The Bible, History, Myth or Both

Gospel illustration from the Book of Kells by 9th century Celtic months, Trinity College, Dublin

Popular books and movies, and current religious TV shows, show zealous preachers walking a stage with a big, black book in their hands, allowing it to rest open on one hand while gesturing or pointing to a passage with the other. They draw out often obscure words and phrases, trying to make their point. Back in the day, they were referred to as Bible thumpers.

They give you the impression that all wisdom, all knowledge - everything you could ever want to know or learn - is contained in that book. The Reformation, the movement beginning in the 16^th century in which dissidents from Catholicism created Protestantism, codified this view in the doctrine of "sola scriptura" or “scripture only.” That's the doctrine that the Bible contains everything you need to know to be a Christian. The church is secondary at best.

Many have qualified this view in light of greater insight into history. Fact is, the Bible as we know it wouldn't exist without the ancient church, whose members decided what would be in the Bible and what would not. Christians like me believe that both the church and the Bible are needed (but that God is wholly contained in neither).

I believe an exaggerated reverence for the Bible often leads to a literal interpretation that results in skepticism, if not cynicism, among those who seek God. Scripture scholars of all faiths and no faith have helped us understand that the Bible is not meant to be a history book. It's a book, or better, a "box set" of 72 books, that contains mythical as well as historical material that provides what most Christian faiths teach are inspired religious teachings.

Genesis’ two creation accounts

Take the creation accounts in Genesis, the Bible's first book. They are often the reason scientists, or science aficionados, scoff at religion, and that religious people reject science, specifically evolution. Genesis tells two stories of creation. The first describes how God created everything in six days, resting on the seventh. The second, among other things, tells the famous story of Adam and Eve.

Obviously, neither is scientific or historical. They are stories you can imagine ancient nomadic Hebrews telling around a campfire, told to make a point about God and his/her relationship with human beings.

Some critics of religion say this non-literal view has been adopted by some Christians to justify their continued belief in what is utterly unbelievable. Or, say some Christian “conservatives,” it's pushed by liberals who simply can't accept miracles.

My opinion is that it's accepting what scholars have learned by studying the context of the Bible: the customs, languages, ethics and beliefs of people who lived at the time the various books of the Bible were written. Such scholarship gives us a window into the Bible's language and the earliest believers. It makes the Bible comprehensible and useful in the search for God. The literal “truth” of the texts is usually irrelevant.

The myth of Uncle Pat

Think of the stories in your own family. Mine include one about my father’s great uncle Pat, who came from Ireland to live briefly with my father’s family. Fulfilling the stereotype of the Irish, Pat was a heavy drinker. As the story goes, he left the farm one day for town – Emmetburg, Iowa, named for the Irish patriot, Robert Emmet – in a horse-pulled wagon. A nasty blizzard occurred, and Pat went missing. He was found after several days under the overturned wagon in a ditch filled with snow, uninjured and unconcerned. He had been on his way home with a bottle of whiskey when the wind overturned the wagon. The whiskey, it was thought, was his preservative.

Is this story true? I have no idea, but it provided some entertainment in our family for generations. At the least, it was probably highly exaggerated. The point of the story was that Pat was a “character;” that our family was truly Irish, and like Pat, a “tough” bunch. The historical truth of the story matters little.

Most Bible stories are like that. They use true as well as mythical stories, or a combination of the two, to make a point, usually about the awesomeness of God. Jesus used such stories, often in the form of parables. Did the Good Samaritan actually exist? That’s entirely beside the point, which is that people who seek God must care for others. Since the Bible was written over at least an 1,100 year stretch, more people, places and stories of the New Testament are believed to be historical than those of the Old Testament. 

Obviously, there’s so much more that could be written about the Bible. The point of this blog post is that while skeptics searching for God should not make the Bible the exclusive path to God, they shouldn’t write it off, either. If you’re not into it, try an “easy” book first, like – in the Christian Bible – the Acts of the Apostles. And unless you’re in it for the literary value, avoid the King James Version. Read one of the modern translations instead.

To me, the Bible is a great source of inspiration and guidance. You don’t have to be a Bible thumper to be impressed.