At first sight, this title or question appears to be a largely theological one; at least, it would appear most unlikely to be a scientific question. How else is one to consider the nature of the Bible except theologically or through biblical scholarship?
Indeed, the nature of the Bible is a problem that has come to divide – and even sub-divide – Christians. What it is that causes these divisions is an avenue I don't want to go down today. As I proposed earlier, I want to take an ontological line and concern ourselves primarily with the question of our 'being'. Here we must include aspects of our human nature as portrayed and played out in the Bible.
It was also noted earlier that Darwin has caused a change in our worldview and the extent of this change not only affects our understanding of ourselves, it must surely also affect our approach to, even our understanding of, the Bible given that it is a book that, through various literary devices, addresses the human condition.
In David Lodge's 'Small World', the novel's protagonist, Persse McGarrigle, holds a PhD for a thesis about the influence of T.S. Eliot on Shakespeare. It was to have been about the influence of Shakespeare on T.S. Eliot but an administrative error that could not be rectified produced an obvious anachronism. However, in using this witty device, Lodge is, in fact, highlighting a pertinent and frequently overlooked point: that because of what Eliot brought to English literature through both his critical and creative writing, Shakespeare is influenced by Eliot in the sense that our interpretation and understanding of what Shakespeare wrote is affected by our being in a post-Eliot world of literary appreciation.
I would like to suggest that the same is true for our understanding of the behaviour of people in the Bible now that we are viewing these stories with the benefit of Darwinian hindsight.
Sciences which seek to understand human beings generally have some Darwinian element in that their findings are often interpreted and expressed in evolutionary terms. Here the basic questions about why certain human characteristics exist are answered in terms of the survival or reproductive benefits conferred by those characteristics. The key features of Darwinism are survival and reproduction. If you survive longer, you are more likely to produce more offspring and if you are good at attracting mates, again, you will be more likely to produce more offspring. Each organism seeks its own survival and the perpetuation of its lineage. Consider, for example, how obsessed Abraham was with his 'seed'.
Here, one is not only referring to physical characteristics but also to behavioural characteristics; behaviours can often be interpreted in Darwinian – that is, survival and reproductive – terms. When we consider practices such as genocide or 'ethnic cleansing' we can offer Darwinian interpretations for why they occur. Be clear, these interpretations are not excuses or justifications for these actions or the way they are carried out. Instead, they are interpretations in terms of survival benefits etc. as to why people have the capacity to behave in the way that they do. With genocide and 'ethnic cleansing', one side seeks to perpetuate itself at the expense of the other; the eradication of the competitive threat posed by the enemy is sought.
This raises questions about the behaviours we see in the Bible and how the Bible explains those behaviours. If the Bible states that God told the Israelites to wipe out a whole town or tribe of people, what should we make of it in light of what we now know given the availability of a Darwinian interpetation of human nature? Did God really make such a command or did those who had the propensity to behave in such a way abuse the notion of God to their own ends; choosing, albeit unwittingly, to impress human attributes onto the divine?
And might this not still be going on? It is interesting to note, as one meets different Christians, how the Christianity they espouse is often strongly shaped – or so it seems – by their background. Many years ago, I met an American Christian who worked in the US Air Force as a missile loader. Not a job I would immediately associate with a follower of Christ. Similarly, I have met many rich Christians who live in a style no different from that of other rich people. Perhaps they may be more generous with their giving, perhaps they may be more ethical in their business practices, I don't know – but otherwise there appears to be no obvious difference between them and the rest of their social group – indeed, should there be? My point here is not a sociological one but a biological one: that, in each case, the survival of individual and lineage is very much to the fore – whether it be by firing missiles at others who pose a threat or by living in nice comfortable houses at an arm's length from one's neighbours. Our biology has a stong influence over us – not least in how we behave and the underlying motives for those behaviours.
The idea of the Bible being possibly a 'Word of Warning' comes from noticing how very 'human' – as opposed to divinely commanded – people's behaviour in the Bible really is. Instead of being a 'Word of God' in the sense of it being what God said and what God told people to do, the Bible may be a 'Word of Warning' in that it should be read carefully to sift out people's true motives; to see how mistaken they were and how mistaken we can still be; to take nothing at face value but learn from the human errors that the Bible sometimes seems to extol as virtues. To what extent does this redefine the notion of 'Scripture'? This is certainly not the Bible as I know many to understand it.
Furthermore, when we come to the life of Christ, what then? If God became Man, then God took on the nature of a being that was the result of a long evolution which favoured those able to survive – by fair means or foul. In so doing, is there perhaps something quite un-Darwinian about Christ? And I don't mean this in the obvious biological (virgin birth) sense; I mean it in a behavioural sense; in His whole attitude. Does Christ's behaviour and teaching perhaps transcend the biologically understandable self-interested, survival-orientated dimensions of life and look to some other mode of being?
To Consider:
• What does the Bible look like through post-Darwinian eyes?
• How does the life conducted by 'divine Man' (Christ) compare with the life conducted by 'biological Man'?