Most Helpful Customer Reviews
52 of 54 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Important questioning, July 27, 2003
This review is from: Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (Paperback)
The first time I picked up Robin Lane Fox's 'The Unauthorised Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible', I was intrigued. While this was hardly the first time I had heard the historical information of the bible questioned in terms of accuracy or even plausibility, it was I believe the first time I had ever heard the word fiction applied in a serious way (the title, no less!) to consideration of the bible. First, a note on the author. Robin Lane Fox is a fellow of New College, Oxford, and a University Lecturer in Ancient History. Among other popular and scholarly works he has produced are 'Alexander the Great' (a respected history) and `Pagans and Christians' (an interesting exploration of the conversion of the Roman world to Christianity). Robin Lane Fox explains in the preface to 'The Unauthorised Version' that this is an historian's view, not an exposition written from the standpoint of faith. Robin Lane Fox is often discounted, particularly by Christians, because he purposely writes for Christian-dominated audiences, but does so from the stated standpoint of being an atheist. He does make a few historical errors in his framework -- he would say they are matters of interpretation, but I dispute that. For instance, he claims that his address to Christians rather than Jewish readers is because the Bible is a Christian creation. He discounts the Jewish influence in formation of the canon (both the positive and negative aspects related to that, yet another double-edged scenario in history). He reads the biblical texts as he would any other ancient narrative -- this is perhaps what he considers objective. However, I would submit that to write as an atheist is already to import certain judgements into the scheme of analysis and interpretation, rather like those early Enlightenment scientists and philosophers who assumed the aura of objectivity but then discounted the value of thing that didn't fit the framework of their approach. Robin Lane Fox discounts the idea of getting beyond the translations of texts back to original documents for closer understanding. Almost in an ironic position, Lane Fox argues for the 'standard' versions over the scholarly reconstructions primarily because of the level of influence and acceptance they have gained through recitation, spiritual development, and liturgical use. This reminds me of Luke Timothy Johnson's arguments against the quest for the historical Jesus, although this is a parallel Johnson would perhaps not appreciate. Robin Lane Fox concludes, after going through historical and literary analyses of many stories and principles in the text, that the scriptures are not unerring, and most likely only one view or voice among many (a curious claim, considering that he also speaks of the biblical text having too many voices, not just one). I enjoyed this book. It challenges much of my faith and belief, not only religiously, but also historically and philosophically. That, I contend, is its primary value. While I certainly don't discount the need for reading spiritual texts for edification, I worry about those who exclude all but that kind of literary. Is a faith that is never challenged truly faithful? Is a faith that cannot stand up against the arguments of Lane Fox a worthwhile faith? Is the faith that cannot admit when, as much as one might not want to say so, Lane Fox has made some good points, truly a strong faith? One of the problems with texts like these (and, ironically, their opposites) is that people rarely read enough or think enough to pull in the variety of interpretations and materials they need for sound judgement -- this is as true among those who wander the halls of seminary as it is among those outside, both in and out of the church. We naturally gravitate toward those things that are comfortable, and avoid those things which are difficult. For many, Lane Fox is discounted because of his beliefs (and yes, atheism is a belief, not merely the absence of belief). Others discount him because they 'already know his viewpoint or framework'. This, of course, is arrogance, even though it usually has a subtle cast to it (and I am guilty of this often myself). I recommend this book. Do not look for truth of a religious sort here, but rather look for a text that will prompt thinking, both subtle and direct. Some things of value include an examination of the lack of triviality in the biblical text -- there is only one accidental death in the whole bible, and that is also to prove a point (indeed, the word 'accident' does not occur anywhere in the Bible, the King James Version or the New Revised Standard Version). The whole text is devoid of anything that does not matter, that does not have a purpose. How many readers have that kind of attention and faith to detail? Lane Fox ends with an evaluation of the 'answer' to Pilate's question. He states (accurately) that the disciples are presented in all the gospels as often fallible and ignorant. They argue among themselves over trivial matters, and fail to understand the importance of what is happening. They also loose faith -- they fall asleep, they run away. No other religion has texts with such a human foil to its story.'
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
83 of 93 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The case against an otherwise informative book, January 30, 2003
Robin Lane Fox is one of the leading classical historians today, known for major works on Alexander the Great and the clash between Pagans and Christians. And there is much in this book that many readers will find useful and interesting. Lane Fox starts off right away against those who believe the Bible is reliable history. He points out the two differing creation stories in the book of Genesis. He notes how Luke irretrievably muddled his nativity story by tying Herod's reign with a census conducted under Governor Quirinius of Syria, not aware that Quirinius, and the census vital for moving Mary and Joseph from Nazareth to Bethlehem, were separated from Herod by at least a decade. And then Lane Fox goes on. He discusses the history of the actual texts and the earliest copies, and how there are in fact thousands of differences. Most of these are relatively minor, but the last twelve verses of Mark and the story of the women taken in adultery in John were clearly not in the original versions. We learn about the practice of pseudonymous authors, and we have a long discussion of the claims of the Tanakh or Old Testament, and how they usually do not match the claims of archaelogy or surrounding records. We learn the interesting fact that no-one in the New Testament quotes the Songs of Songs or Ecclesiastes. We also learn this amusing anecdote about the plant that temporarily shades Jonah: "Traditionally, the plant has been seen as a gourd, but the Hebrew word is uncertain. When Latin biblical translators changed it to ivy, Augustine knew of congregations in north Africa who rioted until the gourd was brought back to the text." And Lane Fox is especially good on how Christians muddled the relationship between the "New" and the "Old" Testaments: "When Christians quoted those old prophecies, they used Greek translations which were untrue to the Hebrew originals: they ran separate bits of a text into one; they twisted the sense and reference of nouns (Paul, at Galatians 3:8, is a spectacular example); they mistook the speakers and the uses of personal pronouns (John 19:37 or Matthew 27:9)...they muddled Jeremiah with Zechariah...they reread the literal sense and found a non-existent allegory..." Yet although Lane Fox is an atheist, there are times when he is surprisingly uncritical of the New Testament. He tries to argue that Jesus was crucified in 36, instead of a far more likely 30. His argument is that since Jesus died after John the Baptist and John the Baptist, according to Mark, was executed for opposing Herod Antipas' marriage to his half-brother's widow, that marriage must have taken place no earlier than 34, when the half-brother died. The problem with this argument is that a) Mark gets the half-brother wrong b) Josephus doesn't say John the Baptist's execution had anything to do with Antipas' marriage. This leads to a larger problem. Against most scholarly opinion, and against most evidence, Lane Fox insists that the Gospel of John was written by a primary source, possibly John himself, and that the Acts of the Apostles was written by a genuine companion of Paul. Lane Fox's arguments are weak. He claims that John shows a firm knowledge of first century Judea, which is a) not directly relevant and b) open to question, since John 8:33 has the Pharisees claiming that they have never been captives of anyone, forgetting both Egypt and Babylon. He sees the references to "the other disciple" in John and the we passages in Acts as references to the authors, when in the first case they could be a subtle pseudonymous device, while in the second the use of "we" is a common literary device when characters travel over water, which is where the we passages appear. One should see Donald Akenson's "Saint Saul," for why we can't put our faith in Acts, but there are obvious problems with Lane Fox's account. If Jesus really said "I am the Resurrection and the Life," then all four gospels, not just one, would have it. John's Jesus emphasizes his divinity, while Mark's, famously, is secretive about being the Messiah, a difference which to me is only compatible with the idea that Mark is an earlier and closer source to the historical Jesus. Likewise it is questionable to put too much faith in "Luke," who not only gets the date of the census wrong, but at the end of Luke has Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday while having him ascend 40 days later at the beginning of Acts. Lane Fox seems to keep as much of the Gospel accounts as possible, except when they are clearly contradicted by other information. This is understandable for a historian for whom scarcity of evidence is a constant problem, but it is wrong.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Entertaining Historiography, June 6, 2001
Fox is a brilliant writer and gifted scholar whose PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS may become a classic. THE UNAUTHORIZED VERSION, entertainingly written for the educated general reader, presents his professional's view of the Bible's value as history. Discussions about source issues and dates are too often written by Thomas Carlyle's old nemesis Herr Doktor-Professor Dryasdust. Lane Fox, to the contrary, argues with genuine verve and wit. His explanation of the reason why the Gospels' Infancy Narratives cannot be historically accurate is in itself a brief miracle of clarity. After reading it you would have to be singularly obtuse not to understand why you can have either a Roman tax census or Herod the King, but not both. He can be laugh-out-loud funny about the plight of the poor prophet, doomed to have his predictions fail if he succeeds in convincing people to repent. And when Biblical botanical issues crop up, and they do, he may be the only scholar alive really qualified to deal with them. He's written two books on gardening in his spare time. Personally an atheist, he takes care to be fair. Christian scholars who step outside methodological boundaries or who seem disingenuous are skewered mercilessly. Those who seem honest and conscientious to him are treated simply as scholars. You would never guess from reading this book alone that R.E. Brown is a priest. You would only know that he is a great scholar whose work Fox greatly esteems, even while disagreeing. Similarly, you would not know that the late W.F. Albright was an evangelical Christian. Fox's conclusions, of course, put limits on the ways we can trust the Bible as an historical source (primary for some limited purposes, clearly secondary for others, when not outright fiction). There is nothing earthshaking here, nothing new. Nothing even very controversial except in the eyes of "fundamentalist" readers. What he has to say is perfectly acceptable to most "mainstream" believers and their churches. In a nutshell, THE UNAUTHORIZED VERSION is the Gospel according to modern Biblical criticism. His thesis may be stated thus: If the Bible is claimed to be historically accurate in the way that we mean "historically accurate" today, then that claim can only be evaluated using the same historical standards and methods used to evaluate nonbiblical sources and nonbiblical questions today. Stated baldly like this, its truth is almost selfevident. He is preaching of course to the choir. The people who should read this book won't. But if you are curious about the issues involved, or wind up in controversies, you could not do better for an introduction than this genial book. For emerald_skye.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
1.0 out of 5 stars
Piss poor prose and rampant colons
I couldn't, I think, stand, under the circumstances, this book. The constant, perhaps helpful, perhaps not, use of commas, with no real reason, was irritating: the use of colons...
Read more
Published on December 12, 2006 by Henrik Stedson
|
