Is the Bible a Great Book?
Is the Bible a Great Book?
It is difficult to read the Great Books without understanding the Bible. The life of Jesus Christ is central to the works of many authors, but can we rely on the accuracy of the accounts of his life?
Introduction
It is strange that the Bible is omitted from Great Books of the Western World. The Bible is the best selling book of all time with at least five billion copies sold. It is central to the faith of billions of people currently alive and billions more who lived in centuries past. Countless writers lean on Biblical teachings to form the core of their narratives. When we read Montaigne or Dostoevsky, for example, we rely on our understanding of the Bible in order to comprehend what these writers are trying to communicate.
The editors of Great Books of the Western World viewed the Bible as a foundational text. But since Bibles were already widely distributed, they did not see a reason to place another copy in homes that were likely to already have one. In other words, the Bible is in its own category, standing alone in terms of being so widely distributed and read.
My first exposure to the Bible was in a community college course on the foundations of Western Civilization. The goal was to learn historical details about the ancient world from the Bible among other sources. In this context, the Bible was not used as a devotional instrument but as a book that provides historical context. When I later transferred to a Jesuit university, my experience in religion courses was very different. While making no overbearing attempts to proselytize, the Jesuit priest who taught my classes was very interested in both historical and theological questions.
The Bible is full of supernatural elements that require a degree of faith to believe in. The trap that many secular people fall into is that they discount the value of the Bible, both in terms of providing historical details and in terms of better understanding the human condition, because of its supernatural elements. Since the majority of people in the world believe in a higher power, secular people should read the Bible to gain a better understanding of humanity.
The Life of Jesus Christ
There are few historical figures who had more of an impact than Jesus Christ. Rising from a minor sect at the time of his death, Christianity has grown to be the world’s largest religion with nearly 2.4 billion believers. Although the West is becoming more religiously diverse, Christianity is still dominant and has had a major impact on our intellectual life and culture for centuries. This is clearly reflected in the Great Books.
As a secular person, there are two questions I have about Jesus Christ:
First, are the historical accounts of Jesus Christ’s life, as found in the New Testament, mostly accurate? Was there a man named Jesus who lived in the first century in relative obscurity for the first three decades of his life, who launched a ministry lasting just a few years that somehow attracted a small but extremely loyal following, and did this lead to his death on the cross?
Second, are the miracles described in the Gospel accounts and elsewhere in the New Testament true and was Jesus who he claimed to be: The son of God?
Both questions are important, but the second is infinitely more important from an existential perspective. But it is not a question that can possibly be answered through the scientific method. Those who were raised in a faith take the truth of their religion on faith. The rest of us can read, contemplate, and try to understand religions but ultimately belief is a matter of faith. One cannot prove Christianity or any other religion. Equally important, one cannot prove the absence of a higher power.
Fortunately, the first question can be answered. From a secular perspective, understanding whether the life and ministry of Jesus Christ took place mostly as described allows us to put in context the moral and religious framework that has shaped the lives of billion of people, including many of the Great Books authors.
Considering the Evidence
In Can We Trust the Gospels, Peter J. Williams makes his case for the reliability of the Gospels. Williams is the principal of Tyndale House, a research institution for Biblical scholarship. Williams is a Christian and writes from the perspective of a believer. I found his concise book to be a valuable resource for assessing the evidence that the Gospels can be relied upon to provide historical details about the life of Jesus Christ.
I should emphasize that I approached this book from the perspective of someone who has read the Bible many times over three decades, both in academic settings and privately. During most years, I read the Bible as part of a daily reading plan. Before considering the arguments in this book, I re-read the four Gospels. Those who read Can We Trust the Gospels without having actually read the Gospels are unlikely to profit very much from the effort, since this background is assumed by the author.
Similarly, I will assume that my readers have some knowledge of the Gospels. I have not attempted to discuss every point that Williams makes. His book is short enough to read in a few hours. I have highlighted arguments that I find particularly compelling in terms of the reliability of the Gospels from a historical standpoint. My main purpose is to judge whether all or part of the Gospels might be fabricated.
The questions Williams deals with have been discussed and written about for the entire history of Christianity and, as he points out, literally millions of pages of arguments are available to us. He also acknowledges that the Gospels were written by authors who intended to foster belief in Jesus Christ. However, the question is not so much whether the authors had an agenda but whether they reported accurately or not. In his opinion, there are many reasons to believe that the Gospels are accurate.
The Four Gospels
While there is controversy over exactly when the four Gospels were written, there is no doubt that they were in wide circulation by the second century. The earliest complete copies available to us today date back to the fourth century with incomplete fragments dating to the second and third centuries. These original manuscripts were written in Greek, a language in use in the Holy Land during the early first century although Jesus and his disciples spoke primarily Aramaic.
Three of the Gospels have many similarities to each other but each has details not contained in other Gospels. These are known as the Synoptic Gospels. They are:
The Gospel of Matthew. Believed to have been written by one of Jesus’s original twelve apostles, Matthew was a tax collector from Capernaum, a fishing village on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee.
The Gospel of Mark. Although he was not one of the original apostles, Mark was closely associated with Peter who was charged by Jesus with carrying forward his church and considered to be the first Pope by Catholic and Orthodox traditions.
The Gospel of Luke. The author, a medical doctor, was a close companion of Paul on his missionary journeys and was probably a Gentile. As a result, his Gospel is considered to be written primarily with a Gentile audience in mind. The author of Luke is also thought to be the author of Acts of the Apostles.
The Gospel of John stands alone in terms of literary style and is thought to have been written by John, son of Zebedee, a fisherman from Capernaum. He lived a long life, possibly extending into the very early second century. In my opinion, the Gospel of John, particularly the opening, is among the greatest of literary achievements.
There is some controversy regarding whether these men were the actual authors of the Gospels attributed to their names as well as when the Gospels were written. Only Matthew and John, assuming they wrote the Gospels attributed to them, were eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus, although Mark might have been present at some events. Luke’s primary influence was Paul, a man who persecuted Christians and was famously converted to Christianity through divine revelation on the road to Damascus.
The three synoptic Gospels have definite relationships to each other while containing unique information, and Williams also notes that there are relationships between the synoptics and the Gospel of John. For a period of time, the four Gospels circulated widely as independent documents but they eventually were grouped into a set.
We know that Christianity spread very quickly during the first century, not merely due to Christian sources but also from the writings of non-Christian authors, such as Tacitus who was certainly not interested in promoting a new religion. The writings of Josephus also corroborate many historical details found in the Gospel accounts.
The weight of both Christian and non-Christian writing that has come down to us shows that Jesus, whether a divine figure or not, was one of the most consequential men in history. Williams has studied the main surviving sources of information about Emperor Tiberius and finds the details comparable to our sources about Jesus Christ. Of course, much information about both men has been lost, but the volume of information that survives is a good indication of the importance of these men to those documenting the historical record shortly after their lives.
What follows is a subset of the arguments presented by Williams in his book that I found most persuasive regarding the historical fidelity of the Gospels. Each argument can be overcome by skeptics, but in totality, the weight of evidence seems to strongly suggest that the Gospel accounts have a historical basis and are not totally fabricated.
Culture, Customs, and Topography
Even in the twenty-first century, it is very difficult to write about a place or its people without direct experience. We have access to the internet and can view videos but there is something different about actually walking the streets, talking to people, and observing the culture. I read the Bible and other material about the Holy Land many times prior to my visit to Israel in 2012 and I can say that nothing I read or viewed online had any resemblance to walking the narrow streets of historic Jerusalem.
Williams examines the Gospels for accuracy when it comes to the items and places they describe. He acknowledges that showing that the accounts are consistent does not prove that the Gospels convey accurate information. However, accuracy when it comes to culture, customs, and topography is a necessary prerequisite for credibility. It would have been virtually impossible for authors fabricating the Gospels to have done so from a distance, either in terms of their location or separation of time.
The authors of the Gospels must have had direct knowledge about the place and the culture of the early first century in the specific locations Jesus visited. This is demonstrated in a variety of ways, most importantly in geographic details, roads used for travel to and from Jerusalem, the specific description of places such as gardens and tombs, and the names of individuals which differed greatly in various parts of the ancient world. If the Gospels had been fabricated from a distance, it is very likely that the authors would have made subtle mistakes, or “tells”, that it was a fabrication.
The Gospels were also written by authors deeply familiar with the Jewish faith. Although there was already a Jewish diaspora at the time Jesus lived, Williams believes that it would have been very difficult for a non-Jew to fabricate the Gospels at a later date given the familiarity with Jewish tradition embedded in all the Gospels. Even the Gospel of Luke, written by a Gentile, shows deep familiarity with the Jewish faith. Christian tradition draws much meaning from Old Testament scripture said to be fulfilled by Jesus. Old Testament references are common throughout all Gospels.
Women in the Gospels
Until very recently, women occupied clearly subservient roles in nearly all cultures and this was certainly true in the early first century. The testimony of women did not have much credibility in the ancient world. The Bible itself contains many statements that could arguably be construed as minimizing the role of women in society. In light of the low status of women, we should consider their importance in the Gospels.
The most important miracle in the Gospels is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. To maximize the credibility of this claim, an author who was fabricating a document would certainly not have opted to make women the first to find an empty tomb and to witness the risen Jesus. Yet that is precisely what the Gospel accounts tell us.
Of course, this does not and cannot ever prove the resurrection, but it does show that the authors of the Gospel included a detail that was very likely to make their case seem far weaker than if men had discovered the empty tomb and were the first to interact with the risen Jesus. For example, it would have been easy to claim that Peter, the designated leader of the Church, was the first to bear witness to these momentous events. But the apostles had to wait for some time before witnessing this miracle. They were not chosen to be the first witnesses. Mary Magdalene, who was not only a woman but known to be a former sinner, has that place of honor in the Gospels.
It is reasonable to believe that the Gospel writers had no choice but to state that women were the first to find the empty tomb and witness the resurrection. By the time they wrote, this would have already been firmly established in oral tradition. Since the Gospels were already in circulation when some of those living in the time of Jesus were still alive, fabrications about who claimed to find the empty tomb would have been called out as false by disciples and other eyewitnesses to the events.
Difficult Teachings
Almost everyone knows about the difficult aspects of Christianity, particularly the admonition to forgive nearly without limit and that the wealthy must give generously to the poor. From a secular perspective today, these teachings seem difficult but not all that unusual. But this is because many of us have internalized the core values of Christianity even if we are secular. In the ancient world, forgiveness was hardly considered a universal virtue and wealth was considered proof of the favor of God.
Jesus’s teachings on forgiveness and charity must have been difficult enough for many in the first century to accept, but the idea of resurrection of an individual was also highly problematic. The Sadducees, one of the two most important sects in Judaism, did not believe in resurrection at all. The Pharisees, the other major sect, believed in resurrection but held that it would occur at the end of the world, not to a specific individual during their lifetimes. There was no reason for early Christians to invent the resurrection of Jesus if their goal was to gain converts since it was in impediment in the minds of most potential converts. The resurrection either happened or enough early adherents believed it happened. Gospel writers would not have dared to omit it.
At one point in the Gospel of John (6:41-6:66), many disciples fell away due to one of Jesus’s teachings. Jesus tells his disciples that “I am the bread which came down from heaven” and he meant this quite literally, stating that “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
These words were met with astonishment. Jesus responded as follows:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
Many disciples could not believe this: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” and “many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.”
Of course, Jesus was describing the Eucharist, a core sacrament in many Christian Churches to this day, in which the body and blood of Jesus are transformed into bread and wine and consumed by the faithful. What is a routine part of worship for many Christians today was an affront to the sensibilities of most of the direct disciples of Jesus and would have been similarly offensive to potential converts reading the Gospels. There would have been no reason for the writers to fabricate such a detail. Jesus must have actually made this statement on more than one occasion.
Embarrassing Details
There are a number of details in the Gospels that would appear to be embarrassing when viewed from a secular perspective but imply a greater meaning. Williams points out several such examples in the book but I’ll focus on just one.
In his final hours, Jesus gives the apostles details about what is about to happen to him. When told of his imminent death on the cross, Peter reacts with horror and pledges to never abandon Jesus. When Jesus is seized and taken to the high priest’s house, Peter follows at some distance and gathers with others in the courtyard. He is quickly identified as a Galilean by his accent and female servants accuse him of being one of the followers of Jesus. Peter then denies Jesus three times, and then the rooster crowed, fulfilling exactly what Jesus had told him would happen.
Would it make sense for the Gospel writers to fabricate an event that embarrasses the designated leader of the Church following the death of Jesus Christ? Peter did not act with much bravery or honor when accused of walking with Jesus, yet he was hand picked by Jesus as his successor. Especially in the ancient world, this would have been seen as cowardly, not exactly a virtue that would gain converts.
It is more likely that this account of Peter’s denial is in the Gospels because it actually happened, was witnessed by many people, had entered into the oral tradition, and an omission would have been seen as an obvious fabrication. Even if the Gospel writer was intent on creating a fabrication, such an event could not be omitted, so it was included despite the embarrassment to the first leader of the Church.
Thomas Jefferson and Christianity
At this point, let’s depart from the arguments Peter Williams makes and consider what one of the great enlightenment thinkers thought about the historicity of the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus Christ.
Thomas Jefferson was a man of the enlightenment but not an atheist. He took religion very seriously and came to the conclusion that there is a just and benevolent God. While Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ or the miracles of the Gospels, he regarded Jesus as a preeminent moral philosopher. For this reason, he constructed his own version of the Gospels, known today as The Jefferson Bible. Jefferson literally cut and pasted sections of the Gospels to create his own narrative which included historical details about Jesus but excluded all supernatural elements.
Jefferson did not publicize his skepticism of Christianity during his lifetime and there is no doubt that many of his contemporaries would have viewed his cut-and-paste version of the Gospels to be a form of heresy. However, the point is that Jefferson must have at least believed in the historical accuracy of the Gospels to take them seriously as texts. He believed that a man named Jesus Christ existed, that he lived a remarkable life, and that he developed a moral philosophy superior to any other.
In the early twenty-first century, we might dismiss Thomas Jefferson as a man of a much less sophisticated time, but the fact is that he died less than two hundred years ago, meaning that over ninety percent of the history of Christianity up to our times played out prior to the end of his life. Jefferson reconciled his enlightenment beliefs and his scientific mind with the historicity of Jesus and adopted his moral teachings.
Did Jefferson have a right to separate the moral teachings of Jesus from the belief in Jesus as the son of God? Can we consider Jesus to be a moral philosopher but not a religious figure? Importantly, Jesus did not present himself as a moral philosopher but as the son of God, and it is in that capacity that he made moral pronouncements.
We have three scenarios to consider:
Jesus was who he claimed to be: The son of God.
Jesus was not who he claimed to be and purposely made false claims.
Jesus was not who he claimed to be but he believed in his claims.
For Christians, the moral philosophy of Jesus Christ must be accepted because he is the son of God, and no further reasons are required. Their creator has prescribed how they shall live and it is not up to them to question God.
For those who are not convinced that Jesus is the son of God but still wish to adopt his moral philosophy, we must ask on what basis we choose to do so. If Jesus was not who he claimed to be, he either did so fraudulently or he was delusional. If he was knowingly fraudulent, where is the basis for his moral philosophy? Similarly, if he was delusional, why should his moral philosophy carry any weight?
We can choose to adopt the philosophy of Jesus Christ simply because it seems to make logical and ethical sense even if we do not believe in his divinity. We can treat Jesus as we do other philosophers. But this is not entirely satisfactory because we are choosing to adopt his moral philosophy while simultaneously believing that Jesus was either intentionally fraudulent or delusional rather than who he claimed to be.
Conclusion
My main concern as a reader is to understand the Bible well enough to recognize references to it as I read the Great Books. When an author is making a Biblical reference, we are often not explicitly told that he is doing so. References can be subtle and if we are not at least somewhat familiar with the Bible, these can go right over our heads. For this reason alone, understanding the Bible is imperative.
As a secular person, I am an agnostic rather than an atheist. So, I also have a lifelong interest in better understanding religious belief systems. The fact that I have spent my entire life in a society that, whether it recognizes it or not, has been heavily influenced by Christianity means that I implicitly identify with much of the moral philosophy of Jesus Christ. Since this is the case, I am naturally interested in his life and whether the material we have is historically accurate, aside from claims of miracles.
Agnosticism acknowledges that human reason alone is not capable of proving or disproving the existence of God. In my view, agnosticism must leave open the possibility of revelation of God through spiritual rather than rational means. A necessary prerequisite of being open to such revelation is to understand what we can about religion. As the Parable of the Sower illustrates, seeds planted in good soil are more likely to germinate. I think that it is important to prepare the “soil” to the point where “seeds” of faith are allowed to germinate. This is perhaps the most important reason to read the Bible, yet one that might generate scoffing from dedicated atheists.
I am sure that Thomas Jefferson grappled with these questions and still found it important to study the Gospels in great depth and to extract from them what he considered to be useful. It is certain that Jefferson could not have read as widely in the Great Books if he lacked understanding of the Bible in general and of the Gospels in particular. Of all of the Founding Fathers, I doubt that any read more extensively.
Those of us coming to the Great Books from a secular perspective should emulate Thomas Jefferson and try to understand the Gospels as thoroughly as possible.
Copyright, Disclosures, and Privacy Information
Nothing in this article constitutes investment advice and all content is subject to the copyright and disclaimer policy of The Rational Walk LLC. The Rational Walk is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.