Skip to content

Course 17 · Lesson 8.1

Choosing and framing a problem

11 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 17 outline

Module 1: What Christians Mean by Scripture

  1. Revelation and inspiration: two different ideas
  2. Models of inspiration across the traditions
  3. Inerrancy and infallibility: what each term claims
  4. Reading in historical and literary context

Module 2: How the Canon Was Formed

  1. The formation of the Old Testament canon
  2. The formation of the New Testament canon
  3. The Apocrypha and the deuterocanonical books
  4. Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox canons compared

Module 3: The Text and Its Transmission

  1. How manuscripts were copied
  2. Variants and how scholars weigh them
  3. The Old Testament text: Masoretic text, Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint
  4. What the manuscript evidence shows and does not show

Module 4: Apparent Contradictions

  1. A method for testing a claimed contradiction
  2. Numbers, names and parallel accounts
  3. Differences among the Gospel accounts
  4. Tensions that remain and how traditions handle them

Module 5: Difficult Old Testament Passages

  1. Reading difficult passages honestly
  2. The conquest narratives and the question of violence
  3. Slavery in the ancient world and in the Bible
  4. How Christians have read hard texts: the church fathers to today

Module 6: Archaeology and Chronology

  1. What archaeology can show
  2. The limits of archaeological evidence
  3. Dating events: kings, exile and the exodus debate
  4. Genealogies, ages and calculations

Module 7: Scripture and Science

  1. Ancient cosmology and the opening chapters of Genesis
  2. Approaches to Genesis and science among Christians
  3. Augustine, accommodation and caution in interpretation

Module 8: Writing a Response

  1. Choosing and framing a problem
  2. Building a response from context and tradition
  3. Admitting what remains unresolved

All courses

Program / Course 17: Defending Scripture / Lesson 8.1

What you will learn

  • Choose a manageable problem from the course that can be treated in a short written response.
  • State the objection in its strongest form, in words that a critic would accept as fair.
  • Frame the question precisely, separating the factual, interpretive and theological issues involved.
  • Plan the sources and the evidence needed before drafting.

The big idea

A good response to a difficult text begins before any answer is written. The writer picks a problem small enough to treat well, states the objection so fairly that its author would agree with the statement, and sorts the question into its parts: what the text says, what it meant, and what follows for belief. A weak response answers a weaker question than the one asked. A strong response shows that the writer understands why the problem is hard, and this understanding is the main thing that makes the answer worth reading.

Key terms

Problem statement
A short, precise account of the difficulty to be addressed, with references to the texts or claims involved.
Steelman
The strongest version of an opposing argument, stated before replying to it. The opposite of a straw man.
Straw man
A weakened version of an opposing argument that is easy to defeat.
Scope
The boundaries of what the response will and will not cover.
Primary and secondary sources
Primary sources are the biblical text and ancient writings. Secondary sources are modern studies and commentaries about them.
Thesis
The main claim the response will support, stated in one or two sentences.

Background

Throughout this course you have practiced a method: read in context, identify the genre, test the readings, and report what remains unresolved. The last module asks you to use the method in a sustained piece of writing. The writing is for your own notebook, to deepen your understanding. No one will read or grade it, so the only audience is yourself and the people you may one day talk with.

Experience shows that most weak responses to difficult texts fail at the beginning. They respond to a caricature of the objection, or they try to cover too much, or they mix factual questions with moral ones so that no part is answered properly. This lesson is about getting the start right. The next two lessons deal with building the response and with admitting what remains unresolved.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Choose a problem of the right size

Pick a problem you actually care about, and narrow it. The topic the Bible and violence is far too large. The question how should a Christian understand the command to destroy the cities of Canaan in Deuteronomy 20 is manageable. The topic the Gospels contradict each other is too broad, while the question how do the accounts of the empty tomb differ and what follows from the differences can be treated in a short piece.

A useful test is whether you can state the problem in a single sentence with two or three specific references. If you cannot, narrow it. You might choose from the module topics: a claimed contradiction from Module 4, a morally difficult text from Module 5, an archaeological or chronological claim from Module 6, or a point at which Genesis and science seem to meet from Module 7. You may also choose a question about the canon or the text from Modules 2 and 3.

Step 2: State the objection fairly

Write the objection as its best advocate would. Use the critic’s evidence and reasoning, not a weaker version. Check it by asking: would a thoughtful skeptic say, yes, that is my argument? If you are writing about a claimed contradiction, quote both passages in full. If you are writing about a moral objection, state the moral principle that the critic relies on and why it seems strong. If you are writing about a scientific conflict, state what the evidence is and what the scientists conclude.

This step is hard because it is uncomfortable. A believer may feel that stating the objection strongly is disloyal. The tradition teaches otherwise. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa, begins each question with the objections, often stated with great force, before giving his answer. The practice shows respect for the truth and for the reader.

Step 3: Separate the questions

Most difficult passages raise several different kinds of question at once. A factual question asks what happened or what the text says. An interpretive question asks what the author meant, with attention to genre and context. A theological question asks what follows for doctrine, such as the inspiration or authority of Scripture. A moral question asks whether the text can be reconciled with the goodness of God.

Write the problem as a short list of such questions, in order. For example, for the death of Judas: What do Matthew and Acts say? Do they conflict, or are they compatible? What do the possible explanations assume? What follows, if anything, for the doctrine of inspiration? Doing this will show which part of the problem you are addressing and which you are leaving aside.

Step 4: Plan the evidence and sources

List what you will need. Start with the biblical text in at least two translations, and a reliable commentary. Include a source from the tradition you belong to and one from a tradition you do not. If the problem involves history, find a work by a historian or archaeologist, and if possible one who disagrees with your inclination. Use the readings from this course, such as Fee and Stuart, Metzger, the Catechism, the Westminster Confession and the Fathers.

Write down what would count as evidence for and against your tentative view. If you cannot say what would change your mind, you may not be reasoning but defending. Finally, state your tentative thesis in one or two sentences, knowing that it may change. The next lesson shows how to build the response from this plan.

  1. What problem from this course do you most want to understand better, and why?
  2. How would you narrow it to a single sentence with two or three references?
  3. Who is the best advocate of the objection you have chosen, and what is their strongest point?
  4. Which kinds of question, factual, interpretive, theological or moral, does your problem raise?
  5. What source would you consult from a tradition other than your own?
  6. What would change your mind about your tentative thesis?

Examples

Too large, then manageable

A first draft topic reads: Is the Bible reliable? That is too broad to treat. A better version is: Matthew 27:9 attributes a prophecy to Jeremiah that appears in Zechariah, so does this show that Matthew made a mistake and what are the proposed explanations? The second version can be answered in a few pages.

A weak and a strong statement of an objection

Weak: Atheists say the Bible is full of contradictions. Strong: The accounts of Easter morning differ on the number of angels, the names of the women and the place of the first appearances, and a critic argues that independent harmonizing proposals require invented details, which suggests that the authors drew on different traditions. The strong statement names the evidence and the reasoning.

Sorting the questions

For the conquest of Canaan: factual question, what do Deuteronomy and Joshua command and report, and what does archaeology show; interpretive question, how do ancient war reports use language of total destruction; theological question, how do the commands relate to the character of God revealed in Christ; moral question, is the killing of children ever justified.

Different perspectives

Catholic

The scholastic method of Aquinas, taught in Catholic schools, begins with objections and then answers them. Catholic education values the stating of the opposing case in its strength. The church also invites the believer to read Scripture in the church and with her teaching.

Orthodox

Orthodox tradition values humility in approaching difficulty, and encourages the reader to bring questions to the Fathers and to a spiritual guide. Orthodox writers caution against pride in argument, and point to the example of saints who held fast to faith while living with unanswered questions.

Protestant

Protestants have a long tradition of apologetics and of the disputation. Reformed and evangelical writers stress sound argument, attention to the text and care in representing opponents. Many also stress that the Spirit must open the mind, so that argument is a means and not a substitute.

Jewish

The Talmud is built from the recording of opposing opinions with their reasons, including the minority view. Jewish learning prizes the question, and the practice of stating one’s opponent’s argument accurately is a part of the study of Torah.

Scholarly

Modern academic writing requires that a writer state the strongest opposing view and cite those who hold it. The practice is supported by the norms of historical and philosophical scholarship, and it is shared by believers and non-believers who write in these fields.

Why it matters

Every serious conversation about the Bible, with a friend or with a critic, goes better when one side takes the trouble to understand the other. The habits of this lesson can be used in any conversation. They also protect you from the common temptation to win an argument rather than to learn from it. Beginning well, with a fair statement and a narrow focus, is most of the work of responding well.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: Stating the objection strongly gives the critic an advantage.

Correction: It gives the writer credibility and the reader a chance to judge. An answer to a weak objection persuades no one who holds the strong one.

Misunderstanding: A good response must have a complete answer.

Correction: A good response is honest about the problem and about the limits of its answer. Some of the best treatments of hard texts end by saying what remains open.

Misunderstanding: Choosing a big topic shows ambition.

Correction: A big topic usually leads to shallow treatment. Depth in a small question teaches more than breadth in a large one.

Misunderstanding: A believer should not read the arguments of skeptics.

Correction: The tradition of the church includes the careful study of opponents, from Origen’s reply to Celsus to modern apologetics. Reading widely is part of a mature faith.

Knowledge check

What makes a problem the right size for a short response?

It can be stated in a single sentence with two or three specific references, and it is narrow enough that the writer can read the key texts and a few sources on it. A topic such as the reliability of the Bible is too broad, while a question about a particular passage and the proposed explanations of it can be treated well.

How do you test whether you have stated an objection fairly?

Ask whether a thoughtful advocate of the objection would recognize and accept your statement as an accurate account of their argument. Use their evidence and reasoning, quote the texts in full, and avoid wording that makes the argument sound foolish. If possible, compare your statement with how a published critic states it.

What are the four kinds of question a difficult passage may raise?

A factual question asks what happened or what the text says. An interpretive question asks what the author meant, given genre and context. A theological question asks what follows for doctrine such as inspiration. A moral question asks whether the text can be reconciled with the goodness of God. Separating them shows which part you are answering.

Why list what would change your mind?

Writing down what would count as evidence for or against your view tests whether you are reasoning or only defending. If nothing could change your mind, the conclusion is not responsive to evidence. Naming the conditions also helps to identify the sources and arguments you need to consult before you draft.

Think it through

  1. When have you answered a weaker version of an objection than the one actually raised?
  2. What does it cost you to state an opposing argument well, and what does it give you?
  3. Which problem from the course would you be most afraid to study honestly? Why?

Independent assignment

A problem statement and plan

In your own notebook, write 300 to 450 words with four parts: the problem in one sentence with references; the objection stated as its best advocate would state it; the questions separated into factual, interpretive, theological and moral; and a plan listing at least five sources, including one from a tradition other than your own, and what would change your mind. Do not send this to anyone or post it anywhere.

Further study