The blog of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersmen recently posted an article entitled, “When Reading the Bible, Do you Really Understand?”
In the article, the retired Rev. Howard Bess asks a series of excellent questions to guide one’s reading of the Bible. Who wrote this passage? When did he write? To and for whom did he write it? What were the circumstances of the writing? What literary devices did the author use? In other words, Bess encourages Bible readers to consider both historical context and literary sensibilities. So far, so good.
But, I don’t think Bess ends up at the right conclusions. He asserts that story and history are different things, and thus he concludes that Bible narratives presented as stories must not be historical. He likewise asserts that the Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 (narratives of the birth of Jesus) cannot be reconciled with each other, and thus cannot be historical. He asserts the same thing about the resurrection narratives in the four Gospels.
I urge you to read the article and consider Bess’s arguments. Consider: How does he get off track? How would you respond to someone who draws similar conclusions about the Bible’s historicity?
