Kristin Swenson, an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, wrote a book which was published in hardback last year (2010) and is now available in paperback—Bible Babel: Making Sense of the Most Talked About Book of All Time. A review of the book can be found on The Huffington Post website (which is not generally recommended). The claims for the book are grandiose; the author’s material is supposed to “catapult” the reader “to a new level of biblical literacy.” The five key things taught in this book are supposed to change the way we look at the Bible. So—how well does the associate professor do?
The Bible’s Organization and Contents
The first point in this section is that the Bible was written over a long period of time, which is, of course, true. Almost any materials that members of the church write in regard to the Bible’s history point out its books were written over a timeframe of around 1600 years. We do not know when the book of Job was written, but otherwise Moses wrote in the 15th century B.C., and the New Testament was completed by A. D. 96. One clue that the author may be a modernist is that she says the New Testament took a century or two to write. No, it did not. Historically, the book of Revelation has been last (A. D. 96), although some argue for an earlier date. No books were ever thought to be of a later origin than the first century until the rise of Modernism, which without any factual basis, theorized that some books may have been composed in the second or third centuries.
A second eye-catching statement is the following, and it could be labeled the “Which of These Does Not Belong?” category. It is claimed that the Bible had input from “ancient Israelites, Babylonian Jews and Greek pastors.” Since the book was written about and by Israelites, that cannot be disputed. Nor can the fact that they were taken in captivity to Babylon. But “Greek pastors”? To whom does that refer? Matthew, John, James, Peter, Paul, and Jude were all Jewish—which only leaves Mark and Luke—neither of whom are said to be “pastors.” Paul gives the qualifications for pastors in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:5, but nowhere does the Bible describe “Greek pastors” providing input to the Scriptures.
The final comment in this category speaks volumes about Swenson’s view of the Scriptures: The point is made that the different time periods and the variety of writers explains “why some texts disagree with others.” Hmm. There are two basic approaches to viewing the Bible: 1) The first is to believe that it is what it claims to be—the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16-17); 2) The other way is to assume that it was written by men who were not inspired of God. Those in the first group recognize that, while some statements may appear contradictory on the surface, a study of the contexts resolves whatever difficulties may have existed. Those with the second perspective do not generally advance beyond a cursory examination of the text. The reader should keep in mind, when statements like these are made, that little of what follows will be Bible-based.
The Inclusion of Books
It is pointed out rightly that the books of the Old Testament are arranged differently than in the Bibles used by Christians. This variation in order, however, does not change the contents of the books. The other note is that the Apocryphal books (of Jewish origin) are not included, either (although Catholic Bibles have them), but the reason is not the one assigned—to distance ourselves from Judaism. The reason for their omission is that they do not pass the test of inspiration either by virtue of containing contradiction or in light of the fact that there is no historical basis for them or acceptance by the church in the first century.
The Bible Wasn’t Intended to be the Bible?
The third segment of the review of the book is astounding; the claim is that “the material that became biblical wasn’t written in order to be part of a Bible.” What? How does that square with 2 Peter 1:20-21, which declares: “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”? Even if we do not read the footnote that the word translated “interpretation” could also be “origin,” it is still clear that the writers were inspired of the Holy Spirit. God most certainly did intend that these writings would be part of the Bible; this claim of the author contradicts what the Bible says about itself.
Proof that certain writings were randomly included as Bible books is the odd array of contents, such as is a book of erotic love poetry (the Song of Solomon). [It would probably not be considered erotic by today’s standards, and it is difficult to even follow.] This same erroneous premise is supposed to explain why God’s name is not found in the book of Esther, why there is a personal letter to Philemon, and why Jesus did not write anything. These charges merit evaluation.
While it is true that the name of God does not appear in the book of Esther, this comment is misleading. The entire book is about trust in God. Consider the following comments this writer made in 1992 for the Annual Denton Lectureship book, Studies in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (22):
The book of Esther (figuratively speaking) sits on an island apparently out from the mainland. Everything about it suggests separation and isolation from the other books of the Bible. Names generally used of God (Jehovah, Elohim, Shaddai, Adonai) never appear…. The city of Jerusalem did not figure in the crucial events at all… and the law of Moses (which seldom finds itself omitted) receives not even a meager reference.
So out away from the mainland sits this coverage of an important historical, Jewish event, and to the casual observer, water completely surrounds Esther.
However, the water is very shallow from the island to the coast; in fact, you can walk from one to the other and scarcely immerse more than your feet, because no matter how detached the island looks, it really is linked to the mainland of Bible doctrine. A lighthouse has been constructed on the island, and its beacon light is the providence of God. Though God’s name is absent, He nevertheless permeates everything. A person may not see His hand or hear His name, but He is involved in the affairs of men…
The omission of the name of God actually draws attention to His working out of the salvation of His people; such hardly constitutes a criticism.
The letter of Philemon is personal, but it nevertheless contains teaching concerning what love and brotherhood mean. Paul also makes an interesting statement concerning providence: “For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever” (15). Paul suggests here that it might be that Onesimus’ running away from Philemon was providential in that Paul was able to convert him during this absence. The Christian does need to consider the possibility of providence at work in his life; some things happen for a reason.
Jesus did not need to write anything. The Holy Spirit brought to the apostles’ remembrance all things that He taught them (John 14:25-26). The entire thesis concerning why these things did or did not happen in some of the books of the Bible is speculative; certainly other possible factors to explain these phenomenon were not considered.
A further claim is made in this section that is completely off the mark: “The biblical texts are not disinterested reporting of objective facts….” This is as false as it can be. One of the compelling proofs of the Bible is its objectivity. David was a man after God’s own heart, but his shameful conduct with Bathsheba was not omitted—his need for repentance, along with the fact of it, is also included. Peter was a devoted follower of Jesus and an outstanding apostle, yet his imperfections are noted in several instances. No one left out his mistakes. We see Biblical people as they really are. We even see some good things about the wicked King Ahab. The Bible objectively describes the people it discusses; to say otherwise is to reveal a lack of familiarity with the Scriptures.
Translations
The fourth section deals with the problems of translation. Nothing stated is actually false; it is more the implication of the section that is disturbing. Most people are aware that the Bible was not written in English; most are also familiar with the difficulties involved in translating words and various idioms into other languages. The public is further aware that English words change their meanings. But why are all these facts cited? The impression that these facts are calculated to give is that the Bible is therefore imprecise and unreliable, which is absurd.
Did not the one who made the various languages at the Tower of Babel and scatter peoples into various parts of the world know about language barriers? When the Holy Spirit inspired Hebrew writers or chose the koine Greek for the New Testament, did He not know that all these words would some day be translated into English? For that reason we have translations and paraphrases—not to mention word studies and commentaries. Besides, how difficult is it to translate, “You shall not commit adultery,” or, “Repent and be baptized…”? It is not that man cannot understand another language; they don’t want to obey God in the language they speak!
Postmodernism is Good
So where has all of this palaver been leading?
Finally, this information about the Bible is compatible with belief in it. A person can simultaneously accept these truths about the Bible and the Bible as the Word of God.
Do our eyes deceive us? In spite of the fact that, according to the assistant professor, the Bible says contradictory things, books of the Bible were included at someone’s whim, much of what is in it was not even intended to be “Biblical,” and it cannot be translated very well, we can still choose to call it the Word of God. Only a Postmodernist, who can dwell in the land of contradictions, could buy this argument. Those of us who live in the real world have a problem with it: It makes no sense.
The writer admits that we may have to recalibrate our assumptions. Just at the point when one thinks that the material could not get any more bizarre, it does. Just so that you cannot miss the point of all that has been said, the following is asserted: “Even the Ten Commandments, which would seem to be absolute as anything, show up in two places in the Bible—and with some differences.” Well, how is that for “spin”? Although the statement is not factually wrong, the implication is that once again the Bible contradicts itself. The writer fails to provide any facts. The first time the Ten Commandments are mentioned is in Exodus 10:1-17, when God spoke the words to the people. The second time they were spoken was by Moses, and it was to the next generation that was about to enter the land. The commandments are the same; he just adds a comment. Compare the Exodus passage with the one in Deuteronomy 5:6-21.
One would think that in one set of commandments that God said it was all right to steal and disagreed with Himself later. First of all, the commandments are in the same order in both passages. Imagine what someone would say if two of them were reversed! Commandment 5 is the same; Moses just interjected in the middle “as the Lord your God commanded you.” Six through nine are identical. Number 10 has the same contents in both passages; in the list of things presented, the word order varies, but nothing was omitted or added.
Commandments 1-3 are identical in both passages; Moses adds “as the Lord your God has commanded you” to number four. He also amplifies the original by adding ox and donkey to cattle. Wow! Is that a great contradiction or what? He also adds a few words to remind them about the way God delivered them from Egypt. The only significant difference in the two texts is that Moses does not repeat Exodus 20:8-11, which is not the commandment—but the reason for the commandment. He provided another reason in the Deuteronomy text, but in both instances the commandment itself did not change: Sabbath keeping was required.
“The Bible’s endurance is astonishing.” Really? Why is it so astonishing that God would preserve the words He inspired? Why would He provide prophecies from Genesis 3:15 onward and let them remain unfulfilled or uncommented on? Moses wrote in the 15th century B. C. that the seed of woman would crush the head of the serpent, which is fulfilled in Christ. He wrote that God promised Abraham that through His seed all the nations of the world would be blessed, which was fulfilled in Jesus (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:8, 16). He recorded that there would be a prophet raised up like unto him (Deut. 18:15-19), which was also fulfilled in Christ (Acts 3:22-23).
Jesus fulfilled all these prophecies 1500 years later. Why would anyone be surprised that God keeps His Word? Then, having brought all of these fulfillments about, why are we surprised that God would make this astounding information concerning fulfilled prophecies available to future generations—especially since it is all related to salvation? It would truly be astonishing if God just let it all fade away so that no one would know about it.
This Huffington Post article concludes with several phrases of high-sounding gibberish that are apparently intended to mollify those who believe the Bible. The Holy Book, according to the writer, continues to inspire, which is true, but then is added “in all sorts of interpretations and ways.” What does that mean, except that you can believe whatever you want?
“And it continues to ignite the imagination and enrich the speech, literature and art of people outside of the biblical faiths, too.” Well, whoop-de-doo! The same could be said of Homer’s The Odyssey and Shakespeare, also. This is nothing but throwing a bone to those who believe the Bible, but it is not even a tasty treat, since it ends with “Biblical faiths.” There is only one faith (Eph. 4:5), and Christians are exhorted to contend for it (Jude 3). While the Bible’s influence on our culture is undeniable, that fact is not nearly so important as the fact that it is the inspired, authoritative, and true Word of God. The article closes with these words:
This information is more than a starting point. It’s also a companion along the way, enabling new insights, providing correctives, and allowing space for the dynamism of your own ideas and learning.
What exactly do these words mean? They seem to convey the erroneous notion that the individual can make of the Bible whatever he desires it to be. Whatever he wants it to teach is what it says. How utterly elastic! One can bend it, shape it, stretch into something personally meaningful—kind of like Silly Putty.
The fact is that the Bible is Truth. We must conform our lives to its message—not make it say what suits our feelings at the moment. Commandments are not pliable; they are fixed. Furthermore, God means what He says, and we will be judged by those words and teachings (John 12:48). The Bible is not a novelty item in a curiosity shop; it presents words to live by (Matt. 4:4).