THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BIBLE
===========================
by Jim Blanston
October, 1993

This document is NOT copyrighted.  In the interest of liberating others
from the tyranny of deception, I am placing this document in the public
domain.  Please feel free to distribute it as you see fit.

INTRODUCTION
------------
   I decided to write this work after seeing the effects of Christian
bigotry, in the past, present, and, undoubtedly, in the future.  Please
note that this is not intended to be an indictment of Jesus Christ;  I
really don't know that much about him.  And, as you will see from the
evidence presented, neither does anyone else:  the Bible, according to most
modern, respected biblical scholars, is one of the most tampered scriptures
on Earth, with dubious authorship and beginnings.
   Nor does this work seek to lump all Christians under the same rock;
there are a wide variety of Christian sects, ranging from the ultra-liberal
and open-minded Unitarians and Episcopalians to the ultra conservative
fundamentalist sects, and all the way over to the lunatic fringe, the white
supremecist "Aryan" churches.
   This work does, however, censure and condemn those on the so-called
religious "right", who perpetuate the mindset of utter bigotry.  A "bigot",
according to the dictionary, means "one BLINDLY intolerant of the views of
others, esp. in the matters of RELIGION, politics, and race."  The
right-wing religious sects all base their beliefs on the Bible, and its
infallibility.  I was not content to naively assume that the Bible was
infallible; I sought out information on the sources of the Bible, and this
work will share what I have found.
   And this work certainly does not intend to downgrade theism... although
many right-wing Christians certainly proclaim, in their arrogance, that if
you are not a Christian, you are an atheist.  On the contrary, I have found
deep truths in the serene teachings of the Buddha in the "Dhammapada", the
sublime teachings of Krishna in the "Bhagavad-gita", the illustrious
thoughts of Lao-Tse's "Tao-te Ching".  How true is scholar Juan Mascaro's
statement that "the Upanishads is the path of light; the Dhammapada is the
path of life; and the Bhagavad-gita is the path of love"!

CHAPTER ONE:  THE LEGACY OF THE BIBLE
-------------------------------------
   It all starts with the tale in the Old Testament.  In Christian
mythology, and related in Exodus 32:19-20, there is an episode in which
Moses, carrying the stone tablets which supposedly contained the Ten
Commandments, comes across some "idol worshippers".  Seething with raging
fury, he attempts to destroy the idol with the tablets.
   This one story has given many persons the idea that such behavior is not
only tolerated by God, but is deeply appreciated by him.  Here are some
examples, the legacy of the Bible:
   First, there are the Crusades, a series of eight major military
expeditions (and many more minor campaigns), during a period lasting almost
300 years, for the purpose of "rescuing" the "holy" land from the "heathen"
Moslems.  The Christian Crusaders massacred virtually every man, woman, and
child in Jerusalem in 1099.  The Children's Crusade of 1212 resulted in
many children dying along the way, the others sold into slavery.  The
Crusades created death, disease, and misery for millions of Christians and
non-Christians alike.  Yet, even today, a favorite song in Christian
churches is "Onward, Christian Soldiers!".
   There is also the infamous Inquisition, a series of quasi-judicial
institutions of the Christian church which began in 1231, and not
officially abolished until 1820!  The primary purpose of the Inquisitions
was to punish heresy (holding a belief that is not part of the Christian
dogma).  Those convicted were punished by fines, confiscation of property,
imprisonment, and death by burning.  Torture against the accused (not just
those found guilty) was approved by Pope Innocent IV in the mid 1200s.  The
Spanish Inquisition, a government branch established with papal approval,
was primarily targeted against Jews, and became synonymous with terrorism.
   Typical of the heresy trials is the history of Joan of Arc in the 15th
century, a heroine of the Hundred Years' War.  She was captured by the
English in 1430, who turned her over to an ecclesiastical (church) court,
charged with heresy and sorcery.  Her interrogations lasted 14 months.  She
was found guilty of 1] dressing like a man and 2] heresy (she believed that
she was directly responsible to God, rather than to the Church).  She was
burned at the stake.
   The witchcraft hunting of Europe from the 11th to the 17th centuries
(and in the United States in the latter part of the 17th century) resulted
in the torture and execution (usually by fire) of thousands of persons by
devout, well-meaning Christians, with the blessings of the Church.  An
instance of drought, an epidemic, a baby or a farm animal dying during
birth would be enough to start an hysterical witchhunt.  People were
encouraged to inform on each other, children against their parents, spouses
against each other.  Just having a birthmark would be enough to make one a
suspect.  Witnesses were paid to testify against the accused.  Confessions
were forced by both inhuman tortures as well as promising pardon in return
(although pardon was seldom granted).  Professional witchhunters were paid
a fee for each conviction.
   The destruction of the Incan, Mayan, and Aztec civilizations in Central
and South America from the 16th to the 19th centuries was impelled by
greed, of course, but still with the blessings of the Church, who saw it as
an important missionary activity.  The drive for the Spanish conquest of
the New World came from Queen Isabella, who was such a fervent Christian
that she became known as "Isabella the Catholic".  She is well known for
her activities in starting the Inquisition, and expelling the Jews from
Spain.  It is ironic that the money that funded Spain's military/missionary
endeavors were obtained by the confiscation of the Jews' property during
the Inquisition.  The end result of these endeavors resulted in vast
numbers of South and Central American Indians being killed, not only in
combat, but in the diseases brought over by the Europeans (smallpox,
syphilis, plague, etc.).
   It is also ironic that the United States, which was originally founded
by people who were fleeing religious bigotry in Europe, engaged in the
subsequent persecution of the native American Indians.  This uniquely
American concept was called "Manifest Destiny", which proclaimed that the
United States had divine sanction (!) "to overspread the (North American)
continent allotted to us by God for the free development of our multiplying
millions".  This concept was used as justification for the United States'
endeavors in destroying the indigenous native Indian civilizations.  This
doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" was later modified to justify the annexation
of various Caribbean and Pacific islands.
   The issue of the American attitude towards slavery of blacks is also
worthy of mention.  It is certainly true that many Christian groups started
the struggle to abolish slavery, most notably the Quakers.  But many
Protestant sects split over the question of slavery.  Some were in favor of
enslaving other human beings, others were opposed.
   As you can see, this attitude of spiritual superiority resulted in
tremendous amounts of human suffering.  But this pales in comparison with
the suffering brought on to the Earth and man's fellow creatures.  This is
the result of the Christian doctrine of "anthropocentrism", the belief that
man is the center of the universe.  All other life forms, including the
Earth herself, exist only for man's enjoyment and amusement.  Couple this
with the fact that Christianity is an apocalyptic religion (i.e., the
belief that the violent end of the world is very close at hand), and you
have a philosophy of utter rape of the Earth and her ecosystems.  It is for
this reason that, when confronted with an "environmental or economic
development" issue, many fundamentalists loudly proclaim, "Who care about
the environment?  Jesus is coming!"
   It is this very cavalier attitude towards the environment which led the
renowned Buddhist scholar D.T. Suzuki to remark about Christianity: "Man
against nature.  Nature against man.  Strange religion."  Contempt for the
Earth is in direct opposition of the Hindu and Buddhist concept of "deep
ecology", which was so succinctly summarized by the American Indian Chief
Seattle:  "Man did not weave the web of life.  He is merely a strand in it.
 Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."
   Of course, these atrocities are not a relic of the distant past.  They
still continue today.  TV evangelists beg for money to save the
"devil-worshipping Hindus".  Fundamentalist Christians have condemned the
recent World Parliament of Religions (in Chicago in August, 1993), because
their main theme was the importance of curbing the world's population.  It
seems that they consider this anti-Christian!  The infamous "dot-busters"
of New Jersey are a direct result of Christian intolerance of other
religions.  The list goes on.

CHAPTER TWO:  THE ESSENCE OF THE BIBLE, IN A NUTSHELL
-----------------------------------------------------
   The essence of the Bible, according to Christians is:  "Love Jesus, or
you will be tortured and killed."  If you doubt that, just read the final
book of the Bible, "Revelations".  The non-Christians are in for a very
unpleasant experience.
   This theme actually abounds in the Bible.  God is jealous (according to
the Old Testament's first commandment); he is vengeful and vindictive
("Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord", saith the New
Testament).  And Revelations shows that God apparently delights in the
torment of others.
   From this evidence, it is clear that Christians do not worship God, but
some sort of demon.  Who can deny it?
   And threatening someone with eternal torment if they don't love you or
your son sounds very odd.  Love cannot be forced.
   Does Christianity have such a weak philosophical foundation that they
have to resort to threat of violence to win converts?  Christian revivals
appear to exist on emotional fervor alone.  "Religion without philosophy is
sentimentality."
   For example, let us consider a comparative study on the differences
between western (Christian) and eastern (Hindu and Buddhist) thoughts on
the problem of sin.
   Christians believe that only they have a solution for the problem of
sin.  This is intriguing.  Although Christians believe that the individual
soul did not exist before its conception in the womb, they still maintain
that all men are born into sin, tainted with the "original sin".  Although
Jesus exhorts people to "be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is
perfect", they say that man is inherently a sinful creature, and that
Christ's death on the cross paid for all of our sins...  all we have to do
is acknowledge that sacrifice.  Furthermore, some Christians believe that
there is no need to stop sinning, as long as you have faith in Christ's
sacrifice.
   Hinduism maintains that sinful activities are due to ignorance.  And
Hinduism does indeed have a solution to the problem of sin, which is,
through the acquisition of knowledge, understanding that the ultimate cause
of sin is desire.  All sinful activity, and the resultant suffering, is due
to desire.  A simple look at the world and you can see that practically
everyone is in a mad rush to exploit the Earth and other living entities
(including his fellow man) in the desire to enjoy. The very motto of
civilization is "Enjoy!  Entertain yourself!".  Human society runs on
desire.  Even our economy depends on it.
   Desire is the cause of sinful activities.  And sinful activities is the
cause of suffering.  Fully 100% of man's inhumanity to man is due to
desire.  The desire for wealth breed crime and mistrust.  The desire for
adoration results in envy and arguments.  Desire is actually a web, with
desire feeding on desire.  Desirous to appear desirable to members of the
opposite sex, one desires wealth, a fancy car, a fancy wardrobe, etc... and
one makes the necessary endeavors to fulfil his desires.
   The very basis of Hindu and Buddhist thought is in stressing the
importance of the necessity to control desire.  The Bhagavad-gita (3.37)
calls desire the greatest enemy of the world.  By even contemplating
desire, one can fall down from the spiritual platform (2.62-63), and desire
is one of the three gates leading towards a future hellish existence
(16.21).  But by conquering desire, one becomes peaceful and serene.
   Although Jesus clearly instructed that "ye cannot serve both God and
Mammon (cupidity personified, i.e., desire)", it is quite evident that
Christianity never addresses the issue of the role of desire at all.  Why?
Because instead of understanding the necessity of purifying and
transforming one's own consciousness (as a prerequisite for salvation),
they believe that salvation is a "reward" for their faith and/or works.
Incidentally, this is a major reason for the growth of Christianity
(especially in India).  One of the main tactics most fundamentalist
Christian missionaries use is to teach Hindus that there is no need to
follow their Hindu religious restrictions.  Just as long as they believe in
Jesus, they can eat meat, drink, and make merry... and still go to heaven!
They are taught that disciplining the mind and controlling the senses is
unnecessary, or even unhealthy.
   Sinful activities are like fire, and desire is the fuel that feeds the
flames.  You cannot extinguish fire by pouring fuel onto it.
   In short, the Christian tactic to end sin is to try to smother the
fire... but the fire soon returns.  The Vedic and Buddhist strategy is to
cut off the fuel supply to the fire (desire).

CHAPTER THREE:  THE BIBLICAL CANON
----------------------------------
   Even educated Christians themselves do not claim that the Bible was
written by God, or divinely transmitted to man.  They say that the Bible
was written by men, but inspired by God.  This is why the Bible is
considered (by biblical scholars and Christians theologians) to be so open
to interpretation.  But it must be pointed out that just because something
is "inspired" does not mean that it is the Absolute Truth.  For example, a
man may be inspired by his paramour to write a poem about her, but that
does not mean that his words are true, nor does it mean that his lover even
approves of what he has composed.
   The Christians attribute the authorship of the books of the Bible to
"traditional" authors.  This in interesting, because most of the books of
the Bible are truly anonymous.  There are very few "signature" verses
("this books was written by...").  In later chapters of this work, I give a
listing of modern scholars' educated opinions as to the true authorship of
the books of the Bible.  These are not blind speculations, but their best
scientific opinions resulting from carefully weighing the available
evidence.  In many cases, I have listed the evidence the scholars used,
giving a type of archeological "detective" story.  It is intriguing that so
many Christians tend to quote scholarly assumptions on the questionable
sources of other scriptures, but minimize (or ignore altogether) the
opinions of Biblical scholars on their own scripture.
   There is a problem in logic which arises when one considers the doctrine
that only one scripture is the only valid lawbook.  Any argument to support
this must come, therefore... from that same lawbook. This is the logical
fallacy known as the "circular argument", which is committed when one
presents evidence from that which one is trying to prove.  In the same way,
if you ask a fundamentalist Christian to prove the validity of the Bible,
he will usually start quoting verses from the Bible!  Here is a mundane
example of this fallacy:  A thief was dividing up some ill-gotten booty,
some jewels, with his two partners in crime. But he kept most of the jewels
for himself.  "Why is your share of the jewels larger than our share?",
asked one of his partners.  "Because I am the leader", he replied.  "Why
are you the leader?", his partner queried.  To which he responded, "Because
I have more jewels."
   As I have previously mentioned, there is great doubt as to the
authorship of the different books of the Bible.  The compilation in later
chapters of this work came from various reputable sources, respected
encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, Collier's Encyclopedia, and
Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia.  And these encyclopedias gathered their
information from academically acclaimed biblical scholars.  These scholars
carefully considered the different evidences concerning the authorship of
the books, and made their very best professional, erudite opinions.
Fundamentalist Christians tend to completely belittle these arguments, yet
they are unable to produce enough evidence (or, in many cases, any
evidence) to sway the findings of the scholars.  Faith is one thing... but
blind faith is another.
   And as the later chapters relate, most of the books of the Bible are
anonymous. This in itself is very significant.  How can a book be
considered inspired by God when the author is completely unknown?  If you
don't know who the author is, how do you know he was divinely inspired?
   There is also the question of the character of the author. This question
is raised in not only the anonymous books, but also in the books where
nothing is known of the author except his name.  Was the author a saint or
a schemer?  We don't know.  Yet we are expected to cast our own beliefs
aside and put our souls in the hands of this book.
   One of the tests on whether or not a hypothesis is valid is by looking
at who is presenting the hypothesis.  After all, you would not seek
financial advice from a pauper.  Yet we are expected to take the spiritual
advice of a completely unknown person?
   And then there is the disturbing fact that many of the books of the
Bible show evidence of tampering.  There were modifications and additions.
It is fairly certain, then, that there were deletions as well.  The
question arises, "Who did this?"  And more importantly, "Why?"  What were
their motives?  There must have been something in the original that
disturbed someone enough to make him want to change it.  What was it?
These are deeply troubling questions.
   There is also the matter of the Biblical canon itself.  After all,
ancient Israel and the early church knew of many more religious books than
the ones that now constitute the Bible.  For example, there were 50 gospels
in circulation at the time, yet only four made it into the New Testament.
Who decided which of the books would become part of the Christian
scriptures, and again, "Why?"  Who decided, "This book belongs... this book
doesn't..."?  What were their reasons?  What were their motives?
   The fact is, there are no clear records available which document the
church's process of determining which books were acceptable and which books
were unacceptable.  The general concensus of opinion among  scholars is
that the decision was based on whether or not the book agreed with the
prevailing theological thought at the time. In other words, the only books
accepted were the ones that maintained the "status quo".
   This means that the fundamentalists' religion is not based on the Bible,
as they claim so fervently... it means the Bible was based on the
prevailing religion!  This, in itself, is another example of the "circular
argument" as related earlier.
   It is also interesting that, even though the Biblical canon was
purposely chosen to include only books that met the "status quo", there is
so much inconsistancy and contradictions in the Bible.  And it is even more
interesting that so many fundamentalists proclaim that there are no
contradictions in the Bible!  If that were true, then why are there so many
different sects of Christianity?
   For example, Christianity is basically divided into three main sects:
the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Protestants.  And the
Protestant branch alone is divided into many different sects:  the
Adventists, the Amish, the Anglican Church, the Apostolic Faith, the
Assemblies of God, the Baptists, the Brethren, the Christian Church, the
Church of Christ, the Church of God, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints (the Mormons), the Church of the Nazarene, the Congregational
Christian Churches, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Congregational
Church, the Friends (Quakers), the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Lutherans, the
Mennonites, the Methodists, the Pentacostal Churches, the Presbyterians,
the Salvation Army, the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, and at
least 66 other sects!
   And that does not count the different sub-sects of these sects!  For
example, the Baptists are further divided into:  the American Baptist
Convention, the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Baptist
Association, the Baptist General Conference, the Bethel Baptist Assembly,
the Christian Unity Baptist Association, the Conservative Baptist
Association of America, the Baptist Church of Christ, the Free Will
Baptists... and at least 19 other sub-sects.  And there are no "minor
differences" between these sub-sects.  For example, the Southern Baptist
Association was formed in 1845 in large part because of disagreements with
other Baptists concerning slavery.
   The other Protestant sects are also broken up into various sub-sects.
For example, the Methodists have 23, the Mennonites 15; the Presbyterians
9; the Mormons 3; etc.
   And yet (especially for the more right-wing sects), these numerous sects
and sub-sects claim to possess the truth of the Bible in its purest form...
and each one are able to quote verses from the Bible to prove it!  So much
for the "harmony" of the Bible.

CHAPTER FOUR:  AUTHORSHIP OF THE BIBLE
--------------------------------------
   This is a list of the authorship of the Bible, according to most modern
biblical scholars.  This information can be found by looking in any
encyclopedia.  The scholars base their conclusions by carefully weighing
the evidence...  there is a reason why they feel the way they do.  Although
many fundamentalist Christians try to minimize or even ignore these
scholarly conclusions, the fact remains that they are completely unable to
counter these arguments by any evidence whatsoever. Although they are quick
to accept archeological data that verifies a piece of biblical history, and
they are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature
of the scriptures of other religions, they completely downplay a critical,
unbiased study of their own supposedly "infallible" scripture, the Bible.
Which is ironic, since their entire claim to spiritual superiority rests on
their premise that the Bible is perfect and flawless.
   In the following analyses, it is important to watch for the references
to "editing", "rewriting", and "additions" to the books of the Bible.
These changes to the Bible might make one wonder:  "Why did someone find it
necessary to change this scripture?  What was their motive?  What was the
original scripture lacking?  Or what did it say that someone felt it was
necessary to change?  And who did the changing?"
   After reading this section, the obvious question that comes to mind is,
"How can someone base their life, and condemn other religions, on such a
scripture?"

THE OLD TESTAMENT
   It doesn't take a scholar to realize that autobiography is very rarely
found in it.  It is mostly written in the third person ("he said" or "she
said", rather than "I said").  Scholars say that the vast majority of the
Old Testament consists of stories that were handed down via the unreliable
method of oral transmission before they were finally written down.  There
was a long journey from the creation of these stories until the time they
were compiled...  and this journey involved storytellers and editors.
   It is also important to note that almost none of the books in the Old
Testament have "signature verses".  Christians and Jews maintain different
"traditional" authors, although they have little or no evidence to support
these claims.  There is also a common misunderstanding among many
Christians that the books are by individuals, rather than about
individuals.  For example, many Christians believe a man named Job wrote
the book in the Old Testament, "The Book of Job".  But here, as elsewhere,
"of" means "about", not "by".  This is quite clear in the very first verse
of that book:  "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job..."
(Job 1:1)
   Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy:  These first five
books of the Bible are known as the "Pentateuch", and tradition ascribes
these books to have been written by Moses.  This is highly unlikely, since
these books tell of the death of Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5)!  In reality,
these books are actually anonymous and composite works.  In these books are
two and different accounts of Creation, of the "flood", and of the plagues
of Egypt. Scholars have overwhelming evidence that Genesis was compiled
from several different sources.  They also feel that Exodus and Leviticus
were written by members of the priesthood in the 5th or 6th century BC.
   Joshua:  Scholars maintain that this book is drawn from a number of
different sources.  The oldest passages of the book date from the 10th
century BC, but were rewritten around the 7th century BC by members of the
Deuteronomic school.  Around the 5th century BC, persons motivated by
priestly matters added to or rewrote altogether the entire second half of
the book.
   Judges:  The traditional author of this book was Samuel.  However,
scholars believe that it was written after the death of Samuel;  chapters
2-16 are believed to be written by members of the Deuteronomic school, and
chapters 17-21 are considered to be an addition by priests in the 5th
century BC.
   Ruth:  Nothing is known about the author, or when it was written.
Scholars point out that certain references in the book show that it was
written sometime in the "post-exilic" period, probably sometime between the
4th and 2nd centuries BC.
   Samuel (1 and 2):  Scholars concur that these books are clearly
composite works.  Some scholars maintain that the books were composed from
an "Early Source", which dates around the time of the reign of Solomon
(961-922 BC), and the "Late Source", which dates from around the 7th
century BC.  Other scholars believe that there were three sources, known as
"J", "L", and "E".  In both theories, it is interesting to note that the
Early Source (or J and L) favors the establishment of the monarchy as
divinely willed.  Yet the Late Source (or E), clearly disapproves of the
concept of a monarchy, saying it rejects the role of God as the true king!
This is an example of one of the many contradictions of the Bible (even
though so many fundamentalists claim the Bible to be "harmonious").
   There are other inconsistencies as well.  For example, in 1 Samuel 17,
David is credited with killing the giant Goliath.  But in 2 Samuel 21:19,
Elhanan, son of Jaareoregim, is credited with the act.  Another point to
mention is that if you look in the popular King James Version (KJV) of the
Bible, and turn to 2 Samuel 21:19, you will see "the brother of" (Goliath)
in italics.  This italic print means that it was an embellishment of the
editor of the KJV, in an attempt to cover up this inconsistency (by making
it appear that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath, as opposed to Goliath
himself).  But if you look in a reputable version of the Bible, such as the
New English Bible, you will see the original rendition:  that Elhanan
killed Goliath... an obvious contradiction.
   Kings (1 and 2):  The traditional author is ascribed to be Jeremiah.
However, modern scholars have determined that it was actually composed by
at least two anonymous authors.  The earlier author wrote his portion
sometime before the death of Josiah, the king of Judah, in 610 BC.  The
second portion is thought to have been written around 60 years later.  They
reason this by noticing that the last historical event mentioned occurred
around that time, and no mention at all was made of the fall of Babylon in
539 BC, a significant historical event that certainly would have been
worthy of mention.  Both authors, however, certainly seemed to have been
motivated by a nationalistic fervor in the cause of Israel.
   Chronicles (1 and 2), Ezra, Nehemiah:  Almost all scholars agree that
that these four books were written by an the same author(s).  Internal
evidence suggests that he (or they) was a member of a priestly tribe,
probably a Levite.  Nothing is known about the author, neither his name,
nor his character.  Like most books of the Bible, the author was anonymous.
   In Chronicles 1 and 2, the author refers to other books, but scholars
are uncertain as to which are genuine references, and which are
embellishments of the author.  Most scholars agree that these books contain
many later additions, and that the entire work took from 332 to 167 BC to
complete.
   It is also obvious that the author used specific references from the
books of Samuel and Kings (which scholars say is less inaccurate),
significantly modified to suit the author's point of view.  The writer
attempted to find answers to such troubling questions as "Why do good
people sometimes suffer?  And why do the unjust sometimes flourish?"  In
attempting to answer these questions, it is notable that the author
rejected source material which did not further his aim.
   Also, although fundamentalists consider the entire Bible harmonious,
there are many inconsistencies with the book of Chronicles and the book of
Kings.
   Esther:  This book not even mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Because
the mood of this book is vindictive, with nationalistic overtones, and
completely secular in nature, early Jewish scholars were reluctant to
include it into the Bible.  But, bowing down to popular demand, it was
eventually included, but not until AD 90.  It is interesting to note that
the Greek version of this book contains over 100 additional verses that
were not in the original Hebrew version.
   Job:  Modern scholars say that not only was this book written
anonymously, the author used, as his sources, an Israelite or Edomite
folktale.
   Psalms:  The is one of the few sections of the entire Bible which
contains signature lines.  74 or the psalms are attributed to David, and 32
to other authors...  but all of the remainder are of unknown authorship.
Christians and Jews have always attributed the authorship of this entire
book (or at least the editorship) to David, but in reality, this book is a
collection of psalms that took almost 800 years to compile.
   Proverbs:  Traditionalists attribute this book to Solomon, but scholars
point out that it was probably written around 600 years later (by an
unknown person), because it is clear that the author(s) were heavily
influenced by Greek philosophical systems of thought, such as Epicureanism
and Stoicism.
   Song of Solomon:  You would think that this book would be written by
Solomon, but scholars believe that it was composed 400-600 years later, and
that it was obviously influenced by cultic and pagan rituals.
   Isaiah:  Traditionally ascribed to Isaiah, but scholars maintain that
the first 36 chapters were of his teachings, and the rest were the
teachings of his disciples.
   Jeremiah:  One of the very few books of the Old Testament that contains
first-person references (although this is only a part of the book).  Other
sections are third-person accounts, probably from the students of Jeremiah.
 The rest clearly shows the influence of the Deuteronomic school.  The
entire book shows evidence of tampering, in the form of editing.
   Lamentations:  Traditionalists say that the author was Jeremiah, but
educated scholars say that it was composed by different anonymous authors.
Chapter 5 is clearly a later, edited addition of the book.  Actually, the
ascription of the book to Jeremiah is the result of a misunderstanding of 2
Chronicles 35:25, which says that the lamentation of Jeremiah for the king
Josiah "are written in the lamentations".  But the book of Lamentations
never even mentions Josiah.
   Ezekiel:  This is one of the very few books where the majority of the
book was probably written by its namesake.  But the last nine chapters are
believed by scholars to have been a later edition by the disciples of
Ezekiel.
   Daniel:  This book is traditionally ascribed to Daniel (who lived in the
6th century BC).  In this book, he tells of his kidnapping by Babylonians
from Jerusalem.  But since there is absolutely no historical record of a
Babylonian attack on Jerusalem until about 400 years later, the actual date
is estimated to have been in the 2nd century BC, by an anonymous author.
   Although the traditionalists tend to categorize this book with the other
so-called "prophetical" books, it is important to note that this book is
not even mentioned in the directory of famous Hebrew writings, the "Wisdom
of Sirach" (200 BC).
   Also, although the traditionalists ascribe this book to one author, a
significant portion (2:4 through 7:28) is written in another language,
Aramaic (the remainder of the book being in Hebrew).
Furthermore, historians note numerous historical inaccuracies mentioned in
this book (when compared against other historical records of that time, as
well as other books of the Old Testament).
   Hosea:  Again, traditionally ascribed to Hosea.  But scholars believe
that portions (1:10-11 and the latter half of the second chapter) are later
additions.  In is interesting to note that these two additional sections
are verses which describe the "specialness" of the Jewish people.
   Joel:  Absolutely nothing is known about the author, except his name
(Joel).
   Amos:  Traditionally ascribed to Amos, but scholars believe that this
was written after his death.  They also point out that the end of this book
(9:8-15) differs so dramatically from the rest of the book that it must
have been an even later addition, which deals with the people of Israel,
the favorites of Jehovah, being spared the divine wrath.
   Obadiah:  The traditionalists say this book was written by Obadiah.  But
biblical scholars question the unity of the book, and maintain that more
than one author wrote it (one of which may have been Obadiah).  Aside from
that, absolutely nothing is known about this Hebrew prophet.  Regarding the
question of unity of this book, it is interesting to note that this entire
book is only 21 verses in length!
   Jonah:  Tradition holds that this book was written by the prophet Jonah,
who, according to Judeo/Christian mythology, lived in the 8th century BC
and was swallowed by a giant fish.  But scholars point to evidence that
this work was written anonymously about 300 years later, in the post-exilic
period.  Among their evidence, they point to 1) the later form of Hebrew
used by the author(s), and 2) the familiarity of the author(s) with other
postexilic works.
   The traditionalists say this, and so many other books of the Bible, are
autobiographical works.  But even a casual glance at these books show they
were written by another (unknown) person.  Using this book as an example,
let us examine chapter 1, verse 17:  "Now the Lord had prepared a great
fish to swallow up Jonah.  And Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three
days and three nights."  This is clearly a third-person account.  A
first-person account would read, "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to
swallow me up.  And I was in the belly of the fish for three days and three
nights."
   What evidence do the fundamentalists produce in supporting their claim
that Jonah is the author?  Absolutely none.  There is nothing in the book
that even suggests a signature verse.
   And remember, I am just using this book as an example.  The exact same
case could be made against the vast majority of the so-called
"autobiographical" books.
   Micah:  Again, the traditionalists say that this book was written by
Micah.  But, again, scholars say that it is a composite work.  Chapters 1-3
seem to have actually have been written by him, except for the 12th and
13th verses of the second chapter, which appears to have been a later
addition.  These last two verses speak of the restoration of the tribes of
Israel, probably to bolster the Zionist effort.  Scholars maintain that the
contents of chapters 4 through 7 reflect circumstances that occurred long
after Micah's life.  Therefore, Micah could not have been the author of
these chapters.
   Nahum:  Traditionalists believe this book was written by Nahum.
Scholars have found no evidence to disagree with this.  Of course, the
traditionalists have no evidence that it was written by Nahum...  this is a
type of philosophic fallacy wherein a conclusion is "proven" true on the
basis that it has not been proven false.
   Habakkuk:  Scholars believe that the first two chapters were actually
written by Habakkuk, although absolutely nothing is known about this
person.  But the rest of the book is considered to be a later addition by
an anonymous author.  The scholars strong, irrefutable evidence:  there was
no reference to that part of the book in the Habakkuk Commentary of the
Dead Sea scrolls.
   Zephaniah:  Tradition attributes it to the prophet Zephaniah, but
scholars say that chapters 2 and 3 were added later.  And the end of the
third chapter was an even later addition.  Again, this later addition
speaks of the Jews regaining their homeland.
   Haggai:  Although traditionalists believe that this was written by the
prophet Haggai, scholar doubt this, pointing to the impersonal third-person
references to him as "the prophet".
   Zechariah:  Tradition holds that this was written by Zechariah himself.
This may be the case, in the first eight chapters.  But scholars point to
the last six chapters, which differ significantly from the first eight, in
language, style, theology, and other matters.  This dramatic difference
leads the scholars to believe that this section was composed over a century
later than the first part of the book.
   Malachi:  Early Jewish commentators believed that this book was written
by Ezra, but scholars believe that is was written later.

THE NEW TESTAMENT
   Before discussing the authorship of the New Testament, it is important
to remember that much of the justification of the New Testament is due to
the supposed fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.  But, as is
clearly shown above, the authorship and the authenticity of the Old
Testament is highly doubtful.  You cannot build a sturdy house on a flimsy
foundation.  Similarly, you cannot have a sound argument when your premise
for your argument is a weak, shaky presumption.
   The philosophic "center" of the New Testament is the first four books
(Matthew, Mark, Luke,and John), which are known as the "Gospels".  The rest
of the New Testament is, for all practical purposes, an elaboration on
these four books.  Many Christians believe that these four Gospels were
written by the direct disciples of Christ, but, as you will see, this is
hardly the case.  So even the beloved Gospels are not free from the nagging
doubt of dubious authorship.  Christians cite the similarity of the Gospels
as "proof" of their authenticity.  But the similarities between these four
books is due to the existence of a alleged collection of the sayings of
Jesus called "Q".  The compiler of Q is unknown.  Christians place enormous
faith that this unknown person(s) did not 1) fabricate his own sayings to
suit his own agenda, and 2) use saying from questionable sources.
   Also, as I noted earlier, there were over 50 different Gospels in
circulation at the time the New Testament was compiled.  Since the persons
choosing the canon used only books that were, more or less, harmonious, it
is reasonable to conclude that the results would be... harmonious books!
   For example, one book that did not make it into the New Testament was
the "Gospel of Peter", because the book does not consider the Crucifixion
as an act of atonement.  Similarly, the "Acts of John" was not included
because of its subversion of traditional Christian teachings (such as,
denying the reality of Christ's physical body).  It may be argued that
these (and many other books) were not included because of "questionable
authorship", but the authorship of these books is no less questionable than
other books that have been included.
   Another significant, disquieting fact concerning the New Testament is
the widely used literary tradition at that time of pseudonymously ascribing
new works to a venerated personage of the past in order to give the new
concoction credibility!  This has, indeed, serious implications for the
entire New Testament.
   Matthew:  Traditionalists believe that this is the earliest of the four
Gospels, and was written by St. Matthew, one of the 12 apostles.  However,
most modern scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was earlier, and that
the author of the Gospel of Matthew drew upon the Gospel of Mark for
material.  This is significant, because the Gospel of Mark is indeed of
highly questionable authorship (see below).  They base these beliefs on
internal and external evidence.  And this evidence also casts strong doubts
that St. Matthew wrote this book.  They have narrowed down the date of the
writing of this book between 70 and 80 AD.
   Mark:  Traditionalists believe that St. Mark wrote this book.  And many
Christians believe that St. Mark was one of the 12 apostles, but that is
not the case.  The very earliest evidence concerning the authorship of this
Gospel comes from the 3rd century, from a church historian, Eusebius of
Caesarea, who in turn quotes a writer who lived a hundred years earlier,
whose name was Papias...  who in turn quotes a still earlier person called
only "the elder".  This quote refers to the author, Mark, being an
interpreter of Peter, whose name was John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas.  But
there are reasons to doubt this.  Because most early Christians linked this
Gospel to Mark, the "elder" did his best to at least try to link the author
with a man named "Mark" (Peter's interpreter).  The conclusion by most
scholars that the author was an otherwise unknown man (named Mark), who
drew on a large number of traditions to compose this work.
   It is also interesting to note that many Greek manuscripts end with the
eighth verse of the 15th chapter.  Yet the Bible today ends with verse 20!
Most scholars believe that the final 12 verses were added by a 2nd century
monk or scribe to make a more satisfying ending.
   Luke:  Attributed to St. Luke, although very little is know about St.
Luke, except that he may have been a traveling companion of St. Paul.  And,
like Paul, there is no record or mention of St. Luke even meeting Christ.
Therefore, even if this gospel was written by St. Luke, it would clearly be
at best a second-hand account of the biography of the savior of the
Christians, and was written 40 or 50 years after Christ's death.  Modern
scholars agree that the Gospel of Luke is clearly based on the earliest
Gospel (Mark), and that the author used two major interpolations (Luke
6:20-8:3, and 9:51-18:14) from the collection of supposed sayings of Jesus,
"Q", and from a large body of oral traditions (commonly referred to as
"L").
   John:  The authorship of this book has created heated controversy since
the 1800s.  Although traditionalists have always believed that the author
of this book was St. John the Evangelist, in actuality there are four
candidates for authorship:  1) it was written by a person known as "the
elder", as mentioned in the Epistles of John;  2) it was written by a
student of St. John the Evangelist;  3) it was written by Lazarus of
Bethany; or 4) it was written by an anonymous person in Alexandria a
hundred years after Christ's death.
   Also, scholars generally agree that the entire 21st chapter is a later
addition.  This chapter deals with Christ's resurrection.
   Acts of the Apostles:    Traditionally believed that the author was St.
Luke, but, since there is no reference to this within the book itself,
there are many doubts to this.  Many scholars contend that it was written
by someone who had acquired the diary of a traveling companion of St. Paul.
   Scholars point out that it was written around AD 62-90, and was written
in Greek, instead of Hebrew.
   Romans; Corinthians (1 and 2); Galatians:  Attributed to Paul.
   Ephesians:  Traditionally attributed to Paul, but it is doubted by many
modern scholars, because of the extreme differences of tone, vocabulary,
and writing style as compared to authentic letters of Paul.
   Phillippians:  Attributed to Paul.
   Colossians:  Although traditionally ascribed to Paul, many scholars have
strong doubts about this, because of the differences of vocabulary used (as
compared to genuine Pauline writings).
   1 Thessalonians:  Attributed to Paul.
   2 Thessalonians:  Attributed to Paul, although, based on internal and
external evidence, many scholars tend to doubt this.
   Timothy (1 and 2); Titus:  Traditionally attributed to Paul, but most
scholars believe otherwise due to the fact that the style and vocabulary
differ in significant ways from authentic works by Paul.  Also, historical
events as reflected in these works do not fit into any known situation of
Paul's life.  The scholars believe that these books are by an unknown
author(s), who used the name of Paul to give it an air of authority.
   Philomon:  Traditionally ascribed to Paul.
   Hebrews:  Practically all modern scholars doubt this was written by Paul
(as the traditionalists claim).  Actually, even the early Christian Church
itself had strong doubts about Paul's authorship of this book!  Scholars
point out that the vocabulary, grammar, and style are dramatically
different from known works by Paul.  But the most damning evidence is that
the author(s) of this book quote from the Greek versions of the Old
Testament (instead of the Hebrew originals, as Paul would have done)!
Therefore, it is clear that this book was not written by Paul, or any other
apostle.  This is significant, for in this book contains the cornerstones
of the fundamentalists' beliefs:  1) that Jesus died for everyone's sins
(chapter nine and ten);  and 2) that the doctrine of faith alone is
sufficient for salvation (chapters 11 and 12)
   James:  This book is traditionally ascribed to St. James, the apostle.
Most scholars doubt this, because of the expertise of the author in the
Greek language.  Therefore, they feel that it was written by an unknown
Greek Christian.
   And even many Christians themselves have their doubts about this work.
Even Martin Luther, the founder of one of the three main branches of
Christianity (Protestantism), called it "an epistle of straw".  One reason
why he may have said this was because of a verse in James (2:20): "But wilt
thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"  The Protestants
believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation.  The Catholics
believe that it is important to do good works as well.  This one point was
a major factor in causing Protestantism to break away from Catholicism.
And this one verse devastates the fundamentalists' argument. This is
completely contradictory to Paul's exhortations of "justification by faith"
in Romans and Hebrews.  So much for the "harmony of the Bible", as the
fundamentalists claim (as proof of the Bible's validity).
   Peter 1:  Although attributed to Peter, it is widely doubted by most
scholars, on the basis of the fact that the author of this book cites Greek
translations of the Old Testament, instead of the Hebrew originals.  This
questionable book contains the fundamentalists' slogan, "born again" (1
Peter 1:23)
   Peter 2:  This book has even more doubtful authorship that Peter 1, so
much so that it was delayed entrance into the New Testament's canon.  It is
generally believed that it was written by an unknown scribe around 150 AD.
   Epistles of John:  Traditionally ascribed to St. John the Evangelist,
but many scholars disagree.  Many scholars feel that it was written by one
of the four "Johns" as listed above under the "Gospel of John", but they
can't agree on which one.
   Revelations:  Again, attributed to St. John the Evangelist, but scholars
again disagree.  But there are so many linguistic differences between this
book and the Gospel of John that it is clear that they were written by
different people.
   This book is the cornerstone of the fundamentalists, the evangelicals,
and the millenarianists.  It records a purported "vision", and Christians
are fond of tying its enigmatic allegory to current events, to show that
the end of the world is near.  And they are generally successful, since
this book is so obscure that one elicit practically any interpretation from
it.  In fact, ever since it was written (around AD 100), people of every
generation have been able to link it to their own period of time.
   The numerous references to "a thousand years" in chapter 20 has led many
to consider that doomsday will occur at the end of a millenium.  The
"Judgement Day" hysteria that occurred as the year 1000 approached is a
historical fact.  Similarly, social psychologists predict that, as we
approach the year 2000, the same hysteria will occur.
   Many scholars believe that Revelations is actually a collection of
separate works by various unknown authors.  One reason they believe this is
because the book is a strange collection of Greek and Hebrew idioms.  And
some believe that it was never intended to be viewed as a "prophecy", but
as an allegory showing the crisis of faith at that period of time (of the
Roman persecutions).

   It is interesting to note that Jesus himself never authored any book of
the New Testament, not even a paragraph.  In fact, most of the New
Testament was written by Paul.  This has led many to consider that Paul is
the architect of modern Christianity, not Christ.  A more accurate name for
Christians, then, is "Paulists", not "Christians".
   Many Christians believe that Paul was one of the 12 apostles of Christ,
but this is not the case... the 12 were Andrew, John, Bartholomew, Judas,
Jude, the two Jameses, Matthew, Peter, Phillip, Simon, and Thomas.  After
Judas committed suicide, Matthias replaced him.  By the way, this is one
way of testing the fundamentalist's knowledge of his own religion.  Many
believe that St. Mark (the alleged author of the Gospel of Mark), and St.
Luke (the supposed author of the Gospel of Luke), and St. Paul (the author
of many New Testament books), were members of the 12 apostles, Jesus'
direct disciples.  But they are not on the list.
   As for Paul, who plays such an important part of Christian theology, it
is important to note that he never met Christ.  In fact, he was active in
the persecutions of early Christians, claiming it to be an unlawful Jewish
cult.  Acts 8:1 depicts Paul as agreeing with the stoning of the first
Christian martyr, St. Stephen:  "And Saul (Paul's pre-Christian name) was
consenting unto his [Stephen's] death."  Paul was converted to Christianity
later, and became a zealous missionary (perhaps motivated by extreme guilt
for his atrocities).

THE END