A few weeks ago, a friend of mine messaged me on Facebook, “Did you catch the Salon article on the Bible, before it got pulled?” I said, “No, what did it say?” He replied, “Oh it was so bad,” and proceeded to tell me a bit about it and told me if I was able to find it, I should do write a post on it. Well, I proceeded to dig around on Google, and lo and behold, I was able to find the article in full, on the author’s own blog. So guess what? I’m writing a post on it.
The article was written by psychologist Valerie Tarico, and it was entitled, “Why is the Bible So Badly Written?” And yes, as I read it, I concurred with my friend—it really was quite bad. Simply put, it displayed an incredible amount of ignorance about some of the most basic concepts regarding what the Bible is. Or, if I can put it a different way: even if I was not a Christian and didn’t believe the Bible is inspired, I would still find Tarico’s comments to be absolutely sophomoric. The fact that even Salon.com pulled the article should tell you all you need to know.
The first red flag came in the very opening sentences of her piece, when she conflated Evangelicals with Fundamentalists, and then claimed that they believed “the Bible was dictated by God to men who acted essentially as human transcriptionists.” If that were so, Tarico said, then God must be a really bad writer.
The fact is, though, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are not the same. Yes, by and large, many right-wing Fundamentalists do essentially believe that God dictated the Bible—and they are just plain crazy. Not only is that not the view of most Evangelicals, but such a view has never been held in Church history. Now, I think there a number of problems within Evangelicalism, but believing in the “dictation method” of inspiration is not one of them.
But What Makes the Bible So Badly Written?
In any case, Tarico then proceeds to make her case that the Bible is badly written. She says the Bible gives “mixed messages,” is “repetitive,” has “bad character development,” has “boring tangents,” and has “passages where nobody can tell what the heck the writer meant to convey.” Therefore, she concludes, “This doesn’t sound like a book that was dictated by a deity.” If it was really written by a god, it should be “some of the best writing ever produced”—more enduring than Shakespeare, more scientifically accurate than Stephen Hawking, more poetic that Pablo Neruda, more ethically coherent than Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and more beautiful than Maya Angelou. Therefore, because Tarico feels the Bible isn’t as good as those works, that it, just like the Quran and the Book of Mormon, was clearly not dictated by a god.
I’m sorry, but Tarico’s criticisms amount to that of a sophomore pothead who is flunking the Romeo and Juliet unit in English class saying, “Shakespeare’s dumb! I don’t get it! Why can’t it be written more like the Divergent series? If Shakespeare really was that good, why didn’t he just make a movie?” Only with Tarico it amounts to, “The Bible is dumb! I don’t get it! If God really wrote it, it would read more like the modern writers I read!”
Furthermore, her equating the Bible with the Quran and the Book of Mormon shows a shocking amount of intellectual laziness. Islam does claim that Muhammad essentially “took dictation.” Mormonism does claim that Joseph Smith simply translated golden tablets. But Christianity has never claimed that the inspiration of the Bible ever entailed anything like what Islam and Mormonism claims.
Different Interpretations = Bad Writing?
Another reason why Tarico thinks the Bible is badly written is because people have interpreted it in different ways. That certainly is a strange rationale, to say the least. Using that logic, she would have to conclude that Shakespeare was badly written—after all, for the past 400 years countless writers and scholars have written thousands of books about various Shakespeare plays, and they don’t all agree in their interpretations of Shakespeare’s various plays.
In fact, it is generally agreed that really great literature has the power to evoke different responses and interpretations by the readers. That’s what makes great literature so alluring and captivating. I can read T.S. Eliot’s The Wasteland or Four Quartets twenty times, and on the 20th time I’ll see something I did not see before. The same holds true for the Bible. One of the most intriguing things about the Bible for me is precisely the literary creativity and genius of it. It is undoubtedly a literary masterpiece. For Tarico to claim that the Bible is poorly written because not every interprets it exactly the same, therefore, is just laughably ignorant, because truly great literature evokes different responses and interpretations.
Too Many Cooks and Too Many Contexts
Yet another criticism Tarico has of the Bible is that it is not a “unified whole,” but is rather a collection of writings written by different people, writing in different situations and cultures, and writing to different people. She also points to the fact that many believe, despite Church tradition that attributes the gospels to the figures of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, that the gospels themselves are anonymous—i.e. there are no claims of authorship actually in the gospels.
How any of that counts as an argument that the Bible is badly written, though, is beyond me. Does mere anonymous authorship entail bad writing? No one knows who actually wrote Beowulf—does that mean it is poor writing or bad literature? Of course not.
And what about her complaint that the writers wrote according to their own cultural and religious contexts? Again, how is that even an argument for “bad writing”? For that matter, how else is any writer at any time able to not write within the context of their own culture?
Tarico also parrots the standard complaint made by hyper-skeptical source critics that the Bible is really just a bunch of early sources that have been haphazardly thrown together—hence two different creation myths, three sets of the Ten Commandments, and four “contradictory versions of the Easter story.”
It is quite obvious (to me, at least) that Tarico is wholly ignorant of the last 30-40 years of biblical scholarship that has made great strides in understanding the literary artistry of the biblical authors. I cannot go into the details regarding the above examples in this post, but I will say that her charge that the Bible is “badly written” because of these things stems from the obvious fact that she has failed to read and appreciate these parts of the Bible as literary compositions. Or more simply put, she clearly doesn’t know how to read ancient literature.
Genres? You Want to Talk About Genres…and Translations?
Then there was another bizarre criticism Tarico made of the Bible: “Christians may treat the Bible as a unified book of divine guidance, but in reality it is a mix of different genres: ancient myths, songs of worship, rule books, poetry, propaganda, gospels (yes, this was a common literary genre), coded political commentary, and mysticism, to name just a few.”
Apparently, Tarico thinks this is news. Anyone who has taken even the more rudimentary of Bible classes at the college level knows that the Bible is a collection of various writings and genres. Heck, I’m willing to bet most everyone who has even leafed through a Bible would know that there are different genres in the Bible. In any case, I’m at a loss as to how this constitutes “bad writing.”
And what about translations? Well, Tarico informs us that the Bible was actually originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (thanks, I never knew that!), and therefore, since there can be problems in translating…the Bible is badly written. I’m sorry that makes no coherent sense.
She also states the Bible is badly written because some of the things in it, although they may have had relevance to Iron Age Israelites, are wholly irrelevant to her. She complains about the genealogies; she complains about Paul’s greetings to “this person and that;” she complains about the instructions in Leviticus—she complains about a lot of things that aren’t directly applicable to her and her needs, apparently. The thing I noticed was that her complaints weren’t really so much about the Bible being poorly written, as they were about something else.
…but that “something else” deserves its own post…tomorrow.
Tarico’s arguments remind me of Marshall Brain’s inane ‘proofs’ against God. If you value your sanity, avoid his website that I will post below.
Godisimaginary.com
The Bible is incoherent and inferior to modern literature, say Lord of the Rings. It’s interesting but it’s nothing special, just old fables that never happened and bronze age nonsense.
Well, I think that is an entirely subjective opinion. As someone with a certain amount of “expertise” in Biblical Studies and who has taught it for the better part of almost 25 years, both the OT and the NT are AMAZING works of literature that also bear witness to actual history. But even if you put the “history” question to the side, as sheer works of literature, they are amazing.
The Bible is fantastic reading! Wonderful, delightful tales of talking serpents and donkeys, water-walking, the blind and lepers healed, thousands fed with with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish, and dead corpses brought back to life! I love reading the Bible. The problem comes when one reads these stories as statements of historical fact; when one bases his or her entire life and worldview on the reality of these tall tales. Imagine someone basing his or her life and worldview on the tale of Cinderella or that of Peter Pan. It is just not rational.
Tarico, like all skeptics, recognizes that the Bible is a collection of HUMAN tales. There is no evidence that a supernatural being played any role whatsoever in the creation of this text. The big question is: How much historicity did the human authors of the Bible mix in with their religious superstitions? I suggest we use the same standard for the Bible what we do for any other text from Antiquity. We accept the historical claims that can be corroborated, and we set aside those that we cannot. And, we reject ALL supernatural claims without a second’s worth of investigation, just as Christians do for the supernatural claims of the world’s other religions. Isn’t that fair? Isn’t that rational?
Question: Do Christians accept as fact ANY story about ANY person in all of human history which involves supernatural activities attributed to the powers of a god, demi-god, or human not named Yahweh, Jesus of Nazareth, the Holy Ghost, or Satan?
No, they do not. Not one. Christians reject these stories without conducting one second of investigation or research. Why? Because these stories are implausible and silly. So why on earth are Christians shocked when we skeptics apply the same standard to Christian supernatural tales???
That is a remarkably irrational take.
Is there anything irrational about this statement: “We accept the historical claims that can be corroborated, and we set aside those that we cannot. And, we reject ALL supernatural claims without a second’s worth of investigation, just as Christians do for the supernatural claims of the world’s other religions. Isn’t that fair? Isn’t that rational?”
No.
Is there anything irrational about this statement: “Christians reject these (non-Christian) supernatural stories without conducting one second of investigation or research. Why? Because these stories are implausible and silly. So why on earth are Christians shocked when we skeptics apply the same standard to Christian supernatural tales???”
No.
Dear Reader: When Joel has no rational response to a criticism of his worldview and is cornered he attacks the intelligence of the critic. It is a desperate attempt to change the subject. Standard cult behavior.
1. There are many events in history that are accepted that come from only one source.
2. Christians do not summarily reject all non-Christian supernatural claims. Yes, some are rejected for various reasons, but Christians accept that God can work among people and cultures that aren’t Christian.
And so, yes, both of your statements are irrational.
Ah, but you failed to address this critical sentence from my original statement:
“Do Christians accept as fact ANY story about ANY person in all of human history which involves supernatural activities attributed to the powers of a god, demi-god, or human not named Yahweh, Jesus of Nazareth, the Holy Ghost, or Satan?”
You are correct that Christians will accept as fact supernatural events allegedly observed in other religions but ONLY if Christians can assert that the alleged event was caused by a Judeo-Christian supernatural entity (Yahweh, the Holy Ghost, Jesus, or Lucifer/Satan). Any alleged supernatural events credited to the deities of other religions is immediately dismissed without a second thought; without any research and study whatsoever. Such claims are assumed to be nonsense. Isn’t that hypocritical given Christians frequent complaints that skeptics are unfair for immediately dismissing Christianity’s supernatural claims without any investigation?
Joel: “There are many events in history that are accepted that come from only one source.”
Gary’s original statement: “We accept the historical claims that can be corroborated, and we set aside those that we cannot. And, we reject ALL supernatural claims without a second’s worth of investigation, just as Christians do for the supernatural claims of the world’s other religions. Isn’t that fair? Isn’t that rational?”
I encourage your readers to do a simple online search regarding this question. Don’t take my word or Joel’s word for it. One or both of us may be biased. Search this question: Do historians accept as fact claims from only one ancient source?
“No, historians generally do not accept claims as fact based on only one source; they typically require corroboration from multiple independent sources to establish historical accuracy, as relying on a single source can introduce bias or potential inaccuracies. ”
“Generally” means: most of the time; as a rule. So, that means, occasionally historians do accept one source as sufficient to establish an historical fact. It is the exception, however, not the rule. And how often do professional historians accept one source to confirm the historicity of a supernatural event? Answer: Never!
Read the Gospel of Mark, dear Reader. From the first chapter on this ancient text is chock full of supernatural tales. Remove all the supernatural claims about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark and what biographical data is left? Answer: Little to none! The Gospels are not historical texts. They are not biographies. They are religious propaganda written to appeal to mostly uneducated, superstitious, gullible first century people so that “they might believe”.
Something tells me Gary is preparing another blog post of his own. Lol…
My readers would love to know which miracle, told in another world religion, you believe truly happened. I told them, don’t bother to ask Joel. In Joel’s worldview Jesus or Satan is behind *every* supernatural event. That is because neither you nor any other Trinitarian Christian believes that other gods are responsible for supernatural events as you do not believe that other gods exist.
One reader had an interesting comment to this clarification:
Some Christians say that Satan causes miracles in religions other than Christianity, and that God allows the devil to fool people in those other religions into thinking their religion is true.
But this view has an interesting implication – how can Christians be sure God has not allowed the devil to start and maintain Christianity with convincing miracles and “proofs.” Jesus and Paul might have just been minions of the devil, sent to test the Jews- God’s chosen people- to see if they would remain faithful to Judaism. Matt 12:22-29 attempts an answer by saying if Satan casts out Satan he is divided against himself and that a house divided cannot stand.
But this misses the point, however. A deception may require sacrificing some of the troops to pull it off. A feint attack on a battle field will lose troops but fool the enemy into thinking the real attack is happening in the wrong place.
Gary: This is exactly what some Jewish counter-apologists believe happened. God sent Jesus to test the faithfulness of the Jewish people. And guess what? The Jewish people passed the test overwhelmingly! Researchers estimate that less than 1% of first century Jews converted to Christianity. That means that 99% of Jews then and now have remained faithful to Yahweh, ignoring Christianity’s claim that a human being is G_d in the flesh!
You bore me, Gary.
So you admit it: Christians give not a second’s attention to miracle claims in other religions because if the supernatural event occurred, which in the Christian worldview is possible, it could never have occurred by the power of the deity the other religion claims to have caused it. It could only have occurred by the magical powers of one of the four Christian gods:
-Yahweh, god the father
-Jesus, god the son
-Holy Ghost, god the spirit
-Lucifer, god of darkness
I admitted no such thing. I’m ignoring you because I know that you will just make things up and put words in my mouth…as you have just displayed.
Gary, where’ve you been?
I’m reading Dr. Mike Licona’s May, 2024 book “Jesus, Contradicted: Why the Gospels Tell the Same Story Differently.”
Guess what? The gospels most certainly ARE ancient biography. In the book Licona compares the gospels to the ancient biographies of Plutarch, who wrote some 48 of the 90 extant biographies written within 150 years of Jesus, citing numerous examples of compositional devices employed by Plutarch, and then comparing them with instances in the gospels where the evangelists use remarkably similar techniques. Licona then examines Theon’s “Progymnasmata,” a first-century AD textbook that sets out six techniques for paraphrasing one’s sources when writing a narrative. Finally, Licona concludes by addressing the thorny question of whether the editorial moves commonplace in ancient biography are compatible with the doctrines of the divine inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture. (They are.)
As I’ve reminded you many times, you cannot hold ancient biographers (the four evangelists) guilty because they do not write according to 21st c. AD biographical standards. That’s like saying a 1940 Chrysler isn’t a *real* car because it doesn’t have power-steering and anti-lock brakes.
So, yes, the gospels ARE ancient–not modern!–biography. They conform to just about every ancient standard of biographical writing known to modern academics.
Again, you’re trying to dismiss the gospels, four ancient texts, for not answering all the objections twenty-first century skeptics would have.
Pax.
Lee.