Can We Talk About The Bible?
Can We Talk About This?
One of the biggest shocks in my faith journey was discovering that Christianity isn’t a monolith—that there are vastly different ways of thinking about and practicing the faith.
I was raised within evangelicalism, shaped by all its assumptions about Scripture and doctrine. I not only believed those assumptions—I taught them. Even when hard questions surfaced, I pushed them aside in favor of “just believing.”
But later in life, I encountered something that shifted everything: the world of academic biblical studies.
What surprised me most wasn’t just the scholarship—it was the scholars themselves. These weren’t “God-haters” or “pawns of Satan,” as I’d always heard. They were thoughtful, disciplined people applying the same critical tools to Scripture that they would to any other ancient text.
And their conclusions? They challenged nearly every presupposition I had held.
In academic circles, there is broad consensus that many of the events described in the Old Testament either didn’t happen as written—or didn’t happen at all. For example, there is no archaeological or scientific evidence for the Exodus as described in Scripture. Similarly, the Pentateuch is widely understood to have been compiled by scribes long after Moses, as a way of shaping a communal history.
Scholars also contend that the Bible is not univocal—the single voice of God—but multivocal: a collection of voices, each reflecting how people understood God in their own times and contexts.
I’m not here to debate each of these claims. Personally, I’ve come to accept many of these academic conclusions. And far from diminishing my faith, they’ve deepened it.
I still believe the Bible tells the story of how the Creator is redeeming all of creation through the person and work of Jesus Christ. I believe that story is alive, that the Holy Spirit speaks through it, and that its power is real. But I no longer believe the Bible was meant to be inerrant. That was never its purpose. And that realization takes nothing away from its beauty or authority.
So here’s my question:
Can we talk about this?
Can we explore these ideas without fear?
Or is this a bridge too far?
Because for me, this conversation has been life-giving. And maybe it could be for you, too.
I would love to talk about these things, but I also hope differing opinions will join the conversation. I think we need to hear from multiple perspectives.
Josh,
I can’t learn anything new if I can’t listen to others…so I’m good with multiple perspectives as long as they are in dialog, not condemnation.
I think the biggest mistake the people so focused on inerrancy, Young Earth Creation, and other contentious topics is that they miss the forest for the trees. They are so focused on whether the Flood happened, they miss the larger context. And it’s not like there were dictating of the events and conversations as they happened.
Ra’s al Ghul,
Once a person gets past trying to explain the unexplainable, the book comes alive with much wisdom and guidance and a fuller picture of God.
It really is a powerful book…
“In academic circles, there is broad consensus that many of the events described in the Old Testament either didn’t happen as written—or didn’t happen at all.”
Some academic circles. Certainly not all. I know that the confessional Lutheran seminaries in Fort Wayne, St. Louis, and Mequon all are staffed with academic scholars who confess the inerrancy of Scripture. The same is true, I understand, of Westminster and many other Reformed, Baptist and Evangelical seminaries, all staffed with academics.
I think this particular article had gone beyond expressing the personal beliefs of the author to arguing that the denial of inerrancy is the only reasonable view and advocating that others join him in such view.
While I respect your right to hold your view, I am saddened that you are pushing your view to your readers. You don’t know how readers, who may have a tremendous amount of respect for your opinion will be affected by an article tearing down the Scriptures.
“there is broad consensus that many of the events described in the Old Testament either didn’t happen as written—or didn’t happen at all.“
No there isn’t. No there isn’t. I can’t believe you would even write that.
Jean,
Professors in confessional seminaries have no choice.
I’m not pushing a view…I’m sharing my experiences just as I’ve shared others over the last 25 years.
If anyone respects my opinion, it’s because they know that I work very hard at being honest and thorough in presenting what I think about anything.
There is broad consensus among the sciences…I’m not making up things that are not so.
One more thing.
I’m not “tearing down the Scriptures”.
I love the Scriptures…and anyone who knows me or has read me knows that.
I’m saying that we can be honest about them…and find them as powerful and authoritative as we held them before…more so, actually.
“Professors in confessional seminaries have no choice.” Are you saying that those professors are faking it? I cannot read their hearts. I can only listen to them or read their works.
I have a library stacked with reputable, household names in the field of theology from a wide range of traditions. I would be happy to list any of them, if anyone is interested. In not a single commentary does the author challenge the historicity of any event recorded in the bible. Anyone could Google the Evangelical Theological Society and peruse its membership (several thousands) and doctrinal statement (dedicated to the inerrancy of Scripture). There are a multitude of academic, Christian, scholars who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
“There is broad consensus among the sciences…I’m not making up things that are not so.”
I don’t disagree with this. The science academy, broadly speaking, rejects the supernatural. Science can’t measure God or miracles and thus rejects Him as the cause of human and natural events. I think following the broad consensus among the sciences is incompatible with a biblical view of truth, reality and history.
The broad consensus among the sciences (a consensus that is not static at all and which has brought us gender affirming care, glyphosate, nuclear weapons, Covid-19 and a host of other “advancements”) would deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ as well as his divinity.
Therefore, I would subject science claims to the claims of Scripture, rather than subjecting the claims of Scripture to the claims of science.
1. Jean, thank you for showing up. As I said, actual discussions require varying views in order for people to actually learn. Your input is valued, and you are a good representative. I hope others that stay closer to your views will speak up as well.
2. When we speak of “scholar” there is a difference in a scholar who starts with the answer and works backwards, and one who starts with an open page and tries to find the answer.
“The broad consensus among the sciences (a consensus that is not static at all and which has brought us gender affirming care, glyphosate, nuclear weapons, Covid-19 and a host of other “advancements”) would deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ as well as his divinity.”
This is a separate article…but the characterization of science as something to be scorned is both reckless and ignorant. I’m alive because of the sciences…
As I’ve stated many times…I affirm the Apostles Creed…I believe in the deity and resurrection of Christ.
That is a faith statement that cannot be proved or disproved by science.
Science can help us understand whether historical events happened.
For events as cataclysmic as those described in Scripture there would be evidence if they happened as the Bible says they happened.
If there is no such evidence, or evidence to the contrary, I would think that a God of truth would want us to say so…and then try to understand the message of the text in light of that truth.
This is a real nuanced topic to tackle. Some of the sources who claim Adam, Abraham and Moses didn’t actually exist would also dismiss David as being origin myth. At some point it looks like old school liberalism, denying the miracles in the New Testament and whether even Jesus actually existed.
When reading scripture I pretty much have to think of the characters as real people. I can handle that some of them (especially Adam) were origin story, and that the Exodus may have not happened as literally described. Who wrote what, and when, is not problem for me, as this was an oral culture that couldn’t have written its earliest history. I’m fine with it being messy.
What it forces me to do is view all of scripture through the lens of Christ. The Holy Spirit reveals Jesus to us through the written word and teaches us about himself.
“What it forces me to do is view all of scripture through the lens of Christ. The Holy Spirit reveals Jesus to us through the written word and teaches us about himself.”
Exactly.
That is where I landed and the historicity doesn’t really matter.
“For events as cataclysmic as those described in Scripture there would be evidence if they happened as the Bible says they happened.
“If there is no such evidence, or evidence to the contrary, I would think that a God of truth would want us to say so…and then try to understand the message of the text in light of that truth.”
1. Who’s to say that evidence won’t be uncovered at some future point?
2. The Bible’s testimony is evidence.
3. So called evidence to the contrary is not at evidential as many assume. The evidence keeps changing on many historical topics, and even the conclusions reached that it is “contrary” to Scripture involves interpretations and pre-suppositions that support the POV of the scientist.
There is always a possibility that further evidence will be uncovered as science advances and scholarly work continues.
Today, as an honest student, I have to concede that it is not there.
It won’t change my personal faith one iota if new evidence is found…I have enough trouble conforming to what I already believe.
I want to be very clear about one point…a persons standing with Christ is in no way dependent on their view of Scripture.
I don’t care much if someone believes the Bible is inerrant or not…but as the information from the sciences becomes more mainstream in this information era, I want people to know you can still be a faithful follower of Jesus and question the inerrancy of Scripture.
“I want people to know you can still be a faithful follower of Jesus and question the inerrancy of Scripture.”
I don’t disagree with you in principle, however, the more distrust one has in the veracity of Scripture, the more parts of Scripture one disbelieves, the more one turns to “science” (which in many cases in this field are just theories and hypotheses that can’t really be proven or even tested) instead of Scripture for answers regarding God and man: (1) the less faith has to cling to, and (2) the less one knows about the God and Christ who comes to us through the Scriptures to save us. If so much of the Bible is made up, how can anyone tell what is actually true?
No direct evidence (e.g., inscriptions, campsites, remains) in Egypt, Sinai, or Canaan has been found that clearly documents a mass exodus of people from Egypt. The Sinai Peninsula has been extensively surveyed, yet no material evidence (e.g., pottery, dwellings) consistent with a large nomadic population (numbering hundreds of thousands) has been discovered from the relevant period. Egyptian records from the New Kingdom (especially the 19th Dynasty, time of Ramses II) make no mention of Hebrew slaves or a mass departure.
There is no definitive archaeological proof of the Exodus as described in the Bible. However, there are traces of Semitic populations in Egypt and ancient references to “Israel” in Canaan. Many scholars today see the Exodus as a foundational myth with possible historical roots, representing themes of liberation and identity more than a literal event.
The historical accuracy of the Old Testament is a subject of ongoing scholarly debate. While some portions—particularly from the time of the monarchy onward—find support in archaeology and ancient records, earlier sections such as Genesis, Exodus, and Joshua lack direct evidence and are often viewed as theological or legendary in nature. For example, the Tel Dan Stele (9th century BCE) mentions the “House of David,” providing strong support for David as a historical figure. Likewise, the Merneptah Stele (c. 1207 BCE) refers to “Israel” as a people already living in Canaan. Later biblical events such as the siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (701 BCE) and the Babylonian exile are corroborated by external sources and archaeological remains.
By contrast, no archaeological evidence supports a mass Exodus from Egypt, the 40 years of wandering in the Sinai, or a sweeping conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua. Cities like Jericho and Ai show no destruction layers from the time the conquest allegedly occurred, and the patriarchal stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob remain archaeologically unattested. Scholars like William Dever and Israel Finkelstein argue that while some narratives reflect genuine historical memory—especially from Judges through Kings—much of the earlier material was shaped or written centuries later to serve theological and national purposes.
We are left with an Old Testament that contains a mix of an historical core, myth, and theological reflection. Events from the Iron Age onward (roughly 1000 BCE and later) are increasingly supported by archaeology, while the earliest narratives are best understood as Israel’s sacred origin stories rather than literal history.
Now, this is not even to speak of the manuscripts recording that historical core, the myths and the theological reflections. Nor does it consider the fact that in the New Testament, the Septuagint is most often quoted as the Masoretic text was widely unknown.
Inerrancy is a faith position, not one based on the texts or the historical circumstances that stand behind the texts…
“If so much of the Bible is made up, how can anyone tell what is actually true?”
Something does not have to be historical for it to be true. Jesus may have made up the story of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. They probably never happened, just stories he told to illustrate his point. That makes them no less true.
One could in theory affirm that the bible is true even if some of its facts are incorrect.
I say “in theory”, because I am struggling with large parts of the Old Testament in different ways than historical accuracy.
“What surprised me most wasn’t just the scholarship—it was the scholars themselves. These weren’t “God-haters” or “pawns of Satan,” as I’d always heard. They were thoughtful, disciplined people applying the same critical tools to Scripture that they would to any other ancient text.”
To name a few… CH Dodd, one of the preeminent biblical scholars of the 20th century, who was also a Congregationalist minister who preached to small congregations on the weekends. CK Barrett, one of “the greatest British New Testament scholars of the 20th century” who was also a Methodist minister who regularly preached in the poor mining villages of the north of England. Then there is CFD Moule, who was an evangelical Anglican but who also helped in establishing the Greek text of the New Testament in the mid 20th century. I could go on… These were kind, thoughtful Christian men who were also honest scholars. They found and acknowledged the errors that they discovered in the text, but it did not affect their faith…
Our idea of history keeping is really a post-Enlightenment concept. There have always been historians, but the methods of keeping history and the resources available were just vastly different to what we think about today. Most of history was passed down orally as books were not available and literacy was not nearly as common anyway. The first libraries were not for lending books to the public, but to have writings in one place that scholars could come and study. Still, these were rare and only in metropolitan areas.
“Something does not have to be historical for it to be true. Jesus may have made up the story of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. They probably never happened, just stories he told to illustrate his point. That makes them no less true.’
This is the point.
I believe the creation narratives are myth…beautifully crafted prose poetry meant to convey truths about the Creator.
For me, that understanding makes the text explode with glory and praise toward God…because of the truths they convey about God.
The Exodus narrative is much the same … giving us foundational “truths” no matter the historical veracity.
The Scriptures are a greater joy to me now then they have ever been…
Duane,
Well done…thank you!
Josh,
“Our idea of history keeping is really a post-Enlightenment concept”
Yes…
History as a field as we know it didn’t begin until Herodotus in the 5th Century BCE. And even then modern day historians, believe that his accounts are at least partially inaccurate, attributing the observed inconsistencies in the Histories to exaggeration.
When I first started reading about and studying this issue, it scared the hell out of me.
I didn’t know how to marry the new information with what I already believed…and knew that this would make me even more of an outsider than I already am.
Over time I understood that this wasn’t a binary…believe it all without question or believe nothing at all.
I could be intellectually honest and still be faithful to God.
It wasn’t easy to reconcile…but I’m getting there.
“This is a separate article…but the characterization of science as something to be scorned is both reckless and ignorant. I’m alive because of the sciences…”
I’m not scorning science but pointing out that it is often wrong. The destruction of the ecology of our arable land the the chronic disease epidemic of our people is in large measure the result of science.
Soon mankind will entrust its very existence to the science of AI and robotics. Imagine how that will turn out.
“Our idea of history keeping is really a post-Enlightenment concept.”
And you can lump in there higher criticism and the quest for the historical Jesus.
In the entire discussion, do you (i.e., anyone here) believe or still believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture? If large swaths of Scripture are the incomplete or exaggerated memory of the human author or his identity story, or his use of myths and legends, or human error, then what role if any did God play in the writing of Scripture? Is the NT in error where the inspiration of Scripture is affirmed?
“Inerrancy is a faith position, not one based on the texts or the historical circumstances that stand behind the texts…”
Belief in history or evolution based on archeological evidence and interpretation of that evidence is also a faith position. Let’s not pretend that science has locked it all down.
Look, let’s be honest—science, or textual criticism, hasn’t “locked it all down,” and no serious scientist or Biblical scholar would claim that it has. But it’s also not accurate to say that belief in history or evolution based on archaeological evidence is just another faith position. There’s a real difference.
Science, and indeed archaeology, works from evidence—fossils, artifacts, DNA, layers of earth—and it constantly revises its understanding as new information comes in. That’s not blind belief; it’s a method of asking questions and testing ideas. Sure, interpretations can vary, and people bring their own assumptions. But that’s part of the process, not a flaw. That’s a part of the process of scholarship…
Different people have different definitions of the “inspiration of Scripture.
The best I can do today is “God working through human authors, cultures, experiences, and limitations to communicate truth.’
It becomes the word of God to someone through the work of the Holy Spirit.
Because humans are involved in the process, there is room for human error.
I like this as well…“The Bible is inspired in that it bears witness to the presence and movement of God in human history. It is not perfect, but it is powerful. It doesn’t close off questions—it opens them.
“But that’s part of the process, not a flaw. That’s a part of the process of scholarship…”
Amen…
“But it’s also not accurate to say that belief in history or evolution based on archaeological evidence is just another faith position. There’s a real difference.”
Has any scientist ever observed the evolution of a chimp to a human being? Has anyone created life from a stew of chemicals? People that believe such things do so by faith. There is not a single empirical experiment that proves such things. Perhaps it takes more faith to believe in a big bang and evolution than to believe in a God who spoke creation into existence and breathed life in to the first man.
Not observe evolution of a chimp to a human, but we have observed evolution in bacteria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
First, I need to say again that it looks like we are ganging up on Jean because he is the only one left here who speaks from his position. So Jean, thank you again for speaking. You are very valuable here, and I hope that you don’t feel ganged up on..
You asked if anyone still believes in the divine inspiration of scripture and I do. There are parts that I struggle with more than others, but the overarching story just seems way too perfect to be designed by man..
For the record, I also think the Big Bang and some evolutionary theories are laughable.
The Bible is a good and wonderful thing, but I also think it suffers from two great ills:
Not giving it the credence it deserves at one extreme, and making way too much of it at the other extreme.
Thank you, Josh, for words of encouragement. They got me thinking about a couple interesting verses from the end of the story the rich man and Lazarus, which might encourage you:
“And he [the rich man] said, ‘Then I request of you, father, that you send him [Lazarus] to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not come to this place of torment as well.’ But Abraham *said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
Luke 16:27-31
Faith in the words of and from God handed down in the Scriptures are more persuasive than encountering someone who rose from the dead. Stunning! For reasons I don’t fully understand, but simply adore, God desires to save us by grace through faith in the Gospel message that comes to us through the written word.
Therefore, if you struggle with a story or verse or word in Scripture, just set it aside for the time being and come back to it later. It might open to you the next time you read it. Or maybe it won’t ever but you can ask Jesus to explain it to you when you meet him.
But in any event keep listening to the Scriptures and don’t harden your heart. If you are a believer, never forget that there is an enemy, sometimes disguised as an angel of light, who would like nothing more than to separate you from your faith in Jesus. Peace.
It’s not direct but I think one of Jean’s concerns that’s worth bringing more to the fore is there’s waves of Marcionite attitudes toward the OT across Church history. The minimalist/maximalist debates can get thorny pretty quickly, for instance, and I suspect there’d be no reason to have people get into that here, though I am reading a couple of the signature minimalists like Thompson and Lemche simply out of curiosity (which is not keeping me from reading some overt maximalists like Provan and V Philips Long).
No, no one has ever watched a chimp turn into a human—and that’s not what evolution claims in the first place. Evolution doesn’t say humans came from chimps; it says humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and over millions of years, we’ve followed different paths. That process is slow, gradual, and doesn’t happen on a timescale we can directly observe. But we do have an overwhelming amount of evidence for it: fossils showing transitional forms, genetic data that maps our relationship to other species, even observed evolutionary changes in animals today. It’s not faith—it’s inference from evidence.
And as for life coming from a “stew of chemicals”—no, we haven’t recreated the full process of abiogenesis in a lab. But scientists have shown that simple organic molecules can form under early Earth-like conditions, and they’re working on the next steps. Again, this isn’t a matter of blind belief—it’s an ongoing investigation. Big difference.
So yes, there are open questions, but believing in a scientific model that’s supported by evidence and subject to revision isn’t the same as faith. It’s not about believing in something despite the evidence—it’s about following the evidence where it leads.
“Perhaps it takes more faith to believe in a big bang and evolution than to believe in a God who spoke creation into existence and breathed life in to the first man.”
I get where that statement is coming from—it’s poetic, faith based and there’s something deeply human about wanting a personal, purposeful creation. But let’s be careful not to confuse different kinds of belief.
Believing in the Big Bang or evolution doesn’t require faith in the same way religious belief does. It’s not about trust in the unseen—it’s about evidence, testing, and constantly checking our understanding against what the universe actually shows us. The Big Bang model comes from measurable things: the expansion of space, cosmic background radiation, the distribution of elements. Evolution comes from fossils, genetics, anatomy, and even things we can observe happening in real time in microbes and animals. We have already spoken of archeology and textual transmission.
Faith in God is a different category. It’s about meaning, purpose, and relationship. That kind of belief isn’t meant to compete with science, or history, or textual transmission—it answers different questions.
So no, it doesn’t take “more faith” to follow the evidence of cosmology, or biology, or archaeology, or textual criticism. It just takes intellectual humility and a willingness to let the evidence speak for itself. If someone chooses to believe God is behind it all, that’s a theological view—not a substitute for a scientific or historical explanations.
“it says humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and over millions of years, we’ve followed different paths.”
Sorry, there’s no evidence. There is a naturalistic interpretation of genomes that only show that chimps and humans share similar DNA. These are inferences drawn by people looking for an evolutionary explanation.
I find the Bible’s explanation much more credible.
I hear what you’re saying, and yes—interpretation plays a role in how we read data. But to say “there’s no evidence” just isn’t accurate. The similarity between human and chimp DNA—over 98%—isn’t just a random coincidence. It’s one part of a converging body of evidence that includes fossils, embryology, comparative anatomy, and even observed instances of speciation. These aren’t just evolutionary “guesses”—they’re data-driven conclusions that hold up across disciplines.
Of course, how you interpret that evidence depends in part on your starting point. If you begin with the Bible as your ultimate authority, then you’ll likely read the natural world through that lens. That’s fair. But let’s be honest: scientific inquiry doesn’t start with the Bible or any sacred text—it starts with observation and builds models that can be tested, challenged, and refined.
You find the Bible’s account more credible, and I respect that. But others find credibility in a model that’s based on evidence we can measure, compare, and test across generations. That’s not blind faith—it’s reasoned inference. And the fact that it challenges a literal reading of Genesis doesn’t make it less valid. It just means the conversation is bigger than either side often allows.
“So no, it doesn’t take “more faith” to follow the evidence of cosmology, or biology, or archaeology, or textual criticism. It just takes intellectual humility and a willingness to let the evidence speak for itself.”
I think it was Josh who mentioned the Documentary Hypothesis last week (forgive me if my memory is faulty).
The Documentary Hypothesis had a more or less consensus among OT higher criticism scholars for most of the 20th century. Now virtually no text critics follow it anymore. And what they teach today will be followed by someone more clever next week.
All this is to say IMO that higher criticism is phony science and unreliable. You will never find truth there IMO nor certainty about what God’s message is to mankind.
There is an alternative, which is to humble oneself under the sufficiency, clarity, and reliability of the God breathed Scriptures which have served the church universal well for 2,000 years
“And the fact that it challenges a literal reading of Genesis doesn’t make it less valid. It just means the conversation is bigger than either side often allows.”
If Jesus is the second Adam but the first Adam never existed, then Paul is also in error about who Jesus is. And look at Romans, how original sin and death are traced back to Adam; once one denies the existence of Adam, what is left of Christology and the Gospel?
“The Documentary Hypothesis had a more or less consensus among OT higher criticism scholars for most of the 20th century. Now virtually no text critics follow it anymore.”
They have discovered that it is more complex than JEPD. Scholarship builds on itself, as it should…
Paul in Romans is a serious point, and I get why it matters so much. If Adam’s not historical, it can feel like the whole theological structure—original sin, Christ as the second Adam, redemption—starts to unravel. But this is where we need to distinguish between theological meaning and historical-literary genre.
Paul’s argument in Romans draws on Adam because Adam was the framework available in Second Temple Judaism to talk about sin, death, and covenant. But that doesn’t mean Paul was making a claim about biological origins in the modern scientific sense. He was making a theological claim about the universality of sin and the need for a new humanity in Christ.
So even if Adam is seen as a representative or archetypal figure rather than a literal first man, the theology of Romans 5 still holds: humanity is broken, sin is real, and Christ enters the story not as a patch, but as the beginning of something new. The Gospel doesn’t hinge on whether Genesis is a journalistic account—it hinges on the reality of sin, the incarnation, and resurrection.
In other words, even if we don’t read Adam as a literal historical figure, we can still read Paul as right about what matters: that in Christ, God addresses the universal condition we all share—and offers real redemption.
“So even if Adam is seen as a representative or archetypal figure rather than a literal first man, the theology of Romans 5 still holds: humanity is broken, sin is real, and Christ enters the story not as a patch, but as the beginning of something new. The Gospel doesn’t hinge on whether Genesis is a journalistic account—it hinges on the reality of sin, the incarnation, and resurrection.”
Bingo…you beat me to it.
The OT myths and symbols still hold all their theological power and meaning without being literal or historical…I would submit that they become more so when you take away the need to “prove’ they happened in a certain way.
Michael
It’s just remembering my conversations with James Dunn!
I’ve recommended some of these before…
A turning point in modern biblical interpretation came with Robert Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative (1981), a masterful work that treats the Hebrew Bible not as a clumsy anthology of ancient texts but as a unified literary masterpiece. Alter reveals how subtle devices—repetition, type-scenes, dialogue, and point of view—convey profound theological meaning within the stories of Genesis, Samuel, and beyond. He continued this approach with The Art of Biblical Poetry (1985), where he illuminates the sophistication of Hebrew verse in Psalms, Prophets, and Wisdom literature, focusing on parallelism, rhythm, and metaphor. For those wanting a broader scholarly perspective, The Literary Guide to the Bible (1987), co-edited by Alter and Frank Kermode, brings together essays from leading academics who examine the literary form and function of every biblical book, offering rich insights into genre and composition. A more classroom-oriented introduction comes through The Bible as Literature: An Introduction by John B. Gabel, Charles B. Wheeler, and Anthony D. York, a foundational textbook that presents the Bible through literary categories such as myth, epic, lyric, and tragedy. Finally, John L. Thompson’s Reading the Bible with the Dead (2007) offers a unique perspective: rather than focusing purely on form or genre, he draws on the interpretive traditions of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, showing how historical readings—rooted in both theology and literary imagination—can deepen modern engagement with Scripture.
Duane, I appreciate the interaction and your thoughtful responses.
“Paul’s argument in Romans draws on Adam because Adam was the framework available in Second Temple Judaism to talk about sin, death, and covenant. But that doesn’t mean Paul was making a claim about biological origins in the modern scientific sense. He was making a theological claim about the universality of sin and the need for a new humanity in Christ.”
What we have here may represent a fundamental difference between us in how we study the Bible.
You look behind the text for Paul’s intent. You’ve decided about what claims Paul was or wasn’t making, which parts are historical and which one are frameworks, based on how scholars have pieced together Paul’s culture.
My position is that we can’t know Paul’s intent or what was in his mind at the time of writing, other than what he actually wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So what we have are the plain words of Scripture which furnish us sufficiently with the meaning and message God has for us.
If people want to paint a picture of 2nd Temple Judaism for an episode of The Chosen, I’m good with that, but once it crosses over to mythologize the origin story upon which the Gospel and in deed Christ’s very genealogy is based, I find that a bridge way too far.
I respect that view—and I understand the desire to read Paul plainly, trusting that the words themselves, under the Spirit’s guidance, are sufficient. But the moment we start interpreting what those words mean—what “in Adam all die” or “the righteousness of God” actually refer to—we’re already engaged in interpretation. And whether we acknowledge it or not, we all bring assumptions and frameworks to that task.
When I look at Paul’s context, I’m not trying to get behind the Spirit’s message—I’m trying to understand how that message was communicated through Paul, in his own time, using the language and categories available to him. After all, God chose to speak through human authors in real historical settings. Paul was a first-century Jewish thinker shaped by Scripture, Hellenistic thought, and the life of early Christian communities. Ignoring that context doesn’t make the reading more faithful—it just makes it less informed.
I believe the Spirit works through the historical texture of the text, not in spite of it. So when I ask what Paul likely meant in his own moment, it’s not to undermine Scripture—it’s to hear it more fully, as it was first spoken. The “plain words” of Scripture carry profound meaning, but they’re never flat. They’re shaped by history, genre, and language. The more we understand those, the more deeply we hear what God is saying through them.
Duane,
I’ll add that those who want books on a more laity level can access Pete Enns, John Walton, and some of N.T. Wrights work.
Those may peak your interest enough to take on Alter…
“The “plain words” of Scripture carry profound meaning, but they’re never flat. They’re shaped by history, genre, and language. ”
Amen…
Additionally, Luke’s genealogy affirms Christ’s solidarity with all humanity—starting with Adam. Whether Adam is read as the first biological human, a representative of humanity, or both, the theological message remains intact: Christ enters the full human story to redeem it from within. How one interprets Adam in that list depends on how one reads Genesis as literature, history, and theology together.
Michael,
Enns is excellent on this topic!
“Enns is excellent on this topic!”
He’s also a lot of fun…I’m a member of his organization…