The Bible Skeptic: Appendix A

Appendix A:

Presuppositions

Before perusing my articles, it would be beneficial for the reader to understand certain presuppositions I carry into this study on the unreliability of the Bible. First and most importantly is my understanding of the nature of the Bible. While I've taken a great deal of time to explain in other articles others' belief in biblical inerrancy, I do not hold the Bible in any higher regard (in terms of historical reliability) than any other similar work of ancient literature. I presuppose that the Bible is the work of men and a product of a particular culture and of a particular time. I think the Bible should be examined on par with any other ancient document. It is not immune to scientific scrutiny but it also does not warrant any undue irrational criticism. Therefore, if the Bible makes certain claims, these claims should be examined in the light of immediate context, as well as compared to what is already known of the ancient Near East, both through comparisons with other contemporary literary texts as well as archaeological, anthropological, sociological, etc. data. However, those considerations should not be used to dismiss any errors we find in the text. We need simply to understand their origin, if we are to reject biblical inerrancy ourselves. William Dever, professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and prolific writer of matters of concern in the field of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, reflects my view in his book, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?,

...the basic traditions about ancient Israel now enshrined in the books of Exodus-Numbers and Joshua through Kings cannot be read uncritically as a satisfactory history, but neither can they be discarded as lacking any credible historical information. The challenge for both critical scholars and the enlightened public is to sort out fact from fiction; and it is only modern archaeology as an independent witness to the events of the past, that may enable us to do that. (p. 226)

Claims, simply because they are made in the Bible, should neither be granted automatic consent nor should they be dismissed outright, in my opinion. This leads to my second important assumption.

We live in a natural world, governed by natural laws. Someone rightly expects that when they throw an apple into the air that it will return to their hand or the ground rather quickly, given that no obstacle prevents gravity from performing its function. In this way, I presume that "miracle" claims in the Bible likely have another explanation than the one given in the biblical text. In other words, when the Bible claims that X occurred and that X was caused by a supernatural force, I tend to doubt the biblical explanation and seek out some other natural cause for claim X. This is not to say that I find it impossible that X occurred under supernatural influence, but it is to say that I tend to doubt that a supernatural cause was the reason for such an effect. My presumption on how the universe operates favors a natural alternative to a biblical supernatural explanation, merely because a natural explanation --even if one cannot be readily found-- is always going to be more likely than a supernatural one.

To diffuse a possible reaction to this presupposition, I do not hold any one religion above another. My presumption that supernatural claims likely have a natural explanation is applied across the spectrum of religious positions. It is interesting to note that it is the biblical inerrantist, with his or her adherence to the miracle claims of the Bible--and only the Bible--who often rejects similar such claims in other religious documents.

This is hardly a novel approach to accepting or rejecting extraordinary claims. When most people are presented with a claim that at first encounter seems incredible, they tend to doubt an equally incredible explanation for the event and either wait for, or seek out, a more reasonable explanation. For example, if someone were to claim that they could talk to animals and literally, via psychic intuition, know what an animal was thinking a person would not be thought overly skeptical for examining other possible explanations for this seemingly miraculous feat other than psychic abilities. It is because it is less likely that supernatural psychic abilities exist than that they do not.

Another presumption I bring to my approach to the Bible (which should have been made abundantly clear in my Introduction) is the assumption that a divinely inspired document should contain hallmarks of divine influence. This assumes that my first presumption turns out to be false. In my first presumption, the Bible is regarded as any other ancient document and as such will have fingerprints from the culture and time in which it developed. However, if this presumption turns out to be false, and if the Bible is in fact the work of divinely inspired authors as the biblical inerranists assert, then the Bible should not fit perfectly into the time in which it was supposedly composed. In other words, if the Bible was written under the influence of divine authority, and if that authority intended its work to be available to people of all ages and cultures, the Bible should not look simply like a product of a particular time and worldview. If the book was meant to be understood by everyone everywhere and at anytime because the message contained within was of paramount and timeless importance, then universal literary conventions should have been favored over specific cultural conventions. For example, idioms should have been avoided in favor of more plain speech. This just seems somehow self-evident to me.

Although frequently unstated, biblicists come to their arguments with a number of presuppositions as well. It is not always easy to discern these assumptions, but a couple are at least always found behind most inerrantists' arguments. These presumptions are often the opposite of my presumptions stated above. One presumption is to assume the Bible is historically accurate in everything that it claims. This is assumed because biblical inerrantists believe the Bible to have been inspired by a divine and, by definition, all-knowing being. Contained within such an assumption is the belief that if the Bible is reporting a historical event, and if that report was done under the influence of divine inspiration, then that historical report is going to be accurate in all of its details. I am willing to concede this assumption of historical accuracy, but only minimally. As stated above, I regard the Bible as an ancient document and therefore it can be presumed to contain some historical information. Whether or not that historical information is perfectly accurate will depend on a number of factors. However, unlike many inerrantists, I do not automatically grant the Bible historical accuracy as a presumption because I have a belief in the Bible as the Word of God.

Because of these presumptions, please understand that what follows in the articles of this site is of necessity a subjective study, but I have done my best to present relevant and comprehensive material to the question of the reliability of the Bible's historical and scientific claims. I have attempted to treat the subject fairly, as I would any question based in ancient historiography.