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.

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.

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.

When it comes to the text…

Of course, Paul and I may have a different view of what the text is. It would be interesting to hear how he might write this if he were writing today.

In my understanding, Paul’s preaching was a human testimony pointing/ recounting the action of God in Christ much like the Bible is a human witness to the actions of God in the world.

God, not the Bible nor Paul’s words, is who works within us when we hear the story and believe.

The map analogy works for me. The map is not the territory. It represents a pov on what the territory is. What’s more, having a map in and of itself does not give a journey direction. Thus a map is not foundational to the journey.

A present location and a destination are far more determinative than having a map in terms of giving one a sense of direction. And an experienced guide not a map would be my first choice to traversing the territory.

In the end, this whole idea of arguing internally from the scripture about the scripture doesn’t work for me. Imagine a Muslim saying, the Qu’ran is the word of God because the Qu’ran says so. This would hardly be persuasive. But Christians make this circular argument with the Bible and are content with it. At best, we get an idea of what some of the writers of the text thought about parts of the text we call the Bible. That’s helpful, but not enough.

I think it’s clearly understood your pov that the bible not be worshipped, nor the word-by-word translations be an exact dictation–as many evangelicals and fundamentalist hold fast to. I would agree. Wholeheartedly. But you do contradict yourself here.

You say, “I think Paul is referring to his preaching of the gospel to them, not to his reading of the Bible — which didn’t exist in our form — to them.” Well it didn’t and it did. There are numerous prophecies in OT that did speak of this. However that point aside, 1 Thessalonian 2:13 does explicitly state, “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…” So what Paul is explicitly saying is this gospel, this testimonial, this message, this story is NOT that of man, of himself, but of God. Not just a reiteration of a personal experience, but divine inspiration.

No the bible, as we consume it, didn’t exist then—in mass-produced, written form of a canonized selection. But the very same thing did exist and flourish in an oral tradition. For millennium. So what’s the difference? The very thing that Paul states is of God—in a letter—today we still recognize as true—in book form. Should we worship those words? Absolutely not. But they should be recognized as true, just as a road and signposts lead to a destination.

As such the bible—the written, divinely-inspired, experience of human beings is a pillar of Christian tradition—just as a map is foundational to a journey. You can get to that final destination without a map or instruction, but unless one is so righteous that God speaks clearly and distinctly to that individual, the journey is perilous and without direction. Imagine being in Denver with a destination of Los Angeles WITHOUT a map or direction. What are the chances of actually making it to LA?

When Paul writes in 1st Thess 2.13, “when you received the word of God” it may be that you supply “Bible” as the meaning of the phrase “word of God” and I do not. Our Bible — which consists of both OT and NT — didn’t exist yet.

So, Paul is not saying, “when you received the Bible, which you heard from us…”

I think Paul is referring to his preaching of the gospel to them, not to his reading of the Bible — which didn’t exist in our form — to them.

He is referring to the proclamation of Christ risen from the dead.

I think that as we tell the story of God in Christ reconciling the world to himself, God speaks to us. When we hear Him speaking to us and we respond, it is His word at work within us — not the Bible, but the voice of God.

I do not think the Bible has two natures like Jesus. I think that to speak of the Bible this way leans towards bibliolatry — worship of the Bible — and this is what I am trying to avoid.

So, I think, Esther, that I disagree pretty strongly with you too. I do not think of the Bible as a foundational pillar of the Christian church. I think God is heart and horizon of the Christ following movement and I try not to confuse the two — that is, I try not to confuse God with the Bible.

Thanks for your question. And, by the way, I don’t think of my thoughts as a “position” but as a “point of view” that is open to change. I’m glad to be strengthened and refined by your challenge.

Can you please explain to me 1 Thessalonians 2:13 which says “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, which is at work in you who believe.”

Do you see the Bible as having two natures similar to Jesus Christ himself? Jesus being fully God and fully man and the scripture being written by humans and divinely written by God?

I cannot express how much I disagree with this post and I am trying my best to understand your position that seems to directly contradict a foundational pillar in the Christian church.

Thank you