It
is not unusual for Newsweek, and other major media magazines, to
publish critical opinions of Christianity and the Bible during major
Christian holidays. I have lost count of how many March/April issues of
such magazines have cast doubt on the resurrection, just in time for
Easter.
However, the recent Newsweek cover article by Kurt Eichenwald, entitled
“The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,” published intentionally (no
doubt) on December 23rd, goes so far beyond the standard polemics, and
is so egregiously mistaken about the Bible at so many places, that the
magazine should seriously consider a public apology to Christians
everywhere.
Of course, this is not the first media article critiquing the Bible
that has been short on the facts. However, what is stunning about this
particular article is that Kurt Eichenwald begins by scolding
evangelical Christians for being unaware of the facts about the Bible,
and the proceeds to demonstrate a jaw-dropping ignorance of the facts
about the Bible.
Being ignorant of biblical facts is one thing. But being ignorant of
biblical facts after chiding one’s opponent for that very thing is a
serious breach of journalistic integrity. Saying Eichenwald’s article
is an instance of “the pot calling the kettle black” just doesn’t seem
to do it justice.
There are a variety of categories where Newsweek needs to give
Eichenwald a serious slap on the journalistic wrist. Given the length
of the article, I will have to deal with it in two parts. Here are some
serious problems with part one:
Easy (and False) Caricatures
Eichenwald begins (not concludes, but begins!) his article by
describing Christians:
They wave their Bibles at passersby, screaming their condemnations of
homosexuals. They fall on their knees, worshipping at the base of
granite monuments to the Ten Commandments while demanding prayer in
school. They appeal to God to save America from their political
opponents, mostly Democrats. They gather in football stadiums by the
thousands to pray for the country’s salvation.
So, Eichenwald’s well-balanced journalistic understanding of the
Christian religion is limited to street preachers who scream at people,
those who demand the 10 commandments be posted in schools, and the
tiresome trope that all Christians are part of the Jerry Falwell moral
majority?
Anyone who has studied evangelical Christianity for more than 10
minutes, using more than internet articles from the Huffington Post,
would know that the average believer in America is none of these things.
Such stock accusations and caricatures are just low-hanging fruit that
are unworthy of serious journalism. Eichenwald should know better.
Irresponsible Accusations
But, Eichenwald isn’t done. He is not nearly finished expressing his
moral outrage against Christianity:
When the illiteracy of self-proclaimed Biblical literalists leads
parents to banish children from their homes, when it sets neighbor
against neighbor, when it engenders hate and condemnation, when it
impedes science and undermines intellectual advancement, the topic has
become too important for Americans to ignore, whether they are deeply
devout or tepidly faithful, believers or atheists.
Notice that Eichenwald (still in his introduction) just tosses out
these (very serious) accusations and generalizations with absolutely no
evidence whatsoever. One wonders whether we are reading a news article
or the editorial page. Could a journalist ever get away with such
evidence-less accusations if it were made against Islam?
Take for instance the charge that Christians are all about “banishing
children.” Seriously? If Eichenwald had actually investigated which
part of the population is leading the way in adopting children without
homes the answer would have been readily available. Evangelicals. Not
Muslims. And certainly not liberal media elites.
But, even more than just being factually wrong, Eichenwald seems
completely unaware that he is engaging in his own moralistic
diatribe—the very thing he accuses Christians of doing. Remember, he
complains that Christians are like the “Pharisees” always going around
telling people they are wrong. Yet now Eichenwald is doing exactly the
same thing. Why, then, is he not guilty of the very charge he levelled
against Christians, namely “hate and condemnation”?
Apparently only Christian moralizing is “hate” whereas Eichenwald’s own
moralizing is just fine.
Overplaying Transmission Problems
Eichenwald attempts to discredit the Bible by pointing out problems in
its transmission. However, the real problem is not with the Bible but
with Eichenwald’s misinformed accusations. For instance, he claims:
About 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian
manuscripts and their compilation into the New Testament.
This is patently false. Collections of New Testament writings were
functioning as Scripture as early as the second century (and, to some
extent, even in the first). For evidence of this, see my book, Canon
Revisited.
Eichenwald tries again:
While there were professional scribes whose lives were dedicated to
this grueling work [of copying manuscripts], they did not start copying
the letters and testaments about Jesus’s time until centuries after
they were written. Prior to that, amateurs handled the job.
Again, this is false. There is no evidence that the earliest Christian
scribes were amatuers (whatever that means). On the contrary, the
earliest evidence suggest Christian scribes were multi-functional
scribes who were used to copying all sorts of literature from letters
to literary texts and beyond (see chapter 7 of my book The Heresy of
Orthodoxy).
Eichenwald is misinformed another time:
Not all of the amateur copyists spoke the language or were even fully
literate. Some copied the script without understanding the words.
This is an egregious claim about earliest Christian scribes. There is
no evidence that the earliest Christian copyists could be, in any way,
characterized as illiterate. Eichenwald may be referring to a reference
in the Shepherd of Hermas, a popular second-century text, where an
individual was asked to copy a book who could not read. However, there
is no indication that this individual was a scribe, nor that this was
typical for scribes!
Again, another mistake:
But in the past 100 years or so, tens of thousands of manuscripts of
the New Testament have been discovered, dating back centuries.
This is absolutely false. The number of NT manuscripts is a little more
than 5,500 (and still growing), but not 10,000. In addition, Eichenwald
mentions the high number of manuscripts as if it were a negative! Truth
is that the more manuscripts we possess, the more certain we can be
about the integrity of the NT text.
Moreover, Eichenwald never mentions (or perhaps doesn’t know) that the
NT is in a class by itself when it comes to the number of manuscripts.
Most other ancient texts from the first century (or thereabouts) are
preserved in around 10-20 manuscripts (and some only in a single
manuscript). Thus, the 5,500 NT manuscripts of the NT is impressive
indeed.
Overplaying Textual Variations
In an effort to shock the reader, Eichenwald appeals to two significant
textual variations in the NT ...
[Continued]
$0 to Republicans
$8,300 from 1 person to Democrats
