Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Jeffery Sheler's book is not interested in ascertaining whether Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life." But Sheler does want to learn "whether he might have said he is." His book is about the history in the Bible, about the evidence and arguments used to verify that history, about what can be proved, and with what probability. Ultimately, though, it is this commitment to historical inquiry that gives Is the Bible True? a certain apologetic value.

Sheler, a religion writer at U.S. News & World Report for the last nine years and a correspondent for Religion & Ethics Newsweekly on PBS, is not a biblical scholar, but he has read widely from most sides of any debate he treats. He brings to his task an admirable ability to write lucid prose without technical jargon. An ordained elder at National Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., Sheler remains true to his journalistic trade and presents his arguments as the dispassionate observer, the even-handed evaluator.

The book is divided into six parts, beginning with a discussion of canon, as well as authorship and source theories. Sheler tends toward conservative conclusions without being dogmatic. For example, Moses himself is at the core of the Pentateuch, even if some later editors updated some strands of these books. The canonical gospels are formally anonymous, but the early patristic evidence assigning the traditional authors to them cannot be ignored.

Regarding the disputed Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, he notes: "Modern scholarship remains divided over these questions. But barring firm proof to the contrary—proof that to date has not been shown to exist—it seems reasonable to take the letters at their word as having come from the hand, or at least the lips [under the assumption of an amanuensis], of Paul."

Sheler also attempts to sort out in what sense the Bible is "history," admittedly "theological history." He cuts a swath between fundamentalism and historical skepticism. Though he treats all sides fairly, Sheler concludes: "When biblical writings that are unambiguously historical in their intent are critically examined, they consistently show themselves to be remarkably dependable"--a conclusion with which an extraordinarily broad group of scholars can agree. Sheler then reviews biblical archaeology, including a brief history of the discipline and surveys of one or more sites connected with various periods (the patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest, the monarchy, the days of Jesus). He notes that at most of the sites, archaeological discoveries support the Bible's historical claims, such as the famous ninth-century b.c. Dan inscription that refers to the dynasty of David and distinguishes the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

On the other hand, Sheler argues that the biblical account of the Exodus may be a typological telescoping of many small exoduses, each archaeologically unrecoverable. (Alternatively, he concedes, there may be more to discover.)

Sheler also carefully records the scholarly debate surrounding the fall of Jericho and the conquest of Canaan, concluding: "Despite all the remaining uncertainties, however, most scholars would agree that there is a historical core behind the biblical stories of Israel's emergence in Canaan."

Sheler follows this with a discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls, giving a sensible introduction and evaluation for people who know nothing about them.

The historical Jesus is the subject of part four. Once more Sheler provides a brief history of scholarly debate, from the so-called "old quest" (so ably criticized by Albert Schweitzer) to the "third quest," which pits the scholars of the (in)famous Jesus Seminar against their mainline and conservative counterparts. This third quest is in part a conflict over the correct "background" against which the New Testament documents are to be read. This survey is probably the best in the book. Sheler gives brief biographies of the Jesus Seminar's three leading lights (Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, and John Dominic Crossan), and two of their most influential opponents (John Meier and N. T. Wright). After laying out the conflicting arguments, Sheler concludes,

next page... |  1 of 3

May 22 2000, Vol. 44, No. 6