Historical honesty if not accuracy

Glenn has asked list participants to explain why Christians can trust
the theology of the Bible more than (for example) the theology of the
Book of Mormon. Wouldn't part of our answer be that the Bible is more
historically and scientifically accurate than is the Book of Mormon?
And if that were not part of our answer, on what basis could one
consider the Bible to be theologically superior to other writings deemed
sacred within other religious traditions?

Nancy Pearcey asks a similar question: if Christianity were shown to be
false, would you still believe it anyway? In her view, if one's faith
is not grounded in reality enough to be vulnerable to disproof, then
it's not worth having. She wants to break down the faith-fact divide.
 
I agree in principle - it's in the details that I disagree.

If I were convinced that Jesus' bones had been found, that discovery
would produce a crisis of faith in me, because I believe the tomb was
empty on Easter morning (and not because someone stole the body!).
 
For some people, just the mere evolution of one species into another
(particularly if it's Homo sapiens) produces as much of a crisis of
faith in them as Jesus' bodily remains being discovered would produce in
me. And I'm sitting here looking at the overwhelming evidence for such
evolutionary connections, and saying "that's ok - that need not produce
a crisis of faith - the first chapters of Genesis were not meant to be
read the same way that the last chapters of the Gospels were meant to be
read."
 
But people complain: "If you start taking parts of the Bible
metaphorically, how do you know when to stop?" I think sometimes the
text gives clues. In any case, to me, an important feature of the Bible
is its historical honesty. This is related to historical accuracy, but
is not exactly the same thing. I am not convinced that the Book of
Mormon is an historically honest document, let alone an historically
accurate document. The Bible, however, is consistently honest, or maybe
I should say that the community of believers responsible for assembling
and preserving the Bible have been trustworthy.
 
For example, the differences between the two creation stories in Genesis
1 and 2 were retained, not glossed over or altered to be factually
consistent. I think the ancient Israelites, and Jesus, knew about the
differences as well or better than we do. Those "contradictions" might
not have bothered them at all, because the differences are
contradictions only if the first two chapters of Genesis are read in a
hyperliteral (modern) way. Did God make humans after the animals, to
rule over them, or did God make the animals after Adam, to see if some
might be suitable helpers for Adam? Were the plants made before animals
and humans, to prepare a home for them, or was Adam made first and then
plants once Adam was available to tend them? You get different answers
depending on which chapter (1 or 2) of Genesis is consulted. Such
questions probably would have seemed (and I think still do seem) rather
beside the point to Jesus. What matters is: 1) we do have
responsibility as stewards of animal and plant life, but also that 2)
animals and plants are gifts from God to us to support human life. I
think both Genesis creation accounts are needed to ensure that we have a
balanced understanding.
 
Differences in details, sometimes contradictory, between the four
gospels are another example. Who reached the empty tomb first on Easter
morning? Just Mary Magdalene? One other woman with her? Two other
women? Were there one or two angels, and were they inside the tomb or
sitting on the stone that was rolled away?
 
These differences say two things to me. First, just like in Genesis,
they confirm the care taken to preserve the original texts and not
succumb to the temptation to reconcile differences, in this case between
the accounts of Jesus' life.
 
Secondly -- but *completely different* from the relatively major
contradictions between the two Genesis creation stories not witnessed by
humans -- the relatively minor contradictions between the four Gospel
accounts of the Resurrection reflect the expected confusion attending
*human witnesses accounts* of a remarkable, unexpected, world-changing
event.
 
Unlike Genesis 1 and 2, I think the Gospels were written to be as
historically accurate as possible, again given the limitation that God
used human persons to witness and tell of these events.
 
For example, when Luke tells us exactly who was emperor when Jesus was
born, it's clear that he is striving for historical accuracy. And to my
knowledge, he did amazingly well.
 
Matthew seems a bit less interested in that, but more interested than
Luke in relating Jesus to Old Testament prophecy.
 
John seems most interested in conveying the cosmic scale of Jesus' love,
saving grace, etc.
 
They complement each other. Thank God for them all (Mark too)! Compare
any of those four gospels to the crazy stuff in the non-canonical
gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc.). With the Da Vinci
Code book and movie, the extra-biblical manuscripts are all the rage
now, but what a distasteful picture of Jesus they paint, and how
unbelievable they are! Jesus doing miraculous cheap tricks or (worse)
spitefully killing his playmates when they offend him as a child! Jesus
telling Judas to "set him up" so that he would be crucified! No, I
think various cults sprang up and jostled over the nature of Jesus -
God, man, both, neither. It took a while for the truth to be
established, but given how totally unique Jesus was and is, that's not
surprising.
 
I think God inspired not only the biblical writers, but also the early
church fathers who worked out the creeds and decided which books would
be included in the canon of scripture and which would not. I'm not
saying God took over their minds and used them as robots. I'm just
saying He gave them wisdom to make the best choices possible given their
human limitations that God could not overcome without negating their
free will.
 
Had God tried to implant the theory of evolution in their minds before
scientific understanding prepared the way, I think God would have had to
really take over the minds of the biblical writers in a manner that God
(in my opinion) respects us too much to do.

Chuck Austerberry
http://nrcse.creighton.edu
 
P.S. - Kudos to both Glenn Morton and George Murphy for their excellent
pieces in the June 2006 issue of the ASA journal Perspectives on Science
and Christian Faith. I do have one question for Glenn, though. Glenn
cites a 1965 report of an "honors math student at Sheffield University
... who had only a millimeter of brain encrusting the inside of his
skull. The rest of his skull was full of water." Hmm... I'm skeptical.
I'd want to see more data on the smallest sizes of human brains that
appear to function normally.
Received on Thu Jun 8 17:13:55 2006