It is interesting how the timing works with something like this, because last weekend I discovered the latest Newsweek magazine cover story was on basically the same subject. Now if you were to read this article and compare it to my sermon, you would quickly discover they each coming from opposite points of view.If you are new to these issues, or new to the Christian faith, that article may seem to bring up some troubling questions and inconsistencies about what we call 'God's Word'. It certainly tries to make the case that no one with serious intelligence would take the Bible as fully true and totally sufficient for life and doctrine.
And while I think it makes some unfair arguments that ignore the complete scope of the issues, I do think it is good for Christians to interact with these criticisms and be ready to properly respond to them. So I am interrupting my semi-regularly scheduled posts on music to offer responses to the various points the article makes.
Before getting into the specifics, let me preface it all with this:
I grew up in a conservative, Bible-believing family that went to a church of the same ilk. After attending a public high school, I went to a conservative, evangelical college majoring in Youth Ministry and minoring in Biblical Studies before attending the same school's well-renowned seminary where I completed a Master of Divinity in Pastoral Ministry. Given all of that background, nothing in this article is new to me. At one point or another, I had studied and interacted with everything that article brings up. The author paints a picture of evangelicals as having our heads buried in the sand when it comes to these supposed 'weaknesses' of Scripture. Undoubtedly some of us do, but any Christian college and seminary education worth its salt will consider and evaluate opposing arguments, studying them in depth.
And that is more than I can say for this article.
But let's weigh these criticisms and evaluate their validity.
- Much of the first quarter of the article deals with issues of textual criticism and transmission of the text (i.e., "translations"). When I first started reading, I was afraid they were going to ignore the transmission process altogether, but the author does describe how the Bible was passed down from generation to generation by scribes copying the Word. The article undersells the care given to the process and the accuracy that was sought and attained. Yes there are many 'variations' in the the copies of Scripture we have today and we do not have the originals. But what the article fails to recognize is that there is 98% agreement between all of the copies we have.* And no variant puts any serious theological issue in doubt. And when there are variants in play, most cases involve clear evidence which favors why one option was picked over another.
And the examples the author uses are flimsy when investigated in depth.- I would have to Luke 3 more closely, but given my general knowledge of these issues I would guess that Luke 3:16 uses "answered" not because of a scribal mistake, or a 'missing question' , but because it fits with the previous verse and it fit ancient Greek writing styles.
- John 7:53-8:11 is widely recognized by evangelical Christian scholars as not part of John's original book - and most good study Bibles include notes like this to explain:
There is considerable doubt that this story is part of John’s original Gospel, for it is absent from all of the oldest manuscripts. But there is nothing in it unworthy of sound doctrine. It seems best to view the story as something that probably happened during Jesus’ ministry but that was not originally part of what John wrote in his Gospel. Therefore it should not be considered as part of Scripture and should not be used as the basis for building any point of doctrine unless confirmed in Scripture. (ESV Study Bible) - The issue with Mark 16 is essentially the same, with most Bibles providing similar commentary that describes how some manuscripts have the verses, some do not. They are left in the text because they are consistent with the rest of Scripture.If you've made it this far, keep reading after the jump for further response to the major points the article asserts.
