In his recent book Uninvented, (Two Penny Publishing 2022) Mike D’Virgilio presents a highly readable popular level exposition of an often overlooked aspect of the internal evidence for the historical nature of the biblical narratives, the fact that those narratives are just so embarrassing in their cultural context. For example, D’Virgilio points out that: “the biblical characters are displayed as terribly human, warts and all prominently displayed.”[1] The overarching message here is that:
Critics and skeptics insist the Bible and its stories are more or less fiction. Many would further insist that making up the biblical stories would have been a piece of cake. I contend they are wrong on both counts, especially the latter.[2]
There really are people who think that large parts of the Bible which present as ancient historical narrative are far less ancient works of fiction. For example, according to prominent atheist Richard Dawkins:
The only difference between The Da Vinci Code and the gospels is that the gospels are ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction.[3]
Dawkins reckons that what goes for the New Testament also goes for the Old Testament prior to the Babylonian Exile. Consequently, he mistakenly asserts that:
King David . . . made no impact either on archaeology or on written history outside the Bible. This suggests that, if he existed at all, he was probably a minor local chieftain rather than the great king of legend and song.[4]
It has obviously slipped Dawkins’s notice that:
The publication of fragments of an Old Aramaic stela from Tel Dan in 1993/1995 bought to light the first recognized nonbiblical mention of the tenth-century king David, in a text that reflected events of the year 841 and would have been set up at no great interval after that date.[5]
This Stela famously mentions “the house of David”. Eric Cline, Professor of classics, anthropology and history at George Washington University, explains that: “the finding of this inscription brought an end to the debate and settled the question of whether David was an actual historical person . . .”[6]
Dawkins’ misinformed and misleading assertions on this and other Old Testament subjects[7] are a popularization of the so-called “minimalist” school of biblical scepticism, whose members “believe that only the barest minimum of the Bible is true, and then only if it can be incontrovertibly corroborated by extrabiblical evidence.”[8] As theologian Michael S. Heiser elaborates:
For those unfamiliar with the “minimalist” vs. “maximalist” debate over biblical archaeology, the former basically believed the OT has little or no historical value, as it was entirely written during or after the exile. Maximalists, on the other hand, disagree, but on what I’d call a continuum of optimism about the biblical text as a historical source.[9]
One scholar “commonly labeled a minimalist, although he denies that label,”[10] is Jewish archaeologist Israel Finklestein, who (writing with Neil Asher Silberman) famously proclaimed that:
The historical saga contained in the Bible-from Abraham’s encounter with God and his journey to Canaan, to Moses’ deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, to the rise and fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah-was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination.[11]
Thus, Dawkins hitches his wagon to the purely hypothetical view that: “It was during or around the time of the Babylonian exile that most of the Old Testament books were written . . .”[12]
A comparison of the biblical narrative with “extrabiblical evidence” (e.g. from archaeology) can only go so far, but the comparison shows that “minimalism” is probably false and is therefore an unsound objection to viewing the Bible as “a miraculous revelation”.[13] Of course, as D’Virgilio points out, the extent to which one trusts the content of the biblical narratives depends in part upon the worldview one brings to the interpretation of those narratives (and hence upon what one makes of the comparative case for and against different worldviews). Nevertheless, just as the external evidence of archaeology makes a contribution to this debate that cannot be ignored, so too does the complementary internal evidence highlighted by D’Virgilio.
The core of Uninvented is a (very readable) tour through the Old and New Testament in the company of the critical criterion of embarrassment developed within the school of New Testament “tradition criticism”.[14] In that context, the criterion of embarrassment “refers to sayings or deeds that are not easily explained as inauthentic creations of the early church, simply because there are aspects about them that would have been potentially embarrassing.”[15] As theologian Graham Stanton observes: “traditions which would have been an embarrassment to followers of Jesus in the post-Easter period are unlikely to have been invented.”[16] Of course, the general principle here can be applied to any text, and D’Virgilio’s Uninvented brilliantly applies the criterion of embarrassment to the historical narratives of both the Old and New Testaments. This tour establishes a list of major Old Testament stories with contents so embarrassing that the hypothesis that they were invented during or after the Babylonian exile as “a brilliant product of the human imagination”[17] puts a hefty strain on our credulity. Likewise, D’Virgilio’s careful consideration of the gospel narratives in cultural context is sufficient in and of itself to demonstrate the preposterous nature of Dawkins’s assertion that “the gospels are ancient fiction”[18]:
If you want people to believe your story in the first century, you don’t make women the first witnesses [to the resurrected Jesus]. Not only this, but the men don’t exactly come off looking like pillars of the early church; they look more like cowards. After they ran away from Jesus in his hour of need, and Peter denied three times even knowing him, they ended up cowering in a locked room because they didn’t want to be next. Then, when the women told them they saw the risen Jesus, how did they respond? Pretty much like any men of their time would, but certainly not like disciples of Jesus should (Luke 24) . . . So not only do the gospel authors make the women look good, but they also make the men look bad. Is this how men in a male dominated culture would invent a story if they wanted other men to believe it? Doubtful.[19]
Recommended Resources
Peter S. Williams Podcast, “Outgrowing God? An Introduction (2022)” http://podcast.peterswilliams.com/e/outgrowing-god-an-introduction-2022/
Peter S. Williams Podcast, “ELF 2021: Old Testament Historicity: From Abraham’s Ur to Daniel’s Babylon” http://podcast.peterswilliams.com/e/elf-2021-old-testament-historicity-from-abrahams-ur-to-daniels-babylon/
Dewayne Bryant, “The Death of Biblical Minimalism” https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/3805-the-death-of-biblical-minimalism
Mike D’Virgilio, Uninvented: Why the Bible Could Not be Made Up, and the Evidence that Proves It (Two Penny Publishing, 2022)
K.A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 2006)
Peter S. Williams, Outgrowing God? A Beginner’s Guide to Richard Dawkins and the God Debate (Wipf and Stock, 2020)
Peter S. Williams, Getting at Jesus: A Comprehensive Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense about the Jesus of History (Wipf and Stock, 2019)
[1] Mike D’Virgilio, Uninvented: Why the Bible Could Not be Made Up, and the Evidence that Proves It (Two Penny Publishing, 2022), 55.
[2] Mike D’Virgilio, Uninvented: Why the Bible Could Not be Made Up, and the Evidence that Proves It (Two Penny Publishing, 2022), 64.
[3] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Black Swan, 2007), 97.
[4] Richard Dawkins, Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide (Bantam Press, 2019), 48.
[5] K.A. Kitchen, On The Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 2006), 92.
[6] Eric Cline, Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2009), Kindle Location 814.
[7] See: Peter S. Williams, Outgrowing God? A Beginner’s Guide to Richard Dawkins and the God Debate (Wipf and Stock, 2020).
[8] Dewayne Bryant, “The Death of Biblical Minimalism” https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/3805-the-death-of-biblical-minimalism.
[9] Michael S. Heiser, http://drmsh.com/archaeology-and-the-old-testament-minimalism-and-maximalism/
[10] Dewayne Bryant, “The Death of Biblical Minimalism” https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/3805-the-death-of-biblical-minimalism.
[11] Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (Touchstone, 2001), 1.
[12] Richard Dawkins, Outgrowing God (Black Swan, 2007), 53.
[13] See: “ELF 2021: Old Testament Historicity: From Abraham’s Ur to Daniel’s Babylon” http://podcast.peterswilliams.com/e/elf-2021-old-testament-historicity-from-abrahams-ur-to-daniels-babylon/.
[14] See: Robert H. Stein, “Criteria for the Gospel’s Authenticity” in Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, ed.’s. Contending with Christianity’s Critics (B&H Academic, 2009).
[15] Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort The Gospels (IVP, 2007), 140.
[16] Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (OUP, 2002), 175.
[17] Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (Touchstone, 2001), 1.
[18] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Black Swan, 2007), 97.
[19] Mike D’Virgilio, Uninvented: Why the Bible Could Not be Made Up, and the Evidence that Proves It (Two Penny Publishing, 2022), 151-152.
