Did you
know that the scientific method suggests Paul’s letters were not written by a
single person, but by at least three different authors? This has serious
implications if you are a believer, and I will organize a thesis below. I
consider myself an Orthodox Christian.
Introduction
This is my
perspective on the facts about Jesus and Christian belief from a believer's
point of view. There are other interpretations, of course, but I am adding mine
to the discussion. It is up to you to decide how relatable it is.
I will
present established facts as determined by experts in direct text, while my
views and hypotheses will be enclosed within |* markers, in italic and blue color *|.
In 2025, as
I begin writing this, there are many scientific methods available to analyze
the Holy Bible and deduce new insights. These may not alter my core belief, but
they could potentially help me better understand the foundation of that belief.
I also feel
it is my duty to examine these findings because the Holy Bible was, thankfully,
never handed down directly by God, but rather consists of testimonies from
people who claimed divine inspiration. This leaves room for speculation, but I
do not seek to dismiss these texts as inherently false or malicious. That said,
I will remain skeptical.
Main text.
Let's start
by breaking down the Bible, which consists of two series of "books":
the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is largely the
scripture of the Jewish religion, foretelling the coming of a key figure who
would save the Jewish people (though interpretations vary). The New Testament
is meant to be the continuation of this narrative, covering the life of Jesus,
who appears to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament.
I will not
dwell much on the Old Testament, since my focus is on Christianity, which
revolves around the life of Jesus.
The New
Testament consists of a collection of books. For most denominations, it
includes the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Additionally, it
contains the Acts of the Apostles, letters from Paul to the early churches, and
finally, John’s Revelation, which describes events to come.
The New
Testament as we know it today is a curated selection from a broader collection
of religious texts circulating in Judea and beyond at the time. It seems to
have taken shape gradually rather than being finalized at a single moment.
There is a common misconception that the canon was decided at the Council of
Nicaea in 325 AD. However, the canon was already in use before that; what the
council did was provide the earliest concrete evidence of an official New
Testament when Emperor Constantine requested 50 copies.
The
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls revived awareness of many scriptures that
were left out of the canon we have today. These include texts such as the
Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Judas. These writings
were used and accepted by various early Christian groups, but over time, they
fell out of favor.
|* At this point, I would like to pause and,
as a believer, reflect on what I believe and why. Everything I have heard about
Jesus is based primarily on ancient texts, and the New Testament offers the
sources that are chronologically closest to his (pre-resurrection) lifetime. *|
Fragments
from the Gospel of Mark represent the oldest known copy of any gospel, dating
to roughly 75 AD. Paradoxically, fragments of Paul’s letters predate even the
earliest copies of Mark’s gospel. However, this does not necessarily mean that
the original texts were written in this sequence—only that the copies we have
discovered, which serve as our "ground truth," were preserved in this
order.
Adding to
the scarcity of early sources, a fully complete version of the Gospel of Mark
does not appear before the 2nd century AD. The rest of the gospels are slightly
newer, with the earliest known complete versions dating between 175 and 225 AD.
What disturbs me even more is that later copies—the ones from which our modern
translations are derived—show alterations compared to the oldest versions.
|* Evidently, there is a gap between who Jesus
was and what was written about him, both geographically and chronologically,
before reaching us. As a believer, I could ease this concern by trusting that
divine intervention has ensured that, despite the uncertainties, a valid
account of Jesus has been preserved for me to learn from. However, I also argue
that throughout the New Testament, Jesus was not providing ready-made
solutions; rather, he was teaching critical thinking. I will not exhaust this
argument here, but in short, I believe that critical thinking is required to
approach the truth behind the scriptures, rather than relying solely on divine
intervention.
Thus, I tend to believe that older sources are
more likely to reflect Jesus' original teachings. This is not a strict rule,
but rather a reasonable tendency. Additionally, as we move forward, I will
maintain two separate categories for analysis: Jesus' teachings and Jesus'
identity. I cannot deny that, for many people today, Jesus could be anything
from a historical mortal man to a composite of multiple messianic figures from
that era, with their collective ideology attributed to him. (Although some non-canonical
gospels could argue otherwise.) However, as a believer, I hold that his
connection with the divine was so profound that "God" and
"Jesus" are interchangeable terms. *|
The New
Testament serves as both the testimony of Jesus’ existence and the record of
his teachings, forming the foundation upon which later Christian scholars and
theologians built their interpretations. However, all these interpretations are
extrapolated from the New Testament itself. It is therefore reasonable to
assert that the New Testament is the primary source for knowing anything about
Jesus, while the rest of Christian literature is derivative.
Of course,
there are exceptions—saints and religious figures have claimed to have
encountered Jesus in visions since then, and churches have, at times,
semi-validated such experiences. However, for the purpose of this discussion,
we can set these aside as less relevant.
|* In my personal view, the conclusions one
can draw from the New Testament are far less deterministic than what I was
taught or what the average Christian seems to believe. Additionally, it is
crucial to address the role of bias in interpreting scripture. A fascinating
study showed that both right-wing and left-wing Christians, regardless of their
familiarity with the texts, interpreted Jesus in ways that validated their
sociopolitical views. This surprised me, as I am left-leaning and have always
believed that Jesus fundamentally condemned right-wing ideology. But given the
research results, I must acknowledge the possibility that I, too, am a victim
of my own bias. *|
To fully
examine the structure of the New Testament, we must recognize its four main
sections:
1. The Gospels – The direct account of
Jesus’ life before his crucifixion and briefly after his resurrection.
2. The Acts of the Apostles – A
description of the actions and experiences of those closest to Jesus during and
after the time period described in the Gospels.
3. Paul’s Letters – Writings attributed
to Paul, a man who claimed to have been called to his mission by God himself.
4. Revelation – A highly symbolic and prophetic
text traditionally attributed to John, detailing visions of the end times.
|* Paul’s claim is an interesting one. If
someone were to make the same claim today, I would be highly
skeptical—especially given the number of televangelists who exploit faith to
extract money from their followers, buying private jets and living in luxury.
However, based on the accounts we have, Paul
was not like that. He lived a simple life, working honest, modest jobs, and he
does not exhibit the speech or behavior of a delusional person. For what it’s
worth, he seems legitimate. By “legitimate,” I mean that he fits the profile of
someone who genuinely believed he was called to serve God. Most importantly, he
is not alive today to tarnish his own legacy, unlike many contemporary figures
who start with good intentions only to later betray them. *|
Paul is
also central to many Christian doctrines, particularly in shaping how
Christianity approaches sexuality—an area that is largely absent from the
Gospels and the direct teachings of Jesus. While Jesus did reference adherence
to Mosaic law in broad terms, he did not provide specific instructions on how
people should structure their personal lives. The closest we have is the
account of him blessing the union of a man and a woman at Cana. Beyond that, he
did not explicitly define a framework for human relationships.
|* However, based on the accounts we have,
Paul was not like that. He lived a simple life, working honest, modest jobs,
and he does not exhibit the speech or behavior of a delusional person. For what
it’s worth, he seems legitimate. By “legitimate,” I mean that he fits the
profile of someone who genuinely believed he was called to serve God. Most
importantly, he is not alive today to tarnish his own legacy, unlike many
contemporary figures who start with good intentions only to later betray them. *|
Love,
Adam
References & Further Reading
The following channels provide valuable historical and analytical perspectives on Christianity, biblical authorship, and religious studies:
Useful Charts – Visual and historical breakdowns of religious history and biblical genealogy.
- YouTube: @UsefulCharts
Let’s Talk Religion – In-depth explorations of religious traditions, history, and theology.
- YouTube: @LetsTalkReligion
Religion for Breakfast – Academic, historical, and anthropological studies on religion.
- YouTube: @ReligionForBreakfast
TREY the Explainer – Analytical takes on mythology, history, and ancient beliefs.
- YouTube: @TREYtheExplainer
Comments
Post a Comment