I am reading Peter, Paul, & Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend by Bart D. Ehrman. He chairs the religion department at UNC (Chapel Hill) and has more erudite books on the subject of early Christianity, but this book is more an appeal to a general audience. [I am not really familiar with his other works, so probably some are of this style, but some are more "textbook" in content.] I picked it up at the library, the title the clincher -- Mary is sort of an add-on, to the degree that biblical texts have very little to say about her, though other sources addressed in the book do have some more material. But, the title is a gimmee -- we see this sort of thing a lot, actually. Thus, various law review articles have cutesy titles. And, note the last comma -- it is generally a matter of debate whether one is necessary before an "and."
The Bible is an interesting work, obviously many people find it of deep interest, but it is interesting to the historian and biblical researcher in general because there is a hidden treasure nature to the whole thing. Though some people take it literally, the Bible is generally not understood to be like a writing of prose that we are to take at face value. It is more like a poem, having some literal fact material, but being written to promote a deeper message. This is so even when we look at some of the most "historical" books in the Old Testament. It surely is the case when looking at the New Testament, which was written to promote the "good news" (gospel), not to inform us about the characters therein in particular. And, when we are, the historical facts referenced are often done so in noticeably different ways. The fact, natch, this is often ignored only underlines that the deeper message is often deemed more important.
Consider Paul. The one expanded account of his career, one starting in the middle of things at that, is the Acts of Apostles. Unfortunately, we learn that many of the things it claims occurred clash with what is said by Paul himself, in letters he wrote, and did so at twenty or more years before "Luke" wrote Acts.* The quotes are advisable, since the book (along with the gospel attributed to him) does not say who wrote it. Likewise, it was later determined an unclear number of the few letters from Paul found in the New Testament was not written by him, as many as six of the thirteen in doubt. [A few letters we wrote over a twenty or so year span would be a suspect way of understanding our beliefs at any rate. Surely, since some of them might change or be slanted in a certain way depending on the audience.]
And, it is important to understand this, this sort of thing was not necessarily deemed in bad form. Take Acts. Acts purports to include various speeches Peter and Paul made, but they turn out to sound rather similar, plus Paul himself talks differently in his own letters. But, this is not a sign of Luke corrupting his art. No, it was often deemed appropriate for "histories" to include speeches that promote a certain point of view, which could only be weakly related to what actually was said. A sort of historical fiction. This is an important theme in PP&MM -- it is often important to understand not just what happened, but what people said happened. This "spin" of history is important too, and in fact, helps us understand the mind-set of the people writing it. A lesson that has wider application as well.
It does not make the Bible less interesting to accept this. A literalist would insist Acts be taken as history, but this is ironic, since it was not really intended for that purpose. It is like using a poem to understand geography, forcing its use of poetic metaphor into literal facts. We do not really respect the authors of a text by not understanding it through their eyes. Likewise, it does not disrespect biblical authors to not accept their theology in all its glory. It helps that we often do not fully understand it, partially given the rudimentary strands we are left with -- thus Ehrman underlines Paul believed in a corporal resurrection of the body for all mankind, starting with Jesus himself, while others think Paul meant a spiritual one. Trying to determine what was really "meant" is part of the fun (struggle). But, either way, there is enough there to be truly fascinating.
Since we have limited resources in this respect (this is seen when studying other religious works, including "Gnostic Gospels" that come to us in fragment form or as citations in works of their critics), we also are often left with extrapolating facts in a sort of algebraic equation way. Peter was married. How do we know this? Well, Jesus healed his mother-in-law, and Paul made a passing reference to Peter traveling as a missionary with his wife. If married, and meeting Jesus while being married, one assumes as well he had kids ... even without an appeal to an extrabiblical book (Acts of Peter) telling us she was stricken by some sort of disease, which Peter did not heal since it ensured she would lead an ascetic life. And, overall, we might assume the fact, since it is what an average fisherman in his position would do.
Such factual nuggets can be gold, especially if we use them to put forth a broader "this might be deemed likely" story that fits the situation as we reasonably can know it. Facts that we might otherwise have ignored, since they were not really the point of the wider account (Paul referenced Peter's wife to make a point in answer to critics that he was lackadaisical about promoting the faith.) More can be said, but perhaps we can end with a good policy suggested by the author here -- read the New Testament horizontally. That is, compare the various accounts of similar events; do not just read the thing from start to finish like it is a novel, or rather, a history book. As if it is a united whole putting forth a message that is internally consistent in most respects.
It is not, and this is not the way to truly understand and respect its content.
---
* If Acts is not to be taken as fact in all respects, our understanding of Paul's life diminishes, e.g., his letters does not speak of his birth place or being also known as "Saul." They also do not mention that he is a Roman citizen, which is a problematic matter, since citizens would seem to have to do pagan acts like honoring idols and the emperor, which a good Jew (a Pharisee, by his own words), could not do. We still know a lot more about Paul than most other apostles, the gospels not even in agreement respecting all of their names though a few (like Philip) have their moments in the sun.