Because of the nature of belief systems, and the way we argue about them, I'm not fond of debating what you or I believe. I am not going to change what you believe, and I would do you no service if I did. Your belief sustains you, and being sustained in this world is more important than anything else. Unless your belief puts you in a marching column aimed at my house.

That said, unfortunately, I get very uncomfortable when I see people who have engaged their faith on the basis of "facts" that I either find to be debatable or outright false. I have myself made, and been hurt by, such a choice. Yes, I was once a "Jesus freak". I'll tell that story another time. Anyway, I feel compelled, in such cases, to present the information as I understand it, so that anyone else who is as yet undecided about their basis of belief has as many facts and considered opinions as possible to inform their deliberations.

My principal sources of facts for the thoughts below on the authorship of various Biblical books are The Harper-Collins Study Bible and two editions of the Oxford Study Bible. For the Gospels (canonical and otherwise), The Complete Gospels is an important additional source. If anything I write is not in accordance with what appears in these volumes, the error is mine.

the Catholic Church did not write the Bible.

Since all of the Biblical books were in existence before there was a (Roman) Catholic Church, this is true. We forget, I think, that Roman Catholicism is a descendant Christian tradition (from Orthodoxy), not the original form. The Latin Vulgate Bible, the principal Bible of Roman Catholicism through most of its history, is a 5th century CE translation from the Greek and Hebrew originals, and those writing English translations seldom refer to it (preferring to use the originals themselves).

Moses, David, Solomon

The scholars cited in the sources I mention think that the books about these figures were not written by them. The "books of Moses" (Torah) have had a long and complicated literary history. The books of Deuteronomy (the last of the Torah), Samuel, and Kings (one of the two book sets where one finds David and Solomon) were also part of a long tradition, culminating in a an edition prepared during the reign of King Josiah of Judah and re-edited during or after the Babylonian Exile. These books are known as the "Deuteronomic History".

Ezra

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were apparently written either by the Chronicler (author of the Books of Chronicles, which are later than the Deuteronomic History and rewrite, again, the stories of David and Solomon) or by someone who wrote very much like him. There are several sections in these books where the "Chronicler" has apparently quoted from a diary or autobiography of Nehemiah.

Peter, John, James

All of these Apostles have had either Gospels or Letters attributed to them (the Gospel of Peter is a noncanonical fragment). All of these books appear to have been written no earlier than the second half of the 1st century CE, and thus cannot have been written by the Apostles. I read that the attribution of ancient books to well-known figures was a literary trick designed to lend authority to the volumes, which from an early date were used in churches much as the New Testament is now. All the canonical Gospels got assigned to an Apostle in this way. Except Luke, which was not named for an Apostle but instead for the "Luke the beloved physician" who was associated with Paul in some of his travels. The book might possibly have been written by Luke, but since about 40 years separate Paul's ministry from the probable date of authorship of the Gospel of Luke, it's more likely that the Gospel writer (who also wrote The Acts of the Apostles) quoted (in Acts) from a diary or autobiography of Luke, just as the Chronicler quoted Nehemiah.

Paul

About half of the biblical Letters of Paul were, scholars think, actually written by Saul (Aramaic name) = Paul (Greek/Roman name) of Tarsus. The remainder, particularly the Pastoral Letters (the two Timothys, Titus) were written half a century after Paul died, and were "pseudonymous" like, and for the same reason as, the Gospels.

everyone knows Catholics hate Jews.

This calumny has a sorry history, one that is a major area of serious scholarship but (I find) is unknown to most people who parrot this foul statement. The antipathy of Christians (not just Catholics) to Jews is traced especially to the Gospels of Matthew and John, both of which appear to have been written by church leaders who were trying to guide their beleaguered congregations through persecutions by the forces of both Rome and Pharisaic Judaism.

Christians (more properly Messianists) in the 1st century CE represented a sect of Judaism - which was thrown into turmoil as a result of the unsuccessful revolt against Rome in 66-70 CE, during which the central focus of the Judaic religion, the Temple in Jerusalem, was thrown down. Messianists had to explain to Jews, who after 70 CE were represented by Pharisees, including extremists like Saul of Tarsus, how their Jesus could possibly be the Messiah and not prevent the loss of the revolt and the destruction of the Temple. The Messianists lost the argument and got thrown out of Judaism.

Practically all the anti-Jewish parts of the New Testament (condemnation of Pharisees, references to temple destruction, the "I AM" claims Jesus makes in the Gospel of John) all date from this time in Christian history, not from Jesus's time. The story of the Syro-Phoenician woman in Mark probably comes closest to Jesus's true (positive and parochial) attitude towards Jews - and it is significant that Matthew and Luke, which copied and supplemented Mark, omitted this story, which was likely to offend the very Greek Gentiles to whom Christians appealed after their expulsion from Jewish synagogues.

Perhaps this tale of the history of Christian/Jewish enmity, and the mockery it makes of subsequent events (culminating in Auschwitz), explains why I get so antsy about folk who don't get their facts in order.

  - O Ceallaigh

Copyright © 2006 Felloffatruck Publications. All wrongs deplored.

All opinions are mine as a private citizen.