-
To what extent have you read about the opposing views of the historicity of the biblical documents? How comfortable are you in discussing this topic with a skeptic? [p. 97-98]
-
“If this [revisionist] view of the New Testament’s origins and development is true, it would radically change our understanding of the content and meaning of Christianity itself. It would mean that no one could really know what Jesus said and did, and that the Bible could not be the authoritative norm over our life and beliefs. It would mean that most of the classic Christian teachings—Jesus’ deity, atonement, and resurrection—are mistaken and based on legends” [p. 98]. Do you agree? Since so many highly knowledgeable scholars are convinced this is the only possible conclusion, given the historical evidence, does this make you nervous? How does this statement affect your faith?
-
Have you met people who question whether intelligent people can “take the Bible literally”? [p. 99] What did they specifically challenge or doubt in the biblical texts? What reasons did they give? Where did they learn this?
-
Keller lists three reasons why the four gospel records of Jesus life, death, and resurrection should be taken as historically reliable [p. 100-109]. Summarize each objectively and clearly in language that would be readily understood and appreciated by a non-Christian who does not have a churched background. Do you find the three reasons amounting to a compelling argument? Why or why not?
-
Given the dates of the writing of the New Testament documents, Keller says, “This means that the biblical accounts of Jesus’ life were circulating within the lifetimes of hundreds who had been present at the events of his ministry” [p. 101]. How is this significant for the reliability of the biblical texts?
-
“Mark,” Keller says, “says that the men who helped Jesus carry his cross to Calvary ‘was the father of Alexander and Rufus’ (Mark 15:21). There is no reason for the author to include such names unless the readers know or could have access to them. Mark is saying, ‘Alexander and Rufus vouch for the truth of what I am telling, if you want to ask them’” [p. 101]. In the past, when you read such details in the gospel records did you see that the author meant this? What might this suggest for your next reading of the four gospels?
-
“All this decisively refutes the idea that the gospels were anonymous, collective, evolving oral traditions. Instead they were oral histories taken down from the mouths of living eyewitnesses who preserved the words and deeds of Jesus in great detail” [p. 102]. What does Keller include in “All this”? Do you agree it is a decisive refutation? Why or why not?
-
Have friends raised ideas they garnered from The Da Vinci Code, arguing that though the story is fictional, the ideas behind it are true? [p. 103]. How have you challenged those ideas? Did your friends find your arguments convincing? Why or why not?
-
List the specific “counterproductive content” Keller mentions to counter the argument that the early church fabricated the gospel accounts to make Jesus fit their agenda [p. 104-105]. Does this seem to make a compelling case? Why or why not?
-
Keller says that the Gnostic gospels, not the canonical gospels, “‘suck up’ to the ‘powers that be’” [p. 105]. This turns on its head what is often the common reaction to The Da Vinci Code, and to the recent media coverage of The Gospel of Judas. Do you find these ideas coming up often enough that some further reading on your part might prove helpful?
-
Noting his credentials as a literary scholar, Keller quotes C. S. Lewis, “I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, and myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know none of them are like this. Of this [gospel] text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage … or else, some unknown [ancient] writer … without known predecessors or successors, suddenly, anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic, narrative” [p. 106]. How is this significant for making the case that the gospel narratives are not merely legend—what is Lewis referring to? Take the time to read (at least sections of) Beowulf or The Iliad and compare them to sections of Mark’s gospel.
-
As Keller notes [p. 108], a great of deal of “Biblical revisionism” seems to be filtering into Western culture in the form of archeological discoveries, studies of Gnostic gospels, and works of fiction. How does this make you feel as a Christian? How does this make you feel as a non-Christian? What impact has the shift from what was, a century ago, generally “a culture of belief” to today’s “culture of skepticism” had on Christian belief? If you reject these scholars’ conclusion, on what basis do you reject them if you accept the scholarly conclusion of Lewis in question #11?
-
Keller goes through a step-wise series of suggestions for reading the Bible after finding biblical texts that are culturally offensive [p. 109-113]. As objectively as you can, restate in your own words those steps. Would you be comfortable suggesting them to a non-Christian friend? Why or why not?
-
“To stay away from Christianity,” Keller says, “because part of the Bible’s teaching is offensive to you assumes that if there is a God he wouldn’t have any views that upset you. Does that belief make sense?” [p. 112] Christians often say such things when non-Christians have objections to things like the Trinity or the necessity of Christ’s death for forgiveness. Is it surprising that Keller raises it in this context?
-
Keller claims, “an authoritative Bible is not the enemy of a personal relationship with God. It is the precondition for it” [p. 114]. Do you find this compelling? Do you find it attractive? Why or why not?
-
Since there are so many other issues raised concerning the historicity and trustworthiness of the Bible, what plans should you make?
