The Scientific Consistency of the Bible

The Bible is not a science book. But if it is what it claims to be—the inspired word of God—we would expect it to be scientifically accurate and consistent in what it teaches. While clearly at variance with atheistic and anti-theistic hypotheses of how life, morality, and the physical universe came to be, the message of the Bible is consistent and readily accords with the evidence available for experimental and observational scientific confirmation.  

Our physical universe is something we can all observe, so how is it to be explained? Either (a) it is just an illusion and doesn’t really exist; or (b) it spontaneously arose out of a void of nothingness; or (c) it has always existed in some form; or (d) it was created by an intelligent and powerful force beyond and superior to itself. The first option is not taken seriously by most rational thinkers, and the second has been debunked since the mid-nineteenth century. The third option has had a much longer tenure. 

Atheistic Naturalism

From the 1960s to the 1990s, astronomer and Pulitzer-Prize-winning author Dr. Carl Sagan was widely acclaimed as “the most brilliant scientist of our times.”¹ In his 1980 book Cosmos, spending seventy weeks on the New York Times Best Seller list, he made the bold claim, “the Cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be.”² He apparently considered the physical universe to be eternal. But Sagan’s confident assertion, which fellow-scientists and non-scientists alike have taken as fact, is an unproven and unprovable assumption that cannot be verified by scientific observation or experimentation.

Atheistic naturalism begins with impersonal, mindless matter that either came into existence from nothing (physically impossible) or is eternal. Life is allegedly a freak accident of nature, governed by nothing and going nowhere. Outside the natural world nothing is believed to exist. 

Theistic Supernaturalism

During the sixteen centuries the documents comprising the Bible were produced, rather than emulating the popular myths and legends of their day and contrary to the eternal-universe model, biblical writers consistently affirmed the finite beginning of the material world and all lifeforms on earth, including intelligent life. 

•       Moses (1500 BC): “In the beginning …” (Genesis 1:1).

•       Psalmist (1000 BC): “in the beginning …” (Hebrews 1:10).

•       Solomon (950 BC): “at the beginning …” (Proverbs 8:22).

•       Isaiah (700 BC): “from the beginning …” (Isaiah 48:18).

•       Jesus (AD 29-30): “since the beginning …” (Mark 13:19); “at the beginning …” (Matthew 19:4).

•       Paul, Silvanus, Timothy (AD 50-51): “from the beginning …” (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

•       Paul (AD 62): “from the beginning …” (Ephesians 3:9).

•       Peter (AD 65): “from the beginning …” (2 Peter 3:4).

•       John (AD 90): “In the beginning …” (John 1:1).

Rethinking the Eternal-Universe Model

The year following the publication of Dr. Sagan’s book, physicist and cosmologist Dr. Stephen Hawking, who was also deemed “one of the world’s most brilliant minds,”³ gave a lecture at a cosmology conference at the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences about “the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation.”⁴

Just a few years later, however, in his 1988 book A Brief History of Time, Hawking wrote: “The old idea of an essentially unchanging universe that could have existed, and could continue to exist, forever was replaced by the notion of a dynamic, expanding universe that seemed to have begun a finite time ago, and that might end at a finite time in the future …. Einstein’s general theory of relativity implied that the universe must have a beginning and, possibly, an end.”⁵ In 1996, the year Carl Sagan died, Hawking stated in his Cambridge Lectures: “All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning …. probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.”⁶

Conclusion

Hawking never abandoned anti-theistic evolutionary theory, but the indisputable evidence of physics, mathematical calculations, and cosmology finally led him and most of the scientific world to conclude what the Bible has consistently affirmed all along, even if touted as “the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.” 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The Associated Press in the opening pages of Cosmos by Carl Sagan (New York: Random House, 1980).  

     ² Ibid. p. 4. Sagan compared the question of the universe’s origin to the question of God’s origin, reasoning that if God is said to be eternal, why couldn’t the cosmos be eternal? “Where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed. There’s no need for a creation; it was always here” --“Carl Sagan on God and Creation,” <Link>.

     ³ University of Cambridge, <Link>. 

     ⁴ Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam, 1988); chap. 8, “The Origin and Fate of the Universe,” <Link>.

     ⁵ A Brief History of Time, chap. 2, “Space and Time,” <Link>.

     ⁶ Stephen Hawking, Publications and Lectures <Link>.

Related Posts: Are You Sure About God? (Part 1) 

Related articles: Jeff Miller, God and the Laws of Thermodynamics, Kyle Butt, Science and the Bible 

 

Image credit: https://medium.com/@adeyemitestimony6/i-am-christian-and-i-believe-in-the-universe-5923193c11ee

The Public Reading of God’s Word

A very important part of our church assemblies is allowing God to speak to us collectively through the public reading of his word. How do we make the most of this incredible opportunity?

We Must Appreciate What the Bible Is

The Bible claims to have come from God and to be all-sufficient to meet our spiritual needs (2 Tim. 3:14-17). Accepting this exalted claim demands our utmost respect and careful attention. Let us reverently acknowledge this collection of sacred writings, “even as it truly is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13).¹

Since the heavenly Father desires all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, he has providentially ensured this knowledge is available to all who are seeking.² In 21st-century western societies, there is no legitimate excuse for biblical ignorance. God’s word is readily accessible. We can read, study, and learn from the Bible anytime we want. Are we taking full advantage of this wonderful privilege, or do we take it for granted?

We Must Consider What the Bible Says

Paul advises Timothy, as a good minister of Christ Jesus, to inform and edify the brethren through faithful instruction and example (1 Tim. 4:6-12), particularly “the reading [anágnōsis], the exhortation, the teaching” (v. 13). Paul’s directive includes the Greek noun anágnōsis, a combination of aná (“again”) + gnōsis (“knowledge”), essentially conveying the idea of knowing again through reading. An author transmits in writing what he knows, while readers “know again,” relive or experience what the author has recorded.³

The historical-cultural context of this passage involves the public reading of scripture (ESV, NASB, NIV; cf. Acts 13:15; 2 Cor. 3:14). From earliest times the Jews gave attention to the oral reading of God’s word (Ex. 24:1-7; Josh. 8:30-35; Neh. 8:1-9, 18; 9:3; 13:1), which became a regular part of the synagogue gatherings (Acts 13:15, 27; 15:21). Jesus customarily attended the synagogue and participated in the communal reading and exposition of the scriptures (Luke 4:16-22).

James, in the earliest NT epistle, encourages his audience to be doers of the implanted word and not just “hearers” (Jas. 1:21-25). The earliest of the Pauline documents says: “I solemnly charge you in the Lord, that this letter be read to all the brethren” (1 Thess. 5:27; cf. Col. 4:16). In the final apostolic manuscript, the apostle John pronounces a blessing on “the one reading and those hearing the words of the prophecy, and keeping the things having been written in it ...” (Rev. 1:3, emp. added).

Importance of Public Reading

With an extremely high illiteracy rate in the ancient Mediterranean world,⁴ the only way most people had access to God’s revealed will (miraculous gifts notwithstanding) was through the public reading of scripture. Moreover, even among the educated minority, in these early centuries no one had his or her own personal copy of the Bible. It was in the assemblies of the church, where scripture was read aloud, that the word of God was encountered. 

The Bible was produced in a predominantly oral and aural culture. The OT writings were to a large extent composed with structural features designed for hearers rather than readers.⁵ The documents comprising the NT were also designed to be read aloud, functioning as substitutes for oral discourse and the author’s actual presence (cf. 1 Cor. 5:3; Col. 2:5; 1 Thess. 2:17).

Most NT writings were transmitted in letter-form, and since letters are more closely related to speech than narrative literature, they are essentially nonliterary in character. An epistolary author would verbally dictate his message while a secretary put it into writing (cf. Rom. 16:22; 1 Pet. 5:12), then the document would be audibly read to congregated listeners (cf. 1 Thess. 5:27; Col. 4:16; Rev. 1:3).⁶

The Public Reading of God’s Word Today

Reading God’s word publicly is both an honor and a solemn responsibility. The admonition in 2 Timothy 2:15 not only applies to Bible study and teaching, but “handling accurately the word of truth” surely includes vocal reading. Even the best readers, if unprepared, can stumble over words, miss punctuation and emphases, distort the text by inadvertently omitting or mis-pronouncing key terms, or distract from the message because of poor presentation. Communicating the sacred words of God is something to take seriously and demands thoughtful preparation.⁷

All others in the assembly need to be prepared to listen, reverently and attentively.⁸ This is not the time to move around, whisper, or be preoccupied with other things. When the church prays, we customarily bow our heads, close our eyes, and mentally engage. Why? As we approach the heavenly throne, we want to do so reverently and not be distracted by our earthly surroundings. When God speaks through the reading of his word, shouldn’t the same solemnity be displayed? 

Investment of Time and Effort

Genuine worship is deliberate and proactive, requiring focus and intent.⁹ The public reading of God’s word has always been a key element of Christian worship, and if it has been neglected in our assemblies, it needs to be restored. If the Bible were not as readily accessible, like the environment of our first-century brethren, how would this affect the way we view church attendance and the eagerness with which we listen to the scriptures being read? 

What an enormous blessing that God has revealed his perfect will and has preserved it in writing through the centuries. May we take advantage of every opportunity to ingest the biblical message and be transformed by it, with a lifetime commitment of reading, studying, learning, applying, and of course, hearing. 

--Kevin L. Moore

* Prepared for and adapted from an adult Bible class at Estes church of Christ 12-05-2020.

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. “The Word of God is a fire that burns away dross (Jer. 23:29), a hammer that breaks stony hearts (Jer. 23:9), rain that waters crops (Isa. 55:10-11), milk that nourishes babies (1 Pet. 2:2), food that fills the hungry (Heb. 5:12-13), a sword that pierces the heart and battles the devil (Heb. 4:12; Eph. 6:17), gold that enriches us (Ps 19:10), a mirror that shows us our true selves (James 1:23-25), and a lamp that illumines our path (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23; 2 Pet. 1:19)” (Jeffrey D. Arthurs, Devote Yourself to the Public Reading of Scripture 17-18).

     ² 1 Tim. 2:4; cf. Matt. 5:6; 6:33; 7:7; John 8:31-32; Acts 17:11; Heb. 4:12.

     ³ Having alluded to the “holy scriptures” familiar to Timothy, Paul affirms that “all scripture” is breathed out of God (2 Tim. 3:14-16). In his previous letter to Timothy, the apostle quotes “scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18), including OT and NT writings (viz. Deut. 25:4; Luke 10:7). He further reminds the saints at Ephesus how they can understand his revealed knowledge by simply reading what he has put into writing (Eph. 3:1-5). See What the Scriptures Say About the Scriptures.

     ⁴ Illiteracy in the first-century Roman Empire has been estimated as high as 90-95% (see W. V. Harris, Ancient Literacy 130-45). 

     ⁵ See G. D. Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth 93-103; cf. S. L. Harris and R. L. Platzner, The Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (2nd ed.) 21. 

     ⁶ See K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the NT 100-114. Also Oral Transmission of the Biblical Records, and Study of Ancient Rhetoric.

     ⁷ For helpful suggestions about preparing to read the Bible in the public assembly, see Tim Challies, “The Public Reading of Scripture,” Challies.com (30 Nov. 2011), <Link>.

     ⁸ Psa. 19:7-11; 119:10-16; Rom. 7:22; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 2:1-3. 

     ⁹ See Is Everything We Do in Life "Worship"?, and Restoring True Worship.

Related Posts: Sociocultural Context (Part 6): Public Reading

Image credit: adapted from https://dashhouse.com/the-public-reading-of-scripture/

The Holy Spirit’s Role in Biblical Understanding

Grant Osborne, like many evangelical interpreters, claims that biblical interpretation is “a spiritual act, depending on the leading of the Holy Spirit,” although Osborne also concedes, “God does not miraculously reveal the meaning of passages whenever they are read” (The Hermeneutical Spiral 21, 24). D. A. Carson sensibly observes, “When two equally godly interpreters emerge with mutually incompatible interpretations of a text, it must be obvious even to the most spiritual … that they cannot both be right” (Exegetical Fallacies 16).

Interpreting the Spirit’s Word

The most commonly cited passages that seem to support this idea of the Holy Spirit’s direct guidance are John 16:13 (perhaps also 14:26; 15:26) and 1 Cor. 2:6-16. If popular inferences are correct, then the production and utilization of Bible-study tools, the learning and application of exegetical methods, and having classes on biblical interpretation, all seem superfluous. Nevertheless, exegesis is still necessary to determine whether or not these passages are being interpreted properly. Otherwise, why appeal to them at all or engage in any kind of Bible study? If, in the exegetical process, it is determined that these texts have been misconstrued and misappropriated, the importance of sound exegesis is clearly demonstrated. 

J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays place much emphasis on “context” in their Grasping God’s Word textbook, yet they curiously cite John 16:12-14 and 1 Cor. 2:14 as proof-texts for present-day Holy Spirit “illumination” (226-28) with no regard for the original context of either passage. While they offer a lot of their own opinions without any real basis in scripture, they do concede that since the Spirit has inspired scripture, “we should not expect him to contradict himself when he illuminates it…. The Spirit does not add new meaning to the biblical text…” (225). Irrespective of how one understands the Holy Spirit’s role, no passage of scripture means today what it has never meant.

In John 16:13a Jesus is reported as saying, “but when that one, the Spirit of truth, shall come, he will guide you into all truth…”¹ Contextually, to whom is Jesus speaking and issuing this promise? Chaps. 13–16 of John’s Gospel comprise one and the same context, where the Lord is speaking directly to his chosen apostles who were to carry on his work after his departure. This is not a universal pronouncement for all believers of all time (note 17:6, 20), and the specific promise to these particular individuals was in fact fulfilled (Acts 1:1-8; 2:1-14; 4:33; etc.). Subjectively and arbitrarily attributing things to God’s Spirit for which he is not responsible (e.g. “The Spirit told to me …”) is presumptuous and dangerous. “But I say to you, every careless word that people will speak, they will give an account of it in the day of judgment” (Matt. 12:36).

The 1 Cor. 2:6-16 passage is also part of a broader context that determines its meaning and application. By reading the first four chapters of the epistle as a contextual unit, a clear distinction and contrast is seen between “you”—the spiritually immature, carnally-minded Corinthian audience— and “us”—the spiritually mature spokesmen of God who received the divine message through the revelation of God’s Spirit in the early development of the church. To stretch the applicability of this passage to all believers (including the misguided Corinthians!) is to ignore the context and the entirety of Paul’s argument, thereby twisting and misapplying it. 

The Understandability of the Spirit’s Message

The Holy Spirit, as the agency of divine revelation and inspiration,² is responsible for the collection of sacred writings we call the Bible, whose message is living, powerful, and intelligible.³ Paul acknowledges the understandability of God’s written revelation, expressing confidence in his readers in examining and thereby comprehending what the Spirit has conveyed through inspired penmen (Eph. 3:1-5; 5:17). 

Since God wants everyone to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3-4), surely he has ensured this knowledge is attainable. Jesus promised that those genuinely wanting to follow him can and will know the truth (John 8:31-32). Not only has the Lord provided a revelation of his will that can be understood, he has given a revelation of his will that all can understand alike (see 1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 1:27). That there are currently so many conflicting interpretations of the Bible and so much religious division is not God’s fault. The problem is the many ways in which the word of God has been misused, misinterpreted, and misapplied. 

In rebuking the Sadducees, Jesus said: “Are you not in error because of this, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God?” (Mark 12:24). Peter warns his readers, “our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom having been given to him, wrote to you, as also in all [his] letters, speaking in them concerning these things, among which some things are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort, as also the rest of scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:15b-16).

Divine Help

While we should intentionally avoid mishandling the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15), at the same time we do not want to dismiss any divine assistance that is available. To help maintain the necessary commitment and mental focus that leads to understanding God’s word, it is important to couple Bible study with prayer, asking and searching for wisdom from above (Prov. 2:2-5; Matt. 7:7-8; 13:14-15; Jas. 1:5). By studying the scriptures with a humble, prayerful spirit, it is much harder to be misled by improper thoughts and personal biases. However God chooses to answer our prayers, we can be assured it is according to his perfect will (Matt. 6:10; 1 John 3:22; 5:14-15).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² Acts 1:16; 1 Cor. 2:10-13; Eph. 3:5; 6:17; Heb. 3:7; 10:15-16; 2 Pet. 1:16-21; Rev. 2:1, 7, 8, 11, etc. Biblical revelation is the means through which God has imparted facts and truths previously unknown, while biblical inspiration is the means through which God has ensured this information has been conveyed (orally and in writing) without error.

     ³ See, e.g., 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23. 

Works Cited:

D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996).

J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012).

Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Rev. ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006).

Related Posts: Are You Listening to the Holy Spirit?, God's Indwelling Spirit

Related articles: Wayne Jackson, Holy Spirit "Illumination"

Image credit: http://www.pottypadre.com/when-god-shared-a-secret-2/

Does the Bible condone sexual assault and rape?

With eager attempts to discredit the Bible’s integrity, critics have included in their attacks the outrageous claim that the scriptures endorse and even promote immoral behaviors like sexual assault and rape. Katie Edwards and Emma Nagouse have written: “Rape is endemic in the Bible (both literally and metaphorically) and, more often than not, functions as a conduit for male competition and a tool to uphold patriarchy.”¹ Michael Martin states further, “To be sure, one can find rape condemned in the Bible. However, one can also find passages where God seems to be tacitly approving of rape and other passages where rape is condemned but without regard for the victim's welfare.”²

Before we address specific charges, let’s note some basic interpretive guidelines. 

1. To determine the true state of affairs, key contextual and translational matters cannot be avoided. It is a fundamental error to limit one’s investigation of the Bible to a particular English translation, scrutinized from a present-day westernized perspective and postmodern agenda. Failure to take into account the original historical, linguistic, literary, and sociocultural contexts invariably results in misconstruing just about anything the Bible says. 

2. Objectivity and fairness demand gathering all relevant information that would help explain or qualify any given issue, rather than isolating a single text or a select handful of texts to reinforce predetermined conclusions. On any question, we ought to determine the Bible’s overall message and interpret seemingly anomalous passages accordingly.

3. Scriptures that are misused because of contextual disregard should be eliminated from the trumped-up indictment. For example, Judges 5:30 is not a divine endorsement but descriptive of Canaanite pillaging. The account in Judges 21:10-24 was not a scheme devised by God but by wayward Israelites, as “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (v. 25, NKJV).

4. The historical-cultural settings of biblical stories and directives must be understood in light of and in contrast to the pagan surroundings, particularly with regard to the pervasive maltreatment of women. Critics are quick to ridicule and condemn just about anything in the Bible that does not conform to modern-day sensibilities, while hardly noticing the brutality, repression, and immorality of contemporaneous cultures.

5. As human wickedness is exposed in the biblical narratives, sexual harassment and assault are not restricted to female victims (Gen. 19:4-9, 32-35; 39:7-16; Judg. 19:22-23). 

What the Bible Says About Sexual Abuse

Accounts of rape are reported in Genesis 34:1-7; Judges 19:22–20:5; and 2 Samuel 13:1-22, each depicted as a heinous crime. The absence of God is something all these stories share in common, occasioned by the persistent abandonment of his moral code. Conversely, scripture reveals that God’s desire for his people is sanctification, to abstain from sexual immorality, to control our bodies in holiness and honor rather than passion of lust like those who do not know God (1 Thess. 4:1-7; cf. 1 Cor. 6:18-20; Eph. 5:1-5).

What About Captives of War?

In Numbers 31, after defeating the Midianites in war, Moses allowed the Israelite men to keep for themselves 32,000 Midianite virgins (vv. 18, 35). When critics describe these women as “sex slaves” and cite this passage as an alleged sanction of “rape,” they are demonstrating prejudicial ignorance. In a cultural environment where marriages were formed as socioeconomic arrangements (like most nonwestern cultures throughout history), to expect the modern concept of fairy-tale romance is incredibly naïve. Detractors seem oblivious to the moral depravity of the Midianites (Num. 25:1-3, 18; 31:16; cf. Judg. 6:1-7) and know nothing of the condition or the plight of these women before Israelite intervention. Compared to typical ravages of war, and in contrast to the ruthless societies surrounding them, the Jews had strict laws for how captives were to be treated, particularly a marriageable woman (Deut. 21:10-14): “you shall not mistreat her” (v. 14, NASB).

The Golden Proof-Text

The 22nd chapter of Deuteronomy lists various laws concerning sexual misconduct, including consensual relations and rape. When both parties consent to an adulterous affair or show no restraint in a sordid rendezvous involving a betrothed woman, neither is free of guilt and both are punished accordingly (vv. 22-24). On the other hand, when a woman resists a sexual aggressor and gives no consent, only the rapist is held accountable (vv. 25-27). 

The main point of contention concerns the next two verses. A straightforward translation of vv. 28-29 reads as follows: “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days” (ASV). However, the passage reads much differently when English translators submit more interpretive renderings, like “seizes her” (ESV, ISV, NASB, N/RSV), “forces her to have sex with him” (CEV), “rapes her” (CSB, GW, ISV, NIV), “overpowers her and rapes her” (NET). Of course Bible critics exploit these versions to bolster their claim that the Bible endorses the victimization of women. But let us not forget that the Bible was not originally written in English, and the original texts could readily assume the targeted reading audience was already familiar with the cases described therein.

The Hebrew verb שָׁכַב [shakab] simply means to “lie down” (Ezek. 4:4, 6), while most often used idiomatically with varying nuances, including to “sleep” (Gen. 19:4; 28:11; Lev. 14:27), to “die” (Gen. 47:30; Judg. 5:27; Lam. 2:21), and to “have sexual relations” (Lev. 15:18, 24). In the latter case, the context must determine whether the intercourse is consensual (e.g. Gen. 30:15-16; Deut. 22:22; 2 Sam. 11:11) or not (e.g. Gen. 34:2-7; 39:14; Deut. 22:25; 28:30; 2 Sam. 13:14).

In the immediate context of Deuteronomy 22, a rapist is to be put to death (v. 25). Yet a few verses later, a man “takes hold of” [תָּפַשׂ taphas, cf. 9:17; 21:19] a young woman who is not betrothed and “lies with” [שָׁכַב shakab, cf. 22:22] her, and then they are “found out” [מָצָא matsa, cf. 22:22]. Mutual consent is implied as no death penalty is enjoined, and the man is obligated to pay the dowry or bride-price (cf. Ex. 22:16-17).

Conclusion

If the Bible does in fact condone, endorse, and promote sexual assault, you would think Bible-believers would be condoning, endorsing, and promoting sexual assault! Apparently those of us who take the Bible seriously and study it diligently know more about its message than those who harbor a predisposition against it. Selectively reading the Bible to expose what appears to be its worst parts, while ignoring qualifying information that would expose the fallacy of this approach, is negligent at best and deceitful at worst.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Katie Edwards and Emma Nagouse, “How the Bible shapes contemporary attitudes to rape and sexual assault,” The Conversation (2 May 2017), <Link>.

     ² Michael Martin, “Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape,” The Secular Web (1997), <Link>.

*See Sandra L. Richter, "Rape in Israel's World ... And Ours: A Study of Deuteronomy 22:23-29," JETS 64.1 (2021):59-76. Richter concludes, "within its societal context, the laws of Deuteronomy did indeed protect women, often more effectively than surrounding law codes, and perhaps more effectively than modern legal systems."

Related Posts: The Bible's Radical View on Women, Was Polygamy Acceptable?

Image credit: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1278&bih=689&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=hgfJXJnODaac0gK3r7PICQ&q=shocked&oq=shocked&gs_l=img.12..35i39l2j0i67j0l4j0i67l3.116924.119849..122015...0.0..0.168.1132.0j7......1....1..gws-wiz-img.aXDH54fHEVo#imgrc=HkHUQWzt2zx80M:

Were Bible Stories Copied from Ancient Myths? (Part 2 of 2)

Continuing from our previous post, British writer Sam Woolfe maintains that the biblical account of Jesus’ life is not original, “probably the story which actually has the most parallels with other religions,” representing “the archetypal story of the archetypal hero.”¹ As evidence Woolfe points to Peter Joseph’s conspiracy documentary Zeitgeist, even though Woolfe admits the film contains factual errors and overstates comparisons “in order to support his conspiracy theory.” Nonetheless, Woofe insists “there are still similarities between Jesus and other gods, suggesting that the authors of the Bible borrowed myths from other religions.” He particularly notes the “dying-and-returning-god” pattern of various myths, particularly Adonis, Tammuz, Osiris, Horus, Dionysus, Mithras, Attis, and Krishna, concluding this “suggests that there never was a real, historical Jesus.”

An Open-and-Shut Case?

The idea of an ancient “dying-and-returning god” archetype comes from Sir James George Frazer’s 1890 The Golden Bough: a Study in Comparative Religion. However, subsequent scholarship has proven the claim to be farcical. These so-called dying (or disappearing) and returning gods of ancient mythology are actually accounts of deities that died and did not return, or deities that returned but had not died. “The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.”²

The same would apply to the alleged pagan origins of the virgin-birth narrative in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels.³ Reputable scholarship avoids such erroneous claims, even among liberal critics who deny the historicity of Christ’s virgin birth.⁴ One such scholar, Thomas Boslooper, writes: “The literature of the world is prolific with narratives of unusual births, but it contains no precise analogy to the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke. Jesus’ ‘virgin birth’ is not ‘pagan’.”⁵

Did Jesus Plagiarize His Teachings?

Jesus is recorded as saying, “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12 NKJV). It has been purported that he or his followers plagiarized this golden rule from eastern religions, Greek philosophers, and/or Jewish rabbis.⁶ But the statement, which is merely a tiny segment of an extensive discourse, is noticeably different from the prevailing ethic of reciprocity (“Give to get something in return”) or the negative and passive version, “Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.” Beyond a presumed maxim of human nature endowed by the Creator, and irrespective of the fact that Jesus is the first on record to express the positive and active form of the principle, he also cited “the Law and the Prophets,” which predate these eastern religions, Greek philosophers, and Jewish rabbis. Critics are assuming their conclusion to be true without proof.

Let’s Be Honest

When deceptive ploys, whether intentional or not, are used to challenge the Bible’s integrity, this ought to have the opposite effect once exposed. Secondary sources are not always credible. The popular charge that biblical writers borrowed from pagan mythology tends to be “characterized by brief word, phrase and sentence quotations that have been lifted out of context or incorrectly translated and used to support preconceived theories. Sweeping generalizations based on questionable evidence have become dogmatic conclusions that cannot be substantiated on the basis of careful investigation.”⁷

Commonsense Observations⁸

1. There is nothing unusual or suspect about any ancient record corresponding to the environment in which it emerged. There are only so many options available. Linguistic, historical, and cultural parallels can often confirm the realism and credence of biblical narratives but do not necessarily prove borrowing in any direction.

2. If something is historically true, it is not unprecedented to find similar reports in multiple accounts, albeit with variations developing over time. The prospect of different versions sharing a common historical core does not constitute anyone copying from anyone else.

3. When direct dependence can be established (e.g. quotes and illustrations), it is important to consider the nature of the usage and how it either affects or does not affect the matter at hand. Long before the modern copyright mentality, ancient authors could reasonably expect their contemporary readers to recognize well-known allusions and quoted materials.

4. If borrowing did occur yet historical positioning is overlooked, or if the dating of a presumed source is tentative or inaccurate, the Bible may have been the original source rather than vice versa.⁹ This would also include oral traditions that predate written texts.

5. Biblical documents were written by multiple authors for particular reading audiences at various times in different environments addressing a variety of issues. Effective communication naturally involves the employment of images and terminology intelligible and meaningful to the targeted audience (cf. 1 Cor. 9:22).

6. Apparent similarities do not override or discount significant differences. The uniqueness of the biblical record must still be accounted for.

7. When alleged parallels are artificial, exaggerated, and distorted, preconceptions may appear to be bolstered but the pursuit of truth is disrupted. 

Concluding Remarks

It is helpful to remember, “though the Bible arose in the ancient world, it was not entirely of it; though its history and its people resemble those of the surrounding nations, yet it radiates an atmosphere, a spirit, a faith far more profound than, and radically different from, that of any other ancient literature.”¹⁰ May we approach the biblical text, if not with eagerness to learn, at least with honesty and fairness.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Sam Woolfe, “How the Bible Borrowed from Other Stories,” Sam Woolfe (25 April 2013) <Link>.

     ² Jonathan Z. Smith, “Dying and Rising Gods,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. M. Eliade (London: Macmillan, 1987): 4:521-27. This would apply to all the deities Woolfe has listed, including Osiris, the Egyptian patron of the dead, who was reportedly murdered by his brother but then brought back to life by Isis. This “rebirth” enabled him to be lord of the underworld in the afterlife, since he could no longer rule the world of the living. Ancient Egyptians considered various facets of reality but did not envision a resurrection in this world (see Ogden Goeler, “Commentary,” in The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth By Day, The Complete Papyrus of Ani, ed. Eva von Dasso [San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994]: 153). See also Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003); Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (NY: HarperCollins, 2012); Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “The ‘Dying and Rising God’: A Survey of Research from Frazer to the Present Day,” in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts,” eds. B. F. Bernard and K. L. Roberts (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004): 373-86.

     ³ Walter Bundy opines, “The idea of a supernatural or virgin birth is pagan, and it must have found its way into the story of Jesus through Gentile-Christian channels” (Jesus and the First Three Gospels [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955]: 11).

     ⁴ See Thomas Boslooper, The Virgin Birth (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), who attributes the virgin-birth story to the influence of Philo’s allegorical method on Hellenistic Jewish Christianity. Also James Veitch, The Birth of Jesus: History or Myth? (Wellington: St Andrew’s Trust, 1997), who surmises that Matthew and Luke’s birth narratives were derived from stories in the Hebrew Bible.

     ⁵ Thomas Boslooper, op cit.136. Reginald H. Fuller, in his critical review of Boslooper’s work, states: “In an amazingly comprehensive historical survey of the doctrine from its first appearance in the infancy narratives to the later phases of biblical criticism, the author offers at every point shrewd and penetrating judgments. The historical survey in itself makes the work invaluable” (The Journal of Religion 43:3 [July 1963]: 254-55). Louis Matthews Sweet observes: “After a careful, laborious, and occasionally wearisome study of the evidence offered and analogies urged, I am convinced that heathenism knows nothing of virgin births” (The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1906]: 188).

     ⁶ This is ranked # 1 among Melloson Allen’s “10 Influences on the Bible,” in Jamie Frater’s Listverse.com's Bathroom Reader: Loads of Top Ten Lists (Berkley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2014).

     ⁷ Thomas Boslooper, op cit.135.

     ⁸ See Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003): 1-4.

     ⁹ For example, Apollonius of Tyana (AD 15-100) was a philosopher and mystic, and his biographer Philostratus (ca. 172-250) claims he performed miracles like Jesus (Life of Apollonius 3.38-39); by the late 2nd century he had become a cult figure rivaling Jesus. However, these stories “are at several points obviously influenced by stories about Jesus, not the other way around” (Albert A. Bell, Jr., Exploring the New Testament World [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998]: 131).

     ¹⁰ G. Ernest Wright, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962): xi.

Related Posts: Were Bible Stories Copied from Myths? (Part 1), The Study of Ancient History, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Related articles and videos: Dewayne Bryant, Is Christianity a Copycat Religion?

Image credit: http://www.featheredprop.com/did-christianity-borrow-from-other-religions/