Cold Case Christianity: the bible is racist and imperfect

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: No GQ, the Bible is not Racist, Sexist or Boring

Posted: 18 Jun 2018 01:34 AM PDT

Recently, the editors of GQ (Gentlemen’s Quarterly online) released its list of 21 Books You Don’t Have to Read. They boldly claimed, “…not all the Great Books have aged well. Some are racist and some are sexist, but most are just really, really boring. So we—and a group of un-boring writers—give you permission to strike these books from the canon.” The Bible was smack dab in the middle of their list.

You may recognize a few other classic works on GQ’s roster of “racist,” “sexist,” and “boring” books: Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea and A Farewell to Arms, Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, and Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels. These books were listed for a variety of reasons, but the editor’s explanation for the inclusion of the Bible was particularly harsh: “It is repetitive, self-contradictory, sententious, foolish, and even at times ill-intentioned.”

While many may find those words to be rather severe, they actually sounded familiar to me when I first read the GQ article. As an atheist, I can remember saying something similar to a Christian co-worker. But that all changed as I began to investigate the Bible using the skills I had developed as a detective. I’ve now come to appreciate the Bible above all other texts (religious or otherwise), largely because the editors of GQ are wrong:

The Bible’s not racist: The Bible doesn’t divide people based on their racial identity.

 Jesus held off granting a healing request to a Gentile women until she cleverly responded to his racist remark by admitting it was correct to characterize the Jews as children and herself as a dog:

 22 And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed."
 23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us."
 24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
 25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!"
 26 And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
 27 But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
 28 Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once. (Matt. 15:22-28 NAU)

 Inerrantist scholar has to trifle that the wording here suggests the Gentiles are not wild dogs, but pet dogs, as if this reduces the stigma!

15:25–28 The woman merely repeats her plea for help but also kneels. Whatever her intention, Matthew will see some kind of worship here. Jesus pursues the question of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles (v. 26). Jews frequently insulted Gentiles by calling them “dogs,”— the wild, homeless scavengers that roamed freely in Palestine. But the diminutive form here (kynarion rather than kyōn) suggests a more affectionate term for domestic pets, particularly since these dogs eat under the children’s table. Even at best, Jesus’ remarks still strike the modern reader as condescending. Jesus apparently wants to demonstrate and stretch this woman’s faith. The “children” must then refer to Israel and the “bread” to the blessings of God on the Jews, particularly through Jesus’ healing ministry. The woman disputes none of Jesus’ terms but argues that, even granting his viewpoint, he should still help her (v. 27). The Gentiles should receive at least residual blessings from God’s favor on the Jews. In fact, the Old Testament from Gen 12:1–3 onwards promised far more than residue. The woman reveals a tenacious faith even as a Gentile (v. 28). Jesus explicitly commends this faith, closely paralleling the narrative of 8:5–13 (as does also his instantaneous healing from a distance). Matthew’s distinctives underline her faith by the addition both of her words in v. 22 and of Jesus’ praise here. “Your request is granted” more literally reads let it be done for you as you wish.

Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 244).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 Evangelical scholar Hagner admits what "dog" really meant:

This word, used first by Jesus and then by the woman, recalls that Gentiles were sometimes likened to the unclean dogs that roamed the streets (cf. 7:6). κυρίων, “masters,” suggests the superiority of Israel as the people of God over the Gentiles.

Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33B:

Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 14-28.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 442). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Wallace continues:

Skin color, along with other external human features, are unimportant to God.

But it was apparently important enough to the Jews that black people had to remind Jews to stop focusing on skin color:

 6 Do not stare at me because I am dark, because I am darkened by the sun. My mother's sons were angry with me and made me take care of the vineyards; my own vineyard I had to neglect. (Cant. 1:6 NIV)

 Wallace continues:

According to the Bible, God created humans – all humans – in His image (Genesis 1:27), and unlike the rest of us, God doesn’t judge people based on their outward appearance, but instead “looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

If God doesn't judge by outward appearance, he probably didn't give the command requiring all Gentile men among the Hebrews to get circumcised:

48 "But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. (Exod. 12:48 NAU)

 Numbers 31:18 says that among the Midianite women captured in war, only the females whose hymens are still intact can be spared the death-penalty:

 17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.
 18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Num. 31:17-18 NAU)

 One has to wonder how Moses and his army men figured out which of the women were virgins and which weren't.  But we can be fairly sure that it involved something a bit more physically intrusive than prayer.

The Apostle Paul wrote that “there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” (Galatians 3:28), and the Apostle Peter said that, “God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35).

And yet, long after the Great Commission wherein the risen Christ told the original apostles that they were to evangelize the Gentiles (Matthew 28:19-20), we still find them intentionally limiting their efforts solely to the Jews, and allocating the entire Gentile mission field to Paul alone, Galatians 2:9,

When Martin Luther King Jr. – a Bible believing, Baptist minister – argued for the dignity and equality of African Americans, he did so based on the teaching of Scripture. This alone is adequate reason to read the Bible.

Equality in the bible doesn't mean it contains no inequality or racist statements. Only those who believe in bible "inerrancy" would engage in such a broad brushing assumption.

The Bible’s not sexist: Given the cultural setting in which the Bible was written, it’s unfair to claim it is sexist.

 Is that why the bible says girl babies make the mother unclean longer than boy babies?

 2 "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying: 'When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean.
 3 'On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
 4 'Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed.
 5 'But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days. (Lev. 12:2-5 NAU)

 Reminder to the apologists:  the text says the mother remains UNCLEAN longer upon birth of a baby girl. It is neither expressed nor implied that the extra time was to allow more bonding between mother and infant.  UNCLEAN is a yucky state of affairs, never something positive.

Wallace continues:

In fact, Jesus’ continuous interaction with women was countercultural. He had female disciples, many of his closest friends were women (i.e. Martha and her sister, Mary), and some of his most profound theological teaching was first shared with women (as in John 11:20-27).

He also talked down to his own mother:

  3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine."
 4 And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come."
 5 His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it." (Jn. 2:3-5 NAU)

And Jesus dishonorably refused to agree with somebody who considered his mother honorable:

  27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed."
 28 But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." (Lk. 11:27-28 NAU)

 Wallace continues:

It was a woman who first acknowledged the identity of Jesus as the Messiah (the Samaritan woman at the well in the Gospel of John),

 That's in the gospel of John, the latest of the gospels, and you don't have the first fucking clue whether this story is real or just made up by John, in light of conservative NT scholars Craig Evans and Mike Licona and their belief that John puts in Jesus' mouth words he never said.

and it was a woman (Mary) who first discovered the empty tomb.

But the low status of women might be inferred from the fact that the women are never credited by Paul or other apostles in their actual preaching of the resurrection.   Its not about who was first to see the empty tomb, but who Jesus actually appeared to.  And despite Jesus appearing to the women in all 4 gospels, the women are never cited as resurrection witnesses in Paul's infamous list of resurrection witnesses, 1st Corinthians 15:

 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor. 15:3-8 NAU)

Wallace continues:

Women played a critical role in the ministry of Jesus, because as Paul said, “there is no male and female” for we are all one in Christ.

 Nope, apostle Paul cited to Eve not being the first to be created, and Eve having been successfully hoodwinked by the devil, as his basis for refusing to allow women to teach in the church:

 9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,
 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.
 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (1 Tim. 2:9-15 NAU)

 Commentators who pretend Paul only said this because of some local heresy, is total bullshit.  Paul's reasons for prohibiting women from teaching are reasons that would easily be taken as biblical evidence that women are intellectually inferior to men.

Wallace continues:

This teaching about the value, status and identity of women, written two millennia prior to modern feminist movements, once again makes the Bible worth reading.

The Bible’s not boring: The Bible isn’t simply a collection of moralistic stories and proverbial proclamations, and it isn’t uninteresting. It is a description of the world the way it really is.

Yeah right.  A book that mentions talking snakes, a parted Red Sea with a "wall of water" on either side of the escaping Israelites, a talking donkey, angels flying, people walking on water, rising from the dead, flying up to heaven, enjoying telepathy...this book describes the way the world really is?  FUCK YOU.

It presents a comprehensive view of reality, answering the most foundational questions asked by humans for thousands of years.

Correct.  Humans have been asking for thousands of years why evil like rape occurs, and Isaiah 13:13-17 answers:  this is God causing men to rape women:

 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.
 14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land.
 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
 16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.
 17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children.  (Isa. 13:13-18)

Wallace continues:

It describes how we got here, why our world is broken, and how it can be fixed. The overarching narrative of the Bible has served to inspire artists of all kinds. Writers such as Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, and Dickens, artists like Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Del Greco, and musicians such as Vivaldi, Handel, and Bach found creative inspiration on the pages of Scripture.

It's also been a source of dangerous confusion for many people because it is more ideological than realistic.  You are never allowed to sin, and yet, reality makes it impossible to avoid sinning. So the bible-god intentionally commands the impossible, and yet wants his readers to believe that he shakes the mountains in fiery wrath when sinners sin.  One wonders whether God also sends judgments upon dogs for barking.

If you’re wondering what stirred these great creative geniuses, you might want to read the Bible for yourself.

And if the bible has confused your mind and made you think 'god' is a psycho more interested in himself than his victims, throwing the bible away might be the lesser of two evils.

As I began to investigate the claims of the Bible using my skillset as a cold-case detective, I found that the Gospels varied in content and style, just as I would expect if they were reliable eyewitness accounts of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.

They also contradict each other,  but perhaps as a detective you never worry about witnesses who contradict each other?  You cannot find any non-Christian historian who thinks the variation in the gospel testimony justifies moving beyond the details and concluding that Jesus rose from the dead even if some of the witnesses are in disagreement about other matters.

They weren’t overly “repetitive” nor “self-contradictory,” especially given my experience interviewing thousands of eyewitnesses.

But you've never interviewed eyewitnesses who lived in Palestine in 40 a.d.  Some would argue that your experience is useless for discerning the truth-content of ancient testimony given by people of vastly different cultures.  What are you gonna do next?  Call Matthew to the witness stand?