Positive Reasons for Faith Versus The God-of-the-Gaps

With the loss in Dover, PN over the teaching of Intelligent Design, a host of criticism toward Christianity has been unleashed. To summarize, people are saying that faith is nothing more than a mechanism that fills in the gaps of knowledge that we are otherwise lacking due to the inability to acquire it. In other words, because science cannot explain everything (yet), foolish people default to faith in order to have an explanation of certain phenomena.

This type of criticism, however, is unfounded. Christians do not believe in the existence of God, the truthfulness of Scripture, and the words of Christ in order to simply fill in the knowledge-holes left by modern science. Rather, Christianity is believed based upon positive and rational reasons that stand on their own right. As a worldview, biblical Christianity is filled with facts that match reality as we know it and that allow us to develop a number of convincing positive arguments demonstrating the consistency and truthfulness of the system as a whole.

For example, the moral argument for God’s existence gives us an explanation as to why people universally recognize the difference between right and wrong. A universal moral law, written on the hearts of people, presupposes a Lawgiver.

The teleological / design argument is the same. There are billions of positive evidences in nature that point clearly to a Designer.

Most important is the fact that Jesus Christ taught and believed that he himself was God and than he demonstrated this truth with miracles – the most important of which was his resurrection from the dead. The person of Jesus Christ and his teaching is the most remarkable positive argument of all. This means there are historical and prophetical reasons to believe the truthfulness of Christianity.

In other words, I have no need to fill in the gaps left by science. I am a Christian because Christianity makes rational sense of the world around me. It is a coherent and consistent worldview that explains every question I have with a real, albeit not exhaustive, answer.

I am no enemy of science as a discipline. In fact, the scientific method reminds me of the Proverbs, which speak so highly of wisdom. That is to say, we should seek knowledge and purse wisdom, and the scientific method (observing data, making hypothesis, testing the data, postulating theories, etc.) is one intelligent way of doing that.

But I am an enemy of the pseudo-science of the modern era. It’s attempt at maintaining methodological naturalism - going through the scientific process with the assumption that all that exists is natural and that nothing supernatural or supra-natural can exist - is absurd. It is akin to denying a black hole simply because it cannot be seen with the visible eye. We see the effects of a black hole and we see the effects of the divine Creator and Sustainer. Not filling in gaps, but exerting himself in clear and positive ways in our world.

Discovery Institute on the Dover Decision

At the suggestion of Dr. Steve Cowan, I encourage you to read the following response (reprinted in its entirety) to the Dover decision from the Discovery Institute.


Dover Intelligent Design Decision Criticized as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education

By: Staff
Discovery Institute December 20, 2005

For more information on the Dover Intelligent Design Trial click here.

SEATTLE — "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design. “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.”

“A legal ruling can't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can’t remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics,” added West “The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree."

In his decision, Judge John Jones ruled that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring a statement to be read to students notifying them about intelligent design. Reaching well beyond the immediate legal questions before him, Judge Jones offered wide-ranging and sometimes angry comments denouncing intelligent design and praising Darwinian evolution.

"Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case," said West. "Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."

"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," continued West. "Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about.. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a bestseller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory."

"In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance," added Discovery Institute attorney Casey Luskin. "As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity of intelligent will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.”

Luskin pointed out that the ruling only applies to the federal district in which it was handed down. It has no legal effect anywhere else. The decision is also unlikely to be appealed, since the recently elected Dover school board members campaigned on their opposition to the policy. "The plans of the lawyers on both sides of this case to turn this into a landmark ruling have been preempted by the voters," he said."

Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools," emphasized West. "But the Institute strongly supports the freedom of teachers to discuss intelligent design in an objective manner on a voluntary basis. We also think students should learn about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution."

Drawing on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines, the scientific theory of intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Proponents include scientists at numerous universities and science organizations around the word.

Intelligent Design Defeated by a Church Going Republican

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled the teaching of Intelligent Design in a public school science classroom unconstitutional. He called ID creationism in disguise and accused the former Dover school board of lying repetively in order to cover up that fact. Oddly enough, Jones is a church going man and a Republican.

Christian parents must be on the alert. It is clear that the state educational status quo will not be showing your children the whole story. Much of what they teach will be true, but it will not be linked to the source of truth - Jesus Christ and His sovereign reign over humanity and history.

That means schools will by and large be teaching your kids how to make a buck. I suggest either placing them in a Christian school, homeschooling them, or if state schools are your only choice (usually they are not), then be sure you are talking and sharing very often with your children about how God uses intelligence for His glory. Getting smart is not just a way to make a living.

Show them how math and reading are good - in conjuction with the divine purpose for which God made us, to magnify His name. Show them how history is good but that it must not be divorced from the overall redemptive history God is unfolding and that is spelled out clearly in His Word.

The decision today is a defeat to those kids who are stuck in public schools and made to believe the myth of evolution, as if it is fact - with no other options at all as to the origins of life. And this even though many scientists show that evolution as a theory is faltering if not falling apart. But this is no defeat to the Kingdom of God, who through His Son Jesus Christ is working all things according to His own timing.

The decision also shows just how blind people are to common sense statements. Jones maintains that ID is non-scientific because it allows for possible supernatural causation. It is clear that holding to that position actual kills true science for it excludes one possible cause of phenomena at the outset, before any experimentation is done. At the very least, a true scientist will be open to the possibility of supernatural causes, and if there are supernatural causes, one would expect to see the evidence for it. But Naturalistic scientists are so stuck in their presuppositions of natural-only causation, that they force themselves to be closed-minded and intolerant of other possibilities. They should no longer be allowed to be called scientists true science by definition wants to know the truth of a matter whatever it may be - even if it is supernatural.

Jones, open your eyes.

Areopagus Journal on the Canon of Scripture

Hot off the presses! The brand new Areopagus Journal is complete. This issue deals in depth with the development and trustworthiness of the canon of Scripture. With the upcoming movie Da Vinci Code, this topic must be on the forefront of Christian conversation. The following is Craig Branch's "Veritas" article in which he describes the content of the journal, which includes articles by Ben Witherington, Terry Wilder, Paul Wegner, and our own Steve Cowan. If you would like to order this copy of Areopagus Journal for only $5.00, please call our office toll free 1 (866) 403-0102.

VERITAS

by CRAIG BRANCH

There are two primary aspects of apologetics often referred to as negative and positive apologetics. The latter has to do with presenting positive arguments for the Christian faith. Conversely, negative apologetics has to do with answering objections brought against the Christian faith. In this issue of Areopagus Journal, we will be addressing the issue of the biblical canon. The knowledge gained from this issue will be valuable for both positive and negative apologetics.

What do we mean by the canonicity of Scripture? The term “canon” originally meant “reed,” but later came to be understood as a measuring rod or a standard or norm. Applied to the Christian faith, the term “canon” relates to the collection of books known as the Bible and which serves as the doctrinal standard for Christian faith and practice. The authenticity of this collection is closely related to the question of the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the Bible, topics covered in earlier issues of the journal.(1)

Some of the most common questions people have about the authority of Scripture are related to the issue of canonicity. Why are there 66 books in the Bible? Who says the 39 books of the Old Testament are the right ones and on what basis were they declared to be Scripture? And what about the New Testament? Who says the 27 books we have today are the only ones acceptable, and on what basis, and when did they finalize that list? And what about the Apocrypha, those “extra” books contained in the Roman Catholic Bible? Should the Gospel of Thomas be treated as an authentic record of Jesus’ sayings as the Jesus Seminar claims?

In addition to being a foundational part of why we believe what we believe, the answers to these questions have significant importance today because of the growing number of attacks by skeptics and heretics on the authenticity and exclusive claims of Christianity. In what follows, I will briefly survey some of these attacks on the biblical canon.

Historical Attacks on the Canon
Challenges to the biblical canon began early with the rise of cults and other world religions. Some of the earliest manifestations of such attacks were the pseudonymous books by Gnostic writers in the late first and second centuries who claimed apostolic authorship but taught Gnostic (“new age”) concepts.

Another key example is Islam which added the Koran to the “canon” and perverted the true teachings of God. A more modern example, similar to Islam, would be the Mormon Church which teaches continued revelation in the Book of Mormon, adding that many plain and precious parts of the Bible are missing today.(2) In other words, they claim that there are parts not included in the traditional Christian canon, the canon was not closed, and additional books can be added as Scripture (e.g. the four “standard works” of the Mormon church).

Contemporary Attacks on the Canon
Most contemporary attacks on the canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible find their inspiration in the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries which led to the rise of higher biblical criticism and liberal theology. This school of thought views the Bible as a mere human product that reflects man’s fallible attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe and existence. They likewise view the formation of the canon as a purely human process motivated by theological and (perhaps) political concerns.

Many of the liberal theologians’ books have remained in the rarified air of seminaries and academic societies. They still affect the laity, though, because of the teaching and preaching of liberal pastors in many mainline denominations. Some examples of their writings related to canonicity are The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew and Lost Scriptures by Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels’ The Gnostic Gospels, the writings of Harvard feminist (and biblical scholar) Karen King, as well as Rudolph Bultmann, Paul Tillich and others.

The public sees a constant stream of indoctrinating feature stories in popular news magazines like Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. For example, in one article we find, “centuries of scholarship have turned up little convincing evidence that His [Jesus’] closest disciples did much writing either. Who, then, wrote the 27 books that make up the traditional New Testament Canon? Could these books have been written by contemporaries of Jesus? Are they close to the original form? Or were they revised by early church leaders to reflect the changing views of who Jesus was, to address the problems of a growing church, or even advance political agendas?” The article goes on to amplify the recurring view of liberal biblical “scholars”: “[O]ther scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor, that the identity of the authors is forever lost and that their work has been largely obliterated by centuries of translation and editing.”(3)

Another feature story in Time Magazine highlights the popular works of the Jesus Seminar.(4) The Jesus Seminar is comprised of 50-74 liberal scholars who have concluded that only a very small percentage of the gospel’s teachings about Jesus are authentic while giving great weight and credibility to the so-called Gospel of Thomas.

The Time article also highlights Pagels’ The Gnostic Gospel, as well as Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism by Bishop John Shelby Spong, and Dan Brown’s best seller, The Da Vinci Code (soon to be released as a movie directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks). The latter is a piece of propaganda against the authority of the New Testament. Its deceptive impact will be even stronger when the movie is released in 2006. The novel (claimed as historically-based fiction) accuses a secret, controversial Roman Catholic society (Opus Dei) of concealing a sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene “by suppressing early alternative Scriptures.”

Defending the Canon
In this issue of Areopagus Journal, New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III, professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, addresses the skeptical claims of these liberal scholars and the propaganda of The Da Vinci Code. In his article, “Why the ‘Lost’ Gospels Lost Out,” he responds to the claims of Pagel, King, Ehrman, and Dan Brown by demonstrating how they engage in revisionist history. He effectively debunks their theory that later church leaders invented Christianity by selecting and discarding the various books circulating in the churches according to their own ideology.

Paul Wegner, Old Testament professor at Phoenix Seminary, contributes an article detailing the evidence for the authenticity of the 39 books of the Old Testament (OT) titled “The Canon of Scripture in Jesus’ Day.” He begins with the direct authentication of Jesus to the contents of the Jewish OT canon, then shows how both Jewish authorities and the earliest Church fathers affirmed the existing OT.

It is also helpful to note that the New Testament writers, those Jews who followed and were taught by Jesus, acknowledged the authority of the OT canon. Paul, referring to the existing canon, wrote, “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). The New Testament writers quoted authoritatively from every book of the 39 books of the OT with the exception of Esther and Song of Solomon, while citing no apocryphal work.

Also, another key factor in determining the canonicity of a book has to do with whether or not the book itself claims or assumes divine authority or inspiration. Accordingly, we find the phrase “Thus saith the Lord,” more than 2,000 times in the OT books. In addition, we find expressions such as “Then the Lord [YHWH] put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord [YHWH] said to me, ‘Behold, I have put my words in your mouth’” (Jer. 1:9).

What about the New Testament (NT)? How do we know that its 27 books are the correct ones? Though the earliest Christians were not concerned with canonicity per se, they readily accepted the OT Scriptures sufficiently ratified by Jewish tradition, Jesus, and the apostles. And they accepted the teachings of Jesus and His appointed apostles whether received orally or by letter (1 Thes. 2:13; 4:1-2; 2 Thes. 2:15).

Moreover, we see the beginnings of canon criteria being given by Jesus, Paul and Peter. Jesus warned of the coming of false prophets and false Christs (Matt. 7:15; 24:23-26). Paul and Peter also warn about false Jesuses, false gospels, false apostles, and false teachers (2 Cor. 11:3-4, 12-15; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; 1 Tim. 6:3; 4:1-3; 2 Peter 2:1-3; Jude 3-4). Finally, John also warned that the brethren are to “test the spirits” because of “many false prophets” going out into the world. Some rudimentary doctrinal criteria are introduced as well by which to test false prophets (Gal. 1:6-9; 1 John 4:1-3). In addition, Paul, anticipating or aware of spurious counterfeit letters, sets forth a criterion of true apostolic origin as a mark of divine authority (1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; 2 Thes. 3:17; Philemon 19).

Terry Wilder, NT professor at Midwestern Baptist Seminary presents an article, “New Testament Canonicity.” Wilder describes the rise of heresies which necessitated the establishment of internal and external criteria for formulating the NT canon. He begins with the crucial foundation that Jesus himself “divinely appointed and ordained” His disciples and apostles to teach His messages (Matt. 28:18-20a), and instructed them that “The word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me. These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, who the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:24b-26; see also John 15:26-27; 16:12-15). He points out as well that the apostles recognized their own writings to be inspired (2 Peter 3:16; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15; 3:17; 2 Peter 1:16-21).

Wilder goes on to present the criteria Christians used in their prayerful deliberations over the canon during the early church councils. It is important to understand that the church councils that convened were not deciding in some arbitrary manner which books were in and which were out. They were seeking to affirm what the church had previously and always recognized as Scripture.

The last article in this issue is “How Do We Know They Got it right? The Epistemology of the Canon” by two ARC staffers, Vic Minish and Steve Cowan. In this article, they make a philosophical and theological case for trusting the deliberations of the early church councils that finalized the canonization process. As he does now, God placed within the early church gifted men who had the knowledge and expertise to examine the books that circulated within the church and apply objective criteria to recognize those that God had inspired. Most importantly, we can be confident that God providentially superintended the historical process to preserve his holy Word.

God has always worked in history to protect and preserve the Scriptures. We see this even in the Bible itself. Jeremiah the prophet was told by God to dictate “all the words that I have spoken to you” to his scribe who wrote them on a scroll (36:1-2, 4). King Jehoiakim angrily responded to the reading of God’s Word by burning the scroll. But God hid Jeremiah and the scribe for protection and gave Jeremiah “all the former words that were on the first scroll” to be recorded again (36:27-32). God preserved his word then and God preserved his word in the early church. The 66 books of the Bible are truly the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God—from God to us.

Craig Branch is the Director of the Apologetics Resource Center.

NOTES
1 See Areopagus Journal 2:1 (January, 2002) and 3:3 (May-June, 2003) for articles relevant to defending the inspiration and authority of Scripture.
2 1 Nephi 13:26-28(Book of Mormon); and Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 3, pp. 190-191.
3 U.S. News & World Report (Dec. 10, 1990): 61-62.
4 Time (December 22, 2003): 57.

If you would like to order the Areopagus Journal described in Craig Branch's "Veritas" article, please call our office toll free 1 (866) 403-0102. The cost is only $5.00.

Thoughts on the Chronicles of Narnia

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is fascinating in its imaginative quality and overall appeal. To create a different place, indeed a different world altogether, and then bring to life the supreme fight between ultimate good and absolute evil, is nothing short of amazing. Many of us in Birmingham were honored with a sneak preview of the movie last night (Thursday)! Here are a few of my thoughts, for whatever they are worth.

* The movie is mostly faithful to the book. Considering the number of people (believers and unbelievers) working on this, offering advice and criticism, it is amazing that the story is as close to the book as it is. The major themes are certainly there.

* The production itself is one of the best ever. I have never actually seen talking beavers, but if I did, I am sure they would look exactly like Narnia’s talking beavers. Oscar may be calling.

* This movie is an outstanding witnessing tool. The sacrifice of Aslan, and the correspondence to the work of Christ, is crystal clear to anyone who has any familiarity with the Gospel at all. Thus, I encourage you to take an unbelieving friend or family member to see the movie. It will start a conversation about what Christ has done to save guilty sinners (like Edmund and me). It may make the work of Christ make sense in a way some people have never thought of before.

* The winter of Narnia and the enslavement of Edmund are strong pictures of the ravages of sin and death. The stark contrast between the evil and the good in this movie unmistakably parallels reality. In the real world, however, the lines are far too often blurred. We must help people see that life apart from Christ, no matter what it may seem to be on the surface, is enslavement to sin and the wages of sin is death.

* There is a theological problem demonstrated in the movie, however, of significant proportion. Aslan pays the ransom for Edmund’s life to the White Witch. Is Lewis saying that God pays the ransom for guilty sinners to the devil? Biblically we know that the death of Christ is an appeasement of the wrath of God, that is, the payment goes to the Father, not the devil. It is the Father who has been offended. “God set [Him] forth as a propitiation by His blood…to demonstrate His [God’s] righteousness” (Rom. 3:25). But then again, Lewis may have a more accurate vision for the atonement in mind, because Aslan speaks of a wonderful and mysterious magic behind the magic. In other words, maybe the ransom paid to the White Witch is actually part of a bigger plan wherein the payment is ultimately made to God. This point is worth thinking through in more detail.

* Here is an important point: Narnia depicts a war between the forces of Aslan and those of the white witch. They are using traditional weapons such as swords, arrows, and spears to engage the battle. But it is vital to understand that as believers in Jesus Christ, our weapons are spiritual. That is to say, we wear the armor of God and wield the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:14-20). Thus, the parallel of the battle for Narnia occurs whenever a Christian shares the Gospel of Jesus Christ with an unbeliever. We are waging the war when we tell others the truth about Him. Imagine yourself a soldier when you witness. Imagine overcome the barriers (like shyness) as a way of fighting for the honor of King Jesus. Whenever you speak accurately about the person and work of Christ, it is akin to a victory over the evil one and his minions.

* Finally, a note to parents: kids below the age of 6 or so might be scared by the White Witch’s minions and the mean, scary dogs.

I do encourage you to go see the movie. It does what an allegory (if that is the right word for it) is suppose to do, show the truth in a fresh way. It is highly entertaining, but those who know Christ as Savior will find it difficult to walk away without a sense of awe about our Aslan (this name is the Persian word for lion), the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, who is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ.

Mirecki Allegedly Beaten

In a recent article we find that Dr. Mirecki, controversial biblical studies professor from the University of Kansas, was allegedly beaten by two men in a pickup truck. What is the Christian response?? Bind up his wounds and pay his medical bills. Pray for his salvation. Refuse to slander his name (though we must speak honestly about his erroneous beliefs). Show the love of Jesus to the lost and He will honor Himself.

I am not a pacifist. I believe the government has been given the God-ordained right to defend the nation with military strength (Romans 13 is clear). But on the individual level, we battle not against "flesh and blood." We are not at war with Mirecki or a culture that wants holiday trees instead of Christmas Trees.

I for one, do not rejoice at all in the senseless beating of a fellow human being. Those who follow Jesus Christ must understand that our weapon in this culture is not beatings or the passing of legislation, but rather it is and always will be the Gospel of Jesus Christ! If you want to change your culture, quit fighting for your right to publically display God's Law, quit fighting with non-believers over what to call a tree, and start actively sharing your faith in Jesus Christ and loving unbelievers. That will change the culture from the inside out, not the outside in.

Mirecki needs our prayers. Lord, will you bring to bear the joy and the eternal life that is in Christ to the heart and mind of this professor. Lord God, I know he reads the Bible and so he is exposed to Your precious and eternal Word. Will You send the Holy Spirit to open his heart, his eyes, and his ears to see the truth. Only You can do this. Forgive us Lord when we rejoice at the pain of others, believers or otherwise. Especially since You call us to exemplify the love of Christ. Help us, King Jesus, to take up our cross and follow You.

Mirecki, the University of Kansas and Civil Discussions Concerning Creationism

An article titled "Creationism, Intelligent Design Course Withdrawn Over Offensive Remarks" appeared today on the Christian Post by Francis Helguero that raises a number of concerns regarding this ongoing debate. Here is the subtitle of the article.

"A controversial course about creationism and intelligent design at the University of Kansas was cancelled by the professor who was to teach it, following publicized e-mail messages he wrote mocking Christian fundamentalists."

Follow along as I interact a bit with the article.

"Professor Paul Mirecki, chairman of religious studies, had planned to teach a spring 2006 course initially titled 'Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and Other Religious Mythologies.'"

One must wonder what the university expects students to think going into this course with a course title like that. It is stated as though it is so obvious - Creationism is a mythology. This, in spite of the truth that millions believe it to be litterally true, including well educated people like lawyers, physicians, archeologists, scientists, and university professors. Creationism is not like believing the earth is flat. Mirecki and whoever agreed to this course name was way out of line.

"Under pressure following complaints, he removed the reference to mythology but on Thursday, he said that teaching the course had become 'untenable' due to the controversy over e-mail messages he had sent through the discussion forum moderated by a student atheists and agnostics campus group for which he served as a faculty adviser. In a statement released by the University of Kansas on Thursday, Mirecki apologized for the e-mail messages posted since 2003 on a Yahoo list-serv discussion board. In one message, he referred to Christian fundamentalists as 'fundies,' adding that the course would be a 'nice slap in their big fat face.'"

It would be easy here to mock and laugh at Mirecki, since indeed the course has been dropped and he is the one with the slap. But truthfully, we who are coming from the Christian perspective have been disrespectful and hostile in our attitudes as well. Instead of taking this opportunity to jeer at the opposition, perhaps we believers should pray that the Holy Spirit would use this occassion to open up more avenues to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

For more information on this issue check out this article on MSN.

The Actual Existence and Historicity of Biblical Characters

Here is an article from Apologetics Press that might help those who struggle with the reality of the existence of biblical characters.

Abraham Affirmed
by Alden Bass

It seems that some in our society cannot be content with the death of God; they also must kill off everyone else related to the biblical narrative. Each person mentioned in the Bible is scrutinized and criticized, their very existence doubted. Everyone from Adam to the Lord Himself has been questioned and at some point declared mythical, fictitious, or allegorical. Of these doubted characters in the divine drama, perhaps none has so great an influence on the world today as the patriarch Abraham. Muslims, Jews, and Christians respect him as the “father of the faithful”—the man who found and followed the One True God, El Shadai, the Almighty. Over three billion believers look to Abraham as an example of faith and obedience, yet it is from those very same camps that many doubts arise.

Originally published in 1999 in Ha’aretz magazine and then reprinted in the Biblical Archaeological Review, an article written by a Jewish professor at Tel Aviv University seeks to undermine biblical faith by denying the historicity of the patriarchs. The attack is cleverly disguised as pure science, but in truth it is only academic arrogance. Professor Herzog expresses in the article his frustration that his people (the Jews) refuse to accept his “scientific” conclusions. The rejection is not surprising, considering that the professor attempted to demolish 4,000 years of Jewish (and Christian) history. Note the introductory summary of the article:

Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs’ acts are legendary stories, we did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, we did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon (Herzog, 1999).

While direct evidence for the patriarch’s existence is lacking, the circumstantial details in the biblical narrative have been adequately corroborated with the archeological facts. According to biblical chronology, Abraham lived around 2000 B.C. He was born of Terah in the city of Ur of the Chaldees (Genesis 11:31), and migrated to the land of Canaan at God’s behest (Genesis 12:1). Indeed, the city of Ur flourished around the time 2000 B.C., and was a well-known center of wealth and learning (Free, 1992, p. 46). Abraham’s neighbors would have been idol worshipers, bowing before Nanna the Moon god, just as the text indicates (Genesis 31:19). After settling in Canaan, Abraham’s nephew Lot was captured by Mesopotamian kings (Genesis 14).

Though history tells us nothing specifically about the kings, their names were common during that time period (Free, p. 52), and their invasion of Palestine can be reasonably attributed to a search for copper in the large deposits of Palestine (Hoerth, 1998, p.96).

The most interesting discovery thus far that lends credence to the patriarchal story is the tablets of Nuzu, uncovered between 1925 and 1941. When Abraham and Sarah realized that they were barren and unable to produce an heir, Abraham adopted his slave, Eliezer of Damascus (Genesis 15:2). This was common practice for a childless couple in ancient Middle East. For the same reason, Sarah encouraged her husband to take a female servant, Hagar, as a wife, in order that he might produce a son. Though God did not approve of this arrangement, it was a standard practice according to the Nuzu documents (Unger, 1973, p. 122). William F. Albright, the famed archaeologist of the Bible lands, remarked:

It is now becoming increasingly clear that the traditions of the Patriarchal Age, preserved in the book of Genesis, reflect with remarkable accuracy the actual conditions of the Middle Bronze Age, and especially of the period between 1800 and 1500 B.C. (as quoted in Unger, p. 121).
Thus, despite the absence of Abraham’s name, archaeology does confirm the reliability of the biblical text.

Not only is there ample evidence for the biblical narrative in the archaeological record, but history also tells us that time and time again, the Bible has been vindicated. It was not until 1876 that a reference to the Hittite people was discovered outside the Bible; likewise, King David’s name had only sacred mention until 1923. In a response to Herzog’s attack, Hershel Shanks suggested that the archaeological evidence we now possess is “is minute compared to what we don’t know, and is subject to change tomorrow” (Shanks, 1999). Again and again, the Bible is abused, yet it is a testament to its divine origin that it continues to return victorious over its enemies. It would seem that the Bible’s enemies eventually would realize this and give up, but history also tells us that such will never be the case. Let us continue, therefore, to look beyond shallow accusations, and put our faith in God and in the facts, not the opinions, of archaeology.

REFERENCES
Free, Joseph (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Herzog, Ze’ev (1999) “Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho” [On-line], URL: http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbBreakingIllSpecial1.html.
Hoerth, Alfred (1998), Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker).
Shanks, Hershel (1999), “Herzog’s Attacks on the Bible Unjustified” [On-line], URL: http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbBreakingIllSpecial2.html.
Unger, Merrill (1973), Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).