Prologue: Things You Should Know People say I look like Tom Cruise. That''s what I tell my college students during lectures. Eventually they stop laughing. Truth is, I look more like Mayberry''s Barney Fife. As for the Tom Cruise comparison, it''s an obvious misstatement on my part, and an obvious no-brainer for my students. As I stand from and center, direct evidence proves me wrong. But not all statements and ideas can be so easily verified. When this occurs, as it often does, what method do we use to seek out the truth? All branches of knowledge adhere to the stringent principles of the scientific method, including the religious field (known as biblical criticism or higher criticism).

The scientific method is a rigidly controlled, analytical process that gave us antibiotics, a round trip to the Moon, and made Disneyland possible (okay, it also gave us AK-47s and nuclear bombs). The practical value of the scientific method is that it can be applied across the board. From the study of quantum physics to the mating habits of the dung beetle, the scientific method reigns supreme. It is a system of methods, principles and calculated procedures, which brings reality (things as they really are) into focus. Although some religious questions rest outside the boundaries of science (for example, Does God exist?), many claims made by various religious groups can be investigated (for example, what evidence do we have that Jesus, Buddha, or Muhammad ever lived?). Because scholars of religion utilize a scientific methodology, their fact-finding track record has proved remarkably productive. Obviously, they cannot deliver all of their findings with the same degree of "certainty" as normally associated with the laws of physics and chemistry. Accordingly, I agree with The New Interpreter''s Bible (NIB) that biblical criticism is not simply an objective science but is also an art.

As the NIB notes, it has its scientific aspects (statistical and quantitative measurements). But it also has prominent subjective judgments even though they are based on substantial knowledge. In some cases, therefore, determinations are made on the basis of a "balance of probabilities." Although the dominant terms used herein will be biblical criticism or higher criticism, I take the following expressions to be synonymous with them: biblical scholarship, biblical analysis, biblical studies, and biblical science. Unfortunately, the expression "biblical criticism or higher criticism" gives the false impression of being negative or hostile--as though the Bible were going to be maligned. This impression is incorrect because the words "critic" and "criticism" derive from the Greek word kritikos, meaning "able to judge or analyze." It is important for the reader to remember that the word "criticism" reflects a discipline of scholarly investigation, and should not be associated with the popular understanding as an expression of disapproval. Biblical criticsm serves as a catchall expression that incorporates all the analytical processes of religious scholarship (such as textual criticism, historical criticism, source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, narrative criticism, and many more).

Through harmonious interplay these disciplines help to determine the character, composition, authorship, historical authenticity, and origin of biblical documents; they also help to evaluate the influence of surrounding cultures on the development of Christianity in its early stages. Be aware that this writing does not cover the many facets of biblical criticism. Although the writing herein may appear to be comprehensive, it isn''t; it merely scratches the surface of a very complex discipline. It does, however, provide some basic and necessary information that may help create a more realistic understanding of our Christian heritage. Incidentally, true scholars are not limited to the findings of biblical criticism. Scholars of religion traverse over a wide range of disciplines in their investigative journeys. In short, they will use any information that will help them to corral the truth (or at least a better approximation of the truth). This is not to suggest that all mainstream scholars and educators share identical viewpoints.

Neither have they cornered the market on truth. That is not possible even under the best of circumstances, much less in a field of study where subjective interpretation of the evidence is often unavoidable. But I am confident that the information herein will fall well within the boundaries of mainstream scholarship; regarded as conventional by both religious and secular authorities in the field. Furthermore, you can rest assured that the information herein is free from ecclesiastical control; that is, free from the Church''s supernatural spin. Although many mainstream scholars are themselves Christian--as we shall see--they allow the facts to fall where they may. Of course, some spin is unavoidable but most mainstream scholars do not spin the potter''s wheel so as to shape the information in accordance with the traditional teachings of Christianity. THE WEAKEST LINK It is important to know from which biased direction this book is written. Yes, I am biased.

Everyone is biased or, at least, should be. If you disagree, put your car in neutral and see where it takes you. Before disclosing my preference, a cautionary word is needed. To say one is biased, may convey the wrong impression. The word "bias" implies a predisposition either for or against something, usually based on opinion before there is good reason; a prejudicial leaning of the mind. But if one''s opinion is shaped by education (as would be the case with doctors, lawyers, scientists and so forth) one might refer to it as a "professional judgment" rather than a biased opinion; assuming, of course, that one is commenting on one''s field of expertise. All of this sounds fine. But what does it mean when two well-educated people in the same field disagree with each other''s professional judgment? Whom should one believe? Divergent views are apparent in all disciplines.

But in the religious field, there is a divisional marker between scholars that cannot be ignored. It is the world''s-apart difference between evangelical scholars (also known as fundamentalists) and all other scholars of religion. I support the latter. I do not rely on fundamentalist scholars because they are considered by mainstream scholars to be the weakest link in the academic world. In fact, except for evangelical colleges and seminaries, no other seminaries or universities (from Stanford on the West Coast to Harvard on the East Coast) rely on evangelical publications for religious studies. The same holds true for the numerous community and state colleges across this nation (not to mention our European counterparts). The reasons for this exclusion are specific (see Appendix A). For the moment, suffice it to say, evangelicals usually won''t accept data that doesn''t tell them what they want to hear.

For that reason, the information presented herein will not reflect their thinking. Rather, this work will reflect the knowledge disseminated by the majority of educational scholars worldwide. I do realize that all this may sound as exciting as a trip to the dentist. Yuck! But honestly, some of the findings of higher criticism are mind-boggling. "Hang on Sloopy, Sloopy hang on!" CARTOONS Our subject matter is serious. But I believe--and I''ll bet my Mickey Mouse watch you do too--that life would be a drag if we couldn''t have fun along the way. It''s good for us to laugh, or at least crack a smile from time to time. So, aside from a Non Sequitur cartoon, enclosed are some original cartoons stemming from my funny bone.

No, I can''t draw--not even a crooked line. Therefore, a free-lance artist out of Phoenix, James Weeden, drew them for me. BCE AND CE What''s this? The old familiar dating symbols BC (before Christ) and AD (in the year of our Lord)4 are slowly being replaced--certainly within the academic community--with the symbols BCE (before the common era) and CE (the common era) respectively. This lettering has come into vogue as a sensitive response to the vast number of people (Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and so forth), who do not place Jesus at the center of history. This, then, is a less intrusive dating system that favors no special religious group (at least not as blatantly). However, for the sake of clarity and practicality, I will use the old dating system. I know it''s fashionable to go the other way, but I''m reluctant to impose it here. Furthermore, although I know that BC follows the date (for example, 33 BC), and traditionally AD precedes the date (AD 33), I choose to place AD following the date (33 AD); a style now used by many academic authorities.

[NOTE: c. or ca.--an abbreviation that means "about," or, "around." For example: The Greco-Roman era ran from ca. 300 BC to 400 AD.] A DEFINING MOMENT I will try to define in parentheses many of the words that I feel might not be understood by some readers. For many of you, this approach will appear to be somewhat condescending (the author coming across as superior to the reader). Rest assured, I have no such delusions.

I realize that most of you reading these pages are not in need of these definitions. Nevertheless, bear with me. Through this overly cautious approach, the attempt will be made to keep everyone on the same page, so to speak (especially some younger readers). Also, this approach will be helpful if the words I use have multiple meanings or are esoteriC (o.