Both sides, however, miss the literary nature and intent of the Bible as stated within its own pages. Take for example Luke, who in his introduction acknowledges that he is not an eye-witness to the events he recounts but depends on multiple other stories about Jesus. He writes what he calls 'an orderly account' so that his audience may believe and trust the teaching they have received (Luke 1:1-4). Or consider John, who near the end of his gospel comes clean about carefully arranging stories of Jesus so as to persuade his readers that Jesus is the messiah (John 20:30-31). The gospels -- and, indeed, all of Scripture -- do not seek to prove but to persuade. And so John, convinced that Jesus is 'the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world' (1:29), portrays Jesus as clearing the Temple of money changers at the very outset of his ministry because he, himself, is God's sacrifice. Similarly, Jesus dies on the Day of Preparation at the exact moment the Passover lambs are slaughtered. John's aim is thoroughly theological, not historical.

For this reason, the Bible is filled with testimony, witness, confession and even propaganda. Does it contain some reliable historical information? Of that there is little doubt. Yet, whenever we stumble upon 'verifiable facts' -- a notion largely foreign to ancient writers -- we should keep in mind that the biblical authors deployed them not to make a logical argument but rather to persuade their audiences of a larger 'truth' that cannot be proved in a laboratory but is finally accepted or not accepted based on its ability to offer a compelling story about the meaning and purpose of the world, God, humanity and everything in between. To attempt to determine whether the Bible is 'true' based only on its factual accuracy is therefore to make a profound category mistake, judging its contents by standards its authors were neither cognizant of nor interested in."

More here.

Hat tip to Thinking Anglicans.

Comments (5)

As a lifelong Episcopalian, this pretty much seems like "Duh".

Facts are very useful things. But to reduce all Truth to facts, seems like, well, a reduction. The Good News doesn't need to be factual, to be True.

JC Fisher

Posted by tgflux | April 9, 2011 2:42 PM

Reading David Lose's article brings to my mind the greatly different impressions one gets from reading (and listening to) Bart Ehrman vs. Marcus Borg. Ehrman went from a strong fundamentalism in his youth to his present lack of faith. While he claims that his loss of faith was brought about by the problem of theodicy, not by his discovery that the Bible is not literally true, Ehrman's writing has the sense of someone who nurses resentment that he was made to believe a lie. Borg, on the other hand, as a scholar and a man of faith, can quite readily say that the Bible contains some things that are factual, much that is true as metaphor though not necessarily as history, and even some things that are not really true even as metaphor. But Borg can also acknowledge the Bible as the Word of God (upper case 'W'), even though clearly the words of men (lower case 'w'). Ehrman sees the Bible as a human product to be debunked, while Borg sees it as a human product that functions sacramentally--as a channel of God's grace and revelation, regardless of its human flaws. As Anglicans we can accept that bread can be the body of Christ without becoming literal flesh, that wine can be the blood of Christ without becoming literal blood, and that flawed human words can become for us the Word of God without needing to be literally true.

Posted by Bill Ghrist | April 9, 2011 8:24 PM

I cannot find too much to argue with Lose's "moderate" point here except for a lack of acknowledgement as to how difficult it is to balance the scriptures against reason (the book of faith versus the book of nature). The enlightenment deists (or at least some of them) tried to make the book of nature the "sola scriptura" of their day with not a great deal of lasting success. In the 19th century, many tried to make room for God by espousing the "God of the gaps" with the difficulty that knowledge/reason keeps filling in the gaps. It often seems that our modern (?post modern) way of dealing with the tension between the book of scripture and the book of nature is to assign them to different realms/ways of thinking and endorse both as equally legitimate. This is perhaps a good start, but it also makes it difficult for there to be the necessary "conversation" between them. As Episcopalians/Anglicans, we do not sit on one leg of the stool at a time, but on all three simultaneously. What we really need is a dynamic conversation between the book of nature/reason and the book of faith/the scriptures. We need to keep asking the hard questions like: How do we reconcile our antropocentric view of the universe (we are created in the very image of God) with the fact that we are one species, of relatively recent occurrence, on one tiny planet, in one backwater of an undistinguished galaxy in an immense universe of billions of planets and galaxies, none of which are human? How does this affect our reading of the book of faith through the lens of tradition? How for example, do we understand "consider the lilies of the field" with the insights from geological history and cosmology that are equally the "book of God?" I worry that assigning the scriptures and religious ideas to their own exclusive realm and cutting off the conversation robs us of potentially greater understanding and faith, because we are so afraid of letting science and religion get "all tangled up." I think we need more tangling, not less.

Posted by Jeffrey L. Shy, M.D. | April 11, 2011 10:49 AM

I have been reading Krista Tippet's book Einstein's God - Conversations about Science and the Human Spirit, which is a series of interviews about the relationship between science and religion. The interviews are from her radio program Being (formely called Speaking of Faith). I would particularly recommend the interview with physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. The transcript of the interview can be read online or the interview can be downloaded as an mp3 file. Polkinghorne deals quite effectively in my opinion with many of the issues mentioned by Dr. Shy. He explains very well how the insights of modern science and theology are not really contradictory but complementary. His thoughts about the problem of theodicy and the meaning of the incarnation are particularly insightful.

Posted by Bill Ghrist | April 12, 2011 1:56 PM

Half the people polled in the United States don't accept the evidence for human-caused climate change. Only 39% accept evolution as the explanation for how life has developed on Earth. 27% think that the President wasn't born in the USA. Yes, let's celebrate the joys of believing without evidence or even, with St. Paul and the Birthers, against the evidence.

And what's with Brad Ehrman's resentment at discovering the murky origins of Christianity? It's not as if he were a gay kid who had half his life distorted by religious authorities in confident possession of Truth who counseled him to keep as quiet about his sexual orientation as the tradition does -- couldn't let a few facts of life cast doubt on the age-old story.

No, Borg's is the Anglican solution (according to Bill Grist) -- keep the Bible in one hand and science in the other: it's all good. Until someone wants to use the Bible to claim power and authority -- how do you counter them? It's your opinion (belief) against theirs. Do we apply the Mammy Yokum test: "Good is better than evil because it's nicer"?

"The Good News doesn't need to be factual, to be True." A story doesn't need to be factual to inspire, to inform, to thoroughly involve the hearer. But if it's based on legend, or arm-chair reasoning, and not on real events, that says something about its limits. Bouncing the tribal story back and forth amongst members gives a great sense of belonging and validation -- "I hear what I believe echoing back to me; I really belong." But if the story isn't supported by evidence, and the believers aren't obviously more ethical or together than anyone else, it may be hard to sell to outsiders. I'm afraid the definition of Truth above is, "That which resonates with me, gives meaning to my narrative, makes me feel important." If it didn't happen, then the implications for today are somewhat different than as commonly presented.

Posted by Murdoch Matthew | April 12, 2011 5:41 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations