Has Historical Criticism Proved the Bible False?
by Thomas R. Schreiner
Historical criticism of the Bible began in earnest in the eighteenth century, flowered in the nineteenth century, and became the dominant approach to the Scriptures in the twentieth century. Historical criticism has at times been rejected by conservatives because it has called into question the accuracy of the Bible. For example, in the nineteenth century, most scholars delving into the life of Jesus provided rationalistic, not supernatural, explanations of Jesus' miracles. New Testament scholar F. C. Baur argued that the theologies of Peter and Paul contradict one another if one reads the NT historically. Old Testament scholars, such as Julius Wellhausen, maintained that the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) was not actually written by Moses. Careful literary and historical study, it was claimed, indicated that the Pentateuch had various sources that were written over a period of hundreds of years and that the final document was put together by an unknown editor.
Still, it is important to recognize that the rise of historical criticism has also benefited the church. The Christian faith is rooted in history. God has manifested Himself supremely in the person of Jesus Christ. He lived and ministered in a particular time and place—in Palestine in the third decade of the first century. As Christians, then, we believe that our faith is historically rooted. Paul insisted that Christians were foolish to believe in the Christian faith if the resurrection of Jesus did not actually occur (1 Co 15:12-19). Hence, we have no fear of historical study but welcome it, for we believe historical research can assist us in understanding the message of the Scriptures.
The benefits of historical study are numerous. It has cleared up the meaning of obscure terms. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has cast light on the environment within which the NT was birthed. Study of the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world has clarified the extent to which the Scriptures are similar to and dissimilar from documents that came out of surrounding cultures. Historical criticism has also demonstrated that some traditional views were not credible. It was once thought that the NT was written in a special "Holy Ghost" language, but study of sources from the era of the NT has demonstrated that the NT was written in the common Greek of the day. The King James Version of the Bible was an outstanding product of the scholarship in its day, but we now have many more manuscripts for both the NT and the OT, and hence our English Bibles are even closer to the original today because of recent manuscript discoveries and the careful work of scholars in text criticism.
While historical criticism has benefited the church, it also carries with it liabilities. Many scholars who practiced historical criticism imbibed the Enlightenment philosophy sweeping Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Their philosophical worldview masqueraded as historical criticism. As described above, they rejected the miracles of Jesus and provided rationalistic explanations. But scholars do not reject miracles on historical grounds. They have accepted a naturalistic philosophical standpoint that presupposed that miracles don't happen. On this view, even impressive evidence to the contrary is beside the point. Rudolf Bultmann is an example of this view. Bultmann defined historical work in such a way that the acceptance of any miracles was excluded. When we read the NT, we see that credible historical reasons exist to support the resurrection of Christ, but many scholars refuse even to consider the evidence, for they are convinced from the start that resurrections cannot happen. This fundamental bias, i.e., naturalistic philosophy, is all too often cloaked as "objective history."
Historical criticism hoped that it would succeed where orthodoxy failed. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, orthodox Christians debated the interpretation of the Bible, leading to several different theological systems (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism). Historical critics believed that they were more objective and that by means of a "neutral" scientific approach they could discover what the Bible really taught. But with the arrival of postmodernism this view seems naive to almost all scholars today. And the record of historical criticism reveals that it did not succeed in agreeing upon "the assured results of scholarship." Indeed, a dizzying array of viewpoints and perspectives are present in historical criticism today, and many of them are mutually contradictory.
The work of F. C. Baur and Julius Wellhausen threatened the faith of evangelical believers in the nineteenth century. Yet few scholars today embrace the conclusions of F. C. Baur, and the documentary hypothesis of Wellhausen is severely questioned. The "assured results" of scholarship in one generation are often vigorously challenged by the next. Evangelicals, of course, should be open to correction. Perhaps we have misread some parts of the Bible because of our tradition. On the other hand, we need to be critical and savvy and to reject the temptation of embracing the latest fad in scholarship just because it is current.
Though evangelical scholars have often solved problems raised by historical critics, conservatives have not solved them all. This does not mean that the Scriptures are inaccurate in such instances but instead that we could resolve such problems if we had enough information. To make such a claim is not a sacrifice of one's intellect. Comprehensive answers are lacking in every historical discipline since the evidence is fragmentary. We can be grateful to historical criticism since it has helped us understand the Scriptures better. But we must also be on our guard. Often historical criticism has veered off into unsubstantiated allegations about the accuracy of the Scriptures, and it has routinely approached the Scriptures with an antisupernatural worldview. Historical criticism has not demonstrated the Bible to be false. The Bible, rightly interpreted, has stood the test of time.
Can We Still Believe in Demons Today?
by Clinton E. Arnold
Many modern scholars regard belief in demons as a primitive worldview that includes elves, dragons, and a flat world. They contend that the advent of modern science, especially advances in understanding body chemistry, psychology, and neurology, enables better understanding of the phenomena the ancients attributed to the work of demons.
Skepticism about the existence of angels and demons is at odds with the direct and explicit testimony of Scripture. From the Garden of Eden in Genesis to Satan's doom in Revelation, the pages of Scripture are filled with references to evil supernatural beings who oppose God and His purposes. Their frequency of appearance actually heightens during the ministry of Jesus and the apostles. In fact, we learn most about their nature, character, and activities from Jesus and Paul.
Beside the biblical assumption of demonic reality, other matters must be considered:
Science is inherently incapable of answering this question. Some critics grant science authority to make judgments on issues it is incapable of judging. Just as science is incompetent to adjudicate on morality, so it is also beyond its jurisdiction in trying to decide the question of demonic existence. Science seeks to describe and explain natural phenomena. There is no reason to assume it has power to answer questions regarding the supernatural, such as whether these beings exist.
Purely naturalistic explanations are not adequate for describing many forms of evil in the world. Although the impact of sin on the human soul explains much of the proliferation of evil, some situations are still so abhorrent or inexplicable that they suggest a demonic origin. The horrors of an Auschwitz or of a mother roasting her own child to death imply a powerful force leading humanity to destruction.
Some therapeutic situations are best explained by the work of a spirit being. While it is true that symptoms produced by schizophrenia, dissociation, and other psychological and chemical disorders have often been wrongly attributed to demons, some conditions are best explained by the direct influence of a spirit entity. The international community of mental health professionals recognizes this and labels it "Trance and Possession Disorder," an especially common diagnosis in non-Western cultures.
We need to learn from the broader sweep of human history and cultures. The last 300 years in Western history represent the only time when the existence of evil spirits has been viewed with widespread skepticism. Furthermore, an exploration of other cultures throughout Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands, and elsewhere reveals that belief in evil spirits continues to be integral to the worldview of many people groups.
Belief in the reality of evil spirits need not lead to uncritical or unwarranted beliefs about demons nor the bizarre and dangerous practices of extremist individuals and groups. Our task should be to integrate this more complete view of reality into our functional worldview with constant sensitivity to biblical teaching on this topic. At the beginning of the Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis warned that we can err in two ways as regards the devil. We can fail to take account of him or we can give him too much attention.
Why Would a Good God Send People to an Everlasting Hell?
by Paul Copan
The essence of hell is to be "away from the presence of the Lord" (2 Th 1:9). Hell's differing images of darkness, fire, and decay express the anguish of being cut off from intimate union with God (Rv 21:3; 22:4). God genuinely offers salvation to all and thus commands all without exception to repent (Ezk 33:11; 2 Pt 3:9; Ac 17:30), but He will not hold up the final celebration because of those resisting His grace (Ac 7:51)."
Let's address some hell-related questions that unbelievers and believers find troubling.
"Isn't God unjust to punish persons forever for sins committed during a limited earthly existence?" Those in hell have committed the ultimate, infinite sin—not simply a string of finite sins—in rejecting a relationship with the self-giving God. Also, hell is the logical outcome of a mindset to live life apart from God—not simply committing individual sins. The punishment fits the crime. You want no God, you get no God. There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "Thy will be done" (C. S. Lewis).
"But wouldn't persons in hell really want to be with God if they knew what hell is like?" No. Those who have resisted God on earth continue in their hard-heartedness thereafter (just as those living for God on earth continue to enjoy Him). God's holy presence would truly be "hell" for those wanting their own way. We have no hint from Scripture of repentance in hell. Rebellion, hate, and selfishness continue. The rich man in hell (Lk 16:19-26) is remorseful, not repentant—not wanting to change but to find relief!
"But how can people be sent to hell without knowing its full implications?" Even if one isn't fully aware of hell's anguish, this doesn't mean our choice is too much to bear. God is ready to equip anyone for salvation (Jn 16:8). Though the full consequences of our embracing or rejecting God aren't fully apparent to us now, grace to choose responsibly is available to all. What prevents the salvation of everyone? Individuals' choosing freely to reject God's grace. We can always resist the Holy Spirit (Ac 7:51). God doesn't send people to hell; they freely reject Him, condemning themselves by not acknowledging their guilt.
"Why didn't God make the world in such a way that all people would love Him?" While a world in which everyone loves God is theoretically possible, it is not feasible. Whatever possible world with free creatures God could create, it may be that none is sin-free, and God's love isn't forced. Hell—the absence of God's presence—exists because, like Milton's Satan, people would rather "reign in hell than serve in heaven." God isn't unloving but rather has gone to great lengths to show grace to everyone. Should God not create at all because many freely resist Him in the world God created and thus deprive many others of the greatest good possible?
"Why did God create people He knew would reject and be separated from Him forever?" Despite God's desire that all be saved (1 Tm 2:4; 2 Pt 3:9), many still resist. What if some become more resistant no matter how loving God is (Is 5:4; Mt 23:37)? Should God not create those who would respond to His love simply because others would refuse it? What if God created a world in which a maximal balance of least condemned and most redeemed was realized? This is not unloving.
"Why couldn't God, from the start, make us like heaven's saints—loving God while unable to sin?" Robust freedom on earth—to embrace freely God's grace or resist it—is a requirement for arriving at one's final destiny. Our earthly direction is "sealed" in the afterlife; our heart's desire is finally granted—God or no God. So God couldn't have created a heavenlike state in which the redeemed no longer sin without damaging this vitally important freedom. (Or perhaps, rather than "sealing" us from sin in the afterlife, God simply foreknows that no saint will actually freely sin, guaranteeing a sin-free condition in the final state.)
Finally, because God has so fully given of Himself to make salvation freely available through His Son, we can confidently entrust any lingering questions about hell to His excellent character.
Can God Create a Stone Too Heavy for Him to Lift?
by Charles Taliaferro
This question should immediately strike one as a word game. Many puzzles exist in the same category, such as, "Can God eat oatmeal that no one can eat?" Such puzzles are intended to reveal a logical problem with the divine attribute of omnipotence. If God can create a stone too heavy for anyone to lift, then there is one task God cannot do, namely lift any conceivable stone. But if God can lift any stone, then again there appears to be one task God cannot do, namely create a stone too heavy for God to lift. The argument concludes there cannot be an omnipotent God.
The most plausible and common philosophical response to this puzzle is to challenge the coherence of the task demanded. In order for someone to conclude that there is some state of affairs God cannot bring about, the objector must establish that the state of affairs is a genuine, bona fide possibility. It is no imperfection of anyone to be unable to make the concept of justice dance with the number two. The concepts of justice and the number two are not the sorts of things that can dance.
Does the above reply make "logic" something greater than God? No, "logic" is not the name of some concrete or abstract thing that can carry out tasks. When you cannot do something contradictory (such as make a square circle), it is not as though there is a force called logic restraining you. "Logic," in this context, may be formulated in terms of two laws: the law of identity (A is A) and noncontradiction (A is not not A). These are not "laws," however, like the laws of nature (e.g., the laws of motion). They are, rather, necessary conditions of there being anything at all and for there being thought or language about anything at all. God the Son is identified in the NT as the Logos. Some philosophers and theologians have understood this to imply that logic and reason are attributes of God's excellent nature.
The stone paradox may be resolved in terms of strict logic, but does it not generate a more general problem? Can the God of Christian theism commit suicide? Tell lies? Do evil for its own sake?
Two replies should be considered. One is to claim God can bring about any of these states of affairs, but because of God's essential goodness, God does not do so. On this view, God is still omnipotent in the sense of being able to bring about any state of affairs. A second reply is to question an assumption behind the objection. Why think of divine omnipotence exclusively in terms of the bare scope of power? An important classical Christian tradition (Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas) holds that God's power is also supremely good. Is the "power" to do evil for its own sake a worthy, good power? Arguably, God's excellent power is the power to do good, not evil. A further exploration of this concept of divine power leads us away from the apparent word game of the stone paradox and focuses the mind on the nature of God's excellence, the object worthy of worship.
What About "Gospels" Not in Our New Testament?
by Graham H. Twelftree
The four Gospels in our Bible had all been written by the end of the first century. Apparently no other gospels were written by this time. By the last 20 years of the second century, when Irenaeus the bishop of Lyon was writing, the four Gospels had been widely and firmly established for some time as the only ones accepted by mainstream Christianity. However, many sections of the church did not use all of them.
Irenaeus argued against accepting other gospels, such as the Gospel of Truth, alleged to have been written by the Gnostic teacher Valentinus. He said it had only recently been written and "did not agree in any respect with the Gospels of the apostles." This gospel is a homily or meditation and does not resemble our biblical Gospels in telling of the activities and teaching of Jesus, including His appearances after Easter. The same is true of the Gospel of Philip, an anthology of sayings from the mid-fourth century, as well as the second-century Greek Gospel of the Egyptians, about which we know little except that it was apparently a collection of sayings. The Gospel of Thomas, which also contains a collection of sayings of Jesus (some of which may be historically authentic) along with minimal narrative material, has been argued to be early. However, because of parallels with literature of this period, many date it late in the second century. More fanciful gospels include the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, with its miracles conducted by the child Jesus, ending with the story from Luke of the 12-year-old Jesus in the temple.
Other gospels approximate those in the NT. For example, the now largely missing Gospel of Peter came from the middle of the second century. From the fragmentary evidence we have, it told of the trial of Jesus, His crucifixion, and His appearing to a group of His followers. Also, the Gospel of the Ebionites, from Syria in the same period, is a harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Later in the century Tatian produced a widely used harmony of all four Gospels, the Diatessaron, which was highly valued particularly in Syria. From papyrus fragments we also have evidence of a handful of other gospels from as early as the second century. A letter of Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) discovered in 1958, which tells of a "secret gospel" of Mark, may be a modern forgery.
The Gospel of Hebrews, written before the mid-second century, perhaps in Egypt for Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, was the only gospel apart from the four in our Bible that was ever considered part of the legitimate Scriptures by sections of orthodox Christianity. The few remaining quotations of it show that it probably began with Jesus' preexistence and included His descent from heaven and subsequent birth. Jesus describes Himself as the son of the Holy Spirit and reports His temptation. There are also examples of His teaching. During the Last Supper, James the brother of Jesus says he will not eat again until he has seen the risen Jesus. There was probably a story of the burial of Jesus, and those who guarded the tomb may have witnessed the resurrection. As anticipated, there is a story of Jesus appearing to James, reinforcing his importance to this gospel. Gnostic characteristics, divergence from the biblical Gospels, and lack of any connection with an apostle may account for its eventually being excluded from the NT by mainstream Christianity.