The Bible: Boring and Unhistorical?

If you were asked about the greatest scholarly advances of the last 100 years, you probably wouldn’t say “biblical studies.” Yet as much as any scholarly pursuit, these studies – though casting doubt on the historicity of some stories and facts – have made the Bible much more comprehensible, useful and persuasive.

True, you haven’t heard about it in homilies. Is it because homilists worry they may plant seeds of doubt? Do they believe their listeners’ logic may be, “If Moses didn’t part the Red Sea, Jesus didn’t walk on water?” In other words, if they doubt the historical accuracy of any part of the Bible, will they doubt all of it?

If this is the case, I believe they are underestimating their audiences and depriving them of a treasury of insights. They also are failing to level with their listeners and help them with doubts about the Bible they may already have.

The studies are based on evidence from disciplines such as archeology, philology, history and ancient geography.

Providing Religious Lessons

Such studies have also confirmed the likelihood of the historicity of parts of the Bible. But more important, they have helped religious scholars understand that the Bible’s purpose is to provide religious lessons and truths, not history.

More like a library than a single book, the Bible is unbelievably complex. It is full of contradictions and undecipherable material and yes, much of it is hard to believe. It requires openness by people searching for God.

As for the Bible seeming to be boring, you can’t expect writings this ancient to immediately appeal to people in 2016. Few things worth doing are exciting at first glance, and the Bible is worth reading.

Christians believe that the Bible is “inspired” by God. That doesn’t mean that God dictated the words to the authors but that he/she influenced them, and the authors expressed that influence in their own words, using true and mythical stories. That’s why the Bible is sometimes called “the word of God in the words of men.”

This comes to mind at this time of the year because of the gospel stories about the birth of Jesus. Called the infancy narratives, we – along with biblical scholars – could ask how the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Luke could have known about the true circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus.

No less useful

Indeed, most scholars believe these are mythical accounts, containing some historical events, used by the authors to demonstrate, among other things, Jesus’ divinity. That doesn’t make them any less beautiful, inspiring and useful in trying to understand who Jesus is, who God is and who we are.

Unlike some people who see the gospels as public relations documents for the ancient Christian church, I see them as the church’s evangelization material, written to inform and inspire Christians and potential Christians, then and now. They certainly aren’t much good as public-relations copy.

First, the four gospels – though similar in some respects and obviously using some similar sources – are too inconsistent to be part of a public-relations campaign. Secondly, they don’t make the leaders of the ancient church look good. On the contrary, the disciples are painted as bumbling, sometimes power-grabbing people who betray Jesus.

In other words, they were like us. In this age when the Bible is seen by many as irrelevant, antiquated and boring, the Bible remains an indispensable source for people searching for God. As unlikely as it may seem, we can relate to people portrayed there, and we should read it regularly, with an open mind and the aid of writers who include the findings of modern biblical scholarship.