Customer Reviews

Is the Bible True?: How Modern Debates and Discoveries Affirm the Essence of the Scriptures

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I really enjoyed this book. I was prepared for it to be full of sloppy thinking and predjudiced conclusions. I commend the author for his evenhanded evaluation of the Bible. I was especially encouraged by the section on archeology. This book should cause anyone to want to read the Bible directly regardless of thier religious views.

Sheler's book is generally good and helpful. He discusses many ways in which archaeology support the Bible record--both by direct evidence, and by proving that the Bible accurately reflects the time in which it was written. The book will definitely give you a new appreciation for the accuracy of the Bible!

Sheler also does us a favor when he shows how misguided the hardened critics are (on one hand), and mystical kooks (on the other). For example, hardened critics believed there was no David, no Sargon, and no Nebuchadnezzar--until archaeologists found evidence of all three. On the other hand, mystical kooks continually dish up silliness like the Dead Sea Scrolls conspiracy theories: suggesting that the scrolls are being held secret because they would completely disprove the New Testament, etc.. Other kooky ideas include ``Bible Code'' theories and the modern gnostic ideas, which suggest that the ``real message'' of the Bible is in the form of a secret message.

Sheler's book has its weaknesses, though. He tries to be a little too glib. He dismisses the Bible a little lightly at times, suggesting that ``only serious fundamentalists'' take this or that portion of the Bible seriously. It makes him shoot low: he is content to prove that the Bible is ``generally accurate'' while at the same time leaving the impression that the Bible has often botched the details.

Overall, the book is good and helpful. It leaves an off taste, and some loose ends, for the reason I mention above. But if you can take it with a pinch of salt, you'll be glad you gave it a read.

This book takes the approach that the Bible can (and perhaps should) be considered in the same manner as any other ancient text. The author points out that this often is not what happens; rather that (often in the service of their own prejudices) scholars hold a double standard which demands more of Biblical text than other contemporaneous writings. The whole presentation of this book was refreshing in the respect that it paid to the three major monotheistic religions of the Middle East, and especially so the Christian tradition. Whereas many current writers seem intent on "debunking" religious belief, this book can, and does, strengthen one's faith. The archeological and historical support for Biblical scriptures is presented in a manner that can be understood easily, historiographical issues are raised and discussed, and when the evidence simply is not there (in either direction) the author says so. As a Christian, I appreciated Mr. Sheler's respect. As an educated man (doctorate and practicing psychologist) I appreciate the intelligence Mr. Sheler brought to the table. This was a very difficult task that was done well!

When dealing with questions about the Bible and about faith, we are often only able to find extremists--whether from the right or the left. Balance is a rare commodity. I think Jeffery Sheler brings us that balance in "Is the Bible True?" He attempts (and does a very good job) at listening to what people are saying on both (or all) sides of the issues, trying to understand who they are and where they are coming from, and then trying to make sense of it all. Although at times Sheler gives his evaluation of the merits of logic one side or the other, he never does it in a way that tries to force us to think his way.

As when reading any treatment that seeks to be balanced and fair, if you take a strong position on the issues one way or another, you will probably feel that your position isn't being treated adequately. There were times when I wished he would have said some things that he didn't. There were some "facts" I felt he left out, which of course would have helped "prove" my own position. No doubt, both conservative and liberal Bible readers will find reasons to be unhappy or disappointed.

But if you sincerely want to learn about what different people think regarding the Bible, you'll find some interesting and helpful input. What Sheler sets out to do, he does well. For a person who is trying for the first time to understand the questions surrounding the Bible, this book will give you a good framework to begin that search. You'll want to continue from there. I'd recommend N.T. Wright's "The New Testament and the People of God" as a next (although more scholarly) step in your search.

Overall, I thought it was interesting, enjoyable, understandable, and helpful.

Recently I have read a number of books in the "holy bloodline of Christ" genre (The Templar Revelation, The Hiram Code, The Tomb of God, etc.) in which the authors engage in cavalier exegesis of the Bible while accepting, uncritically, virtually every skeptical perspective on the historicity of scripture. This book is a great book on its own terms, but it is a wonderful balance to these other popular and skeptical books attacking the normal understandings of Biblical history. The author has the intelligence and the courage to include the perspectives of scholars in the evangelical tradition, thereby avoiding the uncritical canonization of scholars in the traditions of orthodox "higher criticism." I especially appreciated his chapter on the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is one of the best books that I have seen for laypeople seeking to understand issues of Biblical criticism.

REVIEW OF SHELER, IS THE BIBLE TRUE?

It is unwise to base a world-view on science and scholarship because by their very nature science and scholarship constantly change ("Stay tuned!" is a very good motto), whereas philosophy begins by asking, What is it that does not change? Nonetheless, science and scholarship have their place and books like this are very helpful since few of us have the time to look into the research itself or the expertise required to evaluate it.

Sheler shows unusual balance and fairness and obviously has great respect for his subject. Unlike many of the scholars themselves, he is willing to consider non-textual as well as textual evidence. Sheler does not however actually summarize the evidence for many contemporary mainstream scholarly views (e.g., the view that Mark's Gospel is the earliest), and does not in every case mention important minority views (e.g., the view that structural features of the text militate, in part, against widespread notions of multiple authorship). I might mention that only a few decades ago you could find Bible commentaries that took it as fact, rather than mere speculation, that Matthew's Gospel was not only the earliest, but was originally written in Aramaic.

A few remarks:

(a) The meaning of "scholarly consensus." Consider p. 26, par. 2, line 2: "If there is any consensus at all..." It must be realized that "consensus" in the scientific and scholarly world does not necessarily mean, as one might suppose, that a group of researchers have independently arrived at the same conclusion. It may also mean that one or a few researchers have influenced many others, in a "follow-the-leader" fashion. Thus if, say, twenty scholars yield a "consensus" this does not necessarily mean there are twenty independent converging bodies of research.

(b) Sheler does not compare biblical scholarship with scholarship on other ancient texts. Recall for example that in the 19th century multiple authorship for Homer's epics was widely taught by scholars; this is not mainstream thought today. It would be nice to know whether this evidence was similar to, or very different from, that for multiple authorship of the Pentateuch. Etc.

(c) Sheler's Protestant background occasionally shows. In note 8 for Chapter 2, p. 258, speaking of the seven deutero-canonical Old Testament books, Sheler says "they were added to the Roman Catholic canon in 1546 at the Council of Trent." This is factually true but misleading, because it sounds as if the Catholics "added something" to the Bible whereas in fact the Protestants "took something out." The matter is explained in Sheler's text; it is only the footnote that is misleading.

(d) We find in Sheler the common casual identification of the past (what actually happened) with written history (what we know). Thus "As a missionary, he [Paul] was chiefly responsible for establishing Christianity in the Greco-Roman world." No doubt Paul was important; and his letters are foundational for doctrine. But according to the New Testament record, seventy-odd unknown apostles were sent out by Jesus himself; Jesus was on earth some 40 days _after_ his resurrection; there was Pentecost, which the text hints had far-reaching effects; we have that tantalizing note at the end of John's Gospel about the "many other things which Jesus did..." which would fill many books; and so on.

Ken Miner

I found this book "by accident," and was intrigued to see what a mainstream journalist would do with such a potentially volatile topic. His readable, clear and swift style were pleasant surprises. Even more surprising was his fair treatment of opposing viewpoints/worldviews of the nature of the biblical texts.

Because already-submitted reviews detail the strengths and weaknesses of Sheler's book, I would like to emphasize what I consider its greatest strength: Sheler's consistent revealing of the underlying philosophies/assumptions of the scholars and academics active today in biblical criticism. It is critical for those seeking answers and clues to the nature of the Bible to not accept blindly someone's opinion simply because of a hefty-sounding degree from a prestigious university. Many contemporary scholars approach the Bible with the underlying theistic or even atheistic assumptions, and you better believe that those presuppositions heavily influence their findings.

Sheler is also to be commended for his honesty and fairness in showing where there is an existing paucity in historical evidence to support the biblical narratives. Also, he does a good job of introducing the idea that ancient writers did not write their works with the same intentions and "standards" that we take for granted 20 centuries later. It is important that we are able to read them as they intended, and not to superimpose our own standards of journalistic writing on them.

Additionally, Sheler does a fantastic job of explaining and debunking the Bible codes in language readable and accessible to laymen (like myself) who would easily be thrown by heavily technical discussions of the mathematics involved.

To interested readers, I would strongly recommend "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" by Craig and Crossan. While more focused in topic, it deals with the same issue of underlying assumptions and evidences as does Sheler's book.

This book is well written, and easy to read. The author takes a non-biased overview of some of the historical and archaeological studies pertaining to the Bible. Of particular interest were the sections on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the search for historical evidence of Jesus Christ. The author does an excellent job at balancing out some of the "conspiracy theories" with factual evidence of the texts themselves. The comparisons of some of the religious cults, which existed at the time the Gospels, were fascinating. The Book of John, which has often been decried as not being an eyewitness account may actually have been the first Gospel written, according to the author, due to some new cross reference with other sects at the time which place some of the language and images used by John as existing during the historical time period of Jesus. While much of the evidence may be found in other places the book is an excellent overview. Overall, this book is well researched, and well written. It is rare to find a non-biased overview of the subject matter, definitely worth the time. I would recommend this book for anyone searching for evidence of Biblical truth. The more archeology progresses, the more Biblical truths are validated, and this book does a great job of reporting that evidence.

I'm not sure I know enough to evaluate this book, but I can at least describe it. The basic point of view of this book is: nothing in the Bible is conclusively disproven by modern archaeology. Therefore, it is more or less true. (Or as one Conservative rabbi I know stated: "the Torah is truth but not precision.")

Sheler's point of view is closer to middle-of-the-road Christianity than to either secularism or fundamentalism (though a look at other reviews suggests he gets more flak from the fundamentalist end of the spectrum--perhaps because atheists really can't be bothered with reading this kind of book).

Sheler explains (or maybe I should say "asserts"; I don't have the knowledge to firmly agree or disagree with him) that the Christian Bible has plenty of inconsistencies (though he misses a few--for example, one of the Gospels has a lot more generations between Jesus and David than another), that some of the Gospels were written by people who were a generation or two removed from Christ, and that today's commonly accepted Jewish Bible differs both from the Dead Sea Scrolls and from other earlier versions--facts which would appear to create a lot of difficulty for people who treat every word in the Bible as true.

On the other hand, Sheler asserts that these inconsistencies don't rule out the major themes of the Bible: the relevation at Sinai for the Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament), the Virgin Birth for the Christian Bible (aka New Testament). In fact, he defends the latter, arguing that the Virgin Birth is such a weird story that it couldn't possibly be invented (ironically, pretty similar to a Orthodox Jewish argument for the Relevation at Sinai).

Sheler understandably avoids the differences between Judaism and Christianity; for example, he doesn't discuss the fact that several portions of the Torah urge Jews to keep commandments "forever" which would seem to pretty much rule out Christianity.

But it takes open-mindedness and a willingness to avoid both the extremes of hyper-literalism and hyper-skepticism to see it. Jeffrey Sheler makes a solid, even-handed case for the basic reliability of the Bible. It is enormously comprehensive, which is almost a disadvantage given his ambitious thesis. All the ground is covered here: archeology, textual criticism, comparative literature, anthropology, etc. Sheler does cite mainly from conservative sources (such as Brown, Wright, Hoffmeier and Blomberg), but he fairly represents skeptical positions as well. I think some of these negative reviews on amazon.com reflect the fact that some people just can't accept the fact that conservative views might, in fact, be better supported by the evidence. Since they declare that conclusion a priori impossible, anyone who weighs in for that position must be biased or selective. Sheler's arguments won't convince those already resolutely skeptical, but they are not rationalistic or apologetic either. They represent a balanced, measured view drawn from years of careful study. Overall an excellent book on issues of biblical accuracy.