THE GOSPELS
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all actually ANONYMOUS. No one knows who wrote them. The early church attributed, for unknown reasons, these identities to the four gospels. But in actuality, there’s nothing to indicate that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John wrote them.
Mark appears to be the first Gospel written. It’s thought to be written between 65 and 80 AD. Matthew and Luke both borrow from Mark’s Gospel heavily. This is why Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels. Though there are clear differences between the Synoptic Gospels, they largely have the same stories and many times, all three gospels quite literally use the exact same sentences, word for word. John was written independently, and if read side by side with one of the Synoptic Gospels, that becomes quite clear.
So, why is this important? The only reason that books are included in the New Testament is because they were thought to have been written from apostolic authorities. The Gospels were not. The earliest Gospel was written at least 30 years after Jesus died. 30 years until our earliest written record of the life of Jesus. If you’ve ever played the popular party game “telephone”, then you know that trying to keep a story accurate by only oral means is impossible. You can’t do it with 10 people in a room at one time. Imagine 30 years of trying to keep it accurate.
It also shows that there are no recorded eyewitnesses to Jesus. And I know what you’re thinking. What about 1st and 2nd Peter? What about 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John? Don’t worry - I’m getting to them.
ACTS IS A LOT LIKE THE GOSPELS
The book of Acts was written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke. Again, we don’t actually know who that was. It’s sort of like a sequel to the Gospel of Luke. What happened after Jesus ascended to Heaven? What did Peter and John do? How did Saul turn into Paul? When you read it without context, you get the impression that someone who knew all of these people and watched them work or interviewed them after events, wrote the book.
But, the book of Acts was written long after Peter, John, and Paul were dead. Between the years of 80 and 130 AD. Paul died about 67 AD. So, at least 13 years after Paul’s death, the book of Acts can give us an accurate account of his conversion and early Christian life? Most scholars are well aware of the inaccuracies shown in Acts when comparing them to Paul’s own epistles. But it’s easy to gloss over all of that when you’re under the impression that the author was in the thick of the events he was recording. But he wasn’t. He was recording events that had happened decades ago.
THE PAULINE EPISTLES
Paul is the earliest Christian writer we know about. His writings predate the Gospels, and he is easily the best source from which to draw about Christian teachings. But even the works of Paul do no come away unscathed when examined. Here’s the general consensus.
Undisputed Works: Romans, Galatians, I & II Corinthians, I Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon
These are the letters of Paul that scholars and historians all generally agree were actually written by him. They offer no reason to suggest otherwise. However, the following books offer no such security.
Disputed Works: II Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians
These three letters are more disputed. Why? Mostly due to style, tone, vocabulary, pace, and inconsistencies with the other letters of Paul. It could be argued that some of these differences could be Paul’s views changing with age or simply a scribe imprinting his style onto Paul’s words. But that rationale is a stretch. The best way to put it is that it’s highly doubtful these letters were written by Paul.
Forgery was in wide practice during this time. And writing in the name of Paul would have held a lot of weight. Furthermore, both II Thessalonians and Ephesians are thought to be written between 80-100 AD - after the death of Paul. Colossians may have been written during Paul’s lifetime, but everything else indicates it was probably forged.
The Pastoral Works: I & II Timothy and Titus
The Pastoral Epistles are accepted by nearly all scholars as NOT being written by Paul, since Paul was not a time-traveler and could not have possibly written anything after he died. All three letters were written between 100-150 AD. Not to mention that there’s nothing in them that suggests the author of those three, or authors, had anything in common with the actual Paul.
So 13 letters, 7 of which are surely his, 3 of which are doubtful, and 3 of which are definitely not his.
THE MYSTERY BOOK
Hebrews
Most people think that Hebrews was written by Paul. You know that rude buzzer sound that goes off when the wrong answer is given on game shows? Yeah, I don’t know how to spell that, but imagine that sound then INSERT HERE. I actually knew about Hebrews a long time ago. Paul did not write it, though the reason it’s included in the Bible is because the church fathers at the time of the development of the Biblical canon attributed it to Paul. So, again, we have an anonymous book.
THE REST (EXCEPT FOR THE ONE THAT INSPIRES ALL THE MOVIES)
I & II Peter
Not written by Peter the Apostle. Peter died sometime before 68 AD. I Peter was written, at its earliest, in 80 AD. It ranges from 80-110 AD. II Peter is even more egregiously obvious not to be written by Peter. The earliest date of its composition is 100 AD and the latest estimate is 160 AD. II Peter is obviously not written by the same author as I Peter, which if you contend that I Peter was written by Peter, then who was II Peter written by? It’s not just the dates that disprove that Peter did not write these books. The books, especially II Peter, allude to things that historically do not match up with the time period in which Peter lived. Also, Jewish fishermen were not normally educated to read and write in their own language, let alone Greek - which is what I and II Peter were written in. So who wrote these books? No one knows.
I, II, & III John
I’m sure you’ll be surprised to find out that these books were not written by the Apostle John. All three were probably written between 90 and 120 AD. Now, if you do research, you might see that John the Apostle supposedly died in 100 AD at the ripe old age of 94. So, it is theoretically possible that he wrote these books, and the gospel that bears his name. However, it is highly unlikely.
John was a Jewish fishermen. It’s very unlikely that he would have been educated enough to read, let alone write. It’s even more unlikely that he would have done so in Greek, rather than Hebrew.
Also, I have a hard time believing that someone in the time period of the first century AD would have lived to be 94 years old. Most people were probably lucky to make it to 60.
II and III John were almost undoubtedly written by the same person, and it is more than likely that the I John was also composed by the same author. Whoever penned these letter did not write the Gospel of John - at least if you put any stock into the studying of writing styles. The Gospel and the three Epistles have very distinct writing styles.
James
No one can figure this book out. It was written sometimes between the years of 70 and 100 AD. The reason that the book was accepted into the canon, and it almost wasn’t, is because it is claimed that the book was written by James, the brother of Jesus. That dude died sometime in 62-69 AD - so that might be reason to consider him as a no. We also go back to the problem of it being written in accomplished Greek. Why and how would a Jew, fluent in Aramaic - though probably not in writing - write a letter in Greek?
Jude
The Epistle was written between the years of 90 and 120 AD. The Jude that this letter is attributed to supposedly died in 65 AD. Again, no time travelling allowed.
EVERYONE’S FAVORITE
The Book of Revelation
Out of all of the books of the Bible, this one is the most readable. Because it reads like a novel. It’s so intense. It has ups, downs, climactic showdowns between dragons and archangels, not to mention whores sitting on said dragons. Seven-headed beasts. Best-selling novels have been inspired by it, which has inspired big movies (okay, not that big, but still).
This is like, the book. This is the book that Mom, Dad, the sunday school teacher, the youth pastor, the real pastor, and that crazy lady at church all scare you with. This is the book that has all those predictions that have come true. You know, the mark of the beast and all the wars, blah, blah, blah.
If your preacher ever says, “we are living in the end times” and I’m 100,000% sure he or she does, this is the book that he or she is referring to. The great mystery of Revelation. The book that proves that Christianity is true.
Anytime I think about Revelation, I’m flooded with memories of awe. I’ve probably read the manuscript at least 20 times. I loved it. But I learned to hate it - mind you, before I became an atheist. I hated it because we would always get the guest preacher in for a whole weekend study. You know, that guy who spent 3 years locked in a closet with only the book of Revelation, a flashlight, and 6 ounces of water a day. The one who had a revelation about Revelation. The one who could tell you what all the signs were, and what the beast from the sea really was, and who the whore was, and on and on and on.
I hated it because they almost always ended their weekend of intense revelatory teaching by giving you an “estimation” on when Jesus was coming back. I can’t tell you how much I hated that. It seemed so wrong to me. To think that the Bible itself says that not even the angels in heaven know the day or the hour when the Son of God would return, but then to have that challenged by some goofball with a bad combover who thought he knew better made no sense to me. And I never understood how others didn’t see that. I was actually always afraid to bring it up when one of them came to town.
But it’s not just one or two whackos that believe this. There’s a very, very, very popular preacher within the UPCI that is actively telling people that Jesus is coming back before he dies. He knows this. And hell, why shouldn’t he? When he dies and Jesus doesn’t come back, he’s not going to be around to face the questions. Not that it would matter, since these kinds of slip-ups and falsehoods are quickly forgotten by believers. There’s another guy - not part of the UPCI - that makes a prediction every so often with an exact date. He’s been wrong so far, but it doesn’t stop his followers from quitting their jobs and believing his lie every time he’s decided that he’s decoded the Bible.
Anyway, let’s move on to the actual manuscript. Revelation was written between 90-95 AD. Scholars are very sure about this date because of what the book has to say about some of the things going on during its time. This is pretty awesome, because this kind of surety is hard to come by with ancient texts. A lot of times, you’re looking at 20, 30, 40, or more years as a buffer for texts.
The book claims to be written by John of Patmos - Patmos being a Greek island. According to theologians, this was John the Apostle imprisoned on the island of Patmos. The facts disagree. The author of Revelation never makes the claim that he is John the Apostle. Just that his name is John. Can you think of a more common name? Also, it was written in Greek. John was not Greek, and as I have said above concerning the Gospel attributed to him and the three letters, it’s very illogical to believe that he could write at all, let alone in a language that was not his native language.
There are a thousand interpretations of this book, and each one is oh so uniquely creative. This post is not really about going into why each and every one of them is wrong, and pointing out all of the small logical fallacies. I’m hooking the big fish, and there’s one big ass fish that you need to know about when it comes to people “interpreting” the Book of Revelation.
When people interpret a book that’s nearly 2,000 years old as if what it says explicitly applies to their time period - they are showing a very high level of narcissism. The book has been around for two millennia and it’s been waiting for YOU to interpret its real meaning for YOUR time.
Riiiiiiiiiiight. And the reason the sky is blue is because blue is your favorite color.
Also, these lovely interpretations that sound so convincing always have the same problem. They use ZERO critical thinking skills. For an example, let’s talk about the Mark of the Beast. It’s everyone’s favorite.
The very famous mark of the beast, as spelled out in the Book of Revelation, tells us that everyone will be forced to get the mark of the beast on either the back of the hand or on the forehead, and that you won’t be able to buy or sell without it. Also, that the number associated with the mark is 666. For clarity, that’s six hundred and sixty-six - not three individual sixes.
The popular Christian teaching of what this might mean has found solid ground in the theory that digital chips, which would take the place of credit cards and cash, will be inserted into everyone’s hands. And once that chip’s inserted, you won’t be able to buy or sell anything without it.
Now that is a very literal interpretation of a couple of verses. And not just literal, but a pinpoint assertion as to what the mark is. But the logical fallacy is that that kind of literalism is only applied to those verses. Previous to that, the chapter talks about a beast from the sea and another beast from the earth. There’s seven heads, ten horns, a bunch of diadems, chimera-like descriptions of the beasts, and on and on and on.
No one’s given a literal interpretation of that.
Oh, they’ll tell you all sorts of ideas about what those beasts might represent. But that doesn’t follow the logic used when interpreting the mark of the beast. They treat the beasts and all the incredulous descriptions of the said beasts as METAPHORICAL.
How does that work? Either the book is literal or metaphorical. You can’t claim both, and even if you did, then you DEFINITELY can’t look at a single passage and divide it between metaphorical and literal for no reason.
OVERVIEW
In conclusion, I’ll wrap this up by saying that it should be obvious by now that the Bible is not what most Christians, especially fundamentalist Christians, claim it is. I haven’t gone over the Old Testament, texts that really are only meant for Judaism but get hijacked by Christianity, but the New Testament is all you really need to see.
None of the four Gospel writers were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life. All four are written anonymously. Furthermore, the names given to the authors of the Gospels by the early church fathers are undoubtedly false.
Acts was not written during the events it recorded.
Of Paul’s 13 writings, only 7 can be reasonably shown to be written by him. 3 are very doubtful. Another 3 are definitely not his.
All other letters/books were not written by who they were either claimed to be written by or associated with afterward by church fathers.
If the claim is that the Bible is true, then the truth should stand up to questions. The Bible does not. It’s really that simple. In order to believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God, that it is perfect, that it is true, and that it is inerrant, you must remain ignorant of its origins, its history, and its context.
No thanks.
