Books to help us see the Bible better

Christians who believe the Bible is inerrant are naturally suspicious of historical analysis (called “criticism”) that doesn’t make this assumption, and in fact challenges it.

But the editors and authors of this book argue that accepting the findings of historical criticism is not a threat to faith.

They address the issues of Adam and the Fall, the Exodus, prophecy, and the dating of Deuteronomy, as well as several New Testament issues. They recognise real difficulties. And they argue that the writers were not writing dispassionate history, so each selected, adapted and interpreted both history and doctrine to meet their objectives.

Much of evangelical theology is built on the doctrine that the Bible is the “Word of God”, meaning that it contains the very words God wanted there. And is therefore reliable in every way.

This doctrine is largely based on 2 Timothy 3:16, which describes scripture as “God-breathed”. So if God breathed it out, it must be perfect mustn’t it?

This book shows that isn’t a right understanding. At the time 2 Timothy was written, the word used should properly be translated “life-giving”. God didn’t breath it out, but breathed into it to make it life-giving, a vehicle for the Holy Spirit.

We don’t have to believe, and shouldn’t believe, that the Bible is perfect. But it is nevertheless used by the Holy Spirit to teach us what we need to know.

This is one of the most important Biblical books I have ever read. You don’t need to read it for yourself (it is very academic) but it is good you know it exists and what it shows.

This is possibly the most helpful book I have ever read on the Old Testament. John Walton is an eminent scholar from an evangelical background, who honestly addresses issues that most conservative Christians don’t.

The book contains 37 interpretive principles, each with its own chapter. His principles recognise the Old Testament was written in a culture language and time foreign to us, so we need to avoid interpreting it the way we would interpret modern writings. We must understand culture, genre, language and the authors’ intentions.

When we do, we reach some helpful and surprising conclusions.

Old Testament scholar Peter Enns outlines his conclusion that the Bible isn’t some perfect book dictated by God but a response by the Jewish people to their interactions with God and the world around them. Often the Old Testament presents more than one view as the Israelite people worked their way through issues. As they learnt more, they adjusted their teachings and the texts. As a result, the Bible, he says, helps us gain wisdom about how to live and relate to God rather than fixed rules.

This view would be anathema to many conservative Christians, but Enns shows that it makes more sense of the well-known difficulties in the Old Testament. A very readable and sometimes humorous coverage of an important and vexing topic.

• The Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature. How some parts of the Old Testament look very similar to stories from other nations and what we can learn from that.
• The Old Testament and Theological Diversity. How there are developments and even contradictions in some teachings.
• Old Testament interpretation in the New Testament. What we can learn from very flexible (and not always literal or accurate) way Jesus and the apostles used their scriptures (our Old Testament).

Denis Lamoureux has doctoral degrees in dentistry, theology, and evolutionary biology, the latter two obtained so he could write authoritatively about Genesis and evolution.

He shows how the Genesis account is based on an ancient cosmology and shows evidence of being a combination of two different accounts written for quite different purposes.

Then he examines the fossil and age-of-the-earth evidence and shows how the science and theology fit together well.

A geneticist and a Biblical scholar join forces to give a theological perspective on understanding Genesis in its Jewish cultural context, and a scientific understanding of evolution and genetics.

Genetic (DNA) evidence seems to me to be the strongest “proof” that evolution is broadly true, and this book explains why in readable detail.

And also shows in detail how this reality presents no problems for the Christian reader.

This comprehensive book by one of the world’s premier Middle Eastern archaeologists isn’t light reading, but I found it fascinating. The archaeological evidence for the Israelites in Canaan is clear:

• Many of the battles outlined in the book of Joshua appear not to have happened, or happened at some other time, or were much smaller affairs than portrayed.
• The population of Canaan after the Israelites arrived was not anywhere near the 2 to 3 million suggested by the Biblical stories.
• The kingdoms of Judah and Israel were much less monotheistic in the period of Joshua than the Bible suggests.

The story of Moses leading the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt in the second millennium BCE is foundational to the Jewish people and important to Christians too. But the archaeological evidence for it is scant. It seems very unlikely that 2-3 million slaves spent 40 years in the desert.

Richard Friedman examines textual and linguistic evidence to argue that an exodus did indeed take place, but on a much smaller scale than in the Biblical story.

He concludes that the escaping slaves carried monotheism with them, and this was pivotal in developing the nation of Israel and its faith.

Peter Enns also has doubts about the historicity of the exodus. He sees it as “mythicised history”, meaning it has a historical core but most of the details are there to make a point rather than record accurate history.

He outlines why he holds this view, summarises the main themes of the book of Exodus and gives some thoughts on what Christians can gain from reading it.

He argues that we should understand the Bible for what it actually is, not for what we’d like or expect it to be. Like CS Lewis, he argues we can understand God better this way.

Written by an eminent New Testament historian, this book is, after the gospels, one of the best (and shortest) books you’ll read about Jesus.

In a little over 100 pages, we learn what historians say we can know, as history, about Jesus. We get a moderate scholarly view, avoiding the extremes of sceptical scholarship and Christian devotion without much historical basis.

I think it puts faith in Jesus on a very soliud foundation, but both believers and unbelievers can get a lot out of this book.

What it says on the cover. Learn how much of what we read in the gospels makes more sense when we understand the middle eastern context. Written by a man who lived 60 years in the middle east.

So much of Jesus’ parables, teaching and actions is illuminated by Kenneth’s understanding. As I read it, I kept saying to my wife (somewhat excitedly), “listen to this!”

Read it and, I believe, you’ll never read the gospels again in the same old way.

The late Maurice Casey was a New Testament historian and non-believer who fiercely critiqued more dogmatic believers and unbelievers alike. As an unbeliever, he didn’t believe in the supernatural, and so there are conclusions in this book that I disagree with.

Yet I find myself referring to it again and again because of his insights into the Aramaic language that Jesus spoke and the Jewish culture and religion of the day. Casey concludes that the first 3 gospels are useful historical documents, Jesus did perform miracles (but by natural or “folk” means), and the disciples did see visions of Jesus (even though Casey doesn’t believe Jesus was really resurrected).

Christians will often tell us the entire Bible is historically accurate, and we can have confidence in how the original writings have been handed down to us. Sceptics may tell you we can have no such confidence, because both the manuscripts and the history are unreliable.

How do we know what to believe?

This book by New Testament scholars who are Christians steers a middle path between the extremes. It allows us to see where there are genuine probems and where crtiical assessments have been overstated.