Why Modern Fundamentalism Shakes Confidence in the Bible

Christian Fundamentalists tell everyone that they ought to accept the truthfulness of the Bible. It is painfully ironic, therefore, that the character of fundamentalism has the effect of powerfully undermining the confidence of those who investigate or think seriously about its historicity.

Think about it. Someone like N. T. Wright can come along and make the argument for why we ought to leave room in our approach to history for the possibility that the disciples really experienced encounters with the risen Christ, encounters with a bodily component.

What causes us to find such arguments unpersuasive, or at least insufficient to lead us to certainty? Most likely it is the nagging question, “What if the authors of the earliest Gospels were like modern fundamentalists?”

The evidence that the stories of Darwin’s deathbed conversion are a hoax has been presented over and over. So too has the evidence that persuades basically all biologists that evolution has occurred, and conversely the many flaws and outright lies told by various forms of creationism have been pointed out and responded to. Modern fundamentalism seems immune to all evidence, as the same false claims and “arguments” that have been answered more than once get recycled, repeated and believed.

If the ancient Gospel authors were like this, then there could have been individuals who had evidence that the tomb of Jesus was not empty, and it would be ignored (or responded to by making up a story about guards at the tomb). The eyewitnesses could have been appealed to as not having said the things they were purported to, and people who knew them could have been brought in to explain what Jesus was really like. The response would be to accuse even the inner circle of Jesus’ followers of not really understanding him – which, interestingly enough, is precisely what Mark’s Gospel does.

I am not saying that the Gospel authors were in fact fundamentalists. My point is simply that there mere possibility that they were, and thus were innoculated against any and all evidence against their viewpoints, makes it that much harder to trust their testimony.

And so there’s the irony. There are fundamentalists who believe the Bible without evidence, and claim that the earliest Christians were just like them in believing in the same sort of way. And if they’re right, or even if it is genuinely possible that they are right, that provides us adequate grounds for doubting the testimony those early Christians left behind.