Biblical Minimalism

There is a popular notion that the Bible is tainted. People who believe this are called Biblical Minimalists. Radicals in this school will deny the divinity and even the existence of a historical Christ, while moderates simply doubt parts of the Bible. They say in essence: yes much of it is wise and universal and maybe even inspired by God, but much of it is false and from the corrupted mind of man. However, through sophisticated textual criticism we can find out what is true and original and what is false.

I for one think that the school of Biblical Minimalism is misguided and false. I think one can make strong arguments to disprove it by means of the history, literary criticism, psychology, logic, and the Bible itself.

The Biblical argument. In II Timothy 3:16 Paul wrote that all scripture is God breathed—all scripture is guided and inspired by God Himself. The other apostles too gave scripture great authority. The same could be said in Jesus. In Luke 20:37-39 Jesus proved the immortality of the soul by using the verb tense of one word from an Old Testament verse. At the burning bush God told Moses I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (not I was), God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, therefore men are eternal.

Scripture was viewed as Divine and authoritative by Christ and His apostles, if we consider ourselves part of that Christian tradition, how can we view it otherwise?

The logical argument. If man is created we may assume that like the rest of creation he has a particular end (telos) and to gain that end he must live in a particular way. If man is finite and unable to discover absolute truth on his own he needs a revelation so that he may know how he ought to live. It follows that a good God would provide a revelation for man on how he ought to live. As Christians we consider the Bible to be that revelation. Now if God is all good and all powerful and wanted to give man a revelation wouldn’t He be able to do so in such a way that prevented the revelation from being corrupted? If the Bible is God’s Word wouldn’t God want and be able to keep his Word pure?

Logically a good and omnipotent God would not allow His revelation to be corrupted by men in such a way that it would lead men astray.

For think of the consequences to us if part of it was corrupted. If we need a revelation of absolute truth, if we are unable to find absolute truth on our own, how could we determine what is truth and what is not truth in a revelation? We would be in the same situation as if we had no revelation at all.

The literary argument. The documentation of court life during King David seems just as authentic as that of Henry VIII (the number and quality of the sources). The Gospels ring with authenticity by nature of their radical honesty. The authors themselves confess their unbelief and misunderstanding of many key truths. The witness to the key event (the resurrection) was by a non-legal witness (a woman). Further, we have details that add nothing to the story (like in John 8 where Jesus writes in the sand, but we know not what). This style of writing did not exist in fiction until the nineteenth century. The only logical conclusion is that the author just wrote what he saw.

Anyone who calls the gospels myth has never read a myth! Myths are epic and existing. The gospels are proved not to be dishonest or myths simply by the fact that they are not good enough literature to be effective myths.

Some will point to the different styles of books like Isaiah and say that these different styles prove different authors. First off, one author can employ many styles and an author’s style often changes over time. Second, even if these are different authors all writing from the Isaiah school; it does not take away from the fact that they were all inspired by God.

Others say monotheism was a later invention and that the Israelites knew of and served many Gods of which Yahweh was simply the privileged God. Of course the Israelites knew of other Gods, tradition has it that Abraham’s dad was an idol maker. The Bible does not claim that they served only one God; on the contrary the Israelites are constantly rebuked for worshiping other Gods.

The psychology argument. Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses. Nietzsche said it was for the weak. The idea is that some people can’t handle the pain of life so they turn to religion. The myth of an afterlife helps them endure the suffering of this life. This may be true, but this argument cuts both ways. Biblical Minimalists have an agenda. They want to live a life without God so that they may live as they wish without need to give account to anyone for their answers. This desire leads them to systematically undermine and discredit God in His Revelation. Just as many turn to religion because it fulfills their wants, so too many turn from it for just the same reason.

The historical argument. In every revolution the rebels always attack the ministers before the king. The Bolsheviks attacked the Russian bureaucracy and discredited the ministers, claiming that the Tsar was good, but his workers corrupted him. When they undermined the government they finally turned on the Tsar himself. In the same way Biblical Minimalists attack God’s prophets and apostles, saying God is good, but the authors of the Bible have corrupted our notion of God and portrayed Him in a false light. After discrediting the ministers of God, they proceed to take on the King Himself.

That is why we must be aware of the teaching of Biblical Minimalists. They have an agenda and are working to carrying it out. What have we to stand on but the Word of God? If we cede its authority on what basis do we ground our faith?

Modern science constantly seeks to undermine the Bible, but what is considered good science always changes. If there is an apparent contradiction between science, archeology, or history and the text, we must be patient. The Bible has no falsehood, but misunderstanding of the text can produce the illusion of falsehood. Any contradiction between the Bible and what is taken for truth is based on a misunderstanding of the Bible, the truth, or both. In such cases we must not abandon the Word of God, for at the end of time it will prove itself to be the only truth left standing.