"People of Athens!"

“If the historical basis on which the supposed revelation [the Bible] rested was false, then why should we give any special credence to the ideas resting on that basis?” Can anyone trust a historically false document to be theologically accurate?

In veiwing this question it reminded me of the following....A child and mother are sitting outside and hear the distant thunder.  In curiosity the child ask, “Mother what’s thunder?”  The mother’s response is sincere and confident.  “The god’s are playing!”  She shares with her child an elaborate story where the two laugh and continue their day each coming up with a funny way to explain thunder.  Yet in the context of ancient culture, the story of rain and thunder may have turned into a claim.  If a Canaanite child asked his or her mother “Why do we not hear the thunder and see the rain in the summer?”  The response would be an elaborate story of Baal, the god of rain, becoming prisoner to the god of the netherworld Mot!  When the rains came in the winter/spring, Baal was released, thus bringing to all man life and fertility.  This myth would be a claim for the people in expressing their belief and ideas of the makeup of the world.  The word claim is defined as to assert or maintain as a fact.[i] If one makes the assertion of the absence of Baal in the summer and Baal’s reemergence in the spring, then the claim must be backed up and fact given to explain these forces which are not seen. 

This goes back to the difference between Greek thought and Hebrew thought.  The Greeks believed “that there must be a single unifying principle in the cosmos”. [ii]  Thus reality is based on observable causes.  They believed that these causes and effects were discoverable through rational thought.[iii]  These ideas created the “polyverse” in which the Greeks lived and thus allowing Paul thousands of years later to make to the statement at the Areopagus , “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.”[iv]  The Hebrews on the other hand explained reality based on the claim that there was a God who was the creator of all.  God revealed himself to humans primarily in the context of their unique experiences in space and time.[v]  His interaction with man was based on the obedience or disobedience that proclaimed His will for mankind. 

If the Bible was seen as a historical false document, the theology and doctrine of the Christian worldview would be in question.  If one makes the claim that the Bible, or in this case the Old Testament is historically false in its claim, then one must support this claim with evidence.  When Paul stood before the Areopagus in Acts 17 he brought into context the reality of a living God who could only be explained through intervening with man through Christ.  If Paul did not trust the history of the Old Testament and the prophecies given of a coming Messiah during his time in history, why would he use it at all?  For Paul, Old Testament history shaped his theological argument proclaiming that throughout history God had set into motion an opportunity to enter into a relationship with Him through Christ.  In our culture today if man can contest the Old Testament, then man will not have to fret about the validity of Christ and a Christian worldview.  Man would create their own stories as they see fit, with no accountability to a living God.

---

[i] Dictionary.com

[ii] Oswalt, John. The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009. Pg 21

[iii] Oswalt, John. The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009. Pg 21

[iv] NIV Acts 17:22-23

[v] Oswalt, John. The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009. Pg 23