Newsweek recently published an article by Kurt Eichenwald entitled "The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin." Because of its very skeptical content and poor method, it has suffered a lot of critique. My colleague Dan Wallace recently posted his response, and as usual it is a sober post that deserves a very careful reading. What I wanted to highlight here is Dr. Wallace's approach towards the genre of historical questions which the article raises:
It’s fair game to raise questions about the Bible’s accuracy concerning sin, salvation, miracles, Jesus, etc. It’s fair game precisely because the Bible makes audacious claims that, if true, change everything. And it’s fair game because the Bible places these claims in history. Indeed, the Bible is the only major sacred text that subjects itself to historical verification. It’s the only major sacred text that puts itself at risk. And Jesus is at the center of those claims and that risk.
We should not shy away from difficult questions people ask about the Bible and history. Indeed, we must ask them because the question of history is central to the claims the Bible makes. Just as we reject docetism within Christology, we must avoid a docetic history because the Bible itself does not allow that stance. Instead of getting angry at the article, we should study, investigate, respond, and dialogue. Doing so will strengthen the family of faith and challenge those who are outside to properly consider our claims about the Lord Jesus Christ.