You don’t have to just take the Bible on faith

There are certain questions that, sooner or later, all of us ask. Questions about life, morality and mortality must be entertained. Our existence as intelligent beings makes them unavoidable.

People find their answers in lots of places. Some answers make more sense than others. Many people find their answers in the Bible, and this raises another question — can the Bible be trusted? Is it accurate in its accounts, or is it merely a collection of myths and stories, each with its fine moral teaching, but not really rooted in reality, kind of like a upgrade on Aesop’s fables?

An opinion frequently found in the pages of the Faith section of the Frontiersman is that the Bible falls in the later category. It has been stated that this book, the Bible, was unquestionably accepted by the church for 18 centuries, but has, in light of contemporary scholarship, been found to be more myth than reality, having some sound moral teaching but not really anchored in the hard ground of history. Furthermore, it is stated that because of its lack of real historicity and the failure of the traditional church to properly understand it, its understanding must come more from our context, the cultural setting and social issues of our day, rather than the very real historical context in which the traditional church has seen it. The whole thing is reduced to social commentary and a call to social action.

I find this view, that the Bible isn’t historically accurate to be, in a word, inaccurate. This contemporary, more sophisticated opinion is, I believe, well-intended but rooted in myth.

I reject the notion that the Bible was accepted, without critical regard or examination until contemporary scholars, who happened to be German, stumbled onto the idea. This is nonsense. The church of the second, third and fourth centuries engaged in extensive research, debate and deliberation as to the accuracy, inspiration and reliability of the numerous texts that were being circulated. Some texts were recognized as belonging in the Bible. Others were rejected. The Gospel of Luke itself begins with the author’s claim to have “investigated everything carefully from the beginning.” Now even if one contends that the Gospel of Luke was not written by Luke, or that it was written sometime late in or even after the first century, it is undeniable that the early church was at least concerned with historical accuracy. The truth is that they were far more committed to the Bible’s accuracy than we are.

Early church leaders such as Origen and Athanasius invested a great deal of effort in researching the accuracy and legitimacy of various — sometimes competing — texts, in weighing contemporary opinions and they argued, much like scholars of today, about the content of what we call the Bible. The documents that make up our Bible did not fall in the hands of the early church already bound in black leather, complete with gold edging on the pages waiting for the non-critical, unsophisticated rabble to accept without question. It was the result of a prolonged and often heated debate.

One document that demonstrates very clearly that the church recognized the question of the Bible’s accuracy is Muratorian fragment. Written in Latin and dating to the eighth century, the fragment is taken by most scholars to be a translation of an earlier Greek document. It is, in any case, more than 1,000 years old. It refers to critical discussion of several biblical texts, including the four Gospels, the epistles of Paul and John, the letter to the Hebrews and the shepherd of Hermes, a work not accepted as part of Scripture.

One can argue the exact dating of the Muratorian fragment, its conclusions and even the critical methodology of the early church. What cannot be questioned is that the church, from its very inception, engaged in critical, vigorous and even contentious discussion about the content and reliability of the Bible. The truth is, critical discussion of the text did not begin with early church, but even earlier. Rabbinical debate of the texts we call the Old Testament was already well established before the first century.

We are therefore confronted in the pages of the Bible not with a collection of stories handed down for generations by unthinking, unsophisticated and very gullible clerics, but a much-challenged and very thoroughly reviewed story of the redemptive plan of God for man. If one would challenge the historical accuracy of the Bible that is a position one can take. But to suggest that the Bible has only been challenged in the last 200 or so years, that it has not for 2,000 years faced the fires of extensive critical examination, is a fairy tale worthy of the Brothers Grimm.

I have in more than 50 years of my life made some decisions that were not based on the best reasoning. But the decision to place the Bible as the very foundation of my understanding, as the basis from which I live my life, was and is the single most rational thing I’ve ever done. I accept its accounts as factual because it has been tested. I accept its teachings as sound because they have been proven. I accept it as authoritative because it is, when read in the light of the cultural setting in which it was written, wholly consistent and convincing.

John Moropoulos and his wife Joyce are co-pastors of Gateway Fellowship. They meet at Sophia’s Cafe, and may be reached at jjnm@mtaonline.net.

Opinions expressed on the Faith page are the author’s and are not necessarily those of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, its staff or its parent company, Wick Communications Co. To submit a column or other news for the Faith page, send email to news@frontiersman.com, or call 352-2268.