Is the Bible Human or Divine?

I tripped over an internet article entitled “The Bible: Human or Divine” by Hank Hanegraaff explaining what Christians should know in order to effectively defend the faith from skeptics. The author uses the mnemonic MAPS, which stands for Manuscripts, Archaeology, Prophecy and Statistics as a way to remember the recommended apologetic points.

The Manuscripts argument states “...the Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other work of classical literature-including Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus.”

I could argue with this statement because “quantity” is not necessarily “quality” and while I can’t imagine any conceivable reason for someone to purposely modify the contents of Tacitus or Homer while copying it, there were lots of reasons during the early Christian orthodoxy struggles why someone might “clarify” a manuscript to make it, to paraphrase Bart Ehrman, more obviously say what he already knew it meant.

However, even if I don't argue the point, textual accuracy does not necessarily mean textual truth. I’m pretty certain my copies of “Mein Kampf” and “Das Kapital” are textually accurate but I would hesitate to call them “true” other than they may reflect the actual opinions of the authors.

The M argument also states that “Secular historians--including Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius ( A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny the Younger ( A.D. 110)--confirm the many events, people, places, and customs chronicled in the New Testament.”

Wow, I’d have to say that is an EXTREME overstatement. These historians certainly confirm SOME of the fairly mundane events, people, places and customs but none of the critical ones. They certainly don’t confirm such key events in the Gospels as the census of Augustus that forced Joseph and Mary to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem, the Virgin Birth, the Sermon on the Mount, the trial of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus nor even that Jesus did in fact actually exist (although one can argue that last point with respect to Josephus).

The Archaeology argument asserts that “Over and over again, comprehensive field work (archaeology) and careful biblical interpretation affirms the reliability of the Bible.”

Depending upon which part of the bible one is talking about, this is more or less a true statement. The problem with Archaeology is that it requires a lot of interpretation. The ancients didn’t leave detailed and complete records so one is often faced with the task of filling in the pieces and the filled in portions often seem to be in the majority.

Still, one can’t deny that most of the historical content of the bible from 1 Kings on is very likely to be about as reliable as any other ancient document and perhaps even more reliable because the text has been so carefully preserved. But so what? The novel “Gone with the Wind” is pretty historically accurate as well. That doesn’t mean it’s entirely true. Or do you think there was a real Scarlet who lived on a real plantation called Tara?

As for the earlier books such as Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges and 1& 2 Samuel, the consensus of scholarly opinion seems to be that these are more mythology, folklore and, in the case of Joshua, concerted political spin doctoring to justify territorial ambitions than history.

The fact is that even the term “Biblical Archaeology” has, in many circles, been dropped in favor of the term “Syro-Palestinian Archaeology” because so much of the bible is now considered generally unreliable.

As for the New Testament, again, clearly the Gospels and Epistles often depict real places, real people and real events but that doesn’t mean that ALL of the places, people and events depicted are real. Remember “Gone with the Wind.”

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you know of any physical virgins that have conceived and given birth? Is there any evidence that the stories of a virgin birth described in Matthew and Luke, and totally ignored in Mark, John, the Epistles and the later chapters of Matthew and Luke, actually happened beyond the claims of Matthew and Luke? Why should one accept it as historical then?

That bring us to Prophecy and Statistics. The Statistics argument is simply that “It is statistically preposterous that any or all of the Bible's specific, detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance, good guessing, or deliberate deceit.”

So it really depends upon the Prophecy argument. If there are a large number of “specific detailed prophecies” then the Statistics argument is very strong. But are there? Let’s look at the Prophecy argument then shall we?

The article states that “Predictive prophecy is a principle of Bible reliability that often reaches even the hard-boiled skeptic!”

It would have been more accurate to include an “IF” somewhere in that sentence. I don’t know of any “hard-boiled skeptic” that thinks the bible has ANY predictive prophecies. All of the so-called prophecies are relegated to either misinterpretation (Isaiah 53), mistranslation (Isaiah 7:14 ) heroic interpretation (Psalm 22) or adaptation after the fact (the nativity in Bethlehem and the flight to Egypt).

Let’s see what I mean shall we.

The article states “Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us that prophecies regarding Him outnumber all others.”

While Jews would debate that “Christ is the culminating theme” of the Hebrew Bible and I’m not certain such prophesies outnumber all the others, but they certainly would be considered, by Christians at least, to be the most critical. Therefore I’m perfectly happy to consider those prophecies the article says “would have been impossible for Jesus to deliberately conspire to fulfill.”

Perhaps, but not impossible for Christians to misinterpret, mistranslate or heroically interpret. Let’s go though the article’s list shall we.

His descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 12:3 17:19);

In Genesis 12 God is telling Abram to "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.”

As a reward for following his instructions, God makes two promises.

Genesis 12:2 - I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.

Genesis 12:3 - I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

Note that in Genesis 12:3 God is talking about Abram and not Jesus. Even if one wanted to claim that this described Jesus and therefore was a prophecy of Jesus, this would only be true if one accepts that “all the peoples on earth will be blessed through” Jesus. This may be a part of Christian dogma but it’s also sort of begging the question. Only if I already accept Christianity as TRUE would I recognize this as a prophecy. But if Christianity is TRUE then by definition the bible is divine. In other words I have to accept the conclusion as a given in order to prove the conclusion. This is the familiar circular argument fallacy that makes so many skeptics dizzy when they talk to an Apologist.

Genesis 17 is about the covenant of circumcision between God and Abraham. In verse 19 God tells Abraham “your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.”

Abraham then goes on to circumcise himself (at age 99) his family and all his slaves. I’m sort of at a loss as to why one would list this as a prophecy of Jesus especially considering Paul’s insistence that the covenant of circumcision no longer applied, at least not for Gentiles. About the only thing I can imagine is that the last sentence, taken out of context, is claimed as a prophecy of the so-called New Testament.

Even if you ignore the heroic interpretation only made possible by taking the sentence completely out of context, this is only a prophecy, even by those far fetched standards, if you already believe that God established a New Covenant through Jesus. In other words, you have to accept Christianity, which means by definition the bible is divine and so on and so forth. In other words, it’s another circular argument.

The piercing of His hands and feet on the cross (Psalm 22:16);
The soldiers’ gambling for His clothes (Psalm 22:18);

I don’t consider a phrase pulled out of context a prophecy simply because that phrase resembles some other person or event. Psalm 22 is a lament where, ostensibly King David, is asking why, despite being faithful, he has seemingly been abandoned by God.

Verses 12 through 18 are a litany of woes that have befallen the singer. Verses 16 and 18 are simply a part of that litany.

Psalm 22:16 - Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced (tore at) my hands and my feet.

Psalm 22:18 - They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Taken out of context the verses are certainly suggestive, but in context they’re just two more of the laments. There is nothing to suggest prophecy here other than the resemblance to similar events that supposedly happened to Jesus. Even then, there’s no mention of dogs surrounding the cross in the gospels nor is it likely that crucifixion was done by nails through the hand. The bones in the hand aren’t strong enough to support the weight. Far more likely is that the victims were tied to the cross or that the nails were driven through the wrist bones.

If these verses are prophecy, then why not the other five verses as well? How about this one?

Psalm 22:13 - Roaring lions tearing their prey open their mouths wide against me.

You see any mention in the gospels about lions enjoying a meal during the crucifixion? Nope, I don’t recall that either, or how about the one right in between?

Psalm 22:17 - I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.

You recall anything about Jesus not eating all that well for an extended period of time so that he could count all his bones? Nope, me neither.

If you’re going to claim that Psalm 22:16, 18 are prophecies of Jesus, why not also claim that Psalm 22:13 is a prophecy that Christians will be martyred by being thrown to the lions and that Psalm 22: 17 is a prophecy of any of the numerous famines that have occurred around the world. It makes just as much sense.

The piercing of His side and the fact that His bones were not broken at His death (Zechariah 12:10; Psalm 34:20);

Calling Psalm 34:20 a prophecy is even more absurd than calling Psalm 22 a prophecy.

Psalm 34:20 - he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.

It’s not even a complete thought. You need the previous verse to even make sense of it.

Psalm 34:19 - A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all;

Psalm 34 is simply a list of the benefits that God bestows on the righteous and the faithful and this is just one more benefit. If protecting a man’s bones from being broken sounds like an odd thing to include, consider two things. First, in that climate at that level of medical knowledge, broken bones could easily be a death sentence and second, Psalm 34 is an acrostic poem. The verses begin with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet so form might have been more important than content.

Now let’s consider Zechariah 12:10 which says:

Zechariah 12:10 -"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son."

Notice the “And.” The first part says:

Zechariah 12: 9 - On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.

At least Zechariah 12 is indeed a prophecy. It’s a prophecy promising that God will protect Judah and Jerusalem when “all the nations of the earth are gathered against her.”

The bottom line is that God will come to aid of Jerusalem and Judah in their darkest hour, when destruction seems unavoidable, and then they’ll repent and feel sorry that they were unfaithful to their God.

When the Romans besieged Jerusalem in 70 CE it would probably have been a good time to make good on this promise unless the forces stacked against the city just weren’t overwhelming enough. Not likely it’s going to happen in the future either since as a part of this God is going “to strike every horse with panic and its rider with madness.”

Anyone ever again expect to see an army marching against Jerusalem with a contingent of horse cavalry? I know, I know, it’s figurative. The cavalry will actually be tanks and the “riders” will actually be the tank drivers. In any event, I don’t see this as a very convincing prophecy of Jesus simply because the word “pierce” is used. After all, that could also be figurative like in “you pierced my heart.” Have you ever noticed how literalists fall back upon text being "figurative" as soon as someone points out that it's in error?

His birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2);

This is one of the more interesting so-called prophecies.

Micah 5:2 - But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

Two things are certain. The first is that the name “Bethlehem” is used and the second is that the word “ruler’ is used. Apparently this is enough for the faithful to declare this verse a prophecy of the Messiah, claim that he will be born in Bethlehem and, since Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he must be the Messiah and therefore this is a prophecy of him.

My reaction is whoa Nelly, slow down. That’s a leap of faith that deserves to have all of its letters capitalized.

For the moment, let’s accept that this is a prophecy of the Messiah and that it declares he will be born in Bethlehem. How do we know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem?

Other than the nativity stories presented by Matthew and Luke there is no evidence that he was. There is even some evidence that he wasn’t. Outside of the nativity stories, which are completely ignored in the gospels of Mark and John, Bethlehem as a birthplace for Jesus is never mentioned. He is always identified as a Galilean from Nazareth.

In John 7, as the people are arguing over who Jesus is, the nay sayers make the argument "How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?"

If Jesus really was born in Bethlehem, this wouldn’t have been much of an argument but neither John, nor Jesus nor anyone else ever take the time to correct the error. Nor can one argue that this is a literary device wherein the reader recognizes the fallacy even though the characters in the story are left ignorant because John NEVER identifies Jesus’ place of birth.

Now let’s look a bit closer at what Micah 5:2 actually says and also place it in context. Is the verse even talking about the town of Bethlehem and is it really talking about a leader that will emerge some 700 years in the future?

Notice the word “clans.” Some folks argue that “Bethlehem Ephrathah” actually refers to a clan of Judah and not a place. In 1 Chronicles 2 one can find a list of the early descendents of Judah including Caleb, descended through Perez the son of Judah and Tamar, who married Ephrathah. Her eldest was named Hur and one of his sons was Salma who was the father of Bethlehem (1 Chronicles 2:50,51).

Even if you accept that Bethlehem refers to the town and that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, is Micah 5:2 really a prophecy about something that won’t happen for 700 years or is it a bit more contemporary?

To put things in perspective, Micah is writing in turbulent times. The United Kingdom of David and Solomon has split into the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Make no mistake which was the upper dog in this pair, it was clearly the Northern Kingdom of Israel which rose to prominence under the Omride Dynasty.

You remember the Omrides don’t you? The most famous king of that dynasty was Ahab who married the Canaanite Jezebel. The Kingdom of Israel was polytheistic, supporting alters to Baal and Asherah and probably many others. Its prosperity would undoubtedly have driven the Prophets crazy.

But then, suddenly it all becomes clear as God’s wrath descends upon Israel in the form of the Assyrians. Samaria is destroyed, Israel ceases to exist as a nation and its people are driven into exile or slavery while the, relatively, faithful Judah still stands.

Refugees from the more cosmopolitan Northern Kingdom stream into Judah, and especially Jerusalem, most likely bringing with them their polytheistic practices. To make matters worse, the Assyrians have marched south and are knocking at the doors of Jerusalem.

Micah expresses the belief that the Northern Kingdom got what it deserved, Jerusalem is about to get what it deserves, but if the common people of the countryside of Judah will just stay true, God will protect them against the Assyrians. A leader will arise from the least of the clans and shepherds will defend Judah because all things are possible with the help of God. Ultimately this leader would reestablish the Kingdom of Israel.

The timeframe in which Micah expects all of this to happen is a little unclear, at least in the English version.

Even if you ignore the questions of does this really relate to a place, where was Jesus actually born and what’s the anticipated timeframe, this verse still fails as a prophecy of Jesus because Jesus never became “ruler over Israel” and I’m not about to buy a spin which says with the new covenant this now means Christianity and Jesus is clearly ruler nor the spin that this will happen in the second coming.

His burial among the rich (Isaiah 53:9);
His crucifixion with criminals (Isaiah 53:12);

I saved these two for last because they are part of the “Suffering Servant” description which runs from Isaiah 52:13 through the end of Isaiah 53.

Now here’s a strange thing, even my left eyebrow goes up when I read the Suffering Servant. I’m not sure why the MAPS author isolates these two verses as the entire body of the Suffering Servant is claimed, by Christians, to be a prophecy of Jesus.

Clearly Jews disagree. Their current position is that this isn’t a prophecy of the Messiah at all but rather a description of the sufferings of Israel. The Suffering Servant is claimed to be the Nation of Israel. Christians claim that this interpretation is a relatively recent change and they point to ancient Jewish texts which argue that this is in fact a Messianic Prophecy.

As far as past disagreements among Jews themselves as to whether this is a Messianic Prophecy or not, I sort of find this irrelevant. In the past there were significant disagreements within Christianity as well. Would any Christian apologist accept as a counter argument to the divinity of Jesus the fact that some early Christian sects viewed him as purely human? I doubt it, so I don’t see how past conflicts among Jews with respect to the Suffering Servant are meaningful either. The current orthodox thinking among Jews with respect to Isaiah 52 & 53 is that it describes the nation of Israel and they have two very strong arguments to back that position up.

The first is that in Isaiah God consistently refers to the Patriarch Jacob and the people of Israel as his servants. Examples include:

Isaiah 44:21 - "Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you.”

Isaiah 49:3 - He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor."

The second is that much of the text of the Suffering Servant is in the Hebrew past tense. Why would a prophecy of something that won’t occur for 700 years be in the past tense? More likely Isaiah is describing the past trials of the nation of Israel than the future trials of the Messiah.

However, even with all that being said, if the Suffering Servant passage was being proposed as the sole prophecy of Jesus, I might give it more credence. Some of the verses are VERY reminiscent of the story of Jesus as savior. Consider Isaiah 53:5 and 53:6

Isaiah 53:5 - But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

Isaiah 53:6 - We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

What weakens the argument is the silly overkill claim by Christians that there are hundreds of prophecies in the Hebrew Bible about Jesus. If all the other claimed prophecies are nonsense, then it’s very likely that this one is as well.

How about we try this one on for size? Since the gospels were written 700 years after the book of Isaiah, maybe the story of Jesus was written based upon the Suffering Servant and simply overlaid onto the political realities of the 1st century?

You can argue this stuff for ages with little or no movement on either side. I’ve had true believers try to sell me on the accuracy of biblical prophecy and, at least so far, they’ve had no success. But on the other hand, I haven’t had much success convincing them that all these so-called prophecies are nonsense either.

Over the years I’ve noticed a fundamental difference in the mental outlook of believers and skeptics. It’s been my experience that believers are satisfied with a possible explanation as long at that explanation supports their beliefs. Skeptics tend to look for probable explanations.

Is it possible that all the Christian Apologists are right about everything? Sure it is, but the probability of that being so is so low that’s it’s about as close to zero as it can be. Same thing with the bible prophecy thing, I’ve yet to see one for which a compelling case can be made. To claim an event was prophesized hundreds of years before it occurred is an extraordinary claim and, as we all know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or at least compelling evidence.