What events recorded in Scripture must be historical for you to affirm the truthfulness of Christianity?
For instance, it seems among evangelicals there are many who would say that it doesn’t matter if the “sun stood still” as Joshua led Israel in war or if Jonah and Job are real people, but the Exodus and the Resurrection have to have been real events.
One reason why I think the debate over the historicity of Adam and Eve has been so intense is because Christians are wrestling with the implications of this teaching. What would it mean to Christian anthropology, gender and race relations, marriage, our doctrines of sin and atonement, and even eschatology?
What would you argue must have happened?
Does it matter to you if the cosmos were created in six “days”, if Adam and Eve were real people, if the Fall happened, if the world was destroyed in a global flood, if the Tower of Babel existed, if the sun stood still for Israel, if Jonah and Job were real people, if Isaiah and Daniel prophesied all the content attributed to their name, if Jesus was born of a virgin, if Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead, if the zombie apocalypse happened, if Jesus himself was raised from the dead, if Jesus ascended into heaven, if Jesus has a literal second coming?
For some all or none of this list matters. I’d like to hear your reasoning. For others there are some things that matter and others that do not. Why? What is your hermeneutical approach to making these decisions? What is your logic behind it?
I’d enjoy hearing from you!
the archives near Emmaus 
It seems like these examples fall into two categories. Those like the historicity of Adam and Eve, which have far-ranging implications based on their theological use in scripture, and those like the sun standing still, which apply more narrowly to the inerrancy debate which has been going on.
@Luke: Do you think many of us make decisions regarding the historicity of biblical claims based on the consequences of acceptance or denial?
This is a difficult question that I don’t feel the least bit qualified to answer, but I hope others will chime in. I tend to start with the presupposition that the Bible is basically historically accurate within the confines of genre.
Looking forward to comments if anybody has the guts to leave them!
@Refe: It is a question that I am wrestling with answering as well. I don’t like inerrancy so I am not committed to every detail being correct, but I do come from a confessional stance that Scripture is the Word of God, so I am not expecting major errors and I think many things can be understood when we consider genre, rhetoric, et al.
Brian,
1) You’ve moved a bit, then, in re. to your stance on inerrancy. As I recall, not too long ago, you were defending inerrancy; I think this was in and around your discussions with Thom Starke, if I remember correctly. I understand your distaste for inerrancy, in its positivistic form; but I still think we can loosely make use of this concept with a thousand qualifications, of course 😉 (and I say this as one who holds to a Barthian [qualified by John Webster] theory of revelation).
2) In re. to your question here (the post); I would gather that the audience that receives your question will have a substantial impact upon the kinds of responses you will get back. Meaning, to be brute, the difference between critical biblical scholars/students and regular Christian church/lay people (in general). I would imagine that most of those in the former group would be struggling with the question you are because of exposure to and the impact of higher criticism (redaction/form literary etc.) upon this groups daily diet of reading and thinking. I think the latter group (and I mean Evangelicals) won’t even consider this to be a close call; they will believe that all miracles, all prophecies, etc. should be taken prima facie, as “it is written,” as it were. And then, there will be well read scholarly typed evangelicals who will make an argument for the veracity of the prima facie reading of scripture, and disregard the higher critics claims on apologetic grounds.
I read Scripture from Jesus. If Jesus believed in Mosaic authorship, if he believed in one Isaiah, if he believed in the prophecies of Daniel, if he believed in the literalness of the Jonah story, if he understood the pentateuch as thoroughly historical reality (within the confines of redemptive history), if he believed in the historicity of Adam and Eve, etc.; then so do I. It is true that some might think arguing inductively like this to naive, but then again, I wonder about the criteria and epistemological justifications used to construct the principles upon which higher critics operate from. Are these simply self evident a prioris that are necessarily universally valid, or do the higher critics’ principles represent modal structures of thought that only work within a self-referencing world that receives its coherence from the consensual machinations of their creative and fertile minds?
3) I reference to my point 2 above; I think it best to avoid Fundamentalism on either side of this equation. And in fact, I think questions like the ones posed in your post spring from a Fundy rationalism; whether that take form through “Believers” or “Un-believers.”
Bobby,
As I’ve mentioned at times I am sure that there are many people who use the word “inerrant” in a way that is very, very similar to my use of “infallible”. That being said, I want to avoid “inerrant” because I think it has been useful more for those seeking to define who is in their club and who is out of it. I watched situations like that of Peter Enns and Michael Licona and thought to myself, “If those two can be ‘out’ then I don’t know that I want ‘in’.”
I really, really like your answer regarding reading Scripture through Christ. Obviously, I agree (think of the title of this blog). This does raise some interesting questions though. Would Jesus have been “wrong” to refer to Adam and Eve as real people if they were not real if it was the will of the Father for Jesus to address the people of his time? In other words, when we consider that Jesus didn’t know the time of his return, or that he likely thought of the cosmos in terminology and language that fit his time but that wouldn’t hold up to modern scientific discoveries, did the Father have to send his Son into the world with all the knowledge and understanding that humans would gather over the next two millennium?
I’m not necessarily advocating a strong stance on this, but it is something I’ve pondered as I think of the kenosis and the implications of Christ being a real human led by the Father.
Finally, I agree that people shouldn’t be dogmatic Fundamentalist either way. I am just as taken back by someone saying, “There is no way dead people walked around Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection.” as I am those who say, “You must believe that dead people literally walked around Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection.” While you are correct that in general these are the questions being by critical scholars and some evangelicals and not frequently among other Christians there are the exceptions to that rule who do think about these issues and I think we need to show we’ve thought about them as well lest we brush them off when they ask the hard questions.
What MUST have happened is the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Everything else springs from the actuality of these events.
————————————-
1 Corinthians 2
2 Joh 1:7
————————————-
While the other things mentioned have far reaching implications, they would be just *stories without the Blood of Christ shed on our behalf. Here is where the story of redemption starts reaching backward to Adam and forward through time and all eternity. At the foot of the cross, life begins or ends for all mankind.
Because I believe the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God,
each of the events listed in some way backs up the central theme and purpose of the written word. I believe it is the Holy Spirit that reveals God’s heart to us through these written words.
@Nancy : Would you say that other events recorded in Scripture matter in that they point to Christ whether historical or not (e.g. Adam as representative of humanity points to Jesus as Savior, the flood is a preview of coming judgment though there was not a “global” flood) or do these events need to have happened in order to point to Christ?
Brian,
I don’t have a problem using the language of inerrancy, but of course the way I qualify it probably will come out sounding a lot different than a typical Evangelical understanding (or, really, the scholastic Reformed definition).
It is true that Jesus was fully human in the incarnation, and there is kenosis here. But of course it is also true that Jesus was fully God in the incarnation (still is), and there examples of him having that kind of knowledge (like knowing the thoughts of men) even in his humbled state. I don’t think kenosis to be the decisive point (given its controversial nature, theologically) in this discussion. By the way, I did see the title of your post, and I am glad that we agree on the significance of starting with Jesus’ self-understanding of Scripture.
I don’t want to brush people to the side either, but I also want to be critical about who gets to determine the questions to begin with.
@Bobby : That was the ordeal that I want to avoid. Each group defines the word differently and it becomes more a Shibboleth at times than a useful confessional term. I am sure that this will happen even with the word “infallible”, but it doesn’t have the baggage that inerrancy has.
When it comes to Jesus showing a more supernatural side it has been my understanding that this is because as a real man he was anointed by the Spirit, not that he accessed his “God-side”. I’ve heard it preached that when he was hungry this was his humanity but when he fed the multitudes with a few loaves this was his deity. I’m not sure that I am comfortable with that language. It sounds a bit Nestorian. So I’ve thought of the incarnation as being so real that even the Logos has to rely on the Spirit to give him the knowledge of the Father like any other man or woman would need the Spirit to give him or her knowledge of things. In other words, I don’t want to talk of Jesus entering “Human Mode” or “God Mode”.
I know you’re not saying that, but you see my conundrum.
Brian,
I do see that conundrum, and I am not trying to suggest that in the kenosis Jesus necessarily accessed his “God Mode.” But then again, who is the Holy Spirit? 😉 I agree with you on the nestorian point. “What!” did you say Nestorian? You’re not allowed to do that, you’re a Bib Studies guy 😉 .
It’s one of those times when I dip my big toe into theology!
I see the Holy Spirit actualising the humanity of Christ, but the humanity of Christ is not the humanity of Christ w/o the shape and person given to it by who He is as the eternal Logos, or the Son. I don’t follow strict kenotic theologies either. But I certainly want to avoid Nestorian christology.
Sure. A great many people deny something like the virgin birth because of their plausibility structure, which tells them that the laws of science are not broken. Understanding the implication of their belief regarding the (a)historicity of the virgin birth informs their choice.
Likewise, in regards to a particular event, such as the zombie apocalypse, my belief that it occurred historically might be shaken (assuming that Matthew intended his description to be taken literally) because it is not corroborated by any other ancient witnesses. I might have a hard time understanding how that could have happened, and yet not wanting to admit an error in scripture based on my understanding of it’s nature, I maintain that it did occur, and admit that I don’t have a good explanation for why it is not attested to elsewhere.
Refe mentioned genre, and I think that’s key here as well. With many of the examples that you mentioned, the primary question is one of hermeneutics (as Marc Cortez says here), which should inform the secondary question of historicity.
Back to the topic of post though. Ultimately in my view this is an all or nothing scenario. Either Scripture corresponds to concrete redemptive-history reality, or it is nothing more than mytho-poetic gibberish that we decide the veracity of (using different colored beads no less).
Or a simple anecdotal response which we’ve all heard: “If you can accept the first verse of the Bible, then everything that follows poses no problems.” While simplistic, and epistemologically problematic (by way of order of being and knowledge), I think there is truth to this little statement. Since God is God then “miracles,” his providence (and concursus Dei therein), and ordering of hi[s]-tory is not problematic to conceive of. Since I see Scripture as part of God’s triune speech spoken through Apostolic witness; then again, these kinds of questions ultimately have the capacity to take on an un-apologetic, and thus truly “Christian,” mode of interrogation.
I guess that leads me to another question, Brian; are you considering your questions in this post to fall under the category of apologetics, or do you see this as an issue that shapes the way you might do and think biblical study/exegesis? I see your questions having to do with apologetics, and I don’t see this method of inquiry dealing with the same kinds of questions that a Christian biblical exegete would would be engaging the text of Scripture with; do you?
Brian,
Jesus used parables to open the eyes and understanding of the disciples, when he was teaching so there is no reason that the Holy Spirit through His inspiration couldn’t have used the same method. However, when specifics such as family names, years lived, rulers of the time are used to relate the stories in place of generalities, they give historical basis to the stories. Personally, I believe they are real, especially in the case of Adam where he is specifically called out by
name in several key mentions in the genealogy of Jesus and by Paul. If these things were found to be parables would that make Jesus less historical…no. The Bible is about the character of God and His pursuit of mankind as revealed by the Holy Spirit. It is not specifically a history book, but it does contain historical information.
What an inter-est-ing question. My approach would recognize ‘the historical’ as one narrative used to explain Christianity but certainly would not accept ‘the historical’ as the grand narrative that determines the veracity of Christianity. My approach would not singularly frame truth and meaning of Christianity in the ‘modernist’ constructs of “historicity.” I re-cogn-ize that some scintilla of the past is a key that opens an encounter with God as in intended by God through His “will to knowledge” in the Sacred Scripture in the now. The tools of historiography permit me to come to the symbols of TEXT and ‘fabricate’ a facsimile from that scintilla. Yet, the importance lies in the emergence (used in the sense of Frankl’s depth psychology) of a sanctified meaning that the narrative brings to my life through the illumination of the Spirit. God’s intent in preserving that narrative and my meaning emerged from illumination is not strictly subjective but finds confirmation in community. In fact, the form of community present follows conformation to community past. You would call that tradition. So again, the scintilla of past haunts the present but isn’t perfectly constructed in the present. My point: history is a fabrication that has some affinity re-present-ed in a past occurrence. It is useful but not the ultimate arbitrator of truth and meaning. Sanctified illumination of accounts like creation, the flood, resurrection etc. serve as ‘ghosts of the past’ used by God to give my existence meaning in community and time – here and now. So, as Bultmann (yes I used that name) might query: Are you asking the right questions?
😉
I agree with Nancy in both of her replies. I think that the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ must have happened. I do not believe that Adam, Job and Jonah have to have been historical people. I would like to believe that Adam was, and there are ways to fit an historical Adam into theistic evolution/evolutionary creation. I believe that the universe and the earth are billions of years old, that Noah’s flood was local, and that the Exodus was historical. I base these conclusions on a hermeneutical approach that focuses on the genre of the passage, I use the findings of science to aid in interpreting the text, and I pay attention to what the text actually says and doesn’t say. I have gradually and reluctantly made the switch from an old earth creationist to an evolutionary creationist without that having any affect on my faith in a personal God and savior. If anything, my faith has gotten stronger as I study these issues. And I am coming to the conclusion that inerrancy has become a useless if not detrimental concept that needs to be discarded.
@Luke: What I most appreciate about your comments is that you’ve been open about presuppositions, consequences, and the tension between intellectual honesty and a commitment to Scripture. I approach it the same way you do without any real good answers at this point for how to determine what I think it historic, though aspects like genre and rhetoric play a big role (e.g. genre for the creation account of Genesis 1, rhetoric/hyperbole for the “global” flood).
@Bobby: While I see the value of the “If Genesis 1.1 is true, then…” argument it falls short for me because it fails to prove one thing: that God intended for Scripture to be perfect in its historical claims, scientific claims, and so forth. We could argue, “If Genesis 1.1 is true, then the world should be perfect and there should be no death or suffering.” While this is logical it does not account for the data in front of us.
So for example, let’s say some of the criticisms of Luke’s historical work (for example whether Quirinius was governor of Syria when Christ was born or whether the timeline allows for Gamaliel to have given his speech in Acts 5.33-39 having known about Theudas which some argue likely happened about a decade after this event sometime around c. 45 CE) are accurate. Scripture claims to be inspired and to be the Word of God, but as language works, especially human language, this would be most plausible if we understand that language is never perfect in the details, but rather it’s function is in whether or not it is communicating. So while Quirinius may not have been governor this does not mean that the Spirit failed to inform of us what would be one of the cornerstones of creedal confession: Christ was born of a virgin.
Of course, we may ask: “If Luke could be wrong about Quirinius why not about Jesus’ virgin birth?” This is a good question, but at the end of the day I think it is cemented in a particular form of biblicism that ignores God’s work in the creeds, the tradition of the church (especially the Great Tradition handed down generation after generation across groups of Christians), and other elements worth considering (the work of the Spirit in preserving essential truths while not necessarily micro-managing details).
While I see this as partially apologetics, but it is also honest reading. I think it is distinct from reading Scripture like a liberal Protestant where one is not under the text, but rather seeing “the text” as larger than each little part or every word like the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy demands (and ETS according to some).
@Nancy: Thank you for your insights. Yes, I think Scripture holds historically, but I am not so sure it has to hold historically in all these categories, at least not as we understand historicity.
The Adam question is a big one which I am thinking through. The flood for instance could have been localized and we could still call it true while acknowledging its hyperbolic nature (e.g Luke recalls people says that the apostles had turned the “whole world” upside down when we know that is a bit of an exaggeration, yet the main point is true).
@Jerome: One second, let me grab my dictionary…..OK, I’m back. 🙂
As for Bultmann, that is a good question as to whether this is the right question to ask. Let me see if I understand your answer first.
Let’s take the flood. Would you being saying that even if the flood did not happen, or did not happen as recorded, that it is still “true” because (1) when we do history we create big reconstructions from little evidence, so doing history is itself a risky venture with little reward since history is something we must create from minutiae? (2) What really matters is the narrative that emerges from the interpretations of the event set in Scripture? (3) So the flood is not about water covering the earth, but about God judging humanity? (4) This matters to us because it tells us in our own existential moment that we should be aware of God’s judgment?
….or something like this? Or did I miss your thought altogether?
@Paul: I like how you outline your thought process. I see much of my own process in yours.
Brian,
I think the only axiom from that little anecdote (Gen 1.1) worth anything is simply to highlight the capacity and ability that God has, to do what we would consider fantastical things. For example the things that you throw out in your post, like: the sun standing still or Jonah in the belly of a great sea creature, etc. These are not problems for the God of Gen. 1.1 to accomplish; instead they are problems for a culture that has recently been shaped by a rationalist, empiricist (and dualist for that matter) conception of reality. So the bigger issue for me, in re. to your question (the post), is; what is behind the “criticism” that is informing the kinds of questions that people are bringing to the text of Scripture. You somewhat applaud Paul’s comment above, and his approach illustrates exactly what I am referring to. His approach (and apparently at some level yours) seems to want to engage in what philosophers call a complimentarian methodology (not the egalitarian/complimentarian debate either); i.e. this approach wants to place various disciplines on equal footing (functionally). Meaning that the natural sciences, for example, have just as much to say about how we understand reality as does the text of Scripture. All I see in this approach is the continuation of that old medieval dictum of nature being perfected by grace. It is an attempt to decipher where nature leaves off and grace begins (i.e. where and how the text of Scripture needs to be augmented or “complemented” by the physical sciences etc.). Inherent to this framework is the intellect of man deciding what Revelation from scripture should say V. what Revelation from nature should say. I am sorry to say that this is not, in my view, reflective of a truly Christian methodology (i.e. dogmatically). A truly Christian view sees the ontology of Scripture placed in the dogmatic category of soteriology, not the philosophical category of epistemology. Ironically, it seems that the way you and Paul (respectively) are approaching such issues flows from the same kind of rationalist center that we have (in Evangelicalism) inherited from our scholastic forbears. I don’t see how you can say that what your are saying isn’t following the Liberal lead; how would you distinguish your approach from theirs, other than by asserting that it is somehow different (as you just did)?
Anyway, my suggestion would be that you don’t just dip your big toe into the theological waters when the situation calls for it (according your needs at the time); but that you dive head first into the deep end of dogmatics 🙂 .
PS. As far as the “history” that you mentioned; there are alternative readings, at least that I’ve read on Quirinius that don’t conflict with the biblical account as you have it here. Same with Gamaliel. The history and its interpretation is always in reconstruction mode. I wouldn’t want to base my theory of revelation on its shifting sands, one way or the other (and I am referring to dates, not the actual events per se).
@Bobby: Would you say that the natural sciences don’t contribute to our understanding of the world in a way comparable to Scripture? Do we still speak of cosmology as Scripture does? Of course not. This doesn’t mean Scripture is “wrong”, but merely that Scripture doesn’t attempt to address every aspect of reality. I don’t know if that has anything to do with where “nature” ends and “grace” begins, but it seems simple enough to me to recognize that Scripture doesn’t need to be a textbook on science or history to give us the truth.
As far as extraordinary events, there is nothing wrong with thinking through what Scripture says and using our minds to engage it. Sure, we come to Jonah with questions because it makes strange claims, but why is that odd and what would be wrong with asking questions of the text. To say “It’s in the Bible, therefore it had to have been a literal, historical event whether or not it seems problematic.” seems to me like mere Fundamentalism.
Even as you think through the approach to Scripture that you are advocating you are doing a lot of hard thinking. You are looking at the options, comparing them, trying to understand the consequences, and establishing a belief. While you may think that my willingness to be agnostic or even semi-skeptical about whether an event really happen (zombie apocalypse), happened as recorded (the flood), or is even recorded with the intention that we find it historical (the stories of Jonah and Job) this doesn’t (to me) seem to be radically different from your more confessional approach because I know you’ve weighed the options and using your mind decided that a certain understanding of Scripture is necessary to make your faith coherent. I don’t know that I want to follow suite since to me it seems to presuppose that Scripture demands something that I don’t know that Scripture demands of itself.
I admit that I will never be one who can “dive head first into the deep end of dogmatics” because that is exactly what the semi-cult of my youth required. While it may hinder my Christianity, and it may be considered a weakness, I have seen bad, bad things follow from going into something because, well, you’re just supposed to do it.
Finally, I’m not asking you do shift your theory of revelation. If that is what you find most faithful to being a Christian in this world who honors the authority of Scripture, that is fine. That being said, I think that truth is truth and that if Scripture was intended for us to understand something as historical, and it truly was historical, the Spirit will guide us to see that, but I can’t pretend to never have doubts or questions simply because “the Bible says it, therefore I believe it”.
Brian,
1) Scripture speaks the some way we do, still, about reality; phenomenologically. Like the language of sun set/rise etc. My concern, though (and I’m riffing of what Paul wrote still, and your tentative affirmation of it) is that is that the natural Sciences ARE being used to interpret through. Paul has become a theistic evolutionists because of this, and you seem to think that’s fine (apparently). If scripture doesn’t traffic in such things, then why would either you or Paul bring these categories to Scripture; and why would you bring the modern intellectual world’s suppositions to the text of the scripture in a way that would cause you to question the historicity of certain events (like Jonah and Job etc)? Jesus didn’t question their factuality, in the history; he didn’t use Jonah as a mytho-poetic (Bultmannian) jive to create a literary context for describing his death, burial, resurrection.
2) The resurrection of Jesus is even more strange than Jonah in the belly of a fish. So I don’t follow your logic on that one.
3) I understand you have a personal context, but you’re not the only one. As far as me being Confessional, I am not totally sure where you got that idea from. I am Free church, ecclessially, and haven’t signed any Confessions or Standards within a Confessional church context (like Pressie, or United Reformed or what have you). To be Dogmatic is to think through the grammar that the Text and Revelation of Christ presupposes; it is to not do this that I would think would qualify as cult-like. I am quite a “Free-thinker,” at least in the Evangelical world. But my dive head first into dogmatic theology wasn’t an invitation to throw your mind away—again, not sure where you got that from—but it is playing off of the fact that a major premise to your interpretive process is to engage dogmatic categories of Christology (like your Nestorian comment). I am just saying that you should be more honest and consistent with the fact that you already do work in dogmatic categories of thought (by the way Dogmatic means: the church’s orderly understanding of scripture and articulation of doctrine in the light of Christ and their coherence in him. (pace TFT); this is inescapable, as inescapable as it is that we were created for worship of God.
4) Brian, I have gone through deep doubts over the years myself. I simply believe there are reasonable ways to think of Scripture in the way that the Tradition has for centuries; and not bow the knee to modern (Teutonic) biblical higher criticism.
I am just surprised to see you move in the ways that you are, apparently. I hearken back to your discussion with Thom Starke not too long ago. Your position, or at least questions have moved closer to him, it seems; and thus I am somewhat surprised. Like I said earlier, I’ll follow the “way” Jesus understood these things; I will also follow the theological motifs present in the text, and how someone like the Apostle Paul reinterprets those themes in light of the incarnation and atonement of Christ. The fact that the historicity of the 1st Adam is significant for Paul’s 2nd Adam motif.
@Bobby:
(1) I should note that the comparisons to Starke are not helpful in this conversation. It would be like me noting some sort of similarity between your understanding of how Scripture functions and then saying you are like the fundamentalist as far to the right as you can go.We are not saying one and the same thing simply because there are similarities. What I am saying is that Scripture is always trustworthy in proclaiming the Gospel and the macro-message of what it communicates is true and accurate, but that it is OK if a small historical detail here or there proves unlikely or extremely difficult to reconcile with what we know from science and/or history.
All I see when you mention Starke is the threat of a slippery slope. Starke begins on the opposite end. He presumes Scripture is generally untrustworthy and he seems to think that the macro-message is misguided as well. He presumes that various details will be inaccurate and that we will find these errors frequently.
My main criticism of Starke is that he wouldn’t listen to when people who hold a high view of Scripture provide their solution and that he was extremely uncouth in his responses. If someone can reconcile or they find a good reconciliation for a historical Adam and Eve and the findings of modern science I want to hear it. I seek those solutions. I am a friend of those seeking to find how Scripture is truthful, but I don’t think that it requires that I close my eyes if something seems inaccurate like this or that detail of chronology and the like.
In fact, many who claim inerrancy do this very thing, they will attribute the oddness of this or that passage to genre. At times I agree, but I don’t come to it from the confessional stance that it must be genre.
(2) I don’t think Paul was a theistic evolutionist, but I am conversing with those on both sides who are asking whether or not we can reconcile evolution with how Paul interprets Adam and Eve. In other words, I am not committed to the theological conclusions of many Reformed groups where Adam must have been an actual person for Paul’s theological point to remain accurate. I want to hear both sides of this debate and not shut out another side simply because my presuppositions about how Scripture functions lead me to think there is only option A or B when C may be available.
(3) Why do I bring categories to Scripture that people in the ancient world did not? Simple, I live now. I come from my culture. I hear the claims of my world. To plug my ears and not ask how this impacts my reading of Scripture seems odd to me. It makes me no different that any cultist, any Mormon, any Jehovah’s Witness, any Muslim, and any one else who I think refuses to be honest about their doubts and questions to the extent that they may embrace error without even knowing it.
Again, remember, I was raised around a cult. Anyone who says, “If you doubt these things, or leave the door open to question these things, you may not be a Christian” loses a hearing with me. I’ve heard those claims before from people who affirm many absurdities.
(4) Oddness is not my main criteria. Since Jesus’ resurrection is odd and Jonah being swallowed by a whale is odd do you think that is my criteria for wondering if the story of Jonah happened? If so, I’m not sure why. First, while Jonah is mentioned elsewhere there is no mention of this event anywhere else. Second, there is no mention of it in Assyrian literature. Third, it has very parabolic elements that at least leave the door open for it being parabolic in nature much like other literature from the Second Temple Period where major figures of Jewish history are made the main character of a narrative with a moral. And I say all that to say that I don’t necessarily doubt Jonah’s trip, but I can see why others may, and I am open to their solution that it is parabolic even if I am fairly comfortable with its historicity myself (and I will add that even if Jonah was alluded to by Jesus without clarification that he didn’t think the story was history this is neither here nor there since the Evangelist record this or that speech without giving us the full bodied explanation of everything Jesus did or taught). Likewise, I am not saying Job must be ahistorical. Neither do I argue that it must be historical. It has all the characteristics of something like a drama, so I am comfortable with someone arguing that it is such.
(5) When I said “confessional” I meant nothing of what you just wrote. In fact, I have no idea what you are saying since I pay attention to different denominations only as much as I must. I meant you come with the confessional stance that Scripture is inerrant and that this means it will not say anything contrary to what happened in history or what is true of science.
As far as an invitation to dogmatics, there is an aspect of what you say that I already embrace: the Great Tradition. The basic creedal affirmations that we find coming across all major groups of Christians like the Apostle’s Creed, Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and to some extent what I understand about Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II (though this last one is somewhat troublesome to me since it seems to place veneration of icons as almost a necessary part of worship).
Brian,
1) I know you aren’t like Starke, nor in his camp. My only point with that was that the kinds of questions you are entertaining sound a lot like what I might expect to hear from him. But that comparison is awry, so forget it; I know you’re not in the same place as the antagonist, Starke.
It seems like to me that the burden of proof isn’t on those who would think that Adam and Eve are historical people, but those who don’t. I am ready to see the evidence for why they are not; when someone can provide that for me then I will reject my current position that Adam and Eve were historical people. I have no reason to think they weren’t; and the only reason I can think of for why people today would question that is because of naturalistic interpretations of the text of Scripture.
2) No, I meant commenter Paul Bruggink is a theistic evolutionist; not the Apostle. It is good to keep your options open, but I have concluded that Paul’s argument assumes the historicity of Adam since he makes a personal correlation between the 1st and 2nd. I’ve heard the arguments against this, but I don’t find them persuasive at all! That said, I’m sure that I don’t find them persuasive because of prior macro-hermeneutical principles that I am committed to.
3) Who said anything about plugging your ears? What it seems like you are plugging your ears to, though, is the impact that the categories you are bringing to the text (from today) is having upon the way you are potentially reading the text. That’s what my point was. The questions you are bringing to the text have taken shape through a labyrinth of development in the modern era (which you know). They, to be frank, are a result of rationalist hermeneutics. I’m sure this is where we part ways.
4) Yes, I spent a semester teaching Jonah for Ray Lubeck; I am more than familiar with all of the views on that little book 😉 . I guess I just don’t share your sympathy for competing viewpoints on this issue. I, though, am also not a fan of reading Scripture through a Lindbeckian cultural-lingusitic (or even structuralist) framework; wherein Scripture represents a free-floating world of its own. My understanding of God’s Providence and salvation history delimits this detached way of thinking as an impossibility for me.
5) I am not necessarily an inerrantist, Brian; at least not in the way that you seem to be thinking. There are various nuances within the inerrancy camp, actually (Millard Erickson—who in the main I don’t really appreciate[I mean his theology]—provides a good itemization on this), and so it is not helpful to talk as if all inerrantists are the same (which I would think you would know as a student at Western Seminary). Nevertheless, to use the language of Confessional has certain connotations, and so you’ll have to understand why I am confused at the loose way you were using it in your comment. My concern comes from the fact that I am a critical realist, and thus I see the particularization of things in salvation history correlated to the concrete particularization of the incarnation of the eternal Logos. In other words, the intelligibility and historicity of all of the “stories” found in the Hebrew Bible are important because in my view they bear witness to and find their “substance” (as the shadows) in Christ. If we want to denude the Bible of its historicity then to be consistent we might as well apply that same hatchet to Jesus and the Apostles. What I see you, entertaining (maybe, that might be too strong), is a kind of demythologizing of the text of Scripture; and thus reference to someone like Bultmann is apropos.
I am happy to hear that you do indeed affirm all of the councils and ecumenical creeds; I do too 🙂 !
This is a question which i have considered but not given as much time as i should. Ive done a lot of thinking on the historical Jesus during my second year and am dealing with a couple of historical questions this year in OT theology for my degree.
For a while i thought the only thing you need to make Xianity work is the resurrection. Without it there would be no Paul no early church and no theologizing (why give thought to a failed messiah – cf. Bar Kochba). But then the resurrection is so heavily tied in to the Jewish narrative and eschatological thinking that you cant have resurrection alone, you have to have it as part of a wider story which is the story of God’s interation with Israel at least since abrahamic covenant. Without abrahamic covenant, Israel is not God’s people and there is no grand narrative for Jesus to finish.
I certainly dont believe in inerrancy, and dont approach the biblical narrative to get some kind of pure ‘history’ out of it (even those parts who’s genre is ‘history’). I would agree with the majority of NT scholars and people like Childs in OT scholarship that the Text is primarily about faith and uses what we call ‘history’ to get that faith across.
@Bobby Grow (October 1 at 3:16 pm):
1) I don’t understand why people have a problem with using science as one of the many tools at our disposal to HELP us to interpret Scripture as best we can.
2) One of the ways in which the resurrection of Jesus is different from Jonah in the belly of a fish is that the resurrection of Jesus has been pretty well established historically, and I’m not aware that we can say the same thing for Jonah in the belly of a fish. God intervened in history at least several truly significant times (the creation, the incarnation, the resurrection, and the ascension) and undoubtedly many, many additional times. The first four are historical events, not subject to any slippery slope. We can haggle over Jonah, the extent of Noah’s flood, and how we might interpret Scripture based on a non-historical Adam, but none of this haggling is essential for salvation. But ignoring the findings of science and insisting on specific interpretations of Scripture runs the risk of turning off a lot of people. Alternatively, offering to people who happen to accept the evidence of biological evolution some possible interpretations of Scripture that complement their interpretations of the scientific data removes a potentially significant roadblock on their way to acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Heaven knows there’s already more than one interpretation of Scripture, or we wouldn’t have books like Boyd & Eddy’s “Across the Spectrum” or “Three, Four and Five (biblically supported) Views on (fill in the doctrine)” or hundreds of denominations.
@Paul,
1) Because, the natural sciences reflect an independent subject of inquiry from God’s Self-revelation, or Theological Science. Because the only place we can know God is from God-self in Christ (not creation). Theologically I reject what is called the “analogy of being” (or analogia entis); it has had deleterious effects upon on our understanding of God and subsequently salvation.
2) According to II Kings 14:25 Jonah is a historical and flesh and blood prophet. What is problematic for you in supposing that Jonah literally was preserved by God in the belly of a fish (he preserves each and every one of us in the belly of our mothers for 9 mos). I simply don’t see the problem; unless someone is an atheist or naturalist (philosophically, which a Christian in my view cannot be simpliciter). I’m not Pelagian enough to follow the argument from the consequence that suggests that belief in the miraculous should be softened in order to meet the “felt” intellectual needs of a certain demographic in our society; in the name of salvation. In other words, I don’t buy the intellectual barrier argument you are suggesting, Paul. Nobody has to ignore the science; science isn’t monolith, the data is singular. But you need to take your same logic that you are using for multiple interpretations of Scripture and realize that this is also a reality for Scientific interpretation of the data as well. There often seems to be this uncritical acceptance by the populace that the real Science only allows for one interpretation; says who?
We just disagree, Paul.
@Bobby,
1) But God did not reveal everything about the universe in the Bible. The Bible is not a book of science. It is a book of theology: how to find our way to and develop a relationship with God.
2A) I am not aware of any scientist who is foolish enough to say that “real Science” allows for only one interpretation. Of course the data of science have to be interpreted, and there is a long history in science of incorrect and multiple interpretations, just as there has been for the Bible. But when 99+% of scientists (40% of them Christian) agree on an interpretation, it is reasonable to accept that interpretation of science, just as it is reasonable to accept particular interpretations of the Bible when there is significant agreement among theologians, since it is impossible for any individual person to have expertise in everything.
2B) The analogy of Jonah in the belly of a fish and a fetus in a woman’s womb is irrelevant. A woman’s womb was designed to hold a fetus. And I am not claiming that Jonah was not historical, only that whether or not he actually spent three days in the belly of a fish is not crucial to my Christian faith.
2C) God gave us two books: Scripture and nature. Man’s interpretations of them can of course be in conflict, but only because they are both man’s interpretations. And I am not claiming that nature (science) is greater than Scripture, only that it can sometimes be helpful in interpretating Scripture. Why are you so afraid of science?
Paul,
1) Then why would you interpret the Bible with the natural sciences; if they are distinct? Why must they be complimentary as you have them?
2) I was only identifying general contours of thought. In that vein, which the rest of your point illustrates; there is a basic understanding amongst peer reviewed science. That is, neo-Darwinian evolution. I’m not sure where you got your stats, but no matter.
3) With my little cheezy analogy, I am only highlighting that with God all things are possible.
4) I am not afraid of science; I just think each has their own place. To be truly scientific one should work within the realm of each subjects own categories of inquiry. It isn’t scientific to mix metaphysical with the physical; at least methodologically. You should give that more thought maybe.
peace, Paul.
Bobby,
As you said earlier, we just disagree. Thank you for an interesting dialogue.
Regards,
Paul
Paul,
Thank you.
Last month, Daniel Kirk engaged his readers on almost the same basis with the question: What must we believe to be a Christian? Which of course brings up the question how do we become a Christian? If we had to wait to believe everything the Bible said, there would be very few Christians and these would most likely be very old… Unfortunately even after claiming the Name, Christians quite often remain pretty much ignorant of what the Bible says….When I desired to begin my journey, I had herd of some of the your listed items/events, but not all of them and I certainly didn’t know enough to be able to break the scriptures into any sort of category, so the actual question we were perhaps trying to answer IMO is how did we get to be a Christian…what MUST we believe? And then there’s the all important…How do I keep my standing…in the light of what is known through science, history and living in the “real” world…*; )
@Brian saying “Let’s take the flood. Would you being saying that even if the flood did not happen, or did not happen as recorded, that it is still “true” because (1) when we do history we create big reconstructions from little evidence, so doing history is itself a risky venture with little reward since history is something we must create from minutiae? (2) What really matters is the narrative that emerges from the interpretations of the event set in Scripture? (3) So the flood is not about water covering the earth, but about God judging humanity? (4) This matters to us because it tells us in our own existential moment that we should be aware of God’s judgment?” For clarity, I see historical used in three senses. The first, for example the flood, was a real historical event-it matters. The second, oral tradition eventually written down in Semitic symbol brings the author’s illuminated interpretative construct to that tradition. His personal memories recalled were filtered through his subjective lens of life to construct his mental pictures emerged by God’s moving. The human author constructed the flood account with details important to the ‘salvation history’ of mankind but not necessarily to cover every ‘jot and tittle’ of our geological investigations in modernity, all family constructs of the authors time, and all tribal constructs of ‘Noah’s time.’ These three are different historical constructs of an actual event with different narratives giving meaning to observations of an ever-changing data point. The third sense of historical is that of the reader with all his/her historical structures brought to an event. That event is tethered to some real but distant occurrence that matters. It is however an event and a narrative that God intended to use to meet each reader in their encounter with Him in the text, that is the big fish-what in the end really matters. Thus, “(3) judgmen” may well be one of the layered intentions in the text that God desired in that encounter if it furthers the reader’s salvation. When studied later, that encounter in the text takes on different meaning dependent on the readers deepened personal history in the moment, a different construct if you will. (This is one of the reason that accounts for the change in your opinion on Romans in 20 years from the day you submitted it.) So, yes in the reading of the flood a reconnoitering of judgment, mercy, salvation, death, resurrection, baptism etc may all be part of what really matters through the emerging construct that the Spirit woos the reader toward personally and in community. What really matters, what is really the sine qua non, is the transformation of the reader toward reflecting the glory of the One met in the text. The rest is inter-est-ing (three senses of the historical) and worthy of study but not at the expense of the sine qua non. Constructs of history are keys that open the ‘doors to the sacred’ important keys but they are just keys. Finding out the reason why God wooed the reader through those doors of the text and acting in obedience upon that reason, that is what really counts because more than likely, it counts forever ;-).
ps Brian – if obtuse beyond the usual … another lunch is in order
@Bobby :
(1) I don’t know if it is as easy as saying that we have “naturalistic interpretations of Scripture” when we debate within ourselves the historicity of Adam and Eve anymore than when we proscribe the ancient cosmology to phenomenology rather than scientific insight. There is some difference, obviously, but many who wrestle with this are trying to ask how Scripture interacts with evidence from genetics, DNA, the human genome, and a bunch of things I know little about.
(2) Thanks for clarifying the identity of “Paul”. I was wondering why that was mentioned.
(3) As far as rationalist hermeneutics are concerned, sure, maybe, I don’t know. All I know is if I have questions I am going to explore them to seek answers. If that is rationalistic so be it.
@Danesh: You make a great observation that there is more to it than Jesus’ resurrection. His resurrection has a context. I think we should start with his resurrection, but you are absolutely correct that it’s meaning is not found in a vacuum.
@Nancy : This is a huge question and one I ask myself often. I am a loyalist to Christ and I live in my world. What does it mean to be faithful to our King, to worship him, to affirm what he wants us to affirm, and to still be in this world but not of it.
@Jerome: I think I follow, but I think a lunch is in order! At this juncture I am hearing that the flood happened, though the degree to which it covered the earth or the details of the description of the event are secondary to what God is saying through the author’s retelling, and that the author’s retelling carries the message that is necessary for us to hear in our context.
Has nobody blogged a response? If so, shoot me an email with it so I can include it in the carnival.
@Tom: No responses of which I am aware.
Responded: http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/brian-leport-asks-how-much-of-your-christianity-can-be-ahistorical/
@Tom: Thanks for the link. I’ll read it.
@Brian: Wallah 😉
Here’s my response from the other side: How much a-historicity was enough to convince me that Christianity is wrong?
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-atlanta/how-much-of-the-bible-must-be-historical-to-believe-christianity
Excerpt:
Of course, science has completely debunked the idea of Adam and Eve. My first course in evolutionary biology confirmed that. This discovery was the first giant chunk taken out of my faith in Christianity. Quite simply, if there was no “first couple,” whence comes original sin? If there was no original sin, why did Jesus die? (If there was no original sin, did Jesus die?!)
@William: As far as a historical Adam and Eve are concerned that is a serious debate in Christians circles, and yes, for some, if there is no literal Adam their Christianity could crumble, but what you say here assumes a lot about people’s theological systems, their view of original sin, their understanding of models of atonement, and so forth. In other words, the lack of a literal Adam may devastate the Christianity you mention, but not all Christians affirm those things (at least the way you present them).
Brian, for shame! I did not speak to other Christians’ beliefs. I clearly stated that this was a recount of MY journey away from Christianity. Obviously, that would entail rejecting Christianity as I perceived it. (And since I’m still atheist, it does necessitate that I have not found a compelling version of Christianity to replace it.)
But since you brought it up, I’d be happy to hear an alternative. Can you tell me about a prominent version of Christianity which either does not rely on original sin or reconciles original sin with the non-existence of original sinners? I am not aware of any mainstream movement which successfully does either.
@William: Many have been exploring the possibility that Paul’s theological point stand even if there was not a historical Adam. For instance, in Romans 1.18-32 and 5.12-21 we have two version of essentially the same message: all humans are corporately together while sinning individually. Paul unpacks this in chapters two and three with much emphasis on everyone’s individual sinning bringing them into corporate rebellion against God.
Adam works perfectly as a representative, yet Paul is quick to note that though all didn’t sin just like Adam, all have sinned, and therefore they are against God. Each individual must individually come to faith in Christ, but once they do they have (as said elsewhere) “gone from then Kingdom of Darkness to the Kingdom of Light”. Or they’ve gone from the humanity represented by the character Adam to that represented by Jesus.
Now it is a legitimate critique that is Adam wasn’t real how can he be compared to Jesus, but at least this provides a glimpse of how the conversation has been going in many circles.
So if I understand correctly, some Christians believe that Adam was a metaphor to explain to humans that all humans are sinful? That seems… extraneous. If all humans are sinful, and there was no “fall,” why not just say… “all humans are sinful”? Why the use of a metaphor that doesn’t reflect reality? What moral lesson am I supposed to learn from the non-existent original man who didn’t commit an original sin, but somehow represents the corrupt nature that humans were created with?
While I’m on the subject, if there was no original man (here I’m assuming you understand evolution well enough to know that there is simply no way to point to the “first” human), who do these Christians believe was the first human unlucky enough to have to believe a story to avoid eternal punishment? (Or do they also not believe in a literal hell? If not, why should I believe?)
@William: More like Adam is a figurative representative of all sinful, fallen humans. In Romans 1.18-32 there are many aspects of this passage that seem to have Adam in mind (e.g. knowing God from the creation of the world; worshiping the very animals listed in Genesis 1.20-27 LXX as idols), yet each person is responsible. So the main point is that the character of Adam is a useful figure to juxtapose to Christ since Adam would represent all humans not right with God and Christ would represent all humans right with God.
As far as your second question, I don’t know.
Fallen from where to where? The act of falling requires being someplace higher than where you end up, right? So how does that square with the lack of a first human? Did God arbitrarily decide that some paleolithic human had to perform a task, and then punish humanity when he failed? If not, what do these Christians believe was the “non-sinful” state from which humans fell? It seems odd to propose that man who had barely discovered fire was capable of much sin, at least in a modern sense. In fact, it seems that if man was behaving approximately like other social apes, his world would have been far less “sinful” than any current society.
But I digress. Assuming that paleo-man was one or two baby steps above chimps or bonobos in terms of cognitive ability, does that mean that these non-Adam Christians believe that a non-sentient state is pristine, and that the ability to reason abstractly is sinful? That would square with the metaphor of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If this is true, can we reasonably say that their god punished man for becoming smart enough to decide whether or not to believe that Jesus sacrificed himself to forgive man for becoming smart enough to decide whether or not to believe? That doesn’t sound like a very compelling reason to believe.
@William: Wow, you sure are quite the literalist with language. Let’ see: if Adam represented some ideal state from which he fell when he disobeyed God, and everyone reenacts this drama in their own lives, then it must be assumed that they fall from some state of innocence at birth. Phenomenologically speaking I think we all recognize the difference from our early innocence to our current state. As we gain knowledge, and as we begin to think in terms of good and evil, we find ourselves in a state of being that lacks that innocence and that neutrality. We may call it a fall.
But I am not necessarily answering from the perspective of someone who rejects a historical Adam since I am willing to hold in tension biblical claims knowing that there may lack evidence (obviously I don’t come from the same place epistemologically as you do where I find the evidence against some Adam-figure to be damning beyond possibility). So maybe I need to invite a guest blogger who passionately holds this position to post so you can interact with someone whose more invested in this position.
I’d appreciate that, Brian. If you do find such a blogger, you can notify me on Facebook.
So far, I can’t find anything philosophically compelling in your presentation. Let’s suppose that Adam’s fall represents the neurological development of an infant who becomes a sentient adult. (That seems to be your suggestion.) Since humans are unique in only one cognitive ability — second order thought, the ability to think about thinking — and since humans are apparently the only animals who need to be saved from sin, we must assume that sin arises from second order thought.
I can buy that to a degree. If I do not know that I am treating someone unfairly, and if I do not consciously decide to do something unfair, I can hardly be accused of wrongdoing. So… I’ll buy the fall, and the acquisition of knowledge as the catalyst for the fall, metaphorically speaking. So… that still leaves some problems with the Biblical metaphor. Is there a real Satan/Lucifer/Evil deity or demigod? If not, what does the serpent represent? Why is the woman the catalyst for the man’s sin? Does god not approve of women, or is there some egalitarian message I can glean from studying the story as a metaphor?
I’ll even buy (to a certain degree) the metaphor of women suffering in childbirth as punishment for “original sin.” It has been hypothesized that humans stood upright as part of the process of developing our big brains. So… the inefficient hip rotation and oversized baby heads that resulted from our brain development could be seen as the facts behind the metaphor of Eve’s punishment.
But… what’s the moral message behind a God who punishes man for being smart, and singles out women for inefficient reproductive design based on his arbitrary selection of intelligence as the measure of evil?
While I understand that you are neither qualified nor interested in answering these questions, I would like you to consider them from the point of view that I recalled in my article. My original point was relatively simple: Given the gross inaccuracies of the Bible with regard to history, science, and even basic geography, why should I trust it with regard to the existence of its central figure, and why should I believe that the metaphors it supposedly represents are eternal metaphysical truths, and not just Bronze Age man’s attempts to understand his universe with an unscientific perspective?
Having digested this question, assuming we CAN invent a suitable metaphorical interpretation of the Genesis story, why should we then conclude that since there is a reasonable interpretation, there is also objective truth in the existence of the god character?
Ack… forgot my main question. Regardless of the answers to any of the above questions, we are still left with the tricky question of who was the first human unlucky enough to be held accountable for getting smarter. What do you think the answer is? (Or do you believe in an actual Adam and Eve and an actual fall?)
Hmmm…while I’m not really into the charismatics of spiritual discernment, for some reason I sense a bate and switch plot “evolving”…
William: I asked on Facebook and Twitter if anyone would be interested in writing a guest post defending the historicity of Adam or Adam as metaphor. I hope to get some volunteers who are confident in their position. I am wrestling with the arguments from both sides right now, so I wouldn’t be the best person to present either side. If I find takers I will leave a comment here letting you know.
Nancy, what do you think I’m going to switch to? I can’t reconcile the literal story of Adam and Eve with any sort of morality I find compelling, nor with any evolutionary event I know of. As a metaphor, it doesn’t seem much better. If the beginning of the Christian story doesn’t make sense as either literal history or a metaphor… well… why should I believe the rest of the story?
It’s a very straightforward question.
Brian: Thanks very much. Please let me know if you get any takers.
@William: Will do.
@William, Sorry, mostly when someone sees Adam and Eve as neither, historical nor metaphorical, the conversation switches to evolution there after. I’m glad that Brian will have another post arranged for discussion.
The earth is huge. The sun is orders of magnitude larger. Our galaxy has 200 billion suns. Our universe has 600 sextillion suns. What would prove that God created those and that Jesus was his personal represenative?
A virgin birth? Modern medicine can do that with great regularity. No miracle there.
Feed a crowd with a fish and a bottle of wine? I bet that’s a challenge that Rachel Rae would willingly take on.
There’s a huge disparity in magnitude here. If some Las Vegas stage magician proved conclusively that in fact every illusion that he performed was in fact real magic, would you also believe his claim that he created the Universe? or that he could grant you eternal life?
Before attempting to prove the truth of Christianity, it is necessary to prove life after death. There is apparently no mechanism whereby personality, memory or self survives the death of the brain — indeed, it can not generally survive even damage to the brain. If that is not true, then Christianity is disproved. Moreover, I’d argue, if there is no life-after-death, then the whole question of whether God exists is barely interesting.
Using a plain text reading, the Bible itself says everything from Genesis 1-6 comes to us through Noah and/or his family. That portion of the Bible is the way they remember being told about it; there is no claim this is a factually accurate recounting, merely that it is True insofar as God created the world, etc.
Big hunks of details are left out, but then big hunks are left out in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles (which invite the reader to refer to now lost books for a fuller account of the events they relate) and even the Gospel (John famously remarks there wouldn’t be enough room in the world to contain all the books needed if everything Christ did was written down).
So the Bible never makes a claim to be a complete account of everything.
Further, continuing with a plain text reading, we are told that with the tower of Babel, languages were created to sow confusion. There is no evidence this confusion does not include the portions of the Bible preceding the tower story.
What is interesting is that once Abram appears, great care in taking in recording genealogies & lines of inheritance b/c now there was a covenant relationship between God and Abram/Abraham’s bloodline/s.
The first mention of writing and/or written records comes in Exodus, long after the Israelites have left Egypt.
Personally, I believe everything recounted in Genesis before Abraham reflects a Truth but not necessarily a fact; I think, for instance, there was a great flood event that was the basis of the Noah story, but as to exactly what that event was, no one can tell at this date.
I think the record is more historically accurate from Abraham on (though still ambiguous in places), and the accounts in Exodus forward are historically reliable.
Most of the miracles in the Bible seem to consist to people being in the right place at the right time. As God exists outside of time and space as we humans comprehend it, I don’t think He necessarily has to interfere or suspend the laws of science to create His miracles, merely get people be where they need to be (physically, chronologically, and spiritually) to benefit from same.
It’s important to remember that most 1st century Christians were uneducated and illiterate.
Even those who were educated and wealthy had limited access to a small number of books that appear in todays ‘Bible’. They mostly went off of what they witnessed 1st hand and what was told to them by others. So alot of their faith was not based on whether or not all or some of the Bible was 100% true, most never even read more than half of it.
Here are 2 scriptures that are great food for thought:
I think the line of ‘how much?’ is subjective and is different for each person.
John 20:29 and the whole chapter really, but the main point is that at some point you have to say I have seen enough evidence to take the step of faith.
1 Corinthians 15 Pauls arguement describes the minimum of what Christians have to believe to be true and also why people don’t believe.
And of course a non biblical quote that everyone reading this is familiar with:
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
I know this doesn’t answer the question, but I hope it helps.
We will never have all the knowledge/evidence we need and at some point a leap of faith is required.
We all are jurors in the grandest of court cases, we are witnessing two great lawyers go head to head and have to ultimately be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, despite a lack of evidence. It works in our courts, why not in our minds?