104 Responses to “The Bible as Human Literature”

1. John Gnotek says on: 2 November 2009 at 1:07 pm

   “And an experienced guide not a map would be my first choice to traversing the territory.”
   That may work for you, and I don’t take that away from you. (Nor do I take away anything from one’s personal experiences with God.) I guess I’m kind of obstinate in traveling alone. I did that when I recently traveled through Europe: a duffel bag, a camera bag, maps and go-anywhere train pass.

   Spiritually, following an “experienced guide” is to me akin to Catholics practice, or what Kabbalists do, or Rosicrucians. Why put trust in a guide—in one who claims a special knowledge—who may be right or wrong—when a map clearly points the way? Like why pray to a saint or Mary—when one can directly petition Christ himself? Why go through sacrament or ritual when its really much simpler and direct than that?

   So what does Paul mean, ““when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God…” Do we not take him to his word? I mean of course he’s speaking of the resurrection and mission of Christ. He is saying this message is NOT one of man, but of the word of God. I know I’m not seminary trained, or biblically educated in any formal manner, and I’m not deep like most who frequent this blog, but even in a broad stroke I can’t read this in any other way than Paul is saying these are not his words, but God’s.
2. John Gnotek says on: 2 November 2009 at 1:08 pm

   “And an experienced guide not a map would be my first choice to traversing the territory.”
   That may work for you, and I don’t take that away from you. (Nor do I take away anything from one’s personal experiences with God.) I guess I’m kind of obstinate in traveling alone. I did that when I recently traveled through Europe: a duffel bag, a camera bag, maps and go-anywhere train pass.

   Spiritually, following an “experienced guide” is to me akin to Catholics practice, or what Kabbalists do, or Rosicrucians. Why put trust in a guide—in one who claims a special knowledge—who may be right or wrong—when a map clearly points the way? Like why pray to a saint or Mary—when one can directly petition Christ himself? Why go through sacrament or ritual when its really much simpler and direct than that?

   So what does Paul mean, ““when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it ACTUALLY is, the word of God…” Do we not take him to his word? I mean of course he’s speaking of the resurrection and mission of Christ. He is saying this message is NOT one of man, but of the word of God. I know I’m not seminary trained, or biblically educated in any formal manner, and I’m not deep like most who frequent this blog, but even in a broad stroke I can’t read this in any other way than Paul is saying these are not his words, but God’s. Inspired.
3. Bret says on: 3 November 2009 at 12:26 am

   After being asked by a mutual friend to review Mr. McManus’ article, The Bible as Human Literature; such reading compelled me to do the second part of my friend’s request – that is to provide commentary on the issue. As such, the following thoughts are submitted humbly and with the purpose of advancing the conversation to my friend, to Alex, and to any others who are interested in reading. These thoughts are also posted on Mr. McManus’ blog, On a Quest Into the Mystic… at alexmcmanus.org. With over 100 comments to the original article by the time of this commentary, the author has dealt with many criticisms already, but those arguments and the additional light they shed on the discussion are not covered here; so, there may be redundancy or further clarification that has already taken place, as the case may be, but due to limited time this discussion is the one put forth.

   Naturally, the premise, “The Bible is only human literature” is as earth-shaking as the author believes, given his second line instructing the reader to “Breathe.” He then clarifies his question, playing off that reaction, by asking, “Why does embracing the Bible as human literature disorient some of us?”

   Such is the nature of the article, with the assertions and questions coming so fast and furious, interspersed with some supporting rhetoric, that the reader is likely to be constantly confused, unsure of the writer’s point or his justification of it. In his defense, Mr. McManus may have written this as a near stream-of-consciousness, an intellectual journey of sorts with him while he’s asking these questions. Given the strong, committed opening and its related cousin at the end (“If Jesus is really raised from the dead, what do we lose if we consider the Bible as only human literature?”) it would seem that it is less of a confused series of inquiries and more of a dialectic or Socratic teaching. This is reinforced through the reading in that while the author does back up some of his points, such evidence or reasoning is mostly by point of example and not comprehensive, leading one to believe he is building toward the conclusion – again, emphatically stated at the start – than in the exercise of finding that answer. It seems clear that the author’s point is asking, “What does it mean to the Christian faith if the Bible is only an assembly of human-interest pieces?”

   Also, as the author references having some elements of Biblical study, namely textual criticism, it is assumed that he is aware of the foundational arguments for the canon, inerrancy, and inspiration of Scripture, as well as is Biblically literate, and has simply chosen to ignore these things. As with most, the fundamentals of the topic by itself would be enough to answer the questions. However, they will not be the bulk of this discussion, they will be referenced in this commentary due to their importance and supporting role.

   Finally, it should be known that far smarter people than either the author or myself have spent lifetimes of study on these same questions. They are not new to our generations. The Bible has withstood such scrutiny for literal millennia, and will continue to do so. Scripture is not threatened by the inquiries posed by the author, and for that matter, not defended by my efforts. If it is God’s Word, it stands on its own and nothing can tear it down; if it is not, it is void and nothing can build it up.

   That said, let’s start at the end, and work backwards; the original thesis will be more easily understood and discussed.

   If Jesus is really raised from the dead, what do we lose if we consider the Bible as only human literature?

   In this question the entire consequence of the belief of the Bible as anything less than the inerrant, infallible, and literal Word of God is seen. The issue really isn’t about the Bible at all, but of what it is the foundation: Christianity itself. This is not a simple issue of phrasing. If what the Bible says is not true, or at the least questionable in its representations, about the least of the details contained within, then the claims it holds on the most serious ones – God, sin, death, and the resurrection – are suspect.

   Hence we see the quandary, “If Jesus is really raised from the dead.” If he is not, then nothing – absolutely nothing – else matters about the religion based in his name and which practices deeds based on his teachings. This is so for many reasons, not the least of which Jesus is the only religious patron who rose again after dying – or, at least, in a documented fashion. Which is, of course, the crux of the whole issue.

   How can this be said? Isn’t the author’s point that the Bible is irrelevant so long as Jesus did rise? This is the liturgical corollary to the persistent question, “If a tree falls in a forest but no one hears it, did it fall?” And, of course, if the event occurs but no chronicle of it happens, the event still occurred. But the author assumes that antitheses would also be true and equally valid, being that, “If Jesus were raised from the dead, but the Bible said he wasn’t, what would the truth be?” and “If Jesus did not rise, but the Bible claims he did, what would be truth?” That is, he looks for validation of events based on the account of Scripture, not the Scriptures validated by the events they chronicle.

   Naturally, nearly 2,000 years removed from the latest historical events of the Bible, this would be an intriguing question, especially for one who approaches scripture from the approach of textual criticism. But the Bible is not a linear document, though it is canonically organized as such for our modern Greek minds.

   Consider instead if the Bible is exactly as it claims to be (more on the importance of that in just a moment). That is, that it is theopneustos – literally God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)? What that means in terms of mechanics is another discussion entirely; let us agree for sake of discussion that it is as simple as transcription, that God spoke and the authors wrote what he said word-for-word. Regardless of what it was in reality, the fact that the Bible claims itself to be the literal words of God is a serious claim, as is any claim to the contrary.

   And if it is such a document and the God, whose words they are, is who he claims to be in those revelations, namely timeless and exhibiting the perfections he describes (holiness, love, mercy, grace, patience, to name a few) then what we have is a document approximately 4,000 years in the making. A document that exhibits the infinite wisdom of its author – not the scribes – distilled into doses that were given at the precise moments in time they were needed for the temporal direction of God’s most treasured creation: humankind.

   The author suggests that it is not this. That it is, instead, more like millennia of the front page of the New York Times. It is cringing to think he chose that particular publication, but let us assume he meant it as a gesture of respect out of the esteem he has for that newspaper. In consideration of that example, we will discuss some elements of what he means: that events happen; that the historical record of import investigates them; that a human instrument wrote about them from their perspective or the perspective of those they interviewed; and that such accounts are generally truthful.

   While it is an entertaining distraction to think of the Bible as having various sections, as does a newspaper, and imaging what would appear on A1, or in the Life, Sports, or Money sections, there are serious flaws to consider in the analogy.

   First, the Times, while it takes itself very seriously, it does not claim to be the Word of God. Mr. McManus may well receive a letter from the editor expressing their umbrage at such a thought, given all the space that has been dedicated debunking even the concept of God, much less the Christian one. In all seriousness, however, even in the height of their journalistic integrity, the Times would never have presumed to have made some of the claims the Bible does about itself.

   Of course, all that does not even deal with the fact that the Bible was not just a backward looking account, but also prophetical. The author forgets this in his portrayal of scripture. Like the weather forecast, it told the future; however, the Bible was never wrong about what it prophesied whereas the accuracy of the weatherman is anyone’s guess.

   But I digress. The point is that each publication has very different purposes. God’s was the giving of preternatural wisdom to people when it was needed, culminating in the prophecy, then the fulfillment, of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of His Son, Jesus the Christ, as the substitute sacrifice for the ultimate sin, the rejection of Him, and then to tell what that event meant to those who came behind. Throughout history, anyone could have looked at the amount of the Bible available at that time and seen this. The Times simply exists to print all the news that’s fit.

   What then is the standard for truth?

   The same test applies here that it does for Jesus, the pre-eminent character of the Bible. Many compromise and say that they do not believe Jesus was the Son of God in the flesh, but that he was a good moral man or ethical teacher. The reality is that, if he was not God, he was either a liar or a lunatic, but certainly not moral or ethical. He could not make the claims he did if he were not God, insane, or the king of con artists. Those are the only three viable options.

   Likewise, the Bible cannot merely be truthful human literature if it is not what it claims itself to be. It claims to be literally breathed by God. It claims to judge the shortcomings of man against the perfection of God. It claims to detail the only way to receive forgiveness of these sins. It claims to tell the past and the future accurately. If it is not these things, no one can credibly say it has any modicum of truth. And, while the standards of today have fallen significantly, it would still require the suspension of disbelief to then consider it literature, too. It is either Revelation or it is rubbish – it cannot be both.

   Consider then the author’s assertions.: the Bible is not authoritative, but secondary to the events that happened “in the real world”; it has no authority in and of itself but dependant to the interpretation of the believer. To wit, he references the same kind of example we have already discussed: Jesus did not rise because the Bible says so, but was written because He did; and, Israel did not emerge on the stage of history because the Bible says so but was written because Israel emerges.

   Conspicuously absent from those frameworks is God. In the author’s mind, there exist only three factors: history, the Bible, and the reader. If he is as influenced by Descartes’ deism as he claims the whole of modern Christendom to be, such a Clockmaker mentality would make sense. To him, the solution must be one of the three factors of man, history, or Scripture being supreme when, in fact, that is a perfection truly held by God alone. The author says that the Bible is only literature because it was written by primitive people after historical events occurred and is now read by modern man and open to our interpretation in our greater understanding so many years later. He does not consider that God, who is infinitely wise and good, controlled both the occurrence of the events and the perfect historical record of them for our consumption – not in our excellence, but in our need – in the more dire future. Indeed, with the removal of God, the author’s conclusions are reasonably logical, and yet so much more terrible as a result of the means necessary to accomplish them. As previously said, such a discussion is about much more than just the nature of the Bible; it then becomes about the nature – even the very existence – of God.

   So then, to reiterate, if Jesus is really raised from the dead, what do we lose if we consider the Bible as only human literature? Put simply, everything. Not one thing we understand about God, His work, or the need for it can be believed without the supernatural validation given by God in His perfect, complete, inerrant, breathed Word: the Bible.

   Why does embracing the Bible as human literature disorient some of us?

   The author deals with many things between his first and last question; namely, the perfection or adequacy of Scripture, the foundations for faith, convergence, and the human and special elements of the Bible. Most of those have been also addressed here, if only in principle. That is satisfactory as they are the filler between his first and final questions, and in dealing with those questions, so, too, are those – either directly or through their newfound irrelevancy.

   So, why does embracing the Bible as human literature disorient some of us? Because it removes the Bible from its rightful, self-proclaimed place as the Word of God, theopneustos. And, since John 1:1 tells us that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, without such a holy classification for the Bible, we not only lose the Bible, but everything within it; not only that, but God and all His work, as well.

   Could God exist outside of the Bible? Or, phrased differently, could God exist outside of what is told about Him in Scripture? In a purely philosophical realm, yes; and, in fact, He does – He is not limited to what is contained in those pages, as evidenced by His continued work of redemption after the closing of the canon. However, since God has told us the things He has in the Word, He could not exist contrary to those things, or, fantastically, if those things were pure fancy.

   Some of us are disoriented at the concept of the Bible as only human literature because to lose it as what it claims to be – holy, literal words of God – means we lose everything. Which also means, as correctly illustrated by the author, that our religion can be morally equivocated to others. Or open to historical criticism. Or any other number of things. If, however, it is the religion that is truly instituted by God, as explained in His Word, given for the purposes of reconciliation, and constantly validated by any number of proofs, then nothing else compares to it.
4. Parepidemos says on: 2 June 2010 at 11:55 pm

   Wow, Bret. On other forums, a post like that is referred to as a “discussion killer.”

   I only had time to skim your post, and I am probably sympathetic to your position (as I agree with Gnotek’s last bit), but even a cursory glance notices that you aren’t really dealing much with Alex’s argument. You have set up a straw man, one that Alex specifically tried to step away from.

   Examples: Alex says “just because something is written by humans does not automatically make it false”, yet you seem to say that Alex IS arguing for the inadequacy and falsehood of the scriptures… and Alex says “the Bible is inspired by this encounter between God and humans and the sustained relationships (both individual and societal) that follow”, yet you seem to argue that Alex is rejecting any inspiration that might come via the Bible.

   At some point I’ll sit down and read your essay more carefully. Perhaps I’m off base.

   But if I write my own essay in reply to you or to Alex, I’ll post it on my own blog, under my own name, with a trackback or pingback to this original post so folks can follow me over from here.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

1. Links for May 27th | jonathan stegall: creative tension
2. microclesia ? Blog Archive » Just How Dark Is It?
3. The Bible as literature and what that means to us