What do we do when the Bible is "wrong"?

The following is an essay I wrote for my "Who is Jesus?" class.

Historical Scholarship and the Church

Tim Wenger

BTS-4150

04/11/2013

            Historical Jesus study has provided a lot of benefit for the church. It has given us a better picture of who our first century Lord really was. However, in the process, scholars sometimes claim that certain stories, or teachings (or even whole aspects of his life) do not actually originate from Jesus but are themselves fabrications of the early church. This incongruity between history and the gospels could be seen as troubling for our faiths. Through primary research as well as through review of the use of secondary literature this essay will explore the benefits and problems of using historical Jesus Scholarship within the church and the impact it has on faith formation. And show that a well-rounded biblical faith is not dependent on authenticity of the individual pericopes but dependent on an understanding of the scriptures which takes into account the dynamic traditions that make up scripture, and yet is deeply rooted in the overarching message of the Bible.

Introduction of Primary Sources

            Marla Langelotz is the lead pastor at Sargent Avenue Mennonite Church in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Through an exchange of e-mails she told me that whenever she prepares preaching or teaching, she always tries to do some historical research. Sometimes this is just using a bible commentary, but when time permits she also tries to use other sources as well. She writes that if she uses “enough resources, there is usually some difference in opinion regarding some aspect of most Biblical texts.”[1][2]

            Dan Epp-Tiessen is Associate Professor of Bible at Canadian Mennonite University, also located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. While his focus is Bible, he has also taught practical theology classes such as Preaching. Dan also has experience as a pastor. I sat down with Dan and we talked about Historical-Critical analysis and the church. He too has noticed that depending on the topics and scholars he is reading that there are differences between a biblical story and what scholars say actually happened. He also notes that this occurs within the biblical narrative itself. Within the Gospels, “there are tensions in terms of how they portray Jesus, and how they portray specific incidences in his life.”[3]

            As I work with this topic, I will return to Marla and Dan as they provide insight to how Historical Jesus studies impact the church.

The Benefits of Historical Jesus Study
            While I have noted that there Historical Jesus studies might be challenging for Christian faith, it is also important to note the gift that Historical Biblical studies, in general and Historic Jesus studies specifically has been for the church.

            Biblical studies have done a lot in terms of opening up the biblical narrative for studying. Because of the historic view of biblical inerrancy, as pastors came across sections of the bible that were not easily reconcilable with each other, they would often feel as though they couldn't talk about these passages, so while the official canon remained the same, the parts of the bible that were used consistently got smaller. With the introduction of critical biblical studies in the modern era, the possibility of mistakes in the bible, and the attempt to reconcile these passages, texts previously inaccessible became open to use within the church.[4]

            Included in these previously inaccessible texts were the Synoptic Gospels. According to William E. Hull, their incongruities and lack of overt theology, meant that preachers saw them on as “historical sources for the life of Jesus” and little more. Instead they focused  on the Gospel of John and the Pauline Epistles. It was scholars who slowly retaught the church that the synoptic gospels were primarily made out of preaching materials about Jesus' life which were fashioned into a profoundly theological form.

            If there wasn't debate within the Quest for the Historical Jesus, about which parts of the Gospels interpretation of Jesus were accurate, and which were not, then we wouldn't have any of the new information about Jesus that we have discovered in recent years.[5]

            The quest for the Historical Jesus has opened up his world. There are now quests for the historical Galilee, and for the historical Judaisms of Jesus' time.[6] Scholars are constantly trying to better understand the world Jesus lived in. For Marla, it is important to give her congregants a sense of what it was like to hear and see Jesus. She writes “This, then becomes a window for me and them to view more fully the wisdom and teaching about the mystery of God and how that impacts us today”[7]

            According to Francis Watson, while it may question specifics about who the Historical Jesus was, it is also important to note that the empirical evidence the Quest for the Historical Jesus has uncovered demonstrates that at a very limited level, the Gospel is rooted in “empirical historical reality”. It is comforting to know that the Gospel is based on some empirical knowledge. There was someone named Jesus who lived in Judea and Galilee. It acts as a control as the church “seeks to portray Jesus” while Jesus is more than just an “empirical figure of history” he is “not less than” one.[8]

            It acts, according to Schwietzer, to keep us accountable to who Jesus was. As we try to interpret what the faithful response to our current contexts would be, Historical Jesus studies remind us that our response is rooted in concrete forms. If we do not pay attention to the truth about who Jesus was, and what he taught, then he becomes empty of meaning, and will only serve to  justify our own actions. Historical Jesus studies keep us rooted in the historical record.[9]

            As one anonymous editorial writes “to deny the importance of history to faith is to deny divine activity within the arena of history.”[10] If we don't believe that our faith is rooted in history, then we are denying that we believe God can be at work in the real, historical world.

            On a very pragmatic note, controversy in biblical scholarship can be good for us purely based on the scandal it creates. Even the highly controversial claims about who Jesus was, or was not, serve a purpose. The high-profile claims about the bible being wrong result in increased attention to the bible. The old adage “all publicity is good publicity”[11] comes into effect. People are interested in the claims of Christianity and have become willing to read the bible “with new eyes.”[12]

Limitations of Historical Jesus Studies

            The benefits of Historical Jesus studies aside, there are also significant challenges that they cause as well. The fact of the matter is that Historic Jesus Scholarship often says that many events did not occur as the Bible says they did. Often the claim is that the early church added them in to give authoritative answers to problems they were facing.

            However, it is very hard to determine which is which. According to Dale C. Allison Junior, there are only a few passages which could be claimed to obviously be secondary because they address post-Easter issues, and only a few that certainly go back to Jesus because it would be against the Church's self interest to write about them. The rest of the gospels are being debated about back and forth. One criteria of authenticity used by one scholar to authenticate some stories and disprove other stories, but then another scholar uses another just as legitimate criteria to disprove the first and the debate continues on.[13]

            This would be a concern if the writers had been trying to write modern biographies, however, as Dan says, “they're not, they are not first and foremost historians, they are first and foremost theologians, they are trying to inviting us to have faith in Jesus. They are not first and foremost trying to inform us about the minute details of Jesus life and so sometimes I know they tell stories in certain ways.” [14]

            Another concern that Allison brings up is that the criteria for authenticity used in Historical Jesus studies only authenticate (if it can even do that) individual pericopes. Human memory is much more general. We remember impressions, themes and motifs rather than the exact words or actions that occurred. As such we should be more concerned about whether or not the general principles of the gospel have been faithfully preserved rather than the individual stories. If the “big picture” is "wrong” then the details doesn't actually matter. Therefore if we deem the aspects of Jesus that would make him a“secular sage” as authentic, but deny that the major theme of eschatology (arguably one of the biggest themes in the gospels) is, then the Gospels do not accurately portray who Jesus was, and we can't use it to prove that he actually was a secular sage.[15]

            Dan says that we should not base our faith on the latest scholarly theories. Part of this is because they do not seem to have much longevity. “I'm old enough have seen a lot of them come and go”. And even when they stay, there “are multiple portrayals of Jesus, so which portrayal of Jesus are we going to base our faith on?”

            According to Watson, one of the biggest limitations of the quest for the historical Jesus is that it considers its own “interpretive paradigm” with reality itself. For them the only Jesus that matters is the one that is historically verifiable, and anything else is a “pious fantasy” that doesn't actually matter. It ignores the impression that Jesus' community of believers have of him since it is no longer verifiable.

            There therefore becomes a division between faith and history, often distinguished as the difference between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History. However, according to James D.G. Dunn it is important to distinguish between fact and data. All historical knowledge we have is data interpreted. The data may reflect the facts, but not necessarily the past is inaccessible to us today and so  the closest we can do is interpret and infer from the knowledge that we have. This means that we really don't have any access to who Jesus really was, we just have the Historian's Jesus, what they have reconstructed from data. This is why there are so many different “Jesuses” derived from the Quest for the Historical Jesus. In Fact, the historian who claims that they have found the true Jesus has in fact made a faith claim from their own interpretation of the data, it is therefore less consequential that there is a Christ of Faith and a Jesus of History, because the Jesus of History is in fact a Jesus of faith.[16]

Truth

This leads us to the question is the bible true? Most Christians would like the bible to be true, that things happen the way the bible depicts them as happening. As John Rogeson says, the fundamentalist argument, that you “have to accept the whole of the Bible as accurate or reject it entirely” does seem to  have some merit. Choosing certain parts over the other to be accurate does seem to be eisegesis, or putting your own meaning into the text.[17] However,  As I mentioned before, the importance is not whether or not the individual passages reflect historic fact, but rather it is important that they represent Jesus properly.

            Dan has two simple questions we need to ask as we read the biblical story “what are the biblical writers trying to say? Why did they tell the story this way and what are they trying to say with it?”[18] If those are the questions we are asking ourselves then we don't need to be worried about whether or not an individual passage is authentic because we understand that the biblical writers are working with literature.

Can We trust the bible's description of who Jesus is?

            From the impression Jesus left on the disciples, Dunn argues, we can “discern the 'shape' of the one who made that impression”. Even with the church adding content, we can trust that this content is in line with the impression that Jesus left on them. This impression is not objective, it is based on faith. It is the impression that was left on the fisherman and tax collectors that turned them into disciples and apostles. It left a mark on them and it is to them we trust to learn about the Jesus of faith.[19]

 Dan recognizes that  “the church in it's wisdom has decided these are the books of the bible that it will regard as it's testimony to Jesus... so that's the stuff that I will work with”.

            As we examine the Gospels, we realize that the evangelists were willing to modify the text to their own needs.[20] This shows that the tradition was a “living tradition”. On the one hand the impression that Jesus left on them is still discernible, on the other hand it spoke in different ways to different people depending on the situation.[21]

            Rogeson  writes how we probably have authentic teachings of Jesus within the Gospels, but that   over time they have been added and expanded to, not because the biblical writers are falsifying the historical record, but because they are trying to help the reader understand who Jesus was. They were adding interpretive comments to clear up some of the aspects of Jesus where their impression of him add to what Jesus said.[22]

            Allison argues that we find “certain themes, motifs, and rhetorical strategies” attributed to Jesus on a wide variety  sources. It is here where we find who Jesus really is.[23] For him, any image we create for Jesus has to be derivative of the Synoptic image of Jesus. Matthew, Mark and Luke's image of Jesus is the most accurate image because they are the source in which everyone else's images of Jesus derive from[24]

The Pastoral Challenge

            When Marla began serious Scriptural study, she too was surprised to learn some of the historical-critical research's findings.  For her, the scholastic research has challenged her concept of truth she learned that it was okay to not have all of the answers. And that she and others “could be wrong”. She describes her view of scripture as being “a story of how people have experienced God.  This is a very comprehensive, but not complete picture.  It is 'spirit breathed' in that God's spirit is in the lives of those whose stories are told and those who do the telling.”[25]

            This lead her into considering whether or not she was “leading people astray” by challenging their deep-rooted beliefs. Because her congregation has an older population, it seemed “almost cruel” to introduce them to a lot of her findings at such a late point in their lives. Instead she has “erred on the side of gentleness”.[26]

            This doesn't mean that she is not keen in helping her congregation ask deep-rooted questions about faith. This can be seen in her sermons where she tries to ask questions that provoke thought and yet maintain faith in others.

            She takes a different approach within a Bible Study context where she is able to offer alternative view points. This is because it is a context of conversation where people can argue with what she says, and has resulted in very positive conversations even with older members of her congregation.

            Whenever she teaches, she has to make a decision about how much to share. For her, the historical “truth” (read Dunn's “Fact”), doesn't change the importance of the story, or the reasons why it is being shared. The meaning of the story can be far more important then the mere details of the story.[27]

            Dan similarly argues that when he is preaching, his goal is to how can he “preach in such a way that God changes the lives of the hearers,” he still uses historical critical methodology as he prepares his sermon, but it is not the focus of said sermon. Instead he is trying to “create and shape faith and to foster both a hearing and an experiencing of the Gospel”.[28]

            When Dan teaches adult Sunday school, again he uses the biblical-critical scholarship to shape his content, but he is not outright saying “these texts are inaccurate” instead he draws the class into a discussion about the writer's context, what they are trying to accomplish, and in doing so he teaches them to think critically about what they are reading.[29]

            When I talk to students taking first year bible courses where they are first introduced to Historical Critical Scholarship, they often talk about the class challenging their “Sunday School faith”. Both Marla and Dan suggest that best way to work with this is to use age appropriate content.

            When children are younger and unable to It is important that we teach children them the basic biblical story,  some of the implications and to encourage their faith. As they develop more refined senses of right and wrong truth, it then becomes possible to encourage them to consider a “bigger understanding of faith” that goes beyond the literalistic readings of scripture.[30]

            Marla notes that we do not give children enough credit, and that they can actually handle questions better than adults can, and so we should allow ensure that teachers know that they don't have to give them “clear answers”.[31]

            Dan places the onus on Sunday school teachers as models of “respect for the biblical text” and to subtly model “that we don't read all biblical texts literally” but he is “not critical of Sunday School teachers for not teaching our children historical-critical methodology. That's not what Sunday School should do.”[32]

                        Marla, agrees that it is high school age that we can teach youths to engage critically with the text. The problem, in her experience is that it is exactly the same time that these children no longer attend church regularly. It is hard to build relationships, and encourage thoughtful reading of scripture when they are not attending.[33]

Conclusion

            As a pastor it is important to ensure an integrity of the biblical text. To ignore the fact that there are legitimate questions about the veracity of the biblical narrative would be a great disservice. By ignoring the questions that scholars and congregants have about whether or not the stories really happened, we would only be increasing the gap between the doubt in the mind of the believer, and the mystery that is living as part of God's kingdom. By engaging these questions, we free ourselves from the traps that arise when we limit our understanding of God.

            Biblical Scholarship pushes us to ask questions, but we need to be careful to ensure that we are also asking the right questions. Instead of asking about whether or not an individual story happened, we  begin to ask questions about why the biblical author is telling the story the way he does, what is the major lesson from the story, what does it tell us about the Christ of faith.

            And yet we must take the critical lens that biblical scholarship gives us and turn it back on itself. It works well for individual pericopes, but it misses broader themes and motifs that are perhaps more integral to the authenticity of the bible than the veracity of individual stories.

            It would not do to hide these findings from the church, but both Marla and Dan show a sophistication in their delivery of it. By getting congregants to think critically, the congregants themselves become the catalyst for creating stronger faiths that are not bound to the black and white thinking of modernity. It is no longer the all or none of fundamentalist thinking, but rather a more dynamic view of understanding what is important and what is not. It is a redirecting of priorities from liberalism to seeing the Jesus as the early church saw him, alive and Dynamic.

            People's faiths are developed at an early age, if it is one built on a rigid structure of either/or thinking, then it will continue to be so through to their old age. If however, a dynamic faith is modeled from a young age, and it is possible to engage them through their youth, then it is possible for Biblical Scholarship to become an important aspect of your faith, informing it, but not becoming the foundation of it.

Reference List

Allison Jr.  Dale C.. “The Historians’ Jesus and the Church” in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, 79-95. Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2008.

Dunn, James D G. "On faith and history, and living tradition in response to Robert Morgan and Andrew

Gregory." Expository Times 116, no. 1 (October 1, 2004): 13-19. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 2, 2013).

"Editorial." Interpretation 57.2 (2003): 115. ProQuest. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.

Rogerson, John.  “The Gifts and challenges of Historical and Literary Criticism” in The Bible in Pastoral Practice, edited by Paul Ballard and Stephen R. Holmes, 121-134. Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2005.

Schweitzer, Don. "A theological significance of the quest for the historical Jesus." Touchstone 25, no. 2

(May 1, 2007): 23-34. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed

November 2, 2013).

Watson, Francis. “Veritas Christi: How to get from the Jesus of History to the Christ of Faith without Losing One’s Way” in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, 96-116. Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2008.

Bibliography

Hull, William. E. “Preaching on the Synoptic Gospels” in Biblical Preaching, edited by James W. Cox, 169-194. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983.

---

[1]Marla Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.

[2] See Appendix A

[3]Dan Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23^rd, 2013.

[4]John Rogerson, “The Gifts and challenges of Historical and literary criticism” in The Bible in Pastoral Practice, ed. Paul Ballard and Stephen R. Holmes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2005), 129.

[5]Don Schweitzer, “A Theological Significance of the Quest for the Historical Jesus.” Touchstone 25, no. 2 (2007),   26 ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. 

[6]Ibid., 25.

[7]Marla Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.

[8]Francis Watson, “Veritas Christi: How to get from the Jesus of History to the Christ of Faith without Losing One’s Way” in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2008), 108.

[9]Schweitzer, “A Theological Significance, 29-30.

[10]“Editorial” in Interpretation 57.2 (2003): 115. ProQuest. Web.

[11]Source Unknown

[12]“Editorial,” 115.

[13]Dale C. Allison Jr., “The Historians’ Jesus and the Church” in  ” in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2008), 81.

[14]Dan Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23^rd, 2013.

[15]Allison, “The Historians’ Jesus,” 84.

[16]James DG Dunn, “On Faith and History, and living tradition in response to Robert Morgan and Andrew Gregory.” Expository Times 116, no. 1 (2004), 14. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. 

[17]Rogerson, “The Gifts and challenges,” 127.

[18]Dan Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23^rd, 2013.

[19]Dunn, “On Faith and History,” 15.

[20]Ibid., 18.

[21]Ibid., 19.

[22]Rogerson, “The Gifts and challenges,”  126.

[23]Allison, “The Historians’ Jesus,”  85-86.

[24]Ibid., 88.

[25] Marla Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Dan Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23^rd, 2013

[29]Ibid.

[30]Ibid.

[31]Marla Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.

[32]Dan Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23^rd, 2013

[33]Marla Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.