PILLAR NINE: THE BIBLE IS MADE UP OF MYTHS AND IS FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS

Except where verified by archaeology and 20 centuries of Biblical scholarship, which shows that the real myths are about the Bible.

1. MYTH 1: The beginning of the Book of Genesis is not scientific but poetic. Yet “Let there be light” could be a description of the Big Bang (if that is indeed what happened), or it could refer to the light of photons that exists in all life. Usually, however, it is thought to refer to The Light of God. The order of creation would be amazingly “scientific” in that it conforms to the pattern of evolutionary theory (if that is indeed what happened). Man being formed from dust is also scientific in that man and dust are basically of the same elements, and dust includes sloughed-off human cells. What we know about DNA and cloning might even explain Eve being made from Adam’s rib.

2. MYTH 2: The story of Adam and Eve is only allegorical. Adam means “mankind” and Eve means “mother of life.” They ate not an apple but the fruit of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and were forbidden access to The Tree of Life. These all seem to be allegorical names. So does this describe a time when God breathed “souls” into hominids or a time when mankind and womankind acquired a sense of morality, right and wrong? Mankind had to start with a man and woman at some point, didn’t it? Jews tended to give names that were descriptive in some way, so those are fitting names for Adam and Eve as real persons since they were the first man and the first mother. And I’ve already discussed the possibility of a global flood as scientific reality. It’s true that Genesis isn’t specifically scientific—it doesn’t say “In the beginning was DNA”—but it’s not unscientific either.

3. MYTH 3: Because the original Bible was transmitted orally for centuries and copied over and over by scribes and monks, it, therefore, contains many errors. So was the process like the telephone game at parties where a message is passed from one person to another with the result that “I like roast beef” comes out “The kite roasted the trees”? Not at all. If anything, the opposite is true. First, in the time of oral tradition important events were memorized and passed on quite accurately. Also, the Gospels were written at a time when there were still living eyewitnesses to the events. Secondly, though it is estimated that there are some 400,000 variations in all the different existing manuscripts of the Bible, these “errors” are minor and insignificant—a word left out or added, a synonym used, a punctuation difference. No essential doctrine is changed or even affected. What happens is the scholars compare the manuscripts and, as a result, are actually able to come up what the original wording must have been by using the earliest and the most common versions. Even the fact that there are many English translations from the Shakespearean style of the King James to the very contemporary paraphrasing into colloquial English of The Message does not result in variety of interpretations. In fact, reading the various translations side by side is a way to arrive at exactly what a Biblical passage means.

4. MYTH 4: The Gospels were written long after the fact, so their accuracy is in question. The truth is that there is proof the Gospels were written within two generations of Jesus’ death, and there are an abundance of manuscripts within 100 years of His death. Also, the Book of Acts and the letters of Paul were quite early and refer to what’s in the Gospels. The New Testament is the best authenticated body of writings of all ancient literature.

5. MYTH 5: The many contradictions in the Gospels make it unclear which to believe and cast doubt on the inerrancy of the Bible. Actually the opposite is true here also. The Gospels are basically the same story (about Jesus) told from four different viewpoints. If this story were made up by the early church, one would think that when the New Testament was canonized, they’d see to it that the inconsistencies were removed. But the fact is, like the variations in manuscripts, the seeming inconsistencies do not change the basic message or any doctrine. But, furthermore, when examined closely, the contradictions aren’t contradictions at all.

6. For example, regarding the morning of Jesus’ resurrection, in Matthew it says Mary of Magdala and the other Mary went to Jesus’ tomb. Mark says Mary of Magdala and Mary, the mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb. Luke says Mary of Magdala, the mother of James, Johanna, and other women went to the tomb. John says Mary of Magdala went to the tomb and mentions no other women. The Bible occasionally throws in a specific detail (thereby increasing veracity), but it is usually just a bare bones account, leaving out more detailed background and explanations. What we have here would be like my telling a friend about meeting I went to and specifically mentioning the names of three other people who attended but not the names of the other fifteen people there. So only one of the versions mentions Salome, and only one mentions Johanna. But we assume both were there. The number and appearance of the angels present also varies, but those seeming inconsistencies can be explained the same way as the varying accounts of the woman present. In any case, what we have is the perspective of different witnesses, and the fact they disagree produces more credibility than if they all said exactly the same thing (indicating either possible collusion or doctoring the account by a biased early church). But all accounts say Mary of Magdala was there, that there were angels, and the tomb was empty.

7. Once I read about an auto accident in the local newspaper. Then I read about it in the Chicago Tribune. In the two papers the details were so different that it didn’t seem like the same accident. So I read the two accounts to a writing class I was teaching. It turned out that one of my students was involved in the accident. He said both accounts were accurate, and he added more information that tied everything together. Each account had reported some of the details and left out others. That is similar, I think, to what happens in some of the Gospel records.

8. MYTH 6: There were other gospels just as valid as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but the biased early church under Constantine discarded them. These gospels are mainly the so-called Gnostic ones. They see Jesus as totally spiritual rather than human, have some bizarre fantastic elements, and were written a couple of centuries after Jesus. In short, they are as fictitious as the novels The Da Vinci Code and The Last Temptation of Christ. The New Testament books that were canonized had already been accepted by the early church as Scripture for three centuries (and Constantine had nothing to do with the council that declared them canonical).

9. MYTH 7: The story of Jesus is derived from similar earlier mythologies. Totally wrong. Jesus lived, died, and rose. That is authenticated history. His disciples preached His Gospel and faced death for it, going against both Roman and Jewish authorities, because they knew He was resurrected. The mythologies—Adonis, Osiris, Dionysius, Murdoch, Mithras—are not that parallel, and some came after Jesus, not before.

10. MYTH 8: The God of the Old Testament and Jesus are totally opposite in character. Jehovah is seen as a cruel, judgmental curmudgeon, while Jesus is seen as this nice, sweet guy. Though God in the OT may sometimes condone wars and pronounce seemingly harsh laws, He is also shown to be loving, forgiving, and extremely patient, especially considering how hard-hearted and disobedient His people were. Though Jesus was forgiving, tolerant, and loving, and He healed many people, He also showed moments of anger, and the references to “hell” (Gehenna) and judgment come from Him. He scolded the Pharisees frequently, drove money changers from the temple, and even cursed a fig tree.

11. Considering the variety of authors and types of writing over several centuries, the Bible is remarkably consistent throughout from the beginning of the Old Testament to the end of the New Testament. Not only are there prefigures and prophecies regarding Jesus throughout the OT, but in the NT Jesus is seen as the fulfillment of the OT. He is the new covenant, the new temple, the new priest, the new king, the Passover meal, the sacrificed Passover Lamb, the first born who is spared by the sign of the blood (His own), and the promised Messiah. The themes and the theology are the same throughout the Bible. Even the last book, Revelation, is filled with quotes and allusions to the Old Testament. Excellent summaries of the extraordinariness of the Bible can be found in two books by David Limbaugh: Jesus on Trial and The Emmaus Code (retitled Finding Jesus in the Old Testament). I also recommend A. J. Jacobs’ The Year of Living Biblically. Jacobs, an agnostic Jew, records his year of trying to live each day by Biblical precepts, both Old and New Testament ones. It is a very funny book but also one that treats the Bible seriously and reverently rather than mocking it.

12. MYTH 9: There are many historical inaccuracies in the Bible. Occasionally critical scholars have pointed out apparent erroneous references in the Bible to place, dates, people, or events. It has even been said that there is no evidence of the Hebrew Exodus under Moses. However, over and over and over archaeological evidence has eventually turned up to prove the critics wrong and the Bible right. There have been hundreds of confirmations of details in the books of John, Luke, and Acts alone, and many corroborations of Old Testament details. Egyptologists and archaeologists have concluded that the Exodus took place during the reign of Ramses II, but there is no evidence of the Exodus in that period, so they claim it never happened. But archaeologists have found an abundance of evidence for it both in Egypt

and Canaan about two hundred years earlier, so the other “experts” simply had the dates wrong. And that there seems to be no evidence of over a million wandering Jews in the Sinai can be explained by their constantly moving (where in that vast area does one look for remains?), the nature of the desert soil, and the fact that artifacts were precious and not to be left lying around. An interesting older book still in print about archaeological finds is Werner Keller’s The Bible as History.

1. Atheists need not fear the Bible. In fact, in his The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins recommends teaching the Bible in high schools because of its heritage.