The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible  - Robin Lane Fox

...part of a write-off challenge, the ostensible purpose of which is to illustrate examples of those things which have been both a blessing and a curse. In my primary fields of study and vocation (religion, politics, science, history) the examples available are nearly infinite.


As you may have guessed, I selected something from the religion and history section; not so much because that is my strong suit, but because last night ...
...blessing for religion and for the religious in the past few centuries has been the tenacity and influence of academic research into biblical studies. There are those who think that to explore issues weakens the faith. There are those who consider academics or others who question to be approaching (or committing) heresy, blasphemy, or any other sin in the book. Sometimes, they are right.

The first time I picked up Robin Lane Fox's ... more

This review was originally part of a write-off challenge, the ostensible purpose of which is to illustrate examples of those things which have been both a blessing and a curse. In my primary fields of study and vocation (religion, politics, science, history) the examples available are nearly infinite.

As you may have guessed, I selected something from the religion and history section; not so much because that is my strong suit, but because last night I arranged and helped preside over an ordination ceremony, which I have discovered in my own progress is in itself a very mixed blessing.

Odd, indeed, that people speak of mixed blessings, and not mixed curses. Just a side thought...

One thing that has been a mixed blessing for religion and for the religious in the past few centuries has been the tenacity and influence of academic research into biblical studies. There are those who think that to explore issues weakens the faith. There are those who consider academics or others who question to be approaching (or committing) heresy, blasphemy, or any other sin in the book. Sometimes, they are right.

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.

-----------
It is unauthorised because it addresses questions which the Bible itself obscures: its authors, historical growth, and historical truth. It is not an unauthorised version because other people have authorised their own version and wish to suppress the truth in mine. Those for whom the Bible is a book of faith wish to discover the truth, too.
-----------

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.

It is perhaps predictable that Robin Lane Fox begins with the perennial problem that Bible readers, scholars or no, have had since the texts were first compiled -- why are there often two (or more) versions of the same story, and why don't they agree with each other? Lane Fox gives as opening salvo the question from the biblical text itself -- what is truth? (which he states is never clearly answered; this is a statement that many faithful would firmly deny).

-----------
On one view, truth consists in correspondence to the facts, the theory of correspondence; on another, truth consists in coherence with a general system of beliefs, the theory of coherence. I intend to take Pilate's question and turn it back on the Bible itself. First, I will explore the view that the Bible's very nature and origin give it a coherence which answers Pilate's question. Then I will explore its narrative to see if there is a level at which it corresponds to fact.
-----------

While this sounds reasonable, I don't think that this approach is an exhaustive approach to truth. One thing that biblical readers through the centuries have found is that it is often in the wrestling through the incongruities that the truth emerges; it hardly passes for a logic expressed neatly in mathematical formulae or symbolic constructions. But then, the poet knows that truth also transcends this -- truth is beauty, and beauty, truth. Not something for the hand-held calculator, surely.

Robin Lane Fox discounts the idea of getting beyond the translations of texts back to original documents for closer understanding.

-----------
We cannot work back to the original: one consequence is that the best-loved translations have more authority than some of their modern critics realise. ... For the original text of the Old Testament is lost to us, and the Greek texts of the New Testament do not take us beyond small variants and alternatives a hundred years or more after the Gospels' likely date of composition.
-----------

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 reading of the text. 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.
-----------

In the story of the denial of Peter, Lane Fox states:

-----------
Perhaps, for once, it derived from a primary source, from Peter himself, or perhaps from the beloved disciple who was with him in the high priest's house. Between the Gospels, its main details cohere, and the scene may correspond to primary, witnessed fact. At cockcrow, Peter confronts his own error, as it had been foretold by the one who knew 'what was in man'. Human truth coincides here with what may be historical evidence; Peter, therefore, answers Pilate's question with which this unauthorized version began.
-----------

 

...less