Chapter 1.
Working to Understand the Bible

The Bible is probably the most widely read book, and at the same time the most misread and misunderstood book ever written. It is also the one book which more people have attempted to read and given up than any other book. Why is this? Why have so many who tried to read this great book been unable to continue and follow through with noble resolutions and efforts? And why have so many who persisted in reading failed to understand what they were reading? Can't something be done to help these folks read with understanding and enjoyment the great literature of the Bible?

Of course. That is why this book was written. Other writers have touched on some aspects of this problem, but not one, to our knowledge, has attempted in a systematic way to pull it all together to help today’s readers as we do in this book.

For one thing the Bible has been set apart so conspicuously that the very language and approach sometimes cause serious obstacles. But some of these matters can be dealt with in an intelligent and responsible way by means as simple as revising the text. An American soldier in South Vietnam said to his chaplain, after receiving a copy of the New Testament in Today's English Version, "Thanks, Chaplain, this is the first time in my life I have been able to read and understand the Bible." That soldier started well by getting a version of the Bible which he could read. If he went on to study the literary nature of the Bible, and learn some of the basic principles of literary analysis, and how to apply these principles to the Bible, he would have been well prepared to cope with the twenty-first century environment.

Another reason why many readers cannot understand the Bible is that the church for centuries told everyone they were unable to understand and interpret the meaning of the Scripture. Many churchmen even today state this overtly or implicitly, and many believers meekly accept it. Many Christians and other religious believers in other faiths assume that the theologians and Ayatollas will tell them what the Bible meant in the past and what it means today. They need not waste their time trying to figure it all out. Others would do it for them. After the time of the Reformation, in the sixteenth century, Christians began to question this. They demanded and received Bible translations in their own vernacular. In some quarters the church and clergy attempted to keep the Bible in the Latin Vulgate version as their unique possession, but it was a losing battle. After the Gutenberg press was invented, Bibles were printed throughout Europe, and as Bible Societies were organized around the world Bibles were translated and printed in all the languages of the world.

Naturally, the more people began to read the Bible, the more they wanted to learn about this remarkable book. And, as learning and individualism became more widespread, people realized that, with some education and training, they could figure out the meaning of the books of the Bible, without having others do their thinking for them.

Of course, other obstacles can hinder a proper understanding of this magnificent sacred book. For example, if misguided persons deliberately twist the Bible to fit their preconceived notions and opinions, they will misread while they read, and misunderstand while they try to teach others. Or, if they view the Bible as some kind of a magic authority, they very likely will misread and misunderstand the message the original writers and revisers intended to convey. Likewise, if contemporary readers and would-be theologians deny that the original writings were sometimes revised and edited before the canons were fixed, they must deny some of the basic principles of historical, literary and textual criticism that have proven very valuable in the last 300 years.

Such use of the knowledge of literary analysis takes nothing away from the religious doctrine of inspiration. The only issue here is the matter of how the Bible might have been inspired, or what method God used to inspire the original writers. This concerns what is known in theological circles as verbal inspiration, or dynamic inspiration, or terms derived from a variation of these methods or theories of inspiration. Our primary interest in this book is to apply principles of literary analysis to the inspired writings of the Bible, not to question or deny the inspiration of the Bible. We leave that up to the theologians and their critics. Our primary concerns are literary and practical, not theological and scholastic. We believe that we offer ways in which the general reader can better understand and apply the Bible to contemporary problems and issues in the twenty-first century.

Understanding the Nature of the Bible as Literature

In order to approach the Bible, or any other book, as literature, the reader must understand its nature and structure. What are its genre, literary characteristics, and general nature as compared to other books of its time, culture, and library of human knowledge? Is it history, fiction, poetry, or some other kind of literature or writing?

And, of course, the reader should be interested in authorship as a part of larger concerns covered in any good introduction to each of the books of the Bible. Authorship is not a determinative concern, but it may be helpful—if we can ascertain who the original author or authors were—in leading present day readers to a better understanding of the message.

However, many of the greatest books of antiquity, the period in which most of the books of the Bible originated, were written by authors who are unknown to us today. And many of their works were revised, edited, and hand copied by other persons before coming down to us today in their present form. Great literary works—those that are timeless, aesthetic, reasonable, and sound—stand on their merits regardless of who the original authors were or how many times they may have been revised or edited. So it is not necessary to know for sure who the original authors were.

Although the question of authorship is not essential to inspiration or understanding the Bible as literature, authorship is a part of building a solid foundation for understanding. Therefore, we ignore this matter at our great disadvantage. If we are really interested in understanding the nature of the Bible as literature, we must honestly consider the matter of authorship from a literary standpoint.

In order to pursue the questions of literary nature and authorship, we first must identify which "Bible" we are discussing. There are several Bibles—the Hebrew Bible, the Bible that includes the Apocrypha, and the Bible containing the Old and New Testaments without the Apocrypha. The Bible for our discussion consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament, with 39 books in the former and 27 books in the latter. Due to practical limitations on the size of this chapter, we will concentrate upon some of the more difficult literary problems of biblical authorship, starting with the Old Testament.

Understanding The Old Testament

We have grouped the 39 books of the Old Testament as follows: the law; the historical books; the prophets; and the writings. This grouping is only one of several possible ways of organizing the structure of the Old Testament. The groups or order of books in the King James Version, or Authorized Version, used by most Protestants differs from the traditional grouping (Torah, Prophets, Writings) of the Hebrew Bible. For an excellent discussion of the order, groups, and literary aspects of books in the Old Testament, see The Literary Guide to the Bible, edited by Alter and Kermode, 1-35, listed in Appendix B, Suggestions for Further Reading.

The Law

The Law consists of the first five books: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; and Deuteronomy. In the original Hebrew Bible these books were one. They were later divided, for convenience, into five parts. Generations of readers assumed that Moses wrote all five books, but modern readers will find that such an assumption carries enormous problems.

To begin with, Moses obviously could not have written the account of his own death in Deuteronomy chapter 34. Moreover, a study using today's literary techniques must conclude that several different writers contributed to these first five books.

For example, the texts indicate that the writers of the five books knew the history of the people of Israel that unfolded long after Moses had died. In addition, the material shows evidence that early sources of parts of the books embraced different traditions. Each of these traditions had distinctive vocabularies, language characteristics, styles, preferences and uses of names for God, and different theological points of view.

Moses certainly could have been the original writer of the books. If so, he would have combined his contemporary knowledge with information from earlier sources, thus expanding authorship. And, as history continued its march, other writers or editors would have added to the material. To discover the earlier sources and the later writers requires a study of the historical culture combined with a literary analysis of the texts.

Applying such techniques to the book of Genesis reveals three strains of earlier sources. The bulk of the text comes from the first source. The author of that work probably did his writing during the period of the United Jewish Kingdom, about 950 B.C. We can identify him by his almost exclusive use of the Hebrew word Jehovah or Yahweh for God ("LORD" in the Revised Standard Version, or Jahweh in German).

A much smaller amount of material came from the second source (which also is the source for much more of the remaining four books). A scribe in the Northern Kingdom of Israel probably wrote that manuscript around 850 to 750 B.C. He preferred the name El or Elohim for God.

The third source was probably developed in the time of King Hezekiah in the late 8th century B.C., and revised by a priest after the Exile, or around 550 B.C., when the Jews were freed from Babylonia to return to Jerusalem. Biblical scholars call this source the Priestly strand because it reveals characteristics of the Aaronid priesthood. It is this Aaronid connection that dates it after the Exile, when the descendants of Aaron were becoming divided into a dual hierarchy: Aaronid priests, and Levite assistants.

By ferreting out these three sources, we are on the road to a better understanding of the authorship of Genesis. But the three most obvious sources do not provide a complete answer, because each has historical references and distinctive literary and linguistic characteristics that are puzzling. Nevertheless, the partial answer—that the words in Genesis were written in at least three vastly different times—sows the seeds that will produce a harvest of authorship material.

This harvest comes by investigating when the sources were combined, and who might have been in a position to do so. A byproduct is the understanding that, whoever combined them had to add his input to create the continuity that we find when we read Genesis today.

Most Biblical scholars agree that the first two sources were probably combined shortly after the fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 721 B.C. This merged document was probably combined with the Priestly document some time after the fall of the Southern Kingdom of Judah in 587 B.C. Because the first five books were originally one, we might conclude that the second combination included them all. Who might have made this second combination?

Professor Richard E. Friedman, currently on the faculty of the University of California, San Diego, suggests that the one person who probably had more than anyone else to do with it was the scribe Ezra (Who Wrote the Bible? 223-25, 232, 244). The following reasons support this conclusion:

• He had the authority, experience, position, skills, and capacities for the task.
• He is the only other person in the Old Testament besides Moses who is known as a lawgiver.
• The Persian emperor had authorized him to teach and enforce "the law of God which is in your hand," Ezra 7:14.
• He was a priest and a lawgiver as well as a scribe. "He was a ready [skilled] scribe in the law [Torah] of Moses," Ezra 7:6, and "Ezra had set his heart to study [to seek out] the law [Torah] of the LORD [Yahweh] and to do it, and to teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel," Ezra 7:10.
• He had easy access to the documents.

Of course this does not mean with certainty that Ezra personally put together the five books of the Law essentially as we have them today. However, Professor Richard Friedman, noted Bible scholar on the faculty of the University of California, San Diego, writes that "if it was not Ezra himself who composed the work, then it was someone close to him—a relative, a colleague in the priesthood, a fellow scribe—because it could not have been produced very long before he arrived with it in Judah" (Who Wrote the Bible? 224).

If we accept any dates and facts near these, then we must conclude that the first five books that we read today were written, or finalized, long after Moses died. Tradition simply associates his name with these books because of his illustrious connection with their content and history. Now, let's move on to the historical books.

The Historical Books

The ten historical books are Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. (Note that Ruth has been included in the "Writings," and will be discussed later.)

In the Jewish Bible, the six books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings are known as the Earlier Prophets. Professor Friedman cites a German biblical scholar, Martin Noth (History of Pentateuchal Traditions), who links these six historical books with the book of Deuteronomy (Who Wrote the Bible? 103). Friedman proposes the theory that the person who wrote an early version of Deuteronomy edited, revised, and compiled the other six historical books from previous texts. Not only is the language similar, but also the six books tell a continuous story that begins where Deuteronomy ends. And who was this compiler? Noth and Friedman submit that he might have been the prophet Jeremiah.

Rather than this being a startling suggestion, it is simply another typical lead revealed by applying modern literary knowledge to a study of the books. Indeed, even a casual reading discloses that the book of Joshua not only begins where Deuteronomy ends, but also develops ideas and material mentioned earlier in Deuteronomy. By reading and studying further, we can obtain clues about the cultures, periods, and backgrounds of the person or persons responsible for combining these scrolls.

We might even acquire a name—like Jeremiah—or we might not. But we likely will discover that whoever wrote the books that Christians know as "The Historical Books" and Jews know as "The Earlier Prophets," used a combination of three basic sources:

1. Old popular traditions, particularly those found in Genesis and Exodus;
2. The Deuteronomy themes interpreting Israel's history, especially Deuteronomy through 2nd Kings; and
3. The "priestly history," referred to earlier, which makes up a large part of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

The Prophets

The fifteen books in this third large group of Old Testament books, listed roughly in the order in which they were probably written, are Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Jeremiah, Obadiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Joel, and Jonah.

Sometimes Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are called "Major Prophets," leaving the remaining twelve as "Minor Prophets." This, however, is not an accurate distinction, as it usually indicates only the length of the book, not its value or quality. The Jewish Bible, meanwhile, recognizes all fifteen books as "Later" prophets, but also includes some of the "History" books (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) as "Former" prophets. For ease of discussion, we will consider "The Prophets" to be the standard grouping of fifteen books (three Major Prophets and 12 Minor Prophets) shown in Figure 1.

When considering who wrote these prophetic books, it can be tempting to assume that they were written by the person whose name they bear. However, it is not that simple.

Take, for example, the book of Isaiah. Most biblical scholars agree that the prophet Isaiah, identified as the son of Amoz, wrote a substantial part of the book. (Isaiah began his prophetic ministry "in the year that King Uzziah died" [about 742 B.C.] and died about 698 B.C.) However, It is impossible to be certain that Isaiah wrote all of the 66 chapters, because tremendous differences exist between the two sections of the book, chapters 1–39 in the first section, and chapters 40–66 in the second section. A devotional reader seeking spiritual inspiration might not be concerned with these differences. However, a thoughtful student of literature will notice immediately the distinctions of style, vocabulary, background, situation, and historical references.

R.B.Y. Scott, noted Old Testament professor at McGill University, in an article in The Interpreter's Bible, writes, "There are clear indications that material from long after Isaiah's day (e.g., the doom oracle on Babylon in chapter 13) has been included, and [it is] equally clear that the growth of the present book around the core of authentic records of Isaiah's ministry was a long and complicated process."

Further, in his book, Introducing the Old Testament, Clyde T. Francisco, former Old Testament professor, Louisville, KY, states that

the majority of scholars today contend … that the prophecies found in this book are not all by the same author. Especially questioned are chapters 13-14, 24-27, 34-35, 36-39, 40-66. Whether Isaiah is the author of the entire book or whether his disciples added to it in later times cannot be determined with finality. (168-169)

Most biblical scholars believe that this process of editing and revising Isaiah's core writing and inserting other material continued until as late as the second century B.C. This was not an attempt to deceive, but rather a positive effort to add material associated with the tradition of Isaiah. Part of this material may actually have come from Isaiah's original thought or the thought of disciples who revered his memory.

It seems certain that the 8th century prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, probably did write most of the first section and some of the second section of the Old Testament book which bears his name. It appears probable, however, that during the next four or five centuries other writers and scribes wrote some of the first section and most of the second section of this book.

The Writings, Including the Wisdom Books

The nine books in this fourth Old Testament group are Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Daniel. Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles are in the Historical Books in most Christian Bibles, but the Hebrew Bible includes them among the Writings. For the purpose of our discussion, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles are considered with the Historical Books.

When considering authorship of these books (as well as of almost any book in the Bible), it is important to understand the differences between our modern concept of authorship and that of ancient people. For them there was no proprietary interest, because there were no economic aspects of copyright laws and legal contracts between publishers and authors. Such ideas didn't exist in biblical days or for centuries afterward. Consequently, they did not feel as we do about what we call plagiarism, or about improper attribution of authorship to literary works. They followed their customs and culture without any motive to deceive or to be dishonorable. To them it was acceptable to associate the name of another person with the name of a writer of great renown; furthermore, it might be considered quite an honor.

Reminding us of this, Charles T. Fritsch writes that "In the Old Testament itself much of the Wisdom Literature, written over a period of a thousand years, was attributed to Solomon, the patron saint of the wise men and writer of many proverbs." Thus, according to the thinking of those times it was perfectly proper for those who were writing in the spirit and tradition of Solomon (the ideal wise man), or David (the ideal psalmist), or Moses (the ideal law giver), to ascribe their works to their ideal paragon.

It also is important to be alert for certain pitfalls of translation. Leaf through the first book in the "Writings"group—Psalms—and at the beginning of several verses you will find titles which appear to relate to authorship. But these titles do not indicate authorship as we know the term today. For example, the Hebrew expression, "a psalm of …", as in "A Psalm of David" may mean "by," or "belonging to," or "connected with" David (or Asaph, Solomon, Moses, or any one of dozens of other ancient figures with whom this construction was used).

Daniel

Now let's move on to the book of Daniel. This book, written in a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic, belongs to a genre of literature known as apocalypse. Apocalyptic writing grows out of a time of great tribulation. It offers its message in signs and symbols, prophesying catastrophe but holding out hope. Its imputed author usually is a venerated ancient figure.

The majority of Bible scholars do not believe that Daniel wrote today's book of Daniel. (However this does not mean that they doubt the historicity of Daniel who was carried into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar in 604 B.C.) They believe that another author wrote the basic part of the book during the period of the Maccabees, about 168 B.C., and ascribed it to Daniel to encourage Jews during the writer's time of great national trial. Their reasons for this conclusion are outlined in most detailed introductions to the book of Daniel.

The argument for authorship by someone other than Daniel does not influence those who interpret the symbolic visions as literal predictive prophecy and an instance of miraculous verbal inspiration. However, it is convincing to those who accept modern literary and biblical analysis.

Who, then, did write the part Hebrew and part Aramaic book of Daniel? It was likely not the historical Daniel, the captive of Nebuchadnezzar. It was probably some zealous and pious Jewish scribe who lived after Alexander's conquest of Palestine. This unknown writer chose the apocalyptic literary form for the same reason that John selected it for his New Testament Apocalypse (see section later in this chapter “The Apocalypse or Revelation”). He used it to encourage believers that ultimate victory for the people of God would follow the time of trouble and persecution.

Authorship of Job, Ruth, and Esther

Just as Daniel didn't write the book of Daniel, neither did Job, Ruth or Esther write the books that bear their names on the titles. Those books were written about those specific persons. The book of Job belongs to the literary genre of drama and poetry. It probably was written by an unknown author during or after the Exile of Israel. Perhaps an earlier or later author added the prologue and epilogue. It is possible that the poem on wisdom (chapter 28) and the speeches (chapters 32-37) by Job's fourth friend, Elihu, were added later, because they interrupt the structural flow.

Ruth is written in the short story literary tradition. It is a master short story indeed, with a structured plot, vivid characters, human interest, suspense, tragedy, humor, romance, and a happy ending. The uniqueness of Ruth is evidenced from the fact that both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles place it among the Writings rather than alongside the book of Judges (which is with the Former Prophets in the Hebrew Bible and the Historical Books in the Christian Bible)—even though the story of Ruth takes place in the time of the Judges.

The author of Ruth, like the author of Daniel, writes partly in Aramaic and partly in Hebrew. He mentions (chapter 4, verses 1-10) a custom in Ruth's day which had been long forgotten by the writer's contemporary audience, thus pushing the story back in time. The tranquil style of life pictured in the book of Ruth contrasts sharply with the actual cruel and hard times depicted in the book of Judges when Ruth is supposed to have lived.

It is likely that Ruth was written by a talented story teller during or after the time of Ezra and Nehemiah in the post-Exilic period (fourth century B.C.). The book addresses a current problem of that period—the assimilation of foreigners who accompanied Jews from captivity to return to their native or adopted homeland.

The book of Esther is unique in that it does not contain anywhere the name of God or a divine name in any form. We do not know why the writer makes this omission. He seems to have a keen religious belief in God's providential care for his people, and he presents a clear relationship between sin and retribution. However, he shows that when the Jews are delivered from terrible danger, they undertake a wild patriotic celebration rather than thanking God. The writer thus describes God's merciful deliverance in a situation of moral decline and an absence of religious piety.

The author of the book of Esther is unknown. He might have been a Palestinian Jew who lived and wrote sometime after the deliverance from Antiochus's persecutions under the leadership of Judas Maccabaeus (about 125 B.C.). Again, he might have been a Persian Jew from Susa who wrote at the end of the Persian period (fourth century B.C.) during that Jewish dispersion.

This selective summary of Old Testament books illustrates how difficult it is to find out who wrote a particular book of the Bible. As has been shown, in many cases we just do not know. However, as literature, many Old Testament books rank with other fine works whose authorship we also do not know. We must judge each on its own merit and style in the body of literature where it is located, and in the tradition of which it is a part. Now let's look at the New Testament.

Understanding The New Testament

By the end of the second century A.D. most (but not all) Christian churches accepted a New Testament canon that included the following 20 books:

• 4 Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (all four probably written from various sources by the traditionally-ascribed writers with later additions.)
• History: Acts (written by Luke)
• 13 Letters attributed to the Apostle Paul: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.
• 1 Peter (probably by Peter), and I John (probably by John).

Besides these, seven other books were disputed and were accepted by some churches but not by others. These books were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. It was not until late in the fourth century that we find general and authoritative acceptance of all the present 27 books as exclusively canonical. In addition to these, certain other books or epistles never accepted into the canon by the whole church were early on valued, read, and used in varying ways by some churches. Precisely the same 27 books of the New Testament that we recognize today were accepted by the church at the Council of Hippo Regius, A.D. 393, and at the Council of Carthage, A.D. 397.

The Gospels

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the "Synoptic" Gospels. This term refers to the forces that produced the combinations of agreements and differences found in them. It concerns primarily the processes of transmission of the material in the three, whether oral or written or in translation. Abundant evidence exists for various sources for these first three Gospels. Some of the writers at times quoted from each other, or from the same source used by another evangelist. Conversely, John's Gospel is the most original and independent of the four, and it differs in many ways from the other three.

All four evangelists use earlier traditional oral and written sources for their Gospel narratives. This does not detract from their final product or diminish their authority in the canon of scripture. Luke, in fact, plainly states, as he begins his story, that he takes advantage of earlier accounts and eyewitnesses. He also reveals that earlier writers and compilers—their names long forgotten—had received their facts and information from eyewitnesses.

Luke indicates, without any inordinate pride, that he can supplement and improve on the earlier narratives. Because he wrote the gospel and Acts to stand together, we should consider the prologue in the Gospel of Luke to apply also to Acts. It is unlikely that Luke would attempt such writing in either book without careful, responsible research and analysis. Yet although he uses his own research, sources, vocabulary, language, and style, none of these human activities lessen the possibility of divine guidance in his writing.

The Acts of the Apostles

The Acts of the Apostles was almost certainly written by the same person who wrote the Gospel of Luke. Both books are written in the same literary style. Acts begins where the Gospel of Luke ends, with the ascension of Christ. Acts ends before the martyrdom of the Apostle Paul, which probably occurred in A.D. 64, so it could not have been written much before or after that date. Luke also presents in Acts a positive picture of the Roman authorities, who were not at that time especially opposed to the Christian missionary activity of Paul, whereas they did turn to persecution of the Christians soon afterward. It appears that Luke almost tries to exonerate the Romans and to implicate the Jewish authorities as the opponents of Christianity at this time.

The Epistles or Letters

Some of the letters of the New Testament were generally accepted by most, but not all of the early churches. Others were "doubtful," or of uncertain authorship or authority. Still others were "pseudonymous" or by unknown authors, or later attributed for various reasons to known apostles. And some were written by others in the name of known apostolic figures.

Does this mean that some of the epistles were not written by the authors whose names appear in their titles? Most probably. Read on to see why many responsible and widely-known biblical scholars consider some of these books as probably written by someone else.

The Pastoral Letters

The pastoral letters are the three books (I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus) that were written as instructions to church leaders. These three books are associated with Paul's name, but there is evidence suggesting that they may be pseudonymous.

The term "pseudonymous" can be misleading, for it does not mean "falsely named" (as we moderns would understand the term) when designating a class of biblical literature. It means only that the writer is not necessarily the person named or traditionally known as the author. The expression "apocryphal" or "Outside Books" is sometimes used instead of pseudonymous or pseudepigrapha.

E. F. Scott, former professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, in New York, in his Moffatt Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, offers the following additional reasons why he feels that Paul may not be their author:

1. In Paul's life, from the book of Acts and from the genuine Epistles which were certainly written by him, no place can be found for the circumstances which are set forth in the Pastoral Epistles.
2. The theological position of the Pastoral Epistles is not Paul's. The writer confuses Pauline faith with loyalty to a Church tradition. He forgets the central value which Paul attached to the Cross. Moreover, his thought is quite untouched by the characteristic Pauline mysticism.
3. The language is not Pauline. The writer uses words and phrases which are never found in the other Pauline Epistles. There are differences in the Greek grammar and vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles from the normal Greek of the remainder of the New Testament.
4. The ecclesiastical conditions which are taken for granted in the Pastoral Epistles are not those of Paul's lifetime. By the time of the Pastoral Epistles, the struggling communities of Paul's day have become firmly established churches governed by "elders" or "bishops," assisted by "deacons" (xvi-xxiii).

2nd Peter

The Second Epistle of Peter is another New Testament book which was likely not written by the author to whom it is traditionally assigned. A brilliant German biblical scholar, Oscar Cullmann, writes that 2nd Peter "in the judgment of the great majority of scholars, comes from a later period, at the earliest from the middle of the second century." This is probably a sound conclusion since early Christian leaders among the second century Church Fathers in the Western Mediterranean countries, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian seemed to know nothing of a second epistle written by the Apostle Peter.

The first clear reference to 2nd Peter as we know it comes from Origen (A.D. 217-51), one of the greatest minds of his era. In his Commentary on John, Origen acknowledged only 1st Peter as genuine, and indicated great doubt about the authenticity of the second epistle. Toward the end of the fourth century A.D., Jerome, the Vulgate translator, stated in his work On Famous Men that Peter wrote two epistles, but concluded that because of differences in style, 2nd Peter "is considered by many not to have been by him." Once again we have an indication of a pseudonymous writing. But, regardless of who wrote it, 2nd Peter is included in the Sinaiticus manuscript, the oldest complete Greek manuscript of the New Testament (fourth century) available today.

Other Pseudonymous Writings

Pseudonymous and anonymous writings were in circulation in the time of the early church during the first and second centuries A.D. Christopher Tuckett suggests that some of those writings are in the New Testament (Reading the New Testament, 56-60). A strong clue to such pseudonymous authorship appears when a questionable writing states something in almost direct contradiction to what is written elsewhere in an authentic work by the same writer.

The Church Fathers accepted that a sacred writing could be canonical and be commonly read in most churches, even if pseudonymous. As long as the real author wrote in the spirit of an apostle and wrote a message consistent with what Peter or Paul, for example, probably would have written in that generation, they did not consider it deceptive or fraudulent. Abundant evidence exists for this literary standard, as shown by such apocryphal writings as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Peter, the Teaching of Peter, the Preaching of Peter, the book of Enoch, the Testament of Job, III and IV Maccabees, and the Apocalypse of Baruch. Far from being overanxious about the use of pseudonymous writings in the context of scripture, the early Christians found such writings quite appropriate in the church and uplifting to the spirit.

A significant discovery of pseudonymous scrolls occurred at Qumran in 1947 and shortly afterward. These valuable Dead Sea Scrolls are now owned by the State of Israel and are on display in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. These scrolls provide yet more evidence of the prevalence of pseudonymous writings and pseudepigrapha in the generations just before and during the time of Christ and the early church.

With such a background of pseudonymous acceptance, it is difficult to agree with the conservative and evangelical biblical professors and preachers who labor to rationalize their rigid positions and to resist any threat to traditional biblical authorship. Some even make it a test of orthodoxy, as though their faith stands or falls on this single point.

The Apocalypse or Revelation

This book is not "the Revelation of John." It is "the Revelation to John"—the revelation (or apocalypse) of Jesus Christ to his servant John (Rev. 1:1). Many Christians commonly assume that this John is the beloved Apostle John, the author of the Gospel of John. This assumption, however, is subject to question. The style of writing is different. Many of the gospel's most important theological ideas are missing. We can not rule out the possibility that St. John the Apostle is the author of the Revelation, but neither can we be sure about it. Both writers speak of Christ as "lamb," but Revelation uses a different Greek word that can also mean "ram." The date of Revelation's writing must be in the last decade of the first century, the time of Emperor Domitian's persecution of the Christians. The book is initially addressed to seven churches of Asia Minor, but there is no indication of the Apostle Paul's missionary work among those churches or in that area.

In reading and studying the book of Revelation, the last book of the Bible, it is imperative to keep the nature of the literature, or the genre, firmly in mind at all times. The distinguishing characteristics of an apocalypse are the symbols, images, encouragement in the midst of persecution, and assurance of ultimate and final deliverance and victory for God's people. If one tries to interpret the symbols and images too literally complete confusion results. There is no better recommendation for the spiritual or figurative method of interpretation, and the rejection of the literal method, than the book of Revelation as an apocalypse.

Understanding and Applying the Principles of Reading the Bible as Literature

It is not enough, however, just to understand that the Bible is literature, and that it must be read, studied, and understood as literature. Neither is it sufficient to be able to relate the methods of literary analysis to the text, author, and reader. It is true, that will bring new understanding and appreciation to the readers of the 21st century.

One more important skill you will gain by reading on in this book is to discover how to apply these principles to some of the social and cultural problems of our time. Some of these specific applications include addressing problems such as current religious and ideological conflicts, creationism in public schools, authority and freedom in society, and separation of church and state. After all, education isn't merely the accumulation of knowledge and information. It's knowing how to use the information we get that counts. Therefore, much of the rest of this book will help you as a Bible reader to apply what you read to these and other pressing problems of our technological and free society in the 21st century.

Conclusion

For some Christians the question of the nature of scripture can threaten to contract faith rather than expand it. The implications of these perceived threats could jolt that faith unless the person involved can deal with the resulting challenges. Such a person might fear that the Bible is a merely human writing—no more inspired than the works of Shakespeare or Milton—rather than a divinely inspired book. The result would be "merely human" instead of a "both human and divine" position regarding the Bible.

However, the basic question for a Christian should be the crucial matter of understanding the nature and structure of the Bible as literature, its generic literary components, and the principles of literary analysis by which we discover and apply the mysteries of this magnificent book to modern issues. By studying these subjects, the reader can gain the spiritual maturity needed to accept the books of the Bible as inspired, authoritative, and relevant, regardless of who wrote them. Then it will be possible to move on to other issues.

Although a religious reader by faith believes that the writers were inspired by God, a literary reader without that kind of faith can derive great satisfaction and personal benefit by reading the Bible as great literature. After all, these early authors and scribes—many of their names now lost in totally decomposed papyrus sheets mingled with the desert sands—were interesting, exciting people. And they were a tiny group of special people—literate people—who dared take time from their short life spans to laboriously scribble eyewitness accounts and oral history that is their legacy.

If you have been lucky enough to spend nights with desert peoples, you will remember the soft scent of generations of animal dung that rises from the eternal sand on a warm night. You will recall the wonder of a gold amulet worn by a nomad—wonder at how many generations of other wise men must have worn that piece of gold in another form before it became a golden cross. You will never forget the vast brightness of the stars, because they will be etched on your eyelids. Above all, you will forever hear the great ideas that desert inhabitants discuss far into the night. This is the way it began two thousand years ago, when a star brighter than all the others flashed into the heavens, to be seen by desert dwellers everywhere. And the authors—whatever their names—chronicled it.

So, whether from a religious point of view or simply a literary point of view, or both, it makes little difference who wrote all the books of the Bible. Even though some of the books may not have been written by the persons to whom they have been traditionally ascribed, authorship is not the crucial issue. More important than authorship is the nature of the biblical books and the reader's ability to read, study, and appreciate those books as literature as well as scripture.

Therefore, we can only conclude that the miracle of the Bible is in the fact that, notwithstanding having come down to us through so many human hands, it remains one of the most magnificent and influential books in the western world. Who wrote it? They all did. Who wins as a result of this? We all win.