WHO WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT?

WHO WROTE THE NEW
TESTAMENT?
The Making of the Christian Myth
BURTON L. M A C K
HarperOne
An Imprint o/HdnpeTCoWmsPublishers
WHO W R O T E T H E NEW T E S T A M E N T ?
church. T h e Roman church was soon to become the major player as Christians
learned to accommodate the Romans and their empire. It needed both Paul and
Peter to make sure of its gospel moorings.
PAUL'S L E T T E R S T O T I M O T H Y A N D TITUS
Christian scholars refer to Paul's letters to T i m o t h y and Titus as the pastorals because they offer instruction for the overseers of Christian congregations. In the long
course of the history of the Christian church, the Greek term for overseer (episkopos)
was transliterated into Vulgar Latin {ebiscopus). O l d Saxon (biskop), and O l d English
(bisceop), eventually becoming bishop, and it was used to refer to the ecclesiastical administrator of a diocese. Since bishops came to be understood as shepherds of their
flocks, Paul's letters to T i m o t h y and Titus came to be called "pastoral epistles," and
they have taken their place i n the Christian imagination as evidence for the early
emergence of the episcopal form of church governance. A t the time these letters
were written, however, episkopos did not have the connotation of shepherd, and the
office of an overseer was hardly distinct from that of an elder. Nevertheless, the concern for church order and for defining the duties of an overseer is clearly manifest.
T h e three letters were written at different times, undoubtedly during the first half
of the second century. T h e y were not included i n Marcion's list of Paul's letters (ca.
140 C.E.), nor do they appear i n the earliest manuscript collection of Paul's letters
(P46, ca. 200 C.E). Quotations first appear i n Irenaeus' Against Heresies (180 C.E.),
and their content fits nicely into the situation and thought of the church in the
mid-second century. T h e i r attribution to Paul is clearly fictional, for their language,
style, and thought are thoroughly im-Pauhne, and the "personal" references to particular occasions i n the lives of Timothy, Titus, and Paul do not fit with reconstructions of that history taken fi-om the authentic letters of Paul. T h e mention of Crete
in Titus (Titus 1:5,12-13), of Ephesus in 1 T i m o t h y (1 T i m . 1:3), and clues firom the
later legends about Paul, make an Aegean provenance likely (MacDonald 1983).
Mythmaking on either flank of the centrist position was apparendy proceeding
apace. Titus and T i m o t h y are warned against becoming involved i n "quarrels about
the law" on the one hand (Titus 1:9-16; 1 T i m . 1:4-7), and i n the idle talk of ascetics
and gnostics on the other (1 T i m . 4:1-3; 6:20; 2 T i m . 2:18). F o r the author of these
letters, conversations with people who did not agree on the " t r u t h " of the gospel
"entrusted" to the aposdes was dangerous. H t u s and T i m o t h y were to stay true to
the "sound doctrine" they had received, knowing that the church was the "bulwark
of truth" (Titus 1:1-3; 2:1; 1 T i m . 1:10-11; 2:4-5; 3:15). " T h e mystery of our religion is great," the author wrote, namely that:
H e [Jesus] was revealed i n flesh,
vindicated i n spirit,
seen by angels.
LETTERS F R O M THE APOSTLES
207
proclaimed among Gentiles,
believed i n throughout the world,
taken up i n glory. (1 T i m . 3:16)
Period. T h a t is all anyone need know about Jesus. W h a t this "mystery" meant
for persons should also be clear. T h e y should "lead a quiet and peaceable life i n all
godliness and dignity" (1 T i m . 3:7) and so accept the invitation to "eternal life" offered by the gospel (1 T i m . 6:12, 18-19; 2 T i m . 1:10; Titus 1:1-3). A n d they should
learn to obey the instructions of their overseer!
T h e letters say that Titus and T i m o t h y had been commissioned as overseers of
congregations and that Paul was writing to remind them of his instructions to them.
But then it appears that just as Paul had been an example for them, they were to be
examples for other overseers. These overseers had to be upstanding citizens, "wellthought-of by outsiders," "subject to the kings and authorities," and able to manage
dieir own households (Titus 1:5-9; 1 T i m . 3:1-7). T h e y were also to be charged
with managing the congregation just as they managed their own household. N o t to
be left to their own devices i n making judgments about such matters, " P a u l " spells
out in detail what he expects, demands, allows, and disallows regarding the behavior
of overseers, deacons, widows, women, elders, young men, and the slaves i n a congregation. W o m e n , for instance, would have to be subject to their husbands, be
silent at church, dress modestly, and not wear their hair braided (1 T i m . 2:9-15).
There is also instruction for prayers, public reading of the scriptures, enrolling widows on the list of those i n need of welfare, teaching, baptism, and the "laying on of
hands," a second-century ritual of ordination. T h u s the author created a marvelous
fiction in order to place a church manual of discipline from the mid-second century
at the very beginning of the apostolic tradition. One wonders whether Paul would
have been pleased by this honor.
T H E EPISTLES OF PETER A N D JUDE
The letters attributed to Peter and Jude have been called the catholic epistles (from
katholikos, general), because they are addressed to Christians i n general, not to a particular congregation. First Peter is addressed to the "exiles of the dispersion"; Jude
to "those who are called, who are beloved i n G o d the Father and kept safe for Jesus
Christ"; and 2 Peter to "those who have received a faith as precious as ours." T h e y
were written at different times, most likely during the first half of the second century, but they can be discussed together as Petrine because of the pseudonym common to two of them, and because 2 Peter is related to Jude by incorporating almost
all of it in its new rendition.
Exactly when these letters were vn-itten cannot be estabhshed. Polycarp refers to
1 Peter in his Letter to the Phihppians (135 C.E.), so a date eariier i n the second century can be assigned to it. But for Jude, the only clues we have are that it matches
GREECE/
ASIA MINOR
ROME
N. SYRIA
S. SYRIA
N. PALESTINE
GALILEE
(Jesus in Galilee)
20
30
"Lore"; "Teachings"
40
"Oral Tradition"-
>
O
..-"Kerygma"
50
X
>
m
Miracle Stories
w
>
I'aul (Letters)
_
60
u
Pronouncement
, Stories
70
^
Colossians
80
Ephesians
90
1 Clement
1 Peter
John (Letters) *'
John (Revelation)
Ignatius (Letters)
120
Barnabas
Hermas
Luke/Acts <-Polycarp (Letter)
Pastoral Epistles
150
2 Peter
Justin Martyr
Marcion/Valentinus
Polycarp
(Martyrdom)
100
m
n
Mark
Thomas
H
>
I—(
Matthew
John
^-•» Didache
Location Uncertain;
Hebrews
Jude
James
Diognetus
H
W
d
n
w
C/5
THE AUTHENTIC
LETTERS OF P A U L
A
^
N e w Reading o f Paul's Rhetoric
and M e a n i n g
THE SCHOLARS
VERSION
T R A N S L A T E D BY
A R T H U R
R D Y
L A N E
J .
W .
C .
D A R Y L
D E W E Y
H D D V E R
M C G A U G H Y
D.
S C H M I D T
POLEBRIDGE PRESS
Salem, Oregon
Canonical vs. Authentic Paul
Canonical Paul
Authentic Paul
Non Pauline*
Romans
Romans 1-15
minus interpolations
Romans 16
minus interpolations
Rom
Rom
Rom
Rom
5:6-7
13:1-7
16:17-20
16:25-27
1 Corinthians
1 Corinthians
minus interpolations
1 Cor 4:6b
1 Cor 11:2-16
1 Cor 14:33b-38
2 Corinthians
A Defense of Paul's Credibility
2 Cor 2:14-6:13; 7:2-A
A Parody of "A Fool's Speech"
2 Corinthians 10-13
A Letter of Reconciliation
2 Cor 1:1-2:13; 7:5-16
A Collection Appeal to Corinth
2 Cor 6:14-7:1
2 Corinthians 8
A Collection Appeal to Achaia
2 Corinthians 9
Galatians
Galatians
Ephesians
Ephesians
Philippians
A Thank-you Letter
Phil 4:10-20
A Letter from Prison
Phil l : l - 3 : l a ; 4:4-9, 21-23
Paul's Testimony and Advice
Phil 3:lb-4:3
Colossians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
Philemon
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Hebrews
Philemon
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Hebrews
* Items in italic are interpolations into an authentic letter.
RE-CLAIMING
T H E BIBLE
FOR A
NON-RELIGIOUS
WORLD
John Shelby Spong
HarperOne
An Imprint ofHzrperCollinsPublishers
8
R E - C L A I M I N G T H E BIBLE FOR A N O N - R E L I G I O U S W O R L D
Bible as a revelation of G o d that d r o p p e d f r o m heaven, fully
w r i t t e n , d i v i d e d i n t o chapters a n d verses a n d bearing the divine
imprimatur.
We k n o w n o w that the B i b l e is a s m a l l l i b r a r y of b o o k s c o m posed over a p e r i o d of about one t h o u s a n d years between r o u g h l y
l o o o BCE and 135 CE. M a n y of these b i b l i c a l b o o k s d i d not have
a single author. Some of t h e m were edited a n d re-edited over as
l o n g a p e r i o d of time as five h u n d r e d years before they reached
the f o r m i n w h i c h they f o u n d i n c l u s i o n i n the B i b l e . C a n the
" W o r d of G o d " actually be edited? W h y d i d G o d not get it right
the first time? W h a t h u m a n being w o u l d have h a d the h u b r i s to
add to or delete f r o m the " W o r d o f G o d " ? Yet that k i n d of editing happened, we n o w know, p r o b a b l y i n every b o o k i n the B i b l e .
A n o t h e r fact to embrace is that none of the authors o f the b o o k s
in the Bible w r o t d t h i n k i n g that they were w r i t i n g the " W o r d o f
G o d . " T h a t was something decided m u c h later by someone else.
Have we ever wondered by w h o m these decisions were made a n d
o n what basis? A m o n g those w h o still make this c l a i m for the
literal sacredness of the entire B i b l e , we need to k n o w whether
they are suggesting that each b o o k of the B i b l e is equally holy,
or that each reflects the " W o r d of G o d " w i t h equal fidelity T h e
mainstream C h r i s t i a n churches d o not seem to believe that, for
the lectionaries that guide the reading of the scriptures i n their
worship leave out some b o o k s altogether! C a n one skip a p o r t i o n
of the " W o r d of G o d " as no longer w o r t h y of being heard? Such
attitudes reflect u n i n f o r m e d claims for the B i b l e that are universally dismissed i n the circles of b i b l i c a l scholarship. W h y is this
scholarship not c o m m u n i c a t e d to the Sunday worshipers of the
world?
Let me be specific w i t h certain p o p u l a r assumptions: M o s e s
d i d not write the documents we call the " b o o k s o f M o s e s , " o r the
T o r a h (Genesis to D e u t e r o n o m y ) ! Indeed, M o s e s h a d been dead
some three h u n d r e d years before the first w o r d of the T o r a h was
put into w r i t t e n f o r m . D a v i d d i d not w r i t e the b o o k o f Psalms!
S o l o m o n d i d not write Proverbs! T h e gospels were not w r i t t e n
by eyewitnesses, but by at least the second a n d , i n the case o f the
Fourth G o s p e l (as the b o o k of J o h n is often called), perhaps even
the third generation of believers. T h e b o o k of R e v e l a t i o n does
not predict the end of the w o r l d o r convey any h i d d e n messages
about modern-day history! W h y d o we still a l l o w ourselves to be
tyrannized by this k i n d o f u n i n f o r m e d b i b l i c a l non-sense, regardless of the " a u t h o r i t y " c l a i m e d for that b o o k by the m o u t h s that
still utter these claims?
D u r i n g the era i n w h i c h the b o o k s o f the B i b l e were w r i t t e n
almost everyone b e l i e v e d — i n d e e d , d i d not even q u e s t i o n — t h e assumed fact that the earth was the center of a three-tiered universe
and that G o d lived just above the sky. H o w else c o u l d G o d v i g i lantly watch h u m a n behavior a n d keep the divine record b o o k s
up to date a n d ready for J u d g m e n t D a y ? N o one i n that time h a d
any idea that the sun was p a r t o f a g a l a x y that c o n t a i n e d t w o
hundred b i l l i o n other stars. N o one h a d ever heard o f a g e r m o r
virus, so i n the B i b l e sickness was interpreted as p u n i s h m e n t f r o m
the all-seeing G o d . T h e b u b o n i c plague i n the fourteenth century
was viewed as a p a r t i c u l a r l y violent expression of G o d ' s anger
and was p o p u l a r l y b l a m e d o n a scandal i n the papacy, w h i c h p r o duced a pope i n R o m e a n d a pope i n A v i g n o n . Weather patterns,
from heat waves to hurricanes a n d tornadoes, w h i c h seemed to
come out of the same sky that G o d was thought to i n h a b i t , were
regarded as expressions of this same divine w r a t h . E v e n today
this perspective remains i n fundamentalist religious circles. T h e
k i l l i n g earthquake that r o c k e d H a i t i i n J a n u a r y 2010, c a u s i n g
the death of some t w o h u n d r e d a n d t h i r t y t h o u s a n d people a n d
devastating the whole n a t i o n , was e x p l a i n e d by one televangelist
as G o d p u n i s h i n g the H a i t i a n s for " m a k i n g a pact w i t h the d e v i l
and t h r o w i n g the French o u t , " events that o c c u r r e d i n the early
years o f the nineteenth century! In the B i b l e m e n t a l illness a n d
epilepsy were also assumed to be (and were interpreted as the
result of) d e m o n possession. C a n any m o d e r n d o c t o r believe
that?
G i v e n these realities, we need to ask just h o w the c l a i m made
by anyone that the B i b l e i n any sense is the " W o r d of G o d " can
be sustained even for a m o m e n t w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g every r a t i o n a l
10
R E - C L A I M I N G T H E BIBLE FOR A N O N - R E L I G I O U S W O R L D
faculty that h u m a n beings possess. Yet this c l a i m is still made
by religious voices, a n d it is frequently made w i t h o u t apology.
Religious representatives not o n l y say these things, but they also
act them out i n p u b l i c w i t h neither embarrassment n o r shame. In
fact this b i b l i c a l mentality, frequently w o r n as a badge of h o n o r ,
has played a large role i n A m e r i c a ' s n a t i o n a l life.
In the h i s t o r y of the U n i t e d States i n the late nineteenth a n d
early twentieth centuries it was the D e m o c r a t i c Party that wore
this badge, n o m i n a t i n g o n three different occasions (1896, 1900
a n d 1908) a b i b l i c a l fundamentalist n a m e d W i l l i a m Jennings
B r y a n to be their presidential candidate. Three different Republicans, W i l l i a m M c K i n l e y , T h e o d o r e Roosevelt a n d W i l l i a m
H o w a r d Taft, defeated h i m a n d thus kept this attitude f r o m gett i n g established i n the highest p o l i t i c a l office of this country. In
the early years of the twenty-first century, however, this mentality
shifted to R e p u b l i c a n candidates, a n d one president, George W .
B u s h , actually asserted that G o d h a d chosen h i m to be president!
President Bush's mentality was not an isolated c l a i m i n his party,
as those w h o came to be called "the religious r i g h t " f o u n d a
home i n religious R e p u b l i c a n i s m , packaged as " f a m i l y values,"
and they p r o d u c e d a p l e t h o r a of candidates w h o o p p o s e d evolut i o n , saw the t u r m o i l i n the M i d d l e East as the fulfillment o f b i b l i c a l prophecy a n d sought to impose a n a r r o w religious agenda
o n this c o m p l e x n a t i o n . A n A r k a n s a s Baptist preacher actually
became a viable presidential candidate.^
H o w is it possible that such i r r a t i o n a l a n d , at least i n scholarly
circles, such universally dismissed attitudes t o w a r d the B i b l e can
still i n the twenty-first century have such power a n d even appeal?
T o answer these questions we w i l l have to journey deep i n t o o u r
religious origins.
A w o r t h y starting place w o u l d be to seek to understand
why we have h i s t o r i c a l l y built a r o u n d the B i b l e such a f i r m aura
or defense shield to protect it f r o m any serious investigation.
T h a t aura is quite distinguishable a n d that defense shield is far
3
M i k e H u c k a b e e , f o r m e r governor o f A r k a n s a s a n d a n o r d a i n e d preacher.
Examining the Bible's Mystique
II
more powerful t h a n most of us can i m a g i n e , for it is constantly
reinforced.
L o o k first at h o w the B i b l e is treated i n c h u r c h . In the more
liturgical churches the c h o i r a n d the officiants process i n at the
start of w o r s h i p , a n d one of t h e m w i l l n o r m a l l y c a r r y the B i b l e
high as if it is to be w o r s h i p e d or adored. If this a c t i o n registers
at a l l o n the worshipers it heightens a d e f i n i t i o n that this b o o k
itself s o m e h o w participates i n the holiness of G o d , w h i c h w o u l d
of course preclude anyone f r o m being c r i t i c a l of it i n any way
w i t h o u t f a c i n g the charge of being sacrilegious. N e x t , w h e n the
gospel selection for the day is read there is frequently a second
procession, this time into the c o n g r e g a t i o n , w i t h the B i b l e o r a
b o o k of gospel readings once more elevated. T h e n the reader,
who is n o r m a l l y an o r d a i n e d p e r s o n , a practice that seems to say
that o n l y officially designated " h o l y p e o p l e " can read the " h o l y
gospel," w i l l announce: " T h e H o l y G o s p e l o f o u r L o r d a n d
Savior, Jesus C h r i s t , a c c o r d i n g to
," filling i n the b l a n k
w i t h the name of the evangelist to w h o m that day's reading is
ascribed. T h e congregation responds w i t h the words: " G l o r y be
to y o u , O L o r d . " W h i l e this is g o i n g o n the reader may make
the sign of the cross o n the gospel a n d then o n his o r her h e a d ,
lips a n d heart. T h e reader may even spread the smoke o f incense
over the gospel b o o k . It is h a r d to k n o w what these m a g i c a l
gestures mean to the reader or to the c o n g r e g a t i o n , but they d o
all tend to c o m m u n i c a t e that the r e a d i n g about to be heard is
of the greatest a n d gravest significance, thereby e n h a n c i n g the
aura a r o u n d the B i b l e . W h e n the gospel r e a d i n g is complete,
the reader then p r o c l a i m s : " T h i s is the G o s p e l of the L o r d , "
to w h i c h the congregation responds: "Praise be to y o u . L o r d
C h r i s t . " W i t h that m u c h f o l d e r o l gathered a r o u n d the simple
reading f r o m the gospels week after week, m o n t h after m o n t h ,
year after year, it seems clear that the c l a i m o f special sanctity
for the Bible w o u l d be riveted deep i n t o the people's conscious
and subconscious life. A r e we not a s s u m i n g i n these activities
that this b o o k has a k i n d o f unearthly power that we fail to
respect at o u r peril? W h e n those practices become the t r a d i t i o n
J2
R E - C L A I M I N G T H E BIBLE FOR A N O N - R E L I G I O U S W O R L D
of a lifetime, are we not m a k i n g it a l l but impossible to study
the Bible i n a m o d e r n a n d r a t i o n a l way?
N o w a d d to these practices the way the B i b l e is t r a d i t i o n a l l y
published. It is not like other books. It n o r m a l l y has a black,
floppy leather cover, frequently
w i t h a g o l d cross
embossed
u p o n it. It is t r a d i t i o n a l l y p r i n t e d o n tissue-thin pages that are
gilt-edged. T h e words o f Jesus are frequently p r i n t e d i n red ink.
T h e y are presumably the " h o l y o f h o l i e s " a n d leap off the page
d e m a n d i n g attention. U n t i l fairly recently most Bibles were kept
in the E l i z a b e t h a n E n g l i s h of the past, peppered w i t h w o r d s like
"thee" a n d " t h o u , " phrases like "believest t h o u t h i s " a n d many
other verbs e n d i n g i n " e t h " a n d "est." It was as if the B i b l e had
a special h o l y language that we were not supposed to translate.
Indeed, u n t i l the time of the R e f o r m a t i o n it was a c r i m e to put
the words o f the Bible i n t o the c o m m o n language o f the people,
so the text remained i n L a t i n l o n g after L a t i n ceased to be used
in c o m m o n speech. T h e leaders of the c h u r c h d i d not w a n t the
uneducated to k n o w the content of the B i b l e . J o h n Wycliffe,^
an E n g l i s h vicar i n the fourteenth century, w h o d i d translate the
L a t i n Vulgate i n t o E n g l i s h , was rewarded after his death for this
heresy: the powers that be h a d his e x h u m e d b o d y b u r n e d at the
stake. T h e hiddenness o f the b i b l i c a l text kept the " m y t h " of
the Bible's sanctity f r o m ever being challenged by anyone outside
the church hierarchy.
To keep the Bible shrouded i n unapproachable mystery was
easy so l o n g as education was considered the privilege of the
r u l i n g classes a n d not the right of the masses. T h e r e was no need
to prevent people f r o m reading the Bible since most o f the people
c o u l d not read, p e r i o d . Universal e d u c a t i o n is a relatively m o d e r n
accomplishment. So i n this pre-literate time people got the content of the B i b l e , not f r o m reading it, but f r o m seeing w o r k s of
art that ranged f r o m paintings, to stained glass i n houses of worship, to the "Stations o f the C r o s s . " People then, n o t h a v i n g the
b i b l i c a l text before t h e m , made the a s s u m p t i o n that these artistic
4
J o h n Wycliffe lived f r o m 1328 to 1384 a n d c o m p l e t e d his t r a n s l a t i o n o f the
Bible into E n g l i s h i n 1382.
Examining the Bible's Mystique
13
pieces reflected accurately the h i s t o r i c a l occasions that were
being depicted. B i b l i c a l l i t e r a l i s m was thus once again burned
deeply i n t o the psyches o f Western people. I recall one p o r t r a i t of
M a t t h e w w r i t i n g his gospel, p a i n t e d by Caravaggio, w h i c h shows
an angel g u i d i n g M a t t h e w ' s h a n d so that he w o u l d record o n l y
the " W o r d o f G o d " i n the w o r d s of the gospel. N o one i n that
w o r l d knew, for e x a m p l e , that the v i r g i n b i r t h was a ninth-decade
a d d i t i o n to the C h r i s t i a n story o r that the ascension o f Jesus was
a tenth-decade a d d i t i o n . N o one u n d e r s t o o d the fact that the
narratives of the c r u c i f i x i o n are quite different i n each gospel,
that almost a l l o f the details of the Easter story a p p e a r i n g i n one
gospel are c o n t r a d i c t e d i n another. E v e n the educated people of
this time d i d n o t always have the a b i l i t y to read the gospels side
by side. N o one k n e w that there were n o t "seven last w o r d s "
spoken f r o m the cross, that one o f the thieves d i d not become
penitent u n t i l L u k e was w r i t t e n about sixty years after the cruc i f i x i o n , o r that Judas became more evil a n d Pontius Pilate more
h o l y w i t h the w r i t i n g o f each gospel a n d thus w i t h the passing of
time. L i t e r a l i s m was n o t o n l y encouraged, but i t was also seen to
be the o n l y p o s s i b i l i t y for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the B i b l e . It thus served
to keep b i b l i c a l k n o w l e d g e quite l i m i t e d . W e are the inheritors o f
these t r a d i t i o n s .
T h e final s y m b o l o f h o w this aura or defense shield a r o u n d
the B i b l e was shaped is seen i n the fact that the B i b l e has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been p r i n t e d w i t h t w o c o l u m n s o n each page. T h i s has
resulted i n the B i b l e being quite different f r o m a l l other b o o k s
except for d i c t i o n a r i e s , encyclopedias o r other reference
and
resource b o o k s . N o one s i m p l y reads the dictionary. N o one
reads the encyclopedia. O n e goes to these t w o resources to get
answers. M o r e o v e r , one does not n o r m a l l y argue w i t h the answers of a d i c t i o n a r y o r an encyclopedia. B y p r i n t i n g the Bible
i n this f o r m a t are we n o t f o r c i n g i n t o the subconscious m i n d s of
the people the c o n c l u s i o n that the B i b l e too is a b o o k to w h i c h
we go for answers, an a u t h o r i t y that c a n n o t be a n d must n o t be
doubted?
A r o u n d the B i b l e for centuries this aura has been encouraged
14
R E - C L A I M I N G T H E BIBLE FOR A N O N - R E L I G I O U S W O R L D
and this defense shield created. T h i s is what accounts for the
almost tenacious h o l d that biblical literalism has h a d o n the people
of the Western w o r l d . We have i n o u r w o r l d today the reality that
many people are still c l i n g i n g quite frantically to the b i b l i c a l formulations of their past. Some spend e n o r m o u s energy
fighting
D a r w i n , attacking secular h u m a n i s m as it arises i n the society
and Hberalism, all of w h i c h are symptoms of the lack of scholarship available i n many churches. T h a t is why i n the U n i t e d States
we continue to take seriously the religious vote, the television evangelists, a n d even a pope w h o visited A f r i c a w i t h its civil strife, its
rampant spread of A I D S a n d its poverty, a n d conveyed as his only
message a condemnation of the use of condoms! Religious leaders
seem to believe that if they allow one crack i n their carefully constructed reHgious or b i b l i c a l defense system, then the whole t h i n g
w i l l collapse i n ruins. T h a t is the stance of hysteria, not the stance
of either faith or hope, though it masquerades as b o t h .
T h e p r i m a r y response to this mentality, a n d it is a response
that is g r o w i n g rapidly, is to a b a n d o n a l l religion a n d to take up
citizenship i n the "secular c i t y " Proponents o f this stance n o
longer see any relevance i n religion or the Bible for their lives
today T h e y are not interested i n t w i s t i n g their m i n d s into firstcentury pretzels, i n order to read the B i b l e or i n t o fourth-century
pretzels, i n order to say the creeds or i n t o thirteenth-century
pretzels, i n order to engage i n c o n t e m p o r a r y forms of w o r s h i p .
T h e y find it impossible i n their m o d e r n frame of reference to
conceive of a theistically u n d e r s t o o d deity, l i v i n g
somewhere
external to this w o r l d , endowed w i t h supernatural power a n d
ready to invade history to come to o u r a i d , to answer o u r prayers.
T h e y find the concepts of miracle a n d magic to be outside their
worldview. T h e y dismiss readily ideas like that o f a " f a l l " f r o m
perfection i n t o " o r i g i n a l s i n , " w h i c h is supposed to account for
evil a n d w h i c h requires an external rescuer to save us f r o m o u r
sins. These ideas are completely foreign to what they n o w k n o w
about the origins of life a n d its e v o l u t i o n . T h e y see no alternative
to dismissing a l l religion i n general a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y i n p a r t i c u l a r ,
regarding it as something left over f r o m the c h i l d h o o d o f o u r
Examining the Bible's Mystique
15
humanity, a n d they w a n t Uttle to d o w i t h it. F o r such questioners
either b i b U c a l HteraUsm o r the rejection of a l l r e l i g i o n seem to be
their o n l y choices.
O n e factor that b o t h of these responses have i n c o m m o n is
that they share a s i m i l a r p r o f o u n d ignorance about the Bible.
T h e fundamentalists w h o quote the B i b l e as their final a u t h o r i t y
clearly k n o w little about h o w the Bible came i n t o being a n d , thus,
why that a p p r o a c h is so t o t a l l y incompetent. T h o s e w h o d o not
find any value i n the b i b l i c a l t r a d i t i o n w i n d up rejecting the very
things that b i b l i c a l scholars themselves almost t o t a l l y reject, but
these secularists k n o w so little about the B i b l e that they are not
aware of this fact. W h e n I read b o o k s w r i t t e n by the new breed
of m i l i t a n t atheist w r i t e r s , w h o have become b o t h best-selling
authors a n d h o u s e h o l d names, I find myself perplexed as to h o w
to respond to t h e m . I have n o desire to attack t h e m o r to rise to
G o d ' s defense. T h e r e l i g i o n , the C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d the B i b l e that
they reject are the same r e l i g i o n , C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d B i b l e that I
reject. M y p r o b l e m w i t h such writers is n o t located there. It is
rather i n the apparent fact that they d o not seem to k n o w that
there is any other way. W h y s h o u l d they, since the church has
w o r k e d so h a r d n o t to a l l o w other possibilities to become visible?
M y desire is to w o r k i n that very arena a n d to close that gap
i n knowledge at least i n regard to the B i b l e . I a m not the enemy
of the B i b l e . I a m the enemy of the way the B i b l e has been understood a n d the way the Bible has been used. I d o n o t t h i n k for one
m o m e n t that the B i b l e is i n any literal sense the " W o r d of G o d . "
It is a t r i b a l story, as this b o o k w i l l r e v e a l — a p r e - m o d e r n story,
an ever-changing a n d ever-growing story. It came i n t o existence,
as every other b o o k does, out o f the experience o f h u m a n beings
seeking to make sense out o f the life they are l i v i n g a n d the things
they are experiencing. I w a n t to take m y readers i n t o this Bible
in a new way. I w a n t to p l u m b its depths, scale its heights a n d
free its insights f r o m the d e b i l i t a t i n g power o f l i t e r a l i s m . I w a n t
to make some of its characters come a l i v e — t h o s e w h o p r o b a b l y
have vestiges o f history attached to t h e m , like M o s e s , J o s h u a ,
E l i j a h a n d E l i s h a , even t h o u g h that kernel of h i s t o r y is w e l l
i6
R E - C L A I M I N G T H E BIBLE FOR A N O N - R E L I G I O U S W O R L D
h i d d e n under layers of m y t h and fantasy, as w e l l as some w h o
are surely pure literary creations, like the S a m a r i t a n w o m a n by
the w e l l , L a z a r u s w h o was raised f r o m the d e a d , the "beloved*'
disciple, a n d even the figures o f J o s e p h the e a r t h l y father o f
Jesus, J o s e p h o f A r i m a t h e a w h o p r o v i d e d Jesus' t o m b , a n d
Judas the betrayer. I want people to see h o w the G o d o f the Bible
changes t h r o u g h its pages f r o m a supernaturalized, w a r l i k e t r i b a l
chief i n t o a more abstract personification o f the realities o f love,
justice a n d universalism, a G o d w h o calls us beyond o u r security
walls i n t o a new experience of what it means to be fully h u m a n
and i n t o dimensions of a new consciousness.
I have wrestled w i t h the Bible for more t h a n sixty years. I have
broken open m y o w n f u n d a m e n t a l i s m , w a l k e d t h r o u g h valleys
of meaninglessness
i n w h i c h I was certain that G o d h a d d i e d
and then f o u n d my way back, not to the security o f yesterday's
religious certainty, but to an understanding that does not hesitate
to go t h r o u g h the Bible i n order to transcend i t , a n d thus that
provides n o security. I want to help people to develop a faith that
goes so deeply i n t o the essence of C h r i s t i a n i t y that they c a n w a l k
beyond C h r i s t i a n i t y i n t o that t o w a r d w h i c h C h r i s t i a n i t y can o n l y
p o i n t . I seek to enter a n d to introduce others to what P a u l has
called "the glorious liberty o f the c h i l d r e n of G o d . "
I ask no one to agree w i t h m y conclusions, but rather to journey w i t h me t o w a r d a new place a n d to see b o t h the B i b l e a n d
C h r i s t i a n i t y f r o m that new context. I want to re-claim^ the B i b l e
for a non-religious w o r l d . In this process I hope people w i l l be
open to those understandings o f the Bible that are c o m m o n p l a c e
i n academic circles, but still almost u n k n o w n i n the pews of
churches. If we see i n religion a way to certainty i n o u r religious
convictions, then there w i l l inevitably be great d i s i l l u s i o n m e n t
w i t h r e l i g i o n . If, however, religion can be seen as the quest to find
5
Deliberately a n d by choice I a m u s i n g a h y p h e n i n the w o r d " r e - c l a i m . " I d o
so for these reasons. First it matches the usage i n the title a n d second it is used i n
the title to capture a m o r e a c t i o n - o r i e n t e d m e a n i n g . T h e h y p h e n a n d the c a p i t a l i z i n g of " c l a i m " is designed to catch the attention o f the reader. W i t h o u t the h y p h e n
a n d capital letter the w o r d " r e c l a i m " sounds like s o m e t h i n g that w o u l d o c c u r at a
l o c a l lost a n d f o u n d .
Examining the Bible's Mystique
integrity i n o u r s p i r i t u a l p i l g r i m a g e s , then we can w a l k together
and i n this process discover, I a m sure, some B i b l e stories "that
you've never heard before," as the o l d c a m p song h a d it, a n d even
be led to the G e r s h w i n c o n c l u s i o n that some things, perhaps even
most things, i n the B i b l e " a i n ' t necessarily so," at least not i n the
literal sense that we have learned t h e m . T h e stage is thus set for
our journey to begin.
It is a journey that w i l l probe the sources out o f w h i c h the
Bible's words o r i g i n a t e d a n d the l i t u r g i c a l uses to w h i c h the
Bible's words were p u t a n d by w h i c h their m e a n i n g was c o m p r o mised, shaped a n d e x p a n d e d . It w i l l be a journey that leads us
to make clear distinctions between the h u m a n experience of the
divine a n d the h u m a n w o r d s used to describe a n d e x p l a i n that
experience. It w i l l be a journey i n w h i c h we w i l l l e a r n that h u m a n
w o r d s are l i m i t e d . T h e y can o n l y p o i n t to t r u t h ; they can never
capture i t , a fact that is d e m o n s t r a b l y true o f scripture, creed a n d
doctrine. T h i s journey w i l l force us to embrace insecurity as a
virtue a n d to dismiss security as a vice. Finally, it w i l l be a journey i n t o the depths o f h u m a n life, serving m y c o n v i c t i o n that the
o n l y r o a d i n t o d i v i n i t y is t h r o u g h h u m a n i t y a n d the o n l y doorway i n t o eternity is t h r o u g h time.
So we raise the c u r t a i n , w a t c h the d r a m a u n f o l d , a n d step
b o l d l y i n t o the content o f what is clearly the most influential
b o o k the w o r l d has ever k n o w n .
CHAPTER
52
I and II Timothy and Titus
"We Have the Truth!"
T
hus far, as we have explored the origins of the various
books of the N e w Testament, we have not yet come
across that familiar form of human religion that asserts: " W e have the truth! If you disagree with us,
the truth is not in you. It is our God-given duty to define truth,
defend truth and impose truth." U p until this point i n the biblical
story, the Christian movement has basked in the wonder of the
Christ experience, sought words that could convey the power of
that experience to others and dealt with conflict only i n the attempt by believers to clarify what this Christ experience really
meant. Since, however, religious systems almost always devolve
into security-giving systems in which "my understanding of G o d "
is assumed to be the same as G o d , we should not be surprised to
discover this negativity making its appearance within the Christian movement. When we turn to the pastoral epistles, the ones
we have named I and II Timothy and Titus, our wait comes to
an end. This suggestion that any person can possess "ultimate
truth" in his or her propositional statements permeates almost
every verse of these particular writings. T h i s attitude is so ap-
3^2
R E - C L A I M I N G T H E BIBLE FOR A N O N - R E L I G I O U S W O R L D
parent that it actually helps us to date these works. That, in turn,
forms the data that make us absolutely certain Paul is not the
author of any of these epistles.
The pastoral epistles are clearly the product of a later period
of church history, when missionaries, prophets and teachers have
been replaced by hierarchical and authoritative figures called
bishops, priests or presbyters and deacons—all institutional
functionaries. Even more, the office of a senior bishop, elder, or
archbishop has had time to develop. The primary task of this
official, it seems, is to impose order on the life of the various
congregations in a given geographical region and to guarantee
conformity in both their worship and their teaching. From other
sources, we can identify this ecclesiastical structure as reflecting
the period in church history no earlier than 90 CE and possibly as
late as 120 CE.
While these dates alone rule out Pauline authorship, they
also make us aware that enough time has passed so that Paul is
regarded as a respected, but not a controversial figure. In these
works, Paul is portrayed as a revered elder statesman-apostle possessing great authority—indeed, such authority that the words of
these epistles were thought to be buttressed by the claim that they
had been written in his name. Timothy and Titus, the younger
companions of the historical Paul—men who were named in
Paul's own authentic letters (Timothy in Romans, I and II Corinthians, Philippians and I Thessalonians, and Titus in II Corinthians and Galatians)—have been transformed into symbols of
the next generation of Christian leaders who listen eagerly to the
elder Paul's advice. While the Paul of history could write his ode
to love in I Corinthians 13 and speak about his own conversion
in Romans 8:38-39, the Paul of the pastoral epistles is interested
only in order, " s o u n d " teaching, proper obedience and the need
to drive away erroneous and false teaching. In the pastoral epistles "orthodoxy" has been defined in inflexible ways.
In content, the pastorals are quite similar to the five letters of
Ignatius of Antioch, written between 110 and 113 CE while he was
on his way to his own martyrdom. They reflect similar church
I and II Timothy and Titus
363
structures and lines of authority and issue similar warnings
against false teachers, once again demonstrating that the pastoral
epistles are the products of about the same time and history. The
chief function of a bishop in both of these sources is to defend
the faith and to establish orthodoxy, a word that means simply
"right thinking." Words like "doctrine" and "teaching" are a
major concern of these books that clearly favor the developing
church doctrinal order that would later be referred to as " C h r i s tian orthodoxy" or "Catholic teaching."
It is also apparent in these writings that something is threatening this sound doctrine. Historians have identified the enemy as a
group of Christians who called themselves Gnostics.' The pastoral epistles exhort younger leaders to protect the "true faith" by
confronting evil, rebuking or silencing these false teachers who
are disparaged as imposters, unbelievers and deceivers (II T i m .
3:ioff). The battle grew quite hostile with words like " s t u p i d , "
"unprofitable" and "futile" being used (II T i m . 2:23). God-given
authority was claimed for established church leaders. These leaders alone were authorized to determine what constitutes "true
doctrine" and they alone had the power to ordain new leaders,
who, in order to qualify for ordination, had to take vows to be
faithful to the established tradition. Those who, in a previous
generation, had themselves been "revisionists" in the synagogue
were now determined to allow no "revisionists" in the church.
The language of the pastorals is replete with familiar religious
hostility. Titus 1:13 refers to Cretans as "liars, evil beasts and lazy
gluttons." I Timothy calls those opposed to sound doctrine " i m moral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars and perjurers" (1:10).
II Timothy says that these enemies of Christian truth engage
in "godless chatter" and likens their talk to "gangrene" (2:16).
I
Gnostics were people who claimed to possess secret knowledge or even special revelatory insights. They thus challenged orthodox authority on the basis of
this source of truth, which lay outside hierarchical control. W i t h the discovery of
authentic gnostic writings at N a g H a m m a d i , they do not look nearly so evil or
threatening as some of their critics portrayed them as being, I think I could make
the case that many elements found i n the Protestant Reformation represent a revival of Gnosticism.
3^4
R E - C L A I M I N G T H E BIBLE FOR A N O N - R E L I G I O U S
WORLD
Church fights can frequently be anything but Christian! By this
time in church history the disciples of Jesus seem to have moved
rather far from Jesus' admonition to "love your enemies"! Yet in
the midst of this rather rampant hostility we are startled to find
familiar and treasured passages, words that have enriched our
vocabulary and are frequently repeated, but about whose origin
we have generally had no clue. I refer to such phrases as: "A
little wine is good for your stomach" (I T i m . 5:23); " T h e love of
money is the root of all evil" (I T i m . 6:10); "We brought nothing
into this world and it is certain that we can carry nothing out"
(I T i m . 6:7). Christianity so often blends good and evil.
Someone once said that Christianity probably would not have
survived had it not become institutionalized and that it might
not continue to survive because it did become institutionalized.
Institutions, certainly including the Christian church, always subvert truth to institutional needs. That is why the various factions
within Christianity have developed irrational power claims such
as, " M y pope is infalhble," or " M y Bible is inerrant," or "There
is only one true church, and it is mine" or " N o one comes to the
Father except through my church or my faith tradition."
These assertions always arise in religious movements when
the decision is made that the wonder, truth and mystery of G o d
can in fact be captured inside human words that originated inside
human minds. G o d and my understanding of G o d become the
same. The power needs of religious institutions become identified
with the truth of G o d and the well-being of church leaders. This
mentality almost inevitably produces religious wars and religious
persecution, resulting in atrocities such as the Inquisition and
other incredible cruelties that we Christian people have inflicted
on our victims over the centuries. It also finds expression in the
rudeness frequently seen in religious debate.
Two stories w i l l serve to make this point clear and to reveal
why I have no great appreciation for the pastoral epistles, which
not only introduced but also attempted to justify these attitudes and helped to make them part of the life of institutional
Christianity.
/ and U Timothy and Titus
365
I have been on a number of book tours to Australia. In the
Anglican Archdiocese of Sydney, Christianity has been captured
by a Northern Irish Protestant fundamentalism of an eighteenthcentury variety and frozen in time in the South Pacific. The Bible
to that group of Christians has to be read literally, women cannot
be ordained or have authority over men and homosexuality is an
abomination! So my arrival there appeared to frighten Sydney's
Anglican leaders and had regularly resulted in a "call to arms"
against one who might (they seemed to suggest) be the Antichrist.
When in the 1990s I went on a lecture tour for my book Resurrection: Myth or Realityf these leaders quickly wrote and published
a fundamentalist paperback rebuttal that hit the bookstands the
day my plane landed. In addition to that, they devoted a number
of pages in their archdiocesan newspaper The Southern Cross to
arming their people with the "facts" necessary to resist the onslaught of this non-fundamentalist, and thus non-true-believing
Christian. Finally, they appointed a "truth squad" headed by one
of their bishops, Paul Barnett, to follow me around Australia to
"correct my errors" publicly, lest the people be corrupted. They
contacted any radio or television station on which I was scheduled to appear to demand "equal time" for "the truth." One
noonday T V program decided to book us together rather than
accede to their "equal time" request. The conversation went well,
at least from my point of view, until Paul Barnett exploded with
the words, "Jack, you're nothing but a Gnostic." I responded,
"Paul, the wonderful thing about that charge is that ninety-nine
percent of our Australian viewers do not know whether you have
just insulted me or complimented me." I apparently bothered
Paul Barnett as much as the Gnostics had bothered the authors of
the pastoral epistles.
The second story happened in a public lecture in western
N o r t h Carolina some years ago. The pastor and some members
of a " C o m m u n i t y Bible C h u r c h " expressed great alarm about the
fact that I had been invited to do a lecture series in that town, so
they planned, unbeknownst to me, a public counterattack.
In the question and answer session following the lecture I
^66
R E - C L A I M I N G T H E BIBLE FOR A N O N - R E L I G I O U S W O R L D
recognized a man who was holding his hand high. H e was perhaps the fourth questioner who spoke on that night. When the
microphone got to h i m , he said "Bishop Spong, I'm sick." I i m mediately responded that nothing we were doing that night was
more important than his health and asked what we could do for
him. "You don't understand," he replied, " I ' m sick of y o u ! " and
then he began to rehearse the familiar line about those who, in
his opinion, defiled the inerrant word of G o d by looking at the
scriptures in a non-fundamentalist way. After listening to him
for a few minutes, I interrupted h i m to ask the audience if they
would like for this man to be allowed, in the name of fairness,
to address the whole audience. They shouted back with loud
denials, and the man took his coat and departed. It is of interest
to me that in my life I have received sixteen death threats. None
came from an atheist! None came from a Buddhist! A l l of them
came from those who claimed to possess "the true faith" or to be
"born-again Bible-believing Christians." It is amazing that rude
and even potentially murderous behavior can so easily be justified
with appeals to G o d . The scriptures may well point to the reality
of a transcendent G o d . The scriptures, however, do not, cannot
and will not ever capture the truth of G o d . It is into that limitless truth of G o d that we walk. The one essential prerequisite
for being on this journey is that each of us must relinquish the
popular religious fiction that we already, in our religious systems,
possess that truth.
Ultimate truth can never be fully captured in propositional
statements made in human history by time-warped and timebound human words. To claim that it can be is to admit to idolatry. The destructive idea that truth is contained in any religious
form was first introduced to the Christian movement by the pastoral epistles. Christianity has been compromised by this strange
idea from that day to this.
GARRY
WILLS
What Paul Meant
PENGUIN
BOOKS
INTRODUCTION:
" T H E BAD NEWS
MAN"
meant to his fellow believers, many of whom had seen Jesus
in his earthly lifetime or after his Resurrection, without having written their stories down for us. Paul did write. But he
was writing about a shared experience, not a single and idiosyncratic one. If Paul was such a foe and underminer of Jesus,
why was he accepted so soon and broadly by those who knew
Jesus? The answer is that Paul was not a counterforce to Jesus
but one of the early believers who together bore witness to
him. The Jesus gatherings in the Diaspora proved more fertile
and lasting than those in Judaea itself, not because of any one
man's brilliance, energy, or deceptions, but because they were
more vitally expressive of what Jesus meant. Paul was part of
this explosion of belief. His letters are dispatches from that
hurricane of activity.
The Pauline Writings
THIRTEEN LETTERS are attributed to Paul in the New Testa-
ment, and for centuries they were all accepted as his. But
modern scholarship has reached a consensus that some were
definitely not written by him and others are of dubious authenticity. Only seven are now accepted as certainly by him.
The seven in their probable order of composition are
1 Thess
Letter to the Thessalonians
Gal
Letter to the Galatians
^5
WHAT
PAUL
MEANT
Phil
Letter to the Philippians
Phlm
Letter to Philemon
1 Cor
First Letter to the Corinthians
2 Cor
Second Letter to the Corinthians
Rom
Letter to the Romans
Two letters seem to be written by followers of Paul who had a
profound understanding of what could be made of his teaching:
Col
Letter to the Colossians
Eph
Letter to the Ephesians
One letter seems a clumsy restatement of a genuine one:
2 Thess
Purported Letter to the Thessalonians
Three later letters are written in circumstances and from
standpoints clearly not Paul's:
Tit
Letter to Titus
1 Tim
First Letter to Timothy
2 Tim
Second Letter to Timothy
For understanding what Paul meant, one must rely on the
letters accepted by almost all scholars as authentic. This book
will use only those seven letters.
i6
WHAT PAUL
MEANT
Paul's own opposition to marriage is not misogynist but
eschatological. He is against women marrying as well as men,
and that does not make him a misanthrope. His stand is part
of his general social passivity. He says that slaves, though they
may welcome freedom if it is given them, should not agitate
for it (i Cor 7.20-21). "As a person was when called by God,
so let him continue" (7.24). In the same way, he is against political agitation or reform (Rom 13.1-7). The spread of the
revelation is so pressing a duty, as history reaches its conclusion, that all else is to be considered a distraction from that
single concern. Paul has enough trouble with the Roman authorities just in carrying out his mission. He does not want to
get entangled in any other concerns.
I tell you this. Brothers: the crisis impends. During what
time is left, let those with wives be as if they had none,
let those who mourn be as not [having time for] mourning, let those celebrating be as if not celebrating, let those
who buy be as if not possessing, and those using this
world be as if not using it. For the whole frame of this
present order is about to go. (1 Cor 7.29-31)
In this eschatological context, Paul can imagine only one condition where he thinks marriage preferable—^if one is so enflamed by passion that this in itself is a distraction from the
102
PAUL A N D
WOMEN
work of the revelation: "Better to marry than to stay enflamed" (i Cor 7.9). Neither here nor elsewhere does Paul
connect marriage with having children, the later Christian rationale. Since history is ending, the raising of children is no
longer a concern in Paul's eyes. The only reference he makes
to children is to say that the child of one Holy parent can be
considered Holy, even if the other parent is a nonbeliever (i
Cor 7.14). Paul's frame of thought is far from what would be
ascribed to him in the supposedly Pauline letters to Timothy
and Titus, where the disciplining of bishops' children is addressed (1 Tim 3.4-5, Tit 1.6).
Despite Paul's preference, he himself gives evidence that
married people were able to be intensely devoted to the Lord.
Prisca even went to prison with him. In his Letter to the Romans, he names four married people who "worked hard" for
the Lord. In Philippians, he adds another two, Euodia and
Syntyche, who were his "fellows in the struggle" (Phil 4.3).
Phoebe is his protectress. Another Sister is like his mother.
Chloe's establishment keeps him informed. His crack team assembled in Rome for the Spanish campaign includes ten
women, at least three of them married. He knows a woman
emissary (apostolos), a woman attendant (diakonos), and
women prophets. He knows two women leaders in Philippi,
Euodia and Syntyche, who have become rivals, and he begs for
their reconciliation (not their condemnation) at Philippians
WHAT PAUL
MEANT
4.2-3. The later misogyny of the Christian churches would
never have occurred if the spirit of Paul had continued in
them.
NOTES
1. Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of
the Apostle Paul, second edition (Yale University Press, 2003), p. 132.
2. Ibid., pp. 20,59.
3. Eusebius, History of the Church 3.30.1.
104
Jesus,
nterrupted
Revealing the
Hidden Contradictions in the Bible
(and Why We Don't Know About Thenn)
Bart D. Ehrman
HarperOne
An Imprint
o/HarperCoUinsPw^/wim
112
J E S U S , I N T E R R U P T E D
A n d so we have an answer to our ultimate question of why these
Gospels are so different from one another. They were not written by
Jesus' companions or by companions of his companions. They were
written decades later by people who didn't know Jesus, who lived i n
a different country or different countries from Jesus, and who spoke
a different language from Jesus. They are different from each other
i n part because they also didn't know each other, to some extent they
had different sources of information (although Matthew and Luke
drew on Mark), and they modified their stories on the basis of their
own understandings of who Jesus was.
The fact that the Gospels were not actually written by apostles
does not make them unusual i n the New Testament. Quite the contrary, it makes them typical. Most of the books of the New Testament go under the names of people who didn't actually write them.
This has been well k n o w n among scholars for the greater part of the
past century, and it is taught widely i n m a i n l i n e seminaries and d i vinity schools throughout the country. As a result, most pastors know
it as well. But for many people on the street and i n the pews, this is
"news."
ARE THERE FORGERIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?
Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, only eight almost
certainly go back to the author whose name they bear: the seven
undisputed letters of Paul (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians,
Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) and the Revelation of
John (although we aren't sure who this John was).
The other nineteen books fall into three groups.
• Misattributed writings. As we have already seen, the Gospels
are probably misattributed. John the disciple did not write
John, and Matthew did not write Matthew. Other anonymous
books have been wrongly attributed to someone famous. T h e
book of Hebrews does not name P a u l as its author, and it
Who Wrote the Bible?
113
almost certainly was not w r i t t e n by Paul.^^ But it was
eventually admitted into the canon of Scripture (see chapter 7)
because church fathers came to t h i n k it was written by Paul.
• Homonymous
writings. The term "homonymy" means
"having the same name." A "homonymous w r i t i n g " is one
that is written by someone who has the same name as someone
who is famous. For example, the book of James was no doubt
written by someone named James, but the author does not
claim to be any particular James. It was an extraordinarily
common name. Later church fathers accepted the book as part
of Scripture because they claimed that this James was James
the brother of Jesus. I n the book itself there is no such claim.
• Pseudepigraphic
writings. Some books of the New Testament
were written i n the names of people who did not actually write
them. Scholars have k n o w n this for well over a century. T h e
term for this phenomenon is "pseudepigraphy"—^literally,
" w r i t i n g that goes under a false name." Scholars have not
been overly precise i n their use of this term and tend to use
it because it avoids the negative connotatio^ associated w i t h
the term "forgery." Whichever term they use, biblical scholars
have argued for a long time that there are New Testament
books whose authors knowingly claimed to be someone other
than who they were.
Pseudepigraphy in the Ancient World
To make sense of this situation we need to learn more about authorship and false authorship i n the ancient world.
Definitions
To begin w i t h , it is important to be precise i n our terminology. T h e
term "pseudepigraphy" can refer to any w r i t i n g that has a false
114
J E S U S , I N T E R R U P T E D
name attached to it. They may be false attributions, and they may be
writings whose authors falsely c l a i m to be someone else.
There are two kinds of falsely attributed writings. Some are books
written anonymously that later readers, editors, or scribes wrongly
claim to have been written by someone famous; others are books
written homonymously, by someone who happens to share the name
of someone else who was famous. I n the ancient world, most people
didn't have last names, so "John" could refer to any one of hundreds
or thousands of people. If an author named John wrote a book and
someone later claimed that this John was i n fact John the son of
Zebedee (as some people claimed for the book of Revelation), then it
would be a false attribution based on homonymity.^^
There are also two kinds of "pseudonymous" writings, writings
written under a "false name." A pen name is a simple pseudonym.
W h e n Samuel Clemens wrote The Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn
and signed off as M a r k Twain, he didn't intend to deceive anyone;
he simply was choosing a different name to publish under. There
are very few instances of this k i n d of pseudonymity i n the ancient
world, although it did happen on occasion. The Greek historian X e nophon wrote his ^ m o u s work, The Anabasis., under a pen name,
"Themistogenes." More frequently i n antiquity we find the other
k i n d of pseudonymous writing, where the author uses the name of
someone else who is well k n o w n i n order to deceive his audience into
t h i n k i n g that he really is that person. T h i s k i n d of pseudonymous
w r i t i n g is literary forgery.
Preya\ence of Forgery in the Ancient World
Literary forgery was a common phenomenon i n the ancient world.
We know this because ancient authors themselves talk about it, a lot.
Discussions of forgery can be found i n the writings of some of the
best-known authors from antiquity. A m o n g the Greeks and Romans
you can find references to and discussions of forgery i n such farflung authors as Herodotus, Cicero, Q u i n t i l l i a n , M a r t i a l , Suetonius,
Who Wrote the Bible?
115
Galen, Plutarch, Philastratus, and Diogenes Laertius. A m o n g Christian authors there are discussions i n the writings of such well-known
figures as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Rufinus,
and Augustine.
It is sometimes argued by scholars of the New Testament that
forgery was so common i n the ancient world that no one took it seriously; since the deceit could normally be easily detected, it was never
really meant to fool anyone.^^ I have spent the past couple of years
e x a m i n i n g the ancient discussions of forgery and have come to the
conclusion that the only people who make this argument are people
who haven't actually read the ancient sources.
Ancient sources took forgery seriously. They almost universally
condemn it, often i n strong terms. H o w widely was it condemned?
Odd as it might seem, the practice of forgery is sometimes condemned even i n documents that are forged. Furthermore, the claim
that no one was ever fooled is completely wrong. People were fooled
a l l the time. That's why people wrote forgeries—^to fool people.
I don't need to give a detailed account of the ancient discussions of
forgery here; there is plenty of scholarship on the problem, although
unfortunately the most exhaustive works are i n German.^* But I can
illustrate the point by g i v i n g one particularly telling anecdote.
In second-century Rome there was a famous physician and
author named Galen. Galen tells the story that one day, as he was
w a l k i n g through the streets of Rome, he passed by a bookseller's
stall. There he saw two men arguing over a certain book for sale,
written i n the name of . . . Galen! One m a n was insisting that the
book really was Galen's, and the other was equally vociferous i n
claiming that it could not be, since the w r i t i n g style was completely
different from Galen's. T h i s , needless to say, warmed the cockles
of Galen's heart, since he had not i n fact written the book. But he
was more than a little perturbed that someone was t r y i n g to sell a
book under his name. A n d so he went home and composed a small
book called " H o w to Recognize the Books of Galen." We still have
the book today.
136
J E S U S , I N T E R R U P T E D
to be written by Peter that were not written by him—for example,
a Gospel of Peter, a letter of Peter to James, several "Acts" of Peter,
and three different apocalypses of Peter. Forging books in Peter's
name was a virtual cottage industry.
CONCLUSION: WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?
I return now to my original question: Who wrote the Bible? Of the
twenty-seven books of the New Testament, only eight almost certainly were written by the authors to whom they are traditionally
ascribed: the seven undisputed letters of Paul and the Revelation of
John, which could be labeled homonymous, since it does not claim to
be written by any particular John; this was recognized even by some
writers of the early church.
My views about the authors of the New Testament are not radical within scholarship. To be sure, there are debates among scholars
about this book or that. Some very fine scholars think that Paul
wrote 2 Thessalonians, or that Jesus' brother James wrote James,
or that Peter wrote 1 Peter. But the majority of critical scholars
has long doubted these ascriptions, and there is scarcely any debate
about some of the books of the New Testament, such as 1 Timothy
and 2 Peter. These books were not written by their putative authors.
Doubts about the authorship of writings that became the canon
were raised in the early church, but in the modern period, starting in the nineteenth century, scholars have pressed the arguments
home with compelling reasoning. Even now many scholars are loath
to call the forged documents of the New Testament forgeries—^this
is, after all, the Bible we're talking about. But the reality is that by
any definition of the term, that's what they are. A large number
of books in the early church were written by authors who falsely
claimed to be apostles in order to deceive their readers into accepting
their books and the views they represented
This view that the New Testament contains books written under
false names is taught at virtually all the major institutions of higher
Who Wrote the Bible?
137
learning except strongly evangelical schools throughout the Western world. It is the view taught in all the major textbooks on the
New Testament used in these institutions. It is the view taught in
seminaries and divinity schools. It is what pastors learn when they
are preparing for ministry.
And why isn't this more widely known? Why is it that the person
in the pew—not to mention the person in the street—knows nothing about this? Your guess is as good as mine.