Between Interpretation and Imagination: C. S. Lewis and the Bible

by Leslie Baynes

A New Testament scholar illuminates C. S. Lewis’s writings on the Bible
 
In this highly original study, New Testament scholar Leslie Baynes illuminates C. S. Lewis’s writing on the Bible. She reveals never-before published notes Lewis wrote in his own books that offer unique insight into his thinking on Scripture, and she identifies the figures who shaped his approach to biblical Charles Gore, James Moffatt, Sister Penelope Lawson, George MacDonald, Austin Farrer, and more.
 
While sympathetic to Lewis’s work, Baynes uncovers problems, too. These hinge upon his understanding of the Gospel of John—as evidenced by essays like “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism” and the “Liar, Lunatic, Lord” argument. The controversies Lewis takes up in these arguments encompass fundamental questions in Christian thought, and his responses to them have formed the minds of his readers for generations. At the same time, Baynes highlights the subtle beauty of his use of Scripture in the Chronicles of Narnia, arguing that Lewis’s most glorious writing emerges when he eschews academic biblical scholarship and relies instead on his greatest strength—his literary imagination. Between Interpretation and C. S. Lewisand the Bible is a vital addition to any Lewis fan’s library, offering rich insights into how this influential author wrestled with Scripture.

Genres: Nonfiction

350 pages, Hardcover

Published November 4, 2025

Reviews

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read most of the book in a week in late October. Could have been 5 stars if it didn't have some of the nonsense (see below). Critical reviews at TGC and WORLD.

From what I can tell on Bluesky and Twitter, Baynes has a severe case of TDS, and in 2023 she may have used she/her pronouns in official bio information. Baynes values higher criticism, doesn't hold to biblical inerrancy, and prefers redaction criticism to harmonization (of the Gospels). She thinks that the Gospel of John differs from the Synoptics in many details (although she doesn't want to call them errors), and she suggests that the Gospels don't reliably represent Jesus. She's happy about Lewis's rejection of biblical inerrancy and seems to dislike Lewis's adherence to the principle of non-contradiction when it comes to details in the Gospels. She claims to be a Lewis fan, but she presents herself as having the courage to call out Lewis for being quasi-antisemitic and racist (Orientalism), while praising him for displaying feminism. Some of the ironies of the criticisms include the fact that she calls Lewis rude for criticizing others’ reading ability, then criticizes Lewis’s reading ability; and she criticizes Lewis for describing Jews as being “typically” a certain way (self-righteous), then describes Christians as being “typically” a certain way (ignorant on the Jewish law). Other unfortunate moments are her Freudian interpretation, the use of the term “enslaved persons” (think of “unhoused persons”), and her criticism of Elizabeth Anscombe for sticking up for the Bible. At many points throughout the book, I thought that no one would want their work to be read like Baynes reads Lewis. These details color my view of Baynes's work. Call it a personal heresy if you want, but Baynes seems to be okay with it (see pp. 3–4).

Baynes appears to be a typical biblical scholar in some unfortunate ways, and because Lewis dismisses higher criticism and modern biblical scholars, I sense a lot of defensiveness from Baynes. The level of scholarship is impressive at many points, although I doubt that many readers will follow her arguments in chs. 7–8, and in general I think the book is too academic to be enjoyed by the average Lewis fan.

As is often the case, the subtitle is more helpful than the main title. This book is a work of reception history—Lewis's use of Scripture in his fiction and nonfiction (2). Part 1 explores Lewis's dependence on biblical scholars such as Charles Gore and James Moffatt. Part 2 critiques Lewis's understanding of the Gospel of John and shows how he interacted with the higher criticism of Bultmann and others. Part 3 argues that Lewis's Chronicles highlight Lewis's best engagement with Scripture—when he's not engaging modern biblical scholarship. See pp. 2–3 for the three main arguments plus an overview of the parts.

Introduction
2: This is a book about reception history (Lewis and the Bible)
2-3: the book’s 3 arguments, plus an overview of the parts
3-4: disagreement with Lewis on “the personal heresy” (context matters)
4–5: Baynes likes Lewis but is willing to criticize him.

Part 1 [biography]

Ch. 1 [1898–1932]
14n29: Lewis's mistake about the year of his conversion to theism (1930, not 1929)
14: Scripture multiplies around Aslan
19: Orthodox connections

Ch. 2 [1930s]
22-27: infallibility issues
30–31: Christ’s mistakes about history/science
34: overlap bt Gore and Lewis

Ch. 3 [1932–1949]
41-42 (and 48-49): important passage on Lewis’s misquotations (see chs. 7-8)

Ch. 4 [1950–1963]
45 (and 2-3): his best work on Scripture is in Narnia
50: Kilby sent Lewis the Wheaton statement on biblical inerrancy
55-65: Lewis’s quasi-antisemitism
- 56: Jews as typically self-righteous
- 59: characterized by hatred (Joy)
62: Baynes flirts with Freudian interpretation
63: Joy influenced Lewis for the worse (re: Jews)
66: Baynes: “typically Christian ignorance”!
69-73: dismissive of Anscombe for sticking up for the Bible
75: will address inerrancy more in ch. 5

Part 2 [case studies]

Ch. 5 [fundamentalism]
79: Lewis was not an evangelical (although he did like Billy Graham).
82-84: 2 reasons Lewis didn’t believe in inerrancy
88–90: evangelicals on Lewis on the Bible
- Christensen (1979)
- Jeffrey (2000)
- Wheeler (2006)
- Vanhoozer (2010)
- Ryken (2014)
- Williams (2016)
90: Baynes thinks the 1978 Chicago Statement on Inerrancy wouldn't have changed Lewis's mind.

Ch. 6 [Bultmann]
Baynes thinks Bultmann is misunderstood on some points.
96n3: Bultmann didn't coin "demythologize"
108: "enslaved person" [enslaved to academic political correctness?]

Ch. 7 [biblical scholars and "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism" (MTBC)]
114: Lewis mentions PL in MTBC
114–21: Lewis misreads Lock
121–26: failed dilemma (124–25: energeia and circumstantiae)
- 126: "rude" irony (see pp. 162–63)
126–32: Lewis misreads Auerbach
162–63: summary (Lock, Bultmann, Tyrrell)—Lewis didn't read carefully and would have agreed with much more
162: Lewis quotation about criticizing others
163: Helen Gardner comment about Lewis's misunderstanding of what he read
163: Baynes wants people to understand John's Gospel better [but she seems to think it contains errors].

Ch. 8 [trilemma]
165: trilemma versions
166: alleged logical problems
170: Baynes questions that the Gospels reliably represent Jesus.
175n44: Lewis misquotes Pope (see n46 for more mistakes)
176: Baynes prefers redaction criticism to harmonization of the Gospels.
195: lots of pages dedicated to showing that Jesus didn't claim to be God in the Synopitcs
208: summary [some readers might be skeptical of her defense: not trying to challenge/reject council decisions about Jesus, not trying to say that the Synoptics don't present Jesus as God]

Part 3 [Narnia]
Ch. 9 [allegory]
215: quotations, allusions, echoes, allegories
215: 7 Scriptural "embedded" quotations (VDT x 1, MN x 2, LB x 4)
220: correct order of the Chronicles

Ch. 10 [MN]
225: 1st quote (Gen. 1:31)
225–26: chart of connections to Genesis 1–2
226: weeping as a positive sign
228: 2nd quote (Matt. 25:21)

Ch. 11 [LWW]
233–35: fishhook; rood; Harrowing of Hell
238: Lewis a feminist?

Ch. 12 [HHB]
242: racism/Orientalism
243: Exodus foundation

Ch. 13 [PC]
250: PC has the fewest biblical references.

Ch. 14 [VDT]
254: unspoken biblical motif: "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12)
258: stars as sentient beings (Philo)
262–63: chart of connections to the Gospel of John (and Revelation)

Ch. 15 [SC]
264: silent biblical motif: "the truth will set you free" (John 8:32)
265: Calvinism as a meaningless debate
- For an angle that sheds light on what Lewis means by "meaningless," see the end of ch. 11 in Perelandra (about 10 years earlier than the 1952 letter Baynes cites in n4), in which Ransom's experience is described as follows: "You might say, if you liked, that the power of choice had been simply set aside and an inflexible destiny substituted for it. On the other hand, you might say that he had been delivered from the rhetoric of his passions and had emerged into unassailable freedom. Ransom could not, for the life of him, see any difference between these two statements. Predestination and freedom were apparently identical. He could no longer see any meaning in the many arguments he had heard on this subject."
268–69: veneration of an icon

Ch. 16 [LB]
271: apocalypse/Revelation
271–72: ape as medieval devil
272: deceitful appearances
278: [I'm not convinced that Tirian/Jewel act more ethically than Moses.]
278: significance of numbers
278–81: problem of Susan; need for 7?
281: sloppy apostle reference
282: emeth in AoM
284: purgatory
284–86: 8th day
286: Nativity in LWW and LB (see n41)
288: theosis
288: "He can do no more" :(
290–91: 5th quote
290–92: virtuous pagans
292n55 (and 291): Hart/Baynes (Lewis too?)—Paul views all to be saved (although not a universalist)
294: Plato's learning from Moses
296n73: Gaiman's "Problem"
296: 6th quote?
296: 7th quote
297–98: west as penultimate to the east

Ch. 17 [Past Watchful Dragons]
301: Milton's Comus (see n6)
303: conclusions
305: hints about why Lewis hid Scripture references

[Summary of single biblical narrative books:]
- single biblical narrative: MN (Gen. 1–3), LWW (Gospel accounts of Jesus's passion, death, and resurrection), HHB (Exodus), LB (Revelation)
- no single biblical narrative: PC, VDT, SC

Conclusion
307–08: summary of the book (Lewis is great with Scriptural allusions in Narnia, but not so good in his nonfiction, especially that which attacks modern biblical scholarship)
308: more about Orthodox icons
308: Baynes seems to dislike the principle of non-contraction (Lewis imposed it on the Gospels)
309: loves Lewis's refusal of biblical inerrancy
309: Lewis allegedly tilts at windmills in his nonfiction about modern biblical scholarship

The end of the book includes an appendix of Scriptural allusions in the Chronicles, a bibliography, and indices of authors, subjects, and Scripture and other ancient sources

A few typos: 61, 233, 271

[Dave Courtney · Rating 4 out of 5]

If nothing else Baynes is a great admirerer of Lewis, as many are. As a scholar she is also not afraid to offer a necessary critique of his work and ideas, something she notes is difficult to do in a world where the enigmantic figure is caught between the polarizing realities of unfiltered love or disdain. I remember the first time I experienced this was with N.T. Wright, often hailed as a modern day Lewis, gently redirecting such labels by reminding his readers and listeners that Lewis was not a biblical scholar (something Lewis repeatedly insisted on himself), nor is Wright himself a philosopher. Which is to say, Wright is equally one who will say we need to be cautious with Lewis when approaching his work on the Bible and history, not because he wasn't incredibly good at what he did and had much to offer to the philosophical positions relating to christian thought, but because his particular expertise did not apply to that field of necessary criticism.

There are endless books on Lewis, so what sets this one apart beyond that simple observation that we should be free to push back on Lewis' awareness of biblical scholarship? There are a few things that make her approach and interest distinct and unique:
1. She opens the door to a greater examination of how, precisely, Lewis used the scriptures
2. She focuses on Lewis' overarching use in particular of the Gospel of John
3. She blows the doors wide open on just how saturated the thing she sees as his singular and best work on the Bible- the Narnia series- is with the scriptures, noting that this fact has remained largely unexplored in the field of Lewis scholarship.

The introduction begins by stating that "his mind was saturated with the Bible," and yet the tension that clearly exists, something she notes in quirkly realties like Lewis' equating biblical scholarship with the spirits of the posessed demoniac in Mark, is his skepticism and at times outright disdain for that scholarship. As such, Baynes defines her work as "reception history," tracing how it is this convert came to incorporate the scriptures into his life and work.

Here one important element of Bayne's thesis emerges- "Lewis' most problematic writing on Scripture is rooted in his perceptions of the Gospel of John..." (page 14) By contrast she sees his best work contained to the application of the scriptures to a "literary imagination." It is in the field of myth and story and literary genre that he excelled, including his understanding, as someone who stood as an express critic of evangelicalism and its allegiance to inerrancy, of the scriptures as works of literary genre. It is mythology that anchors Lewis' conversion, and it is his understanding of mythology that informs his specific arguments for the particulars of the Christian faith."To Lewis, the same way of accepting the story of Christ means accepting it as story." (page 44) Lewis knew that "the ancient Greek word mythos meant story, and the story could be true or false." That he came to see Christianity as the true myth that makes sense of all the world's stories is part of his journey, both in faith and with the scriptures. And indeed, a fair section of the book deals with Lewis' decisive and immersive battle with his peers over the nature and power and definition of myth to reveal and express truth, particularly in relationship to the scriptures.

This is something Baynes deeply respects and admires, and suggests stands as one of his greatest contributions to teaching us how to approach the scriptures in a way that can transform our life and thought. One particularly relevant aspsect of this is Lewis' unabashed willingness to embrace the messines of the scriptures. If, as she believes, it is the Narnia series that comes to reflect his best work on the scriptures, it is because "fiction is always congruous, life usually incongruious... the Gospels are full of these little incongruities." (page 66)

Here I would offer a slight pushback on Bayne's overall thesis. For as much as she does an amazing job of outlining how one of Lewis' most defining faults was his tendency to misquote and misunderstand the works of his day and time that he is engaging in late nineteenth through mid-twentieth century Britain (including having no awareness of the Hebrew scriptures), the weakest section and chapters in Bayne's book comes in section 2 where she steps outside of that specific anaylsis and begins to use her own understandings of the Gospel of John, one of the primary focuses here, as grounds for her argument. The issue here is that she begins to commit some of the same faults she is accusing Lewis of, importing some or her own conceptions of John into the picture as fundamental truths which seem to ignore the larger conversation this scholarship represents (such as the claim that scholars see John as detached from the synoptics or as reaching for different theological ideas that conflict with the synoptics). There were multiple times where she would cite a theory or an argument regarding the Gospel According to John and I found myself saying okay, but wait, because from my standpoint having engaged the biblical criticism I actually think you are the one getting this wrong and Lewis, for as unaware as he might have been, is closer to aligning with the present trends than you are allowing. Such as the present trend of repositioning the Gospel back withing a noted relationship within the Synoptics, or elevating its Jewish nature over its Greco-Roman language and influence.

The issue here, from my point of view, isn't that Bayne takes a position, it's that she inadvertently shifts from making an argument regarding Lewis' understanding and use of the works "in his time" to making an argument about his irgnorance based on her present awareness and adopting of one narrowed position within the modern scholarship of her own time, something Lewis wasn't engaging or didn't have access to. Here I think the point she is trying to underscore actually doubles back on itself, as it reveals how modern biblical criticism hasn't actually handed us some superior form of knowledge but rather an ongoing discussion. It's one thing to point out that we need to represent that discussion well and for what it is, it's another to allude to a suggestion, however indirect this portion of the book appears to do, that we have superior knowledge today. The simple fact that Bayne spends at least one entire chapter anchoring her argument in a conception of John's Gospel that I think the present trends in scholarship would challenge is proof positive of this in practice- its the conversation that matters, not the conclusions.

But that's a slight criticism, and one that I think ultimately gets framed in an acknowledgment that at the end of it all one of Lewis' greatest qualities was his love of a great opponant. That he wanted his ideas to be challenged and invited it. That he cherished the conversation. In good faith and good grace I would assume Bayne to be of likemind. And in truth, once I got past that chapter and section, the book's crown jewel took over- her section that walks through the Narnia series book by book, unveiling their immersion in the scriptures that so many have missed (and it should be said, not as allegory, but as an intentional exposition framed within Lewis' definition of a fairy tale... she spends some time dismantling such unfortunate stances by some who see Lewis as cloaking a christian message within a children's story in a deceptive fashion). This alone is worth the price of this book, and its something that I think all Lewis readers should have on hand and revisit time and time again. It will open up those stories in a whole new light.

Some other final notes that stood out for me:
"He was always an amateur, a non-professional who loved the field." (page 35) This line inspired me to pick up the book In Defense of Dabbling: The Brilliance of Beiung a Total Amateur by Karen Walrond. There's something about this idea that for me felt liberating. That invites the things I am passionate about without needing to fear that I need to be an expert in the field to speak or think or particpate in it.

The notes on Lewis' eventual fascination with the concept of Joy is something that really stood out for me here as well (pages 32-34). It inspired me to write this piece on the eve of our anniversary (my wife Jen and I) about how Joy as an idea or virtue and Joy as the person became deeply intertwined for Lewis in ways that opened up the world and his awareness of God in a whole new way: http://thestoriesofmylife.ca/2026/01/...

[Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read most of this book in awe. The author writes like a native translator from the esoteric land of scholars, putting what might be otherwise inscrutable information into language that not only makes the content understandable, it makes it readable. Simplified, but not dumbed down. A difference that strikes me as similar to that between a monk who feels himself to be muddled and a monk who is ‘muddle headed’ (pp 155). Like the reviewer who called it part detective story, I found it a page turner. The density of information (produced from what must have been a staggering amount of research) is the only thing that kept me from trying to read it straight through in one long sitting. Different than a detective story though, is the way that although there are hundreds of leads to be followed, we are never led toward a red herring or taken on a goose chase. The case, for Baynes, is already solved, and we are taken right into the heart of it, shown the clues that became the hard facts. This was all so well done, I read a lot of this book with more interest in the facile, persuasive arguing of the author than in the actual faults she was presenting, though I’ve had my share of problems over the years with Lewis’s theological reasoning in a few of his works. Problems I more sensed, with the niggle of uneasy doubt, than knew until they were brought up for probing by Baynes in sections like “I Am No Higher Critic and “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.” But what ultimately emerged for me from this book, born from the mind and the generosity of hard work of a writer who is obviously gifted in both, is a Lewis she would like to see gently dethroned, defrocked in a sense, sent down, by a preponderance of evidence she offers without flinching, to join the ranks of faithful Christians throughout history who have erred, either by arrogance or ignorance or both, in their interpretation of the Bible. In other words, a human Lewis. Extraordinary in his gifts. Ordinary in his flaws. This for me, is an elevated Lewis. More than myth, more than symbol, Baynes’s Lewis is the real mere Christian.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very sharp study, and a specific angle on Lewis that is quite helpful. Baynes strikes an impressive balance of serious critique, but also strong praise when appropriate. Her biographical work is strong, but this book shines in her mastery of archival research. The middle section (also the most critical) is where the reading bogs down a bit in the crunchiest parts of her argument, but the final section (on scriptural allusions in Narnia) is worth the price of the book alone. Definitely recommend for Lewis/Inklings fans.

Full video review here: https://youtu.be/LIIIYP0o5QE

[William Collen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is both a review of this book, and a response to the reviewer in WORLD magazine who did not like it.
Baynes' treatment of Lewis' use of the Bible is comprehensive and clear, examining his letters, scholarship, apologetics, and fictional works with a perceptive and detail-oriented manner which I found very refreshing. Baynes is an admirer of Lewis and finds much of value in his approach, but she also points out many places where his interpretation of scripture was faulty and led him to questionable conclusions. Her intent is not to disparage Lewis; rather, it is to remind his readers that even Lewis had his shortcomings, and not everything the great man wrote was clear, logical, or well-reasoned. It is unfortunate that Lewis, who never claimed to be an expert on theology or apologetics, has been commandeered by many Christians as a near-authoritative spokesperson for matters pertaining to the faith. I am not sure Lewis would appreciate the veneration given to his ideas by the broader Christian community. Baynes' book attempts to put Lewis more or less in his place: as a fallible person, capable of grave mistakes, but still worthy of our continued study. Her consideration of his lack of close reading of several Biblical scholars is not a "potshot" as was claimed by WORLD's reviewer; it is, on the contrary, a perfectly valid, and important, criticism of Lewis' approach and way of reasoning. It can be difficult to accept strident criticism of a revered author; there were many times when I myself was somewhat frustrated regarding Baynes' approach. But in the end, and especially after rereading some of the passages in which she expresses her admiration of Lewis, I've come to believe that this book is very valuable and should be on every Lewis aficionado's shelf.