How would you respond to the claim that the Bible is mythology?

[alexanderjames]

Especially the gospel accounts of Jesus.

I'm thinking in the context of perhaps the believer struggling with doubt, and for the unbeliever who is serious about exploring the faith.

 

[Polanus1561]

An unbeliever who is serious about exploring the faith would claim that the Bible is mythology?

 

[arapahoepark]

Especially the gospel accounts of Jesus.

I'm thinking in the context of perhaps the believer struggling with doubt, and for the unbeliever who is serious about exploring the faith.

There is no unbelieving scholar who is actually smart who says Jesus didn't exist.

 

[Solparvus]

Here's a few thoughts. Most important argument is last in this post.

For one, the biblical authors did not write accounts that even read like mythology. They read like historical narratives.

There are some plain marks that they are histories as well. In two of the Gospels you have genealogies (Matthew and Luke), clearly intended to create biological links between true historical characters. The book of Luke begins with a statement that the doctor had investigated everything, and was careful to get exact details, and then to summarize them to given an account of things that actually happened. Luke even says his sources are eyewitnesses.

By the same stroke, Mark is certainly a literal, historical account. It's believed in the academic community that Mark was a source for both Matthew and Luke; and Luke would not have relied on a mythology.

John 21:24 makes plain at the very end that these are all things that Christ said and did. Also in 20:31 so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He sets forth evidence that we may be convinced. Mythologies obfuscate and muddy everything, but John's purpose only works if he intends to be plain and clear--which he is.

No one in the early church takes them to be mythologies, even if some have really allegorical interpretations.

If the Gospels are mythology, just embellished to teach certain truths, it makes the Gospel accounts to be lies.

Keep in mind, there are philosophical presuppositions that play behind these myth theories. Ever since Immanuel Kant claimed that the world of God and the world of the tangible can't really have contact with each other, it's been just assumed among academics and philosophers and (sadly) many theologians that we can't really know God, and He can't really talk to us. At least not in any clear, certain way in which we can be unmistaken. Some of your work may just be showing your friend, yes, you can know God, He can communicate with you, and He has given you revelation.

Best evidence? Take them to the Gospel of Matthew, Sermon on the Mount. Show them Christ teaching with authority. Let it pierce, and let the Spirit do His work. That will do more than all other arguments, because it is the voice of God.

 

[alexanderjames]

An unbeliever who is serious about exploring the faith would claim that the Bible is mythology?

Let’s say for example an unbeliever comes saying he has heard of such a claim being made and wants to know how serious and thoughtful Christians would defend it.

 

[alexanderjames]

There is no unbelieving scholar who is actually smart who says Jesus didn't exist.

Yes, but they might say Jesus has been mythologised some some extent or another, which seems to be the more common argument encountered.

 

[arapahoepark]

Yes, but they might say Jesus has been mythologised some some extent or another, which seems to be the more common argument encountered.

Ah ok. I thought it was exclusively the idea that Jesus was a myth.

Plenty of resources on this. NT Wright has probably one of the best cases on this, perusing through his stuff currently.

J. Warner Wallace has a book called Person of Interest on the subject as does Sean McDowell geared toward the layman. I've only perused these so far but, I find nothing objectionable.
Oh and I almost forgot, Craig Keener's work on the historical Jesus.

Four Portraits One Jesus (if I recall the title correctly) by Mark Strauss has a bibliography of materials.

 

[TheInquirer]

I would point them to Romans 1:18ff and show them how unbelievers suppress the plain truth of God. If they remain stubborn, at some point I would walk away. You cant talk a darkened mind into receiving the light if the Holy Spirit isnt at work.

 

[chuckd]

Especially the gospel accounts of Jesus.

I'm thinking in the context of perhaps the believer struggling with doubt, and for the unbeliever who is serious about exploring the faith.

Most of the apostles went to their death claiming Christ came back from the dead. Who would do that for a myth?

Also, the gospel accounts were written down and distributed. Any eyewitness could have debunked it immediately if they were inaccurate.

 

[Joshua]

"Nuh uh."

 

[RamistThomist]

Yes, but they might say Jesus has been mythologised some some extent or another, which seems to be the more common argument encountered.

Ask him for evidence. Also, get him to define myth. Even atheists like Bart Ehrman dismiss the claim the bible is myth. He is probably thinking of the "Dying and Rising God" motif, but that really is not what ancient myths are getting at.

 

[Polanus1561]

How do we believe that what we read in history textbooks are not myths, seeing we were not there to witness it but believe on the basis of testimony?

 

[VictorBravo]

Ask him for evidence. Also, get him to define myth. Even atheists like Bart Ehrman dismiss the claim the bible is myth. He is probably thinking of the "Dying and Rising God" motif, but that really is not what ancient myths are getting at.

I'll add that C.S. Lewis, who claimed expertise in mythology, said Scripture reads more like a newspaper than a myth. Warts and all revealed.

 

[Andrew35]

"Nuh uh."

Honestly, this is probably the best response.

Few people who say this are going to be deeply familiar with mythology beyond whatever excrescences that have emerged into pop culture, so there's no real point in having an intelligent discussion about it--unless they show themselves willing to listen. It's simply a rhetorical statement with little substance behind it. Akin to saying God is a "fictional character" or something like that. Hard to engage that sort of thing seriously because it's not a serious thing to say.

 

[ReformedChristian]

One example is why would the accounts of the resurrection include women? in Rabbinic and certain Jews of the day thought the testimony of women was not considered valid.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I'd respond to such a claim by saying, "No, it's not."

 

[Ed Walsh]

I'm thinking in the context of perhaps the believer struggling with doubt, and for the unbeliever who is serious about exploring the faith.

Your title:

How would you respond to the claim that the Bible is mythology?​

My first reaction starts with a little smile (with a dash of smirk mixed in), then morphs into an ear-to-ear grin with teeth showing.
I have no more insecurities about the truth of the Bible. As described, for example, in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter One (Attached PDF)
I have no problem telling Bible balkers that they will never come to see that the Bible is the unique Word of the Living God unless God's Spirit reveals that to them.

[Please note – That my actual responses to inquirers, doubters, and mockers vary according to the case. But I keep the same mindset as stated above.]

This paragraph in Section V is perhaps my all-time favorite quote on both the God-breathed perfections of the Bible and the absolute necessity of Devine revelation to see it as it truly is – the Word of God.

The Confession Chapter One, Section V​

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverend esteem of the holy scripture,[1] and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.​

​

––––––––––––––––––​

[1] 1 Tim. 3:15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.​

​

[2] 1 John 2:20. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. Ver. 27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie; and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. John 16:13. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. Ver. 14. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. 1 Cor. 2:10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. Ver. 11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Ver. 12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Isa. 59:21. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord, My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.​

​

--Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 17.​

 

[alexanderjames]

Thanks all for some excellent thoughts, I realise the question is very broad. It was raised as a result of noticing an apparent trend in the popularity of such ideas put out by atheists and especially "deconverted" ex-professing Christians.

I have encountered a couple of more recent books on the subject similar to Trent's suggestions, one being by Peter Williams. I wonder if anyone has interacted with these or similar in more depth.

 

[Solparvus]

Thanks all for some excellent thoughts, I realise the question is very broad. It was raised as a result of noticing an apparent trend in the popularity of such ideas put out by atheists and especially "deconverted" ex-professing Christians.

I have encountered a couple of more recent books on the subject similar to Trent's suggestions, one being by Peter Williams. I wonder if anyone has interacted with these or similar in more depth.

The mythology idea is pretty new, far as I can tell (though I admit I'm not an accomplished church historian). I've never heard of anyone except in the last 200-300 years even proposing. Everything from the early church on up, far as I can see, has been that the events are literal historical events.

Since you asked about the recommended resources, I do think @arapahoepark 's suggestion for "Four Portraits, One Jesus" is fantastic. He goes into broad overviews on the various "quests" for the historical Jesus, and addresses some of the big names that have been influential in the revisioning of who Jesus is. Good historical background information and apologetic materials throughout as well. Just have a black highlighter on hand for the multitude of 2CV's you'll find.

Seeing as N.T. Wright was recommended, it's true that his defense of the resurrection is one of the very best on the subject. However, I'd nudge in a different direction. He puts forth ideas that will put you into the same spiral of doubt as the questers. I mentioned Kant earlier, and his idea of there being a permanent communication gap between God's world and our world, which is the very idea that's given birth to theological liberalism. Wright is in the same tradition. He also holds a view of history and interpretation that leaves you in doubt whether you can really know that a historical event has happened in the way that it has been passed on to you, because events are always passed on with interpretation. It's the same kind of ideas that resulted in, or aid/abet, the mythology hypothesis.

Again, above all, Scripture. Let the lion out of the cage and let him roar. If the Spirit speaks an effectual word, no apologetic for this lion will be needed.

 

[lynnie]

A few weeks a formerly believing nephew started mocking me about my "Jewish book of fairy tales".

In response I told him that every time a person moves from faith to unbelief, there is sexual immorality going on. ( What's sad is that girl was a lovely Christian before who he started up with while both attended the same church, and she appears to have left it all behind before she recently left him).

I had him and he knew it. He kept trying to argue but the wind was out of his sails. Maybe it wasn't the best apologetic method, I don't know. The only two deconverters I know of went from straight marriage to homosexual. I am not sure intellectual discussions help at this point. I pray for a great work of God. Tough subject for sure.

 

[En Kristo]

I'd have the person read Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 and Micah 5:2. The point is that the knowledge of Jesus recorded before his birth indicates that the book is not merely the work of man. The credibility of the Bible ultimately rests on the credibility of God, the author of scripture. Until the Holy Spirit opens a person's eyes to that, they are blind. We cannot approach God solely on the basis of our intellect. Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Just one thought to add to the others:
Concentrating for a moment exclusively on the OT; and expecting the conversation partners will at least grant the historicity of Jesus Christ, and a basic Christian understanding of him and of the believer's relationship to him--if true Christians are disciples of Rabbi Jesus, seeking to be like him in all respects (ala Mt.10:25), shouldn't we make it our intention and aim to regard the narrative history of the OT in the same manner as did our Lord and Master?

As soon as one is confronted with this consideration, I think he must choose between a sub-Christian interpretation of Jesus who merely believed the OT in alignment with the religious conventions and general ignorance of his day; or consent to regard the OT and all it says about origins, the flood, the genealogies, the Exodus, the history of Israel and then particularly Judah--along with all the miracles and wonders recorded--just as Jesus apparently was, as recorded in the Gospel's presentation. If we extend his views to be those embraced by the apostles, we should then have to include not only what Jesus thought about the OT record, but also them appointed first to distribute his message (and convictions) and write the rest of the NT documentation; plus the views of the first Christians, both Jew and Gentile who were taught by the apostles.

I cannot read Jesus' assessment of OT information, or glean from the apostle's opinions expressed in Acts or the Epistles or Revelation, any other view than that the first Christians believed the Bible as the true record of history. And if the first Christians held it as obligatory to believe what Christ taught them--personally or through his church--we must do the same. If we do not, we fudge our acceptance of his teaching authority by failing to admit we think we have attained superior insights into what "really happened" and now sit as judges of the apostles' and Christ's own "mythological" beliefs. We should then claim to revere some amorphic religious ideas and inclinations, rather than the content of the faith "once delivered."

For those who view the stories of Jesus himself and the formation of the New Covenant church as mere additions to Jewish mythology according to one late sect of that branch of humanity, what can be said? To the materialist-determinist, the miracles of the Bible, OT & NT, are equally nonsense; the origin of the world is a matter of physics and lucky conditions (and probably an infinite "multiverse" of chances) accidentally producing a world with the appearance of regularity and purpose, but which awaits the inevitable cosmic resumption of random dispersion of matter and energy. What is religion for such people, if not an attempt at regulating interpersonal relationships either voluntarily or coercively? Myth and manipulation stand together on the human level.

We believe the Bible is revelation, God telling us something true about himself and consequently truth about us, the ones who are the targets of his self-disclosure. This is fundamentally a different way of thinking about what the Bible is, than if it is a collection of human ideas about God, creation, humanity, history, personal relations, religion, and philosophical whatnot. Those who try to mix the idea of revelation with myth--by suggesting that God gave certain myths to man that were not qualitatively different from other myths, but had a unique purpose embedded therein--are actually abandoning the function of revelation from without, while adopting man-centeredness for the religion ostensibly focused on Jesus Christ, who came to man to reveal the Father, the ultimate Word from the Father.