Product Description

The author of Pagan and Christians examines the scriptures as history, myth, and literature, explaining their inconsistencies and locating their core of truth. "Unfailingly incisive, thought-provoking, humane."--The Economist.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #784731 in Books
• Published on: 1993-06-01
• Released on: 1993-06-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 478 pages

From Publishers Weekly
Fox reads biblical texts closely, helping neophytes to probe the historical veracity of the Bible. But his arguments are also curiously diffuse, and the bulk of them will be known to Bible students. BOMC alternate in cloth.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
The author of Pagans and Christians ( LJ 1/87) gives a detailed exposition of the historical origins (or lack thereof) of the Bible. Fox claims that he believes "in the Bible, but not in God," and thus explores the Bible as a historian. His version is "unauthorized," not because it has been suppressed, but because the Bible does not proclaim its authority. He reaches for what the authors of the Bible intended, realizing that the Bible is not the word of God and that much of it is not historically accurate or factual. Fox does not approach his subject as an antagonist, but with the care and knowledge to make the text more meaningful. This book deserves a place in all libraries. History Book Club main selection; BOMC alternate.
- George M. Jenks, Bucknell Univ., Lewisburg, Pa.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Kirkus Reviews
Biblical historiography, with an edge, by an Oxford don whose sword is too unwieldy for his prey. Fox (Pagans and Christians, 1986; The Search for Alexander, 1980) has a long tradition behind him: Classical historians from Gibbon onward have viewed the Christian overshadowing of Rome and Athens with nostalgic regret. Fox, though, carries his distress into an examination of the Torah as well, as he provides us with a very close reading of the Old and New Testaments, taking Pilate's taunt (``What is truth?'') as his point of origin. As a historian, Fox finds much amiss. Genesis gives two, contradictory, versions of the creation of Man, he says; the infancy narratives of St. Luke are patently false (Augustus never issued any decree ``that all the world should be taxed''); and the Epistles are padded with ``aggressive forgeries,'' clumsily interpolated centuries after the original compositions. ``If scripture is not the unerring word,'' Fox asks, ``what is it?'' That is an unfortunate query, because it moves the scope of Fox's work beyond history (where he is quite at ease) into literature (where his competence seems less sure). The questions of inspiration, metaphor, personification, and allegory are forgotten as Fox goes careening through the text in search of errors like a lawyer taking issue with Portia's jurisprudence in The Merchant of Venice. In the end, Fox can provide no answer himself, a curious stance that puts him in the same company as the most rock-ribbed fundamentalist of the American heartland. This is both frustrating and unfortunate, as Fox writes extremely well and his scholarship, per se, seems sound and clearly argued. A wealth of information, much of it fascinating, put forward for reasons that are less than obvious. A decent source book, then, but a total failure as an argument. -- Copyright ©1992, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

Customer Reviews

The case against an otherwise informative book
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.

Important questioning
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.'

Gospel truths
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.