My Analysis of the Bible Part 1A: The Biblical Literalist

When describing one’s beliefs, it is of the upmost importance to define one’s terms. Therefore, the first objective must be to define what “God’s word” means. It means a variety of things to different people. There are typically three camps Christians fall into, which I have taken the liberty to label as Biblical Literalists, Biblical Idealists, and Biblical Essentialists. After briefly describing each of these groups, I will then demonstrate why I do not share the views of those who would fall into the group. After I have refuted all three, I will then explain my own belief about the Bible.

I am not a Biblical Literalist
Biblical Literalists believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. They believe the whole Bible is telling one story of the world’s salvation, beginning with the creation of the world and ending with the vision in Revelation of the end times. They believe the earth was literally created in 7 days, exactly as the Bible describes it. They also believe that the Bible has no contradictions. While this is commonly believed by Evangelical Protestants today, I find it unreasonable. Rather than basing my reasoning in science, I looked to the Bible itself to refute this. This theory can be checked by simply searching for inconsistencies in the “Good Word.” And they are there. Read Matthew, and then read Mark. There are discrepancies. There are stories told in both that have differing details. 

While it can be (weakly) argued that certain healings and occurrences are describing two different events, it seems like Matthew edited Mark’s gospel and added to it.¹ Now read John. They are completely different. In Mark Jesus is trying to conceal his identity, in John he’s telling everybody who he is bluntly.² It just does not make sense to think that both capture the real Jesus. Or, if we turn to the Old Testament, ask yourself when Jerusalem was captured. Read Joshua, and then read the beginning of Judges. According to Joshua, Jerusalem (or Jebus, as it was supposedly known then) was not able to be captured, despite Israelite success surrounding that area. In Judges, the tribe of Judah is said to have taken over Jerusalem. Then in Samuel it is said to be taken over by David.³ At least one is wrong. Assuming that everything is 100% correct in the Bible, one can argue that Israel lost control of Jerusalem after Judah took it but before David took it. This is possible in the sense that it could have happened, but unlikely that it would be unmentioned given the city’s importance. And if you believe that the Bible was given to us by God for history’s sake, why would he leave this detail out? I could go on in examples from the Bible like this, but there is little reason to do so. If I did list every inconsistency I found in the Bible, I do not doubt that an apologist could explain away all of them. But if this were to happen, seeing all the improbabilities and extra-biblical explanations to enable the Bible to be 100% literally correct would not work to prove anything. It soon becomes a game to show how this view of the Bible is technically possible, as opposed to my goal of finding what is realistic or likely. It is possible that Jesus was a white man who later flew to the Americas which were actually populated by descendants of Joseph son of Jacob’s line. To a non-Mormon this may seem silly, but look into their scholarship. They can play the game quite well too.

1. The origins of Matthew and Mark
Given that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all share some common stories using nearly identical words at times, scholars typically agree that Mark was written first, sometime before Matthew and Luke. While these stories are not always exact, it appears that in Matthew and Luke the stories are polished up, given Mark’s rushed style. An example of this would be the story of Matthew 8.28 and Mark 5.1. Both stories agree that Jesus crossed the sea, cast out demons, cast the demons into pigs which jump off the cliff side to their death, and is then asked to leave by the frightened townspeople, to which Jesus consents. These stories do have differences, however. In Mark, there is only one demon possessed man who contains a “Legion” of demons, while in Matthew there are two demon possessed men. What’s really interesting is location. In Mark, the city mentioned is Geresa, which is significantly far from the sea (the Sea of Galilee). In Matthew’s suspected revision, the city is Gadara, which is much closer to the sea, although still far enough away for the events described as is to be completely accurate as described.

2. The contrast between the synoptic Jesus and John’s Jesus
While in Mark, Jesus is depicted as the humble Messiah of God, in John he is depicted as God walking the earth. Jesus often tells others in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to keep his messianic identity hidden, while in John he is going into the temple and synagogues bluntly telling others exactly who he is. The two distinct characteristics of Jesus imply that these gospels were written for theological reasons as opposed to attempting to portray an exact historical account of Jesus’ life.

3. The capture of Jerusalem
In Joshua the Israelites begin their conquest of Canaan, the Promised Land. While they are ideally supposed to take all of the land, some cities remained in Canaanite control. One such city is Jerusalem, or Jebus (named after the Jebusite people). While some cities seemed to be conquered by the whole of Israel (read the conquest in Joshua), others were left to the specific tribe in which the city was allotted. Jerusalem was given to Judah. However, Judah was unable to drive out the Jebusites. Joshua 15.63 reads:

“But the people of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem; so the Jebusites live with the people of Judah in Jerusalem to this day.”

However, according to the Judges account of the conquest, Judah did take the city. After capturing King Adoni-bezek and cutting off his big toes and thumbs (as he had done to kings he had conquered), they brought him to Jerusalem to die, and then overtook Jerusalem. Judges 1.8:

“Then the people of Judah fought against Jerusalem and took it. They put it to the sword and set the city on fire.”

Now in Judges 19.10-12 it seems clear that the Jebusites are still controlling Jerusalem, and in 2 Samuel 5.6-9 it is taken from their control by David. What is also noteworthy is later in the same chapter of Judges the failure to capture Jerusalem is noted, only placing the responsibility of its conquest to the tribe of Benjamin rather than Judah. Judges 1.21:

“But the Benjamites did not drive out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem; so the Jebusites have lived in Jerusalem among the Benjamites to this day.”

This makes little historical sense, since it seems it would be the Judeans that would be driving out the Jebusites, not the Benjamites. Some scholars think this was included to pass the blame from Judah, which is generally highly looked upon in the book of Judges, possibly as a precursor to the rise of King David which takes place in Samuel. While there could be some explanation to make these statements make sense, it is unlikely any of them have much truth to them, as any related information would have been present in Judges. It’s more likely that the author(s) of Judges combined multiple older sources into one work, despite discrepancies.