There is a lot of debate among scholars about the nature of the Bible and just how historically accurate its various tales are. Some favor a literal interpretation that takes things as completely accurate; others argue that far more is metaphorical and symbolic than most realize. Too few Christians are familiar with these debates or the various arguments offered by both sides.

The Wisconsin State Journal reports on reactions to the scholarship of John Dominic Crossan:

John Dominic Crossan, often called the premier expert on the words and life of the historical Jesus, says the truth of the Christmas story is spiritual, not necessarily factual. “The only thing for me sadder than accepting a metaphor or a parable literally is denying it literally,” Crossan argues.

Claiming that the stories in the Bible are “spiritually” true is merely double-talk to avoid the consequences of admitting that they aren’t really true in the first place. Notice how awful he thinks it is to “deny” the stories, despite their being historically untrue. Is it sad to deny Santa Claus?

Crossan is a leader in a school of biblical scholarship that has sought to clarify stories of the historical Jesus, gradually removing two millennia of what scholars believe to be creative additions and interpretation that began even before the Gospels were written.

Such efforts are predicated on the idea that there is some essential core of truths behind the additions and interpretations. What if that isn’t the case, though? If Crosson had a genuinely skeptical and scientific attitude, he would allow for that possibility and insist on strong evidence before rejecting it.

“One of the problems I have, as a pastor, with Crossan’s approach to the study of scripture is that it seems to operate with a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ mentality,” says the Rev. Kirk Morledge, pastor at Waunakee’s First Presbyterian Church.

This is precisely how we should approach all empirical claims. I’ll bet Morledge would insist on at least this much skepticism with the claims of other religions — it’s just his own beliefs he’d like to be privileged with a “true until proven false” attitude. That’s precisely the wrong way to approach things.

“When it comes to assessing the historicity of New Testament accounts and deciding whether or not certain things actually ‘happened,’ ‘no’ seems to be the default assumption unless sufficient ‘evidence’ can be cited. This obviously shifts the burden of proof to those who have affirmed the historicity of biblical accounts like the story of Christ’s birth.”

Uh.... yeah? The burden of proof lies with those who claim that the New Testament is historically accurate; absent and evidence that the text is accurate, then it’s reasonable to think that maybe they aren’t. I fail to see anything wrong with such a situation. Indeed, I only see it as right — and it’s just the sort of approach which people should use generally with empirical claims.

“Crossan’s conclusions about the Christmas story are based not on things he has discovered. They are based on things he has decided. And not everyone agrees with him, or with his assumptions.”

In other words, Kirk Morledge doesn’t agree with approaching the Bible in a skeptical manner, doesn’t agree with requiring evidence before accepting the claim that the New Testament is historically accurate, and doesn’t agree with rejecting a belief when the evidence doesn’t justify it. This would make Morledge a representative of everything that’s wrong with Christianity — not to mention religion generally. Crossan may not be great, but he’s a rationalist saint in comparison to people like Morledge.

 

Quick Poll: How historically accurate is the Bible?

1. The Bible is 100% accurate
2. The Bible is mostly accurate
3. The Bible is occasionally accurate
4. The Bible is rarely accurate
5. The Bible is never accurate
6. I don't know
7. I don't care

Click an option to vote, or View Current Poll Results

 

Religion & Religious Beliefs:

• Why Does Religion Exist?
• Definition of Religion
• Types of Definitions of Religion

 

Topics in Religion & Religious Studies:

• Philosophy of Religion
• Religion in America
• Religion and Sex
• The Matrix, Religion, and Philosophy
• Harry Potter, Religion, and Philosophy
• Karl Marx & Religion
• Technology and Religion, Technology as Religion
• Sigmund Freud & Religion