Customer Reviews

Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.'

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.

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.

My favorite general introduction to the Bible as a book. It's a close reading of the Old and New Testaments, taking Pilate's taunt ("What is truth?") as a starting point. Fox gives good account of the dubious texts that secularists need to know for their daily battles with fundamentalist: The two, contradictory accounts of the creation of Man in Genesis; the versions of Christ's birth in Matthew and Luke that are provably false in terms of Roman history (Augustus never decreed "that all the world should be taxed"); and the "aggressive forgeries" that pepper the Epistles. On the other hand, Fox tells how the "higher criticism" that Christians so often scorn actually proves that the Gospels are much older than people once assumed, and that most of the Epistles really were written by the same person.

In my youth - how odd to be saying that! - I couldn't figure a lot of things in the Bible out. The obvious ones, like the two versions of the creation, bothered me less since it was understood that the stories in Genesis were allegories, stories, myths, and important more for their poetry and as set-up for the rest of the story of humankind. Then there was the way that, in the first five books and right through Joshua and Judges, people kept rejoicing in slaughter. Never mind my puzzlement as I learned more about history. The Epistles never felt consistent to me.

Fox is a specialist, and I'm not. He gives the reader all the material he or she needs to understand why all those things bother them. You may have Herod, or Cyrinius. You cannot have both. And so on.

This isn't the book to hand to a fundamentalist; all you'll do is offend. The examination of texts and where things came from is great for those with no belief to lose. And (to be quite honest) it's a relief to discover that the Hebrews didn't actually massacre the inhabitants of Canaan.

All in all, I recommend this book.

This book is an important one to review because no less than two significant popular works rely on it in their treatment of Bible origins.

The first and most recent is "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong and the second is Kenneth Davis' "Don't Know much about the Bible."

In both cases, the exclusive reliance on this book is misplaced.

It's not that this book is not well written or not even an above average entry in the origins of the Bible genre. It's just that it lacks the necessary breadth and depth of other books like Doane's "Bible Myths and their Parallels in other religions" or the more recent "Secret Origins of the Bible" by Tim Callahan.

In each case, this reviewers preferred books go in to the type of detail necessary to make a proper survey of book length origins. While a full and fair description of what's lacking in this book, Unauthorized Version, would itself take a book, let's point to some for instances for the sake of rounding out this discussion:

AS TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

Fox incorrectly asserts there is no evidence for dating any of Torah (or the Old Testament) prior to around the seventh century BCE. This is a patent falsehood. Indeed, as noted text scholar Thomas Friedman has pointed out, Exodus 15, Deuteronomy 33 and Judges 5 all probably can be dated to at least five centuries earlier based on internal textual evidence.

Indeed, the early dating of these internal biblical sources naturally then tells us much about -- as acheologist William Dever would put it -- who the early israelites were and "where they came from." In short, they came from the Judean foothills and a comparison of Exodus 15 with the text of the Merneptah Stele of 1215 BCE tells us volumes about Israelite origins.

For those who don't know, the Merneptah Stele was inscribed by the Pharoah Merneptah...son to Ramses the Great. This is significant on two counts: 1) Ramses the Great is considered by many to be the Pharoah of the biblical exodus and 2) the Stele is the first recorded extra biblical mention of the Jewish people and purports to record their destruction.

In saying that "Israel is laid waste" the Stele reports the premature death of the Jewish people among the destruction of other thirteenth century BCE kingdoms such as Edom and Philistia. Interestingly enough, in reporting the miraculous survival of the Jewish people against the Egyptians, Exodus 15 also mentions Edom and Philistia. In other words, the texts seem to refer to an event taking place in the same geographical area...Judea.

Significantly, this comparision of proof texts had already been done by the time of Fox's book by biblical historian Frank Moore Cross in his book "Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic." In his book, Cross compared Exodus 15 to burial texts found at Ras Shamra. In comparing Exodus 15 -- which extolled the worship of Yahwah -- to the Ras Shamra texts -- which extolled the worship of Baal -- Cross concluded that the biblical material was written around the time cited by Friedman and in imitation of Canaanite texts.

In other words, Cross asserted that the earliest strata of Torah was written in imitation of a pre existing source.

This phenomenon can also be found to extend beyond the lines of Exodus 15 to other early biblical accounts. For example, Flood story has been deemed to be written in imitation of the Utnapishtim flood story found in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the early years accounts of the life of Moses have been found to be written in imitation of the early years accounts of the life of Sargon of Akkad.

So viewed the question does not then become one of a search for the underlying historical bonafides of Torah but rather a search for the purpose for which the Torah accounts were written: viz, to create a people's epoch in the sense of the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh or the Greek Illiad and Odyssy.

Before leaving a discussion of the Old Testament it also bears noting that Fox EVEN FAILED TO MENTION the ancient Egyptian historian Manetho. For those who don't know, Manetho was a priest of Thoth who wrote an Egyptian version of the Exodus. What that version was and its significance to appreciating Torah is touched in other words such as "Egyptian Origins of the Bible" and "101 Myths of the Bible" by Gary Greenberg but not by Fox.

AS TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Here again, other better scholarship was available to Fox but fails to make itself shown in his work.

Just as in regards to the Old Testament Fox failed to discuss significant evidence like Manetho or the full significance of evidence like the Merneptah Stele, as to the New Testament, Fox failed to discuss the first century Gospel of Enoch.

For those who don't know, the Gospel of Enoch was a gospel floating around during the supposed life of Jesus which discusssed many concepts (such as "son of man") which would later be central to New Testament canon. (It still remains part of the canon of the Christian Coptic Church.)

Though books by Thomas Sheehan (who wrote "The First Coming") and writing by Burton Mack, a New Testament historian, were both available to Fox, he failed to mention any of their important discussions in his work.

In relation to Sheehan, Fox's book would have benefited from observations relating to ever growing claims concerning the divinity of Christ.

In relation to Mack, Fox's book would have been greatly informed by a fuller discussion concering the developmental strata of Christian tradition.

Though he observed it in passing, what after all was the significance of the fact that the earliest strata of Christian tradition were sayings. And in relation to those sayings, what was the significance of the fact that the sayings were not based on biblical but rather Greek cynical parables?

IN CLOSING

As mentioned at the outset, this book was relied upon to the exclusion of the other cited literature by authors writing "A Short History of God" and "Don't know much about the Bible," in both cases a serious error.

Due to the significance of the founder effect in relation to the origins of things, it is all the more important to be thorough and complete in matters of beginnings because all our subsequent knowledge relating to development is thereby limited. So in this way, again it's not that Fox's book is a bad one, it's just an unnecessarily incomplete one.

Read "Secret Origins of the Bible" or "Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions" instead.

This is a fascinating book by a scholar of the classics, Robin Lane Fox. A recent book of his, "The Classical World: An Epic History from Homer to Hadrian," is very nicely done. His historical competence is pretty clear-cut. The premise of this book is straightforward: the Bible is internally inconsistent and, externally, on a number of occasions inconsistent with known history. He forthrightly notes that he is not a believer, so that one can account for his own religious views as they evaluate his argument. Those who believe in the truth and factual nature of the Bible will doubtless not be strongly approving this volume.

He begins by noting that (page 7): "'The Unauthorized Version' is a historian's view of the Bible. It is a book about evidence and historical truth, not about faith. It is unauthorized because it addresses questions which the Bible itself obscures. . . ."

Two approaches. The first, the document is internally inconsistent. He notes the two very different stories of Creation, the inconsistencies and contradictions across the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and in many other books of the Bible. He argues that there were "editors" who rearranged and edited prior versions of Scripture to better fit their perspective. He notes the various hypothesized editors, such as J and E. He speaks of how D ("Deuteronomist") revised previous documents to fit a specific vision. One may well not be convinced of different "editors" at work, but it does help to explain some of the internal inconsistencies.

The second approach is to note that some of the "history" in the Bible is inconsistent with other historical documentation. For example Luke's chronology does not work. Also, there is no evidence that Augustus ever decreed that everyone go to their home town for an enumeration. Indeed, there is much evidence that this was not likely to have been the case.

At that, Lane is very sympathetic to the work of "John" in the Gospel of John. It is not always clear to me why he is so accepting of this and so much more critical of the others (although it is clear that there are some real historical problems in some of the other Gospels).

This is not easy reading. There is a close textual analysis of the Bible, and it can get pretty tedious as he recounts, for instance, the very different views of David across different books in the "Old Testament." His historical documentation to support his thesis that portions of Scripture simply could not have happened can also lead to some MEGO ("My eyes glaze over"). But his command of textual analysis and historical phenomena produces a provocative thesis. Even those who disagree and might wish to simply dismiss his critique would probably be better advised to confront it and address his points.

So, don't expect a quick read. Expect challenges to standard understandings of the Bible. But understanding and confronting his challenge can be a productive venture.

RL Fox, who has spent more time researching ancient Western history than have all reviewers (on this site) of his book (combined), presents his views of who were the authors of the Judeo/Christian Bible. Those who believe that the Bible is the the literal Word of God will reject the very idea of the book outright -- in that case, who cares who may have written the Bible, or the social conditions that may have influenced the writing?

Others will find this very interesting. Extensive familiarity with the Bible is probably required to get the most out of Fox's work. Those readers who, like me, have a general familiarity but haven't committed the entire work to memory, probably should have a Bible at hand for reference.

I must admit that I am a fan of Robin Lane Fox. I like his manner of writing, deprecating humor and incredible facility for research. This book is simply a tour de force - no other words to describe it.

While not religious, Fox is just, even fair, in his treatment of a book many consider the Word of God. First and foremost he is a historian of the first degree, conversant with both the religious views of the past and the social setting in which they arose and thrived. The book travels along a fairly straight line but by subject - not chronologically.

For all the rants against the author he more or less accepts the Bibical accounts as being genuine which is not to say they are valid or even true. He does not ask obvious questions - how could a people without an alphabet or writing materials preserve a history of themselves or their god? Instead he compares stories, searches for meaning, finds numerous flaws in both prophecy and inner logic and lets the reader decide.

In his dating of the New Testament he is quite conservative. His text comparisons are interesting as are his descriptions of local customs of the time. The manner in which this disparate groups of stories became our Bible is a mystery story in itself but the author sticks with the words and their context. This work is very readable and written for the educated layman.

After reading the egregiously weak "Case Against Christianity", I decided to move onto this book, which is, my far, by favorite book that is critical of the Bible. In all the places that Case Against Christianity failed, this book succeeded.

Unlike CAC, this book was written by a professional (which the author of CAC wasn't) who doesn't have any type of theological or philosophical axe to grind. He even makes the interesting statement that he "believes in the Bible but not in God." Throughout the book, we are treated to a very sophisticated analysis of the Old and New Testament.

Most of the time is spent on the Old Testament. I am so unfamiliar with the Old Testament that I couldn't tell if a single statement made by Fox is accurate. He is, though, very critical on the OT, and seems to conclude that most of it is "false".

As for the New Testament, he was quite generous and seemed to conclude that most of it was "truth". The only decisive argument he brings up against the NT is the Luke and Quirinius issue, where I felt Fox's statements were "fiction" (hence my subject title). As for the rest, he doesn't even bring up (in any sort of depth) the resurrection claims of the NT. He does argue for John priority (very interesting and unusual) and puts out Luke's use of "we" in Acts where Fox concludes that Luke must be of a very early date. Besides this, most of the book is dediced to the OT.

Something I appreciated from Fox was how he put the OT in it's historical context. While it may seem so unusual and amazing to us, once put into the correct social setting, it loses those qualities.

Another flaw I felt this book had was its indecisiveness at times. I would read through a whole chapter and not be able to answer the question, "What's the point? What is Fox getting at?". As a conservative, I found this book to be very a sophisticated and enjoyable read that is well worth the Christian and non-Christians time.