Randy Alcorn, eternal perspectives, and a biblical Christmas
In the latest edition of eternal perspectives (Fall/Winter 2017), Randy Alcorn writes two articles. The first is “Answering Claims That The Bible Contains Errors.” The second is titled, “A Light Has Dawned: Reflections at Christmastime on the Light of Jesus.” Alcorn’s first article takes the standard conservative approach to the biblical text, claiming “if we can’t rely on it [the Bible] to tell us the truth in everything it speaks to—then it cannot be, as 2 Timothy 3 says, ‘profitable’ for us.” He concludes, “If the Bible cannot be trusted to tell us the truth in all things—big or small—how can it be trusted at all?”
Alcorn’s dilemma is a Western paradigm problem. His question about truth contains a fundamental error about Scripture. Alcorn supposes that “truth” in the Bible means accurately reporting historical and scientific fact. In other words, Alcorn’s view of truth is based in the Greek/Western idea of correspondence. A proposition is true only insofar as it reports the correct correspondence to reality. If it does not correspond to reality, then it is false. The issue, of course, is this: “Who defines reality?”
Alcorn actually uses the ambiguity of “reality” in his answer to the claim that the Bible is in error when it reports that Jesus claimed the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. He points out that the statement by Jesus is not a scientific one. It is an analogy about spiritual matters, not botanical ones. In other words, the “reality” of the claim is shifted from science to spirit, and therefore, the claim is still true. But on the surface, the claim appears to be false. Only by reinterpreting the corresponding reality can Alcorn uphold the biblical truth. Since he makes this shift with the mustard seed, why can’t he do the same thing with the wife of Cain or the fulfillment of prophecy (two issues he raises as examples)? Apparently the Bible must follow the correspondence idea when it comes to history. Why? Because Alcorn’s view of history is about “facts,” not spiritual matters. So Cain must have married a sister or a niece since there were no other females available. In other words, the Genesis account is history and that means everything about it must be historically accurate. It must report correspondence to actual events or it would be false.
Alcorn’s view of history depends on the same Western paradigm. Historical truth means accurately reporting an event. Since he assumes that the Bible follows the same paradigm, events in the biblical record must have happened exactly as the Bible reports them or the Bible is false. But this view ignores the purpose of the report. This view assumes that the reason for the narrative is to report historical events. But if this is not the purpose of the narrative, then the need for event accuracy isn’t the priority of the text.
As an example, if the purpose of Genesis account is to provide the children of Israel with answers to fundamental questions about their existence, purpose and obligation, then the stories of the Genesis account must be evaluated on this basis, not on the assumption that the text intends to record event accuracy. Let’s take the story of Adam and Eve as a test.
What if we viewed the story of Adam and Eve as legend, not history? What is the purpose of this legend? As legend it answers some fundamental questions, but none of these answers depend on historical accuracy. It tells the children of Israel that their God is the only God, that He is responsible for the creation of all human beings, that they are accountable to Him for their actions, and that disobedience has long-lasting generational consequences. All of these answers are “true” without the necessity of event accuracy. In fact, the point of a legend is not historical but rather ontological.
Alcorn’s mistake is a common one. Because he believes the Bible must be history, he dismisses other forms of literature found throughout the ancient world. He presupposes that the Bible shares contemporary ideas of history, accuracy and truth. But ancient literature and ancient authors did not share this Greek view of the world. Alcorn’s dismissal of the purpose of the text from an ancient perspective forces him into historical gymnastics like the explanation about Cain’s wife.
What’s even more interesting is the implication for his second article about Christmas. With reference to Tim Keller, Alcorn basically suggests that the birth of Jesus at Christmas “can’t trump joy or diminish the light that dawned at Christ’s incarnation.” Suddenly historical accuracy is put on the shelf. Any real investigation of Christmas would have demonstrated that this event has nothing to do with the birth of the Messiah. Furthermore, the claim about the “incarnation” is pure anachronism. Somehow Alcorn forgot about the necessity of biblical truth when it comes to Christmas. Ah, tradition triumphs again. The legend of Christmas is accepted as biblical because it serves its purpose, but, of course, Genesis must be history.
My juvenile self went “ooooooooo! Boom! Drop mike… walk away” ….. then I felt sad. Sad for them with the twisting and manipulation of G-d. Sad because of the very “gymnastics” my very own mind did and continues to try and do to scripture having been raised in that Greek mindset. So many of my extended family members “tolerate” my Biblical Holy Days and click tongues as I observe Shabbat. I remember only the bipolar nature of this particular situation…. is it Santa? Is it Jesus? Why both? Doesn’t matter to me anymore as I am beyond that and have moved to deeper things.
Thanks for this Skip. Interesting for me to see shifts in paradigms. Thank you for the mental state I’ve been in for some time now. My shift is palpable to many around me and I see, when they ask me for insight, their paradigm shifting begin. It’s exhilarating and frightening at the same time. Like a roller coaster. Like birth. Like life.
A legend is “a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but unauthenticated.”
So it seems to me, you are saying Genesis is not authenticated, but also, NEITHER should it be regarded as historical. That makes it even less than a legend.
I am open to everything you write but I don’t see how this helps me understand why Genesis was written the way it was. I would be especially skeptical if I were a Hebrew slave when Moses apparently said something like this, None of what I am telling you has any historical accuracy and it is all based on an unauthenticated source but, follow me into the desert and all will be fine.
How does a legend answer fundamental questions without some kind of historical accuracy? How did it convince the Israelites, “that their God is the only God, that He is responsible for the creation of all human beings, that they are accountable to Him for their actions, and that disobedience has long-lasting generational consequences?”
I remain open to all kinds of non-traditional interpretation but for me, calling it a legend makes it less believable, not more so.
The definition you use for “legend” is popular, but not what I mean (nor what is generally understood in academia). I could have used the terms “deep myth” but that probably would have caused even more confusion. Here’s what I mean: Genesis is the story of the foundation beliefs of the Hebrews. It was most likely handed down orally before it was committed to writing (when this happened is another question). Some of these stories most likely have historical background (like Isaac, Joseph). But some of them are “deep myth”, that is, explanations that don’t require “historical” events but offer answers to the basic questions of life. Like the Genesis 1-3 account. Sorting this out is part of the examination process. What we don’t want to do is get into the “all or nothing” thinking, i.e., if some part of it isn’t based on historical events then all of it isn’t. What this means is that Adam and Eve don’t have to be real people, and the ONLY actually human beings on the planet, for the story to accomplish its purpose–to tell us about basic relationships, the origin of divine-human interaction, the beginning of sin, etc. But Abraham, Isaac, etc. are of a different ilk.
Virtually all of the ancient world has “legends” like this. Other cultures produce the same kinds of stories. Are we to assume that the Hebrews were unique in the use of oral tradition in that they were the only ones who based their stories of origin on actual events? Are to we assume that Hebrew authors were the only ones interested in the “facts”? Or that they shared OUR view of what makes history? You can see the problem. If we look at ancient literature as a whole, we do see difference in the Hebraic view, but the reason we have so much trouble with the similarities is not because of the accounts but because of OUR doctrine of inspiration which anachronistically re-reads the ancient texts. For more on this, see The Old Testament in light of ancient near-eastern thought (or something like this, I can’t remember the author at the moment).
Would it be John Walton?
Yes, sorry I forgot his name.
I’m going to shift the conversation from Genesis to Revelation and the question, “Who defines reality”? I’m reminded of what Jacques Ellul said in his fine commentary, “Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation”, when he pointed out a certain truth-reality relationship unique in the Apocalypse, to quote him: It is important that we make the distinction between truth and reality. Jesus Christ’s work is the very work of truth. He is truth but when he came into the world of reality, reality did not receive but rejected him, truth. Yet this does not annul the fact that his incarnation was the entrance of truth into the real world and that his death and resurrection are the victory of that truth. The powers of darkness have been defeated and have no more power to keep truth from existing (Jn.1:5), from acting and from fulfilling itself. But this truth has penetrated reality at only one point, the incarnation of Christ….which from a realistic standpoint was a total failure. Christ’s victory is not visible in the world of reality, there is no obvious proof. This reality though submitted to truth is still what the defeated powers claim as their domain and makes vain attempts to conquer the truth through deception and to assert that their reality is truth. Thus we must accept the fact that the powers defeated by Christ are still at work, that they refuse to admit their defeat and are struggling more violently than ever. But this is where man’s work lies…to help bring truth and reality together….such is man’s true calling. Ellul also states that “in heaven” the miracle of Christmas begins with Good Friday. The Apocalypse teaches us that the child born at this moment (Rev. 12: 5) is the crucified one and the incarnation is defined by that. Christmas (Christ Mass) to me is more symbolic than historical as it seems more probable that Jesus was born on The Feast of Trumpets, Sept. 11, 3AD according to Prof. Ernest Martin’s convincing evidence.