Fornication in the Bible: Meaning & Verses

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The word “fornication” appears frequently in English translations of the Bible, yet its meaning is far less straightforward than it might seem at first glance. While modern readers often assume it refers simply to sex between unmarried people, this definition reflects a relatively narrow and later understanding of the term. In the biblical texts themselves, the words translated as “fornication” carry a much broader and more complex range of meanings shaped by ancient cultural, social, and religious contexts.

In this article, I’ll explain how these terms function across both the Old and New Testaments, tracing how their meanings shift depending on context. By looking closely at the linguistic roots and the historical settings in which these words were used, we can better understand not only what biblical authors may have intended, but also why translating and interpreting “fornication” in the Bible remains such a challenging and often debated task today.

Translations and Definitions of Fornication in the Bible

In most English dictionaries, fornication is defined simply as sexual intercourse between people not married to each other. However, as we’ll soon see, the Hebrew and Greek words frequently translated as fornication often contain much broader connotations.

Let’s begin with Hebrew. The Hebrew verb usually translated as “to commit fornication, prostitution, or unfaithfulness” is zanah, while the related noun zonah generally means a prostitute or harlot. Forms of these words are found many times in the Hebrew Bible, although not always in the same contexts. In my discussion of the use of these words in Old Testament books, I’ll go into more detail about the ways various forms of this word are used.

Meanwhile, the Greek word often translated as fornication in the New Testament is porneia, from which we derive English words like pornography. However, translating this word is a tricky business and requires some background.

In his book The Corinthian Body, Dale Martin notes that "the precise meaning of porneia is simply uncertain given the lack of evidence we have." It’s not that we don’t know the general gist of the word: porneia always refers in some sense to sexual immorality. The problem is that different cultures and times in history have defined sexual immorality differently. As Carolyn Osiek has noted in Early Christian Families in Context, "To say that πορνεία [porneia] means fornication is circular, and the concept of illicit sex only begs the question of what is considered illicit." For an example of this, let’s discuss the difference between adultery (Greek: moicheia) and fornication (porneia) in the ancient Greek-speaking world.

In his article, “Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm,” Kyle Harper notes that the line dividing these two concepts was entirely determined by the status of the woman involved.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

For modern people, adultery and fornication can overlap. If a person is married and has sex with someone to whom he is not married, he is an adulterer. But since the two having sex are also not married to each other, they are also committing fornication according to the dictionary definition above.

Harper notes that the word porneia, “derived from the Greek pornē ("prostitute")… passed into Latin as fornicatio and thence into English as "fornication." But "fornication" is effectively limited to ecclesiastical usage.”

He goes on to remark that while the definition of the English word fornication has narrowed over time, the definition of porneia gradually broadened in Greek. Since it was originally derived from the word pórnē as noted above, Harper writes that porneia first meant simply "the practice of selling access to one's body. Porneia in classical Greek, refers [only] to the activity of the seller.” However, he reports that this meaning would eventually expand:

These sexual standards were only applicable when “free women,” those who were not slaves, had a respectable marriage, and were not prostitutes, were involved. However, Harper notes that long before the advent of Christianity, “Athenian law held that a man was not a μοιχός [adulterer] if he had sex with a woman who sits in a brothel or sells herself openly… The μοιχός violates a [free] woman, not his own marriage bond; there is no female equivalent.”

In other words, the classification of sexual violations had more to do with the status of the woman involved than with any objective moral standard. Men with respectable marriages could have sex with slaves or prostitutes without technically violating their marriages. On the other hand women, even free women, were not given the same liberty.

Having established some of the nuances of the translation issues involved in this topic, let’s move on to how the Bible uses the word fornicate (or its equivalents) in the Old Testament.

Fornication in the Old Testament

We begin with the earliest iteration of zanah, the Hebrew word often translated as fornication in the Hebrew Bible canon. It’s found in the story of Tamar and Judah in Genesis 38. Tamar is widowed twice after the deaths of Judah’s sons Er and Onan. However, Judah fails to fulfill his obligation to provide his third son, Shelah, as her husband, leaving Tamar in a vulnerable and dishonorable position. Realizing she has been wronged, Tamar disguises herself as a prostitute and sleeps with Judah, who does not recognize her. When she becomes pregnant and is accused of prostitution, she reveals items Judah gave her as payment, proving he is the father. Judah admits his wrongdoing and declares Tamar more righteous than himself.

The word zanah in this story comes in verse 24 when it is discovered that Tamar is pregnant:

Notice that zanah here refers only to prostitution or paid sexual favors. However, in another book in the Pentateuch, we soon see the metaphorical use of the word, a use which becomes far more common than the literal use of the term in the Old Testament.

In Numbers 14:33, we see this sentence using a form of zanah in a figurative way:

The context of this passage is the 40 years the Israelites have wandered in the wilderness looking for the Promised Land. In this sentence, the Hebrew word zanūṯêḵem, which can mean extramarital sex, is used for unfaithfulness to God, otherwise known as idolatry. In fact, this word is used frequently to mean worship of idols in further passages.

Another example of this use can be found in 2 Kings 9, which describes an Israelite warrior named Jehu overthrowing the wicked king Ahab and killing his wife Jezebel. However, before Jezebel is killed, we see this short dialogue in verse 22:

Although calling a woman a “Jezebel’ once meant an accusation of sexual promiscuity in English, this is not what Jehu accuses Jezebel of. Instead, he charges her with serving idols rather than the God of Israel. In other words, her “prostitutions” are simply unfaithfulness to God.

A final example comes from the prophets who use this metaphor of fornication-as-idolatry more than any other Old Testament books. In Jeremiah 2:20, God speaks through the prophet, telling the Israelites

In this entire chapter, God begs his people to repent for worshipping other gods, specifically the Canaanite gods of the people around them. This is depicted as a form of “prostituting” themselves, selling their allegiance to other gods to get what they want or establish bonds with other peoples rather than serving their own God. As Harper notes,

But what about the New Testament? Is there any continuity with the Hebrew Bible’s figurative reading of fornication or prostitution as idolatry?

Fornication in the New Testament

In most Greek lexicons, the word porneia is defined as sexual immorality, fornication, marital unfaithfulness, prostitution, adultery, or simply as a generic term for sexual sin of any kind. In other words, it can be used to mean something very specific or something general and vague, making it a hard word to translate accurately. To do so, we need to look at specific verses in the New Testament and analyze their use of the word according to the specific contexts.

Let’s start with the Gospels. In telling the Pharisees what defiles a person in Matthew 15:19, Jesus refers to porneia as one item in a long list of sins:

The King James Version (and several other versions) translates porneia as “fornication.” But since Jesus doesn’t specify, and since the word in Jesus’ time could mean so many different types of sexual immorality, it’s difficult to know his intention. We find the same problem in Mark 7:21, of which Matthew is essentially a copy. Does it indicate prostitution? Sex with someone outside marriage? Pederasty? All of the above? It’s impossible to know for sure.

In fact, the same broad term is used in Acts 15:19–20, in a letter sent from the Jerusalem Church to Gentile converts:

While it may be significant, given the metaphorical use of fornication/prostitution as idol worship in the OT, that the letter specifies both idol worship and sexual immorality as prohibited, their equivalence is not stated explicitly.

However, the author of Acts—who also wrote the book of Luke—seems to assume that his readers will know what porneias means, and therefore avoids mentioning specific sexual prohibitions. However, one thing is clear from this passage: as Jennifer Wright Knust writes in her book Abandoned to Lust: Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity, the word porneia is used rhetorically to define a moral failing associated with depraved outsiders. In this and many other cases in the NT, Christians are defined as those who do not engage in porneia.

Paul epitomizes this exclusionary meaning of the word in 1 Corinthians 5:1–5:

Questions about this passage remain. For instance, is the man who is living with his father’s wife committing porneia simply in the sense that they aren’t married to each other? Or because it is legally defined as incest? Or because it is adultery? Note that all of these seem to be the case, indicating that for Paul, writing in the 1st century CE, porneia can be broadly applied to all of them.

In addition, the fact that Paul wants this man thrown out of the group makes Knust’s point that the word was primarily used in writing for the purpose of defining who was in (members of the church who are not committing porneia) and who was out (those who commit some form of porneia).

Finally, we find several verses in the NT which clearly harken back to the OT use of the word zanah to indicate the sin of idolatry. These occur principally in the book of Revelation, which uses many OT themes to communicate its message about the eschaton or end of the world. In Revelation 2:21, for instance, in a letter to the church at Thyatira, John of Patmos writes this:

Note that first of all, John calls this female false prophet Jezebel, a name he almost certainly gives her for rhetorical purposes. Second, sexual immorality here is intertwined with idol worship, just as it is figuratively in the Hebrew Bible. We see a similar conflation in Revelation 14:8:

In the book of Revelation, Babylon is the code word for Rome. Calling Rome a prostitute is the same as calling her an idol-worshipper, especially since Rome was polytheistic and persecuted Christians for refusing to worship Roman gods. Revelation 17:5 makes this even more explicit. John sees a woman clothed in the royal color of purple and wearing extravagant jewelry, representing the Roman emperors,

This is not a characterization of Rome as sexually immoral, but rather as idolatrous. Rome is again compared to Babylon, the earlier empire which also destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple and forced Jews to worship idols. By this last book of the Bible, we have, in a sense, come full circle: porneia is explicitly associated with idolatry, just as it was in so many places in the OT.

Conclusion

Translation is always a tricky business, especially with texts as old as those in the Bible. Languages, even those like Greek and Hebrew which have survived, change drastically over time. This is why so many different English translations of the Bible have been made: there remain many different opinions on how best to translate important words like “fornication.”

The Hebrew word zanah is one of these. Literally meaning prostitution, promiscuity, or unfaithfulness, we find that, while some early OT texts use this literal meaning, many of the later books use this word figuratively to signify idol worship as infidelity to God.

With the Greek word porneias, the problem of translation is intensified. This word was used in the social and linguistic world of the NT to mean just about every kind of sexual immorality one can imagine: sex between unmarried people, sex between those not married to each other but married to other people, prostitution, incest; the list goes on and on. While we can surmise that readers and hearers of those texts in their time must have understood what the authors meant, 2,000 years later we can only speculate.

Adultery in the Bible: Meaning, Types, & Verses

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Adultery is one of the best-known prohibitions in the Bible, yet its meaning is often misunderstood when read through modern assumptions about love, marriage, and personal relationships. In order to grasp what the biblical authors meant by adultery, we have to step into a very different cultural world.

In this article, I’ll answer questions about adultery in the Bible, from its definitions to the laws of the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. I’ll also examine how ancient marriage customs shaped these definitions, why adultery in the Bible was treated as such a serious offense, and how its meaning expanded from a physical act to a matter of intention and moral character.

Marriage in the Ancient World: No Bed of Roses

Since adultery is broadly conceived of as a violation of the marriage bond, it’s important to understand ancient marriage, an institution defined quite differently, in both purpose and practice, from modern marriages. That is, we need to understand what prohibitions on adultery in the Bible were meant to protect.

In his book The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, Bruce Malina notes that, unlike the initiation of most marriages in the modern world, romance was not involved in ancient marriage customs:

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

In other words, marriage was not an agreement between two people in love, but an economic contract between two families. It was, therefore, meant to be mutually beneficial for both families, especially in the economic realm. Most biblical marriages were arranged by the families of the bride and groom according to certain criteria. Malina writes that

The wife would normally move in with the husband’s family, and be subject to the authority not only of her husband, but also of the rest of the family. The woman’s status improved slightly after she had her first child, but she nevertheless remained the low person on the totem pole. However, in order to secure the marriage contract, the groom’s family had to pay something to the bride’s family. It’s all but impossible, therefore, to avoid the perception that the prospective wife was treated as a type of commodity. Malina notes that

It follows, then, that the ancient biblical ban on adultery was not there to protect the husband and wife as individuals but to safeguard the honor and economic position of the families involved. Adultery was a serious matter which, especially in small communities, could affect the whole fabric of a society.

Adultery in the Bible: Verses From the Old Testament

Given the difference between marriage in the ancient world and marriage today, what actually constituted adultery? Were there different types of adultery? The commandment in Exodus 20:14, “You shall not commit adultery,” doesn’t explain any further. However, three verses down from that commandment, Exodus 20:17 makes it clear what the status of the wife was:

Note that the commandment against coveting lists a wife among things a man can possess, including a house, a slave, and livestock. By this definition, adultery is actually a kind of theft. However, since marriage was, as Malina wrote, “the fusion of the honor of two extended families,” adultery was also an offense against the honor of the husband’s family. For both these reasons, it was a serious offense.

The book of Leviticus also makes clear what constitutes adultery generally: sex between a man, married or unmarried, and a married woman who is not his wife. As such, what was the punishment for adultery in the Bible? Leviticus 20:10 gives us an example:

Notice that although we can find plenty of unfair treatment of women in the Bible, the law from Leviticus states that both man and woman involved in consensual adultery must be punished. Scholars are uncertain how consistently such punishments were inflicted on adulterers but, as we’ll see below, the prohibition on adultery remained an important commandment throughout the history of Judaism.

A further clarification of adultery comes from Deuteronomy 22:26, which says that if a married woman is raped by a man who is not her husband, only the rapist is put to death, not the victim, who has done nothing wrong.

On the other hand, if a man suspected that his wife had committed adultery but had no witnesses, the wife could be tested by the ordeal of the bitter water, outlined in Numbers 5. This was a “test” administered by a priest in which the suspected woman is forced to drink a potion consisting of holy water and dust. If she suffers any ill effects from the potion, she is considered guilty and punished accordingly. If she suffers no ill effects, she is considered innocent. By the way, there is no similar test administered to a husband whom the wife suspects of committing adultery.

In later Hebrew Bible writings, women are characterized as aggressors, while young men, portrayed as potential victims, are warned against seductresses and/or adulteresses. See for example, Proverbs 7:4–5 in which the young man is encouraged to

And what are the consequences of an encounter with this adulteress? Verses 25–27 make it clear that they are far worse than mere earthly punishments:

Note that, in these verses, the man seems to bear less responsibility. The woman engages in unseemly behavior and thus tricks the naïve young man into perdition.

By contrast, Hosea 4:13–14 makes use of the common biblical metaphor of adultery and/or fornication as idolatry:

James Luther Mays, writing in the HarperCollins Study Bible, says that in the context of idolatry, “Daughters of Israelites seem to have been involved… in promiscuous sex and debauchery, which were thought to ‘jump start’ agricultural fecundity.” In other words, the prophetic warning is not just against literal adulterous behavior but against sexual rituals asking for favors from other gods.

Adultery in the Bible: New Testament Verses

The 1st-century authors of most of the New Testament texts certainly inherited the scriptural ideas of the Old Testament. However, we know that, as with many religious ideas, things had changed by the Second Temple Period. In particular, punishments for adultery had changed.

Rabbinic texts, looking back on the Second Temple period, stated that the Jewish legal system had given up inflicting executions on anyone for any crime, including adultery. Instead, according to the Mishnah, adulterers were publicly whipped, and the husband of an adulteress was forced to divorce her. A woman caught in adultery lost any property granted through her marriage agreement and was not allowed to marry the adulterer with whom she had violated her marriage.

This may seem harsh, by modern standards, but in the Sermon on the Mount, specifically Matthew 5:27–28, Jesus takes an even sterner position:

Does this mean that Jesus believes that any man who looks at a woman lustfully should receive the punishments normally granted to adulterers in his time? Perhaps, but Jesus doesn’t say. L. Michael White writes in Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite, the Jesus of Matthew “focuses on Torah observance and piety as the proper path to righteousness,” which is why the Sermon on the Mount “stands as a call to discipleship under the guideline of Torah.” Therefore, since Matthew’s Gospel focuses on Jesus as a teacher and re-interpreter of the Jewish Law, it’s indeed possible that he would have viewed any form of lust as punishable (although this would have been highly difficult to enforce).

Meanwhile, in John 8:3–11 we have the famous story of the woman taken in adultery. While most scholars agree that this passage is a later interpolation to John, it has long been seen as an emblem of the mercy of Christ.

In the story, a woman is caught in the act of adultery and is dragged by scribes and Pharisees to Jesus, who is teaching near the Temple. They plan to stone her to death and ask Jesus whether they should, since the Torah says so. Jesus says "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." Since none of them are sinless, they drop their rocks and leave. Jesus then tells the woman that he won’t condemn her either and not to sin anymore.

This is a beautiful story about love and forgiveness, but it brings up some odd historical problems. First, according to Michael Satlow writing in the Jewish Annotated New Testament, by the 1st century CE, only Romans were allowed to put criminals to death. Second, where is the male adulterer in this story? If the woman was indeed “caught in the act,” the man should have been caught as well and put to death, according to Leviticus.

The most likely explanation for the first fact is that this was not meant to report a historical occurrence but was rather a teaching story, much like Jesus’ parables. The mere threat of being put to death is enough to show Jesus’ mercy and forgiveness. The male adulterer, meanwhile, may have simply run away and escaped, or perhaps he was treated more leniently, as men generally were in the ancient world.

Either way, note that while Matthew’s Jesus is quite severe, not only about adultery itself but also about lust, John’s Jesus is merciful and forgiving. Scholars have long noted the difference in theological emphasis between these two books.

Additionally, the Sermon on the Plain, Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount, includes divorce and remarriage among the definitions of adultery. Malina explains:

Above all, this verse in Luke seems to be a continuance of Jesus as Torah teacher, making Torah observance for his followers even stricter than that of the Pharisees (see Matt 5:20).

Finally, 1 Corinthians 6:9 shows Paul putting adulterers on a long list of sinners who will not be saved on the last day:

It’s interesting to note that Paul does not rank any of these sins as worse than the others. Adulterers are apparently equal to drunkards, swindlers, and those who worship idols. For Paul in this passage, all these sins, regardless of their severity, make a person ineligible for citizenship in the coming kingdom.

Is Adultery a Sin in Other Religions? (Islam, Hinduism, Judaism)

Now that we’ve explored adultery in the Bible, you might wonder how other major religions treat the matter. Let’s take a look.

Judaism

We started off by outlining what the Hebrew Bible says about adultery, so we know that for ancient Jews, adultery was strictly prohibited, if for different reasons than we modern people might assume. However, in his book Every Person's Guide to Jewish Sexuality, Rabbi Ronald Isaacs says that the command against adultery is strictly upheld by Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform rabbis to this day, albeit without the harsh physical punishments.

Islam

Islam’s ideas about adultery are similar to those found in the Pentateuch. However, the Quran uses the Arabic word zina to refer to any sexual intercourse outside of a valid marriage contract, regardless of whether the individuals involved are single or married (this is perhaps similar to the Greek word porneia which can also mean any sexual misconduct). Based on this, Quran 24:2 says

However, lest someone in the community try to use this punishment to hurt someone who is actually innocent, Quran 24:4 says

Hinduism

According to Hindu religious texts, Hinduism also sees adultery as a grave violation which has long-term consequences in this life and future lives. For example, in the Hindu scripture known as the Vishnu Purana 3.11, it says

Furthermore, another Hindu scripture known as the Manusmriti, written between 200 BCE and 200 CE, says in Chapter 8 that

The frequent parentheses in these verses indicate gaps in the manuscripts which scholars and translators have filled in with likely information. While ancient categories such as castes may be hard for us to go along with, it’s clear that, as in the monotheistic religions, Hinduism sees adultery as a serious violation of religious codes.

Conclusion

Most world religions prohibit adultery. However, since adultery is always defined as a violation of marriage vows, we need to understand marriage in the context in which these rules were written in order to understand what adultery originally meant.

Examinations of adultery in the Bible require the additional context that marriage was not the romantic involvement of two people who vowed loving fidelity only to each other. Instead, it was a political and economic contract between two families. Marriages were arranged by the families, not the individuals getting married, and the father of the groom had to pay a price to the father of the bride.

Although unfortunate, it’s easy to see, then, how in Exodus, a wife is listed along with commodities like a house and livestock, which others should not covet. In the Old Testament world, adultery was not a personal violation against an individual, but a violation of the honor and economic status of the family.

In the New Testament, Jesus says that anyone who lusts for a woman, even if he never interacts with her at all, is guilty of adultery. While there is no historical evidence of widespread acceptance of this notion (how could it be enforced, after all?), it was meant to show that Jesus took the Torah more seriously than the Jewish leaders of his day.

Finally, Paul noted that a long list of sinners, adulterers included, were in grave danger of losing their inheritance of the Kingdom of God. While adultery wasn’t listed as better or worse than any other sin, it was serious enough to have grave consequences in the hereafter.

What Does the Bible Say About Lust?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

What does the Bible say about lust? Does it treat it the same as other types of temptation? For many modern readers, the word immediately brings to mind sexual desire, often in a negative, or even shameful, sense. But the biblical picture is far more nuanced, ultimately prompting us to ask a question: when the Bible warns against lust, is it condemning a specific kind of desire, or something deeper within the human heart?

To answer that, we need to look beyond modern definitions and explore how the concept of lust is used throughout Scripture. By examining both the Hebrew and Greek terms behind the word, as well as key passages in the Old and New Testaments, we can better understand what is actually being prohibited—and why.

Definitions and Translations

In its oldest English form, the word lust simply meant “desire, appetite, or inclination.” This could include, but was not limited to, sex. We still see this meaning in modern phrases like “lust for life,” which simply means a strong desire to live life fully. However, over time, the meaning of lust became more limited in English, and now most of us associate the word only with sexual desire. Is that limited meaning common to the Bible as well?

Actually, if we’re going to look into what the Bible says about lust, we’ll need to dig further into what it means, both now, and in the ancient languages in which the Bible was written. Since the Old Testament was written almost entirely in Hebrew (with a smidgen of Aramaic thrown in), let’s begin there.

In Hebrew, the main verb translated as lust is ṯaḥmōḏ, a word that generally means “desire,” and thus applies not only to sexual topics but to anything desirable. As we’ll see below, ṯaḥmōḏ is applied to many different objects in the Old Testament.

The same is true in the New Testament, where the Greek verb for lust is epithumeó, a word which simply means “to long for or desire.” Where does it say that this word solely applies to sex? It doesn't. Can it apply to sex? Of course. Does it have to apply to sex? No.

Keep these broader meanings in mind as we look at what the Bible says about lust and what is actually prohibited.

What Does the Bible Say About Lust in the Old Testament?

In the Old Testament, where does it say there are specific situations where someone may show lust? We first see this word used in the Ten Commandments, specifically in Exodus 20:17:

Here, we see the general meaning of ṯaḥmōḏ as covet or desire. While lusting for your neighbor’s wife probably does include a sexual element, lusting for your neighbor’s ox probably doesn’t.

In fact, most of the uses of ṯaḥmōḏ in the Hebrew Bible refer to a strong desire for material objects rather than sex. Most of the time, this is not translated as “lust” but rather as “covet.”

Given all the uses of ṯaḥmōḏ as coveting, we see that it usually refers not only to sex, but more generally to greed. One can certainly be greedy for sex as one can be greedy for money, but it seems that the Old Testament does not make a big distinction between these two inner inclinations. It does distinguish, however, between physical acts of greed (like theft) and physical acts of lust (like fornication or adultery), but the inner disposition that leads to those acts seems to be one and the same.

There is, however, an example of ṯaḥmōḏ used in a sexual context in Proverbs 6:23–25: 

Note that even though the context here is sexual, the verses are not talking about any woman but “the wife of another.” In the commandment not to covet someone else’s wife from Exodus, the wife is listed among possessions, just like a house and livestock. In other words, even in a sexual context, ṯaḥmōḏ can be associated more broadly with avarice than with sexual desire as such.

What Does the Bible Say About Lust in the New Testament?

Remember that the Greek word for lust is epithumeó, a word that, like ṯaḥmōḏ, simply means to desire. So where does it say that sexual lust is forbidden? It’s addressed directly by Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28

From the context, there is no doubt that Jesus is referring here to our modern usage of lust as sexual desire or lust of the flesh. Rather than simply condemn the physical acts of fornication or adultery, Jesus here actually condemns the inner inclination that precedes those acts. This is a radical statement, requiring men to somehow prevent lustful thoughts from even arising.

This verse explains, for example, how Catholicism views lust. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2351, it says that “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.” In other words, sexual activity is to be used for procreation and to bring a married couple closer to each other. Any other inner disposition which might lead to extramarital sexual activity of any kind is considered sinful.

Elsewhere in the New Testament, Paul refers to the lust of the flesh explicitly in 1 Thessalonians 4:3–5, where he is discussing God’s will in relation to sex:

Note that Paul is not condemning lust in general—he knows that all people experience it— but he is condemning “sexual immortality,” or porneias in Greek. This Greek word was applied to any act deemed sexually sinful but certainly applied to sex outside of marriage in Christian writings. David Fox Sandmel, writing in the Jewish Annotated New Testament, clarifies that the importance of maintaining sexual purity in Paul’s opinion is to “set themselves apart from non-believers.”

What does the Bible say about sex before marriage? In 1 Corinthians 7:1–3, Paul has a clear answer for this question:

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Interestingly, Paul acknowledges that because it’s almost impossible to suppress lust entirely, it’s better to channel it into marriage.

Meanwhile, an interesting use of a form of epithumeó, one in which the meaning is a general desire but certainly could be applied to sexual desire, is found in James 4:1–2:

In this case, the author is not concerned at all about the specific object of desire—it could be a mere thing, or it could be a person as in the modern notion of lust. Instead, he is concerned that a strong desire for anything causes conflicts and thus leads to other sins. Incidentally, the word translated as “covet” here— zēloute—means “to envy.” When it comes to the Ten Commandments in the Greek Old Testament (known as the Septuagint), however, the word for covet is epithymiseis, another form of epithumeó.

Most other NT verses about sexual immorality deal directly with sexual acts outside of marriage, not with the inclination that causes them (see 1 Cor 6:12–13 and 1 Cor 6:18–20). It’s abundantly clear in context, however, when epithumeó refers to sexual lust and when it refers to strong desire or greed more generally. Again, we’re left with the impression that while acts of sexual immorality, porneia, and acts of greed like theft, kleptō, are condemned separately, the inclinations that drive them—strong desire—are viewed as one and the same.

Adultery in the Bible: New Testament Verses

Judaism

Unsurprisingly, Jewish tradition after the Hebrew Bible has continued to prohibit extramarital sex. Lust outside of marriage was classified by the rabbis as yetzer hara, usually translated as “evil inclination.” It is the tendency to misuse what we need to survive. The yetzer hara can thus turn the natural need for food into gluttony or the natural inclination to procreate into promiscuity. This means that sexual lust is not classified as explicitly sinful unless it is followed by a forbidden sexual act.

For this reason, Rabbi Michael Gold writes that

In other words, by separating the sexes and maintaining modesty, the rabbis hoped to avoid the occurrence of extramarital relations when the yetzer hara attempted to turn lustful thoughts into unlawful actions. Gold writes that all forms of modern Judaism maintain the prohibition on sexual activity outside of marriage.

Islam

The Quran warns about controlling lust before it results in a harmful action, that is, sexual activity outside of marriage. For instance, Quran 24:30 says

Notice two factors here: Men are ordered not to allow the sight of an attractive woman to trick them into unchastity, but they are also warned that Allah is always watching. For women, as for most ancient religions, the instructions involve dressing with modesty so as not to excite the men, seen here in Quran 24:31:

For both men and women, the Quran recognizes that once lust has been stirred up within a person, an unlawful act may easily follow. For this reason, there is a hadith, one of a collection of traditions and sayings of the prophet Muhammad, in which Muhammad tells his cousin Ali

That is, a first look at an attractive woman is permissible but a second look, allowing lustful inclination to increase, is not.

Hinduism

In one of the best-known Hindu scriptures, the Bhagavad Gita, there are several warnings about the dangers of lust, both as sexual desire and desire in general. For example, in BG 3.37, we read

The Bhagavad Gita was written in an ancient Indian language called Sanskrit. In that language, the word kām can mean either sexual lust or merely a strong desire, much like the words for these concepts in Hebrew and Greek we discussed above. It is interesting, though, to see how this strong desire, sexual or otherwise, is also seen in the Bhagavad Gita as the beginning of anger, which is considered an even more serious probelm. There is a similarity here to the passage in James above which identified desire with conflict.

Another Bhagavad Gita passage (2.62) emphasizes this connection between lust and anger:

A commentary on this verse notes that “anger, greed, lust, etc. are considered in the Vedic scriptures as mānas rog, or diseases of the mind.” The list above then, from attachment to desire to anger, reads like an etiology of these “diseases.”

In a final passage from BG 3.39, we read that

While again, desire here means any strong desire, this passage specifically emphasizes how even wise people lose their wisdom when their minds/hearts are overtaken by strong desires.

Conclusion

As something most humans experience in their lives, lust is a complicated topic. L While most religions clearly state that sex is only permitted within the bonds of marriage, lust, as an inner inclination, is more difficult to legislate.

What does the Bible say about lust? Most of the ancient languages discussed in this article make no explicit distinction between sexual lust and other strong inner desires, using one word for both. In other words, as an inner tendency, lust for sex and a strong desire for money come from the same place. However, in the prohibited acts that such tendencies encourage, a distinction is definitely made.

In the Hebrew Bible, for instance, the word for lust is often used to mean coveting—that is, wanting what someone else has. In other places, such as the warnings against promiscuous women in Proverbs, the meaning is more explicitly sexual, although even there, many of the warnings are about taking the wife of another man.

Meanwhile, in one of Jesus’ best-known sayings from the Sermon on the Mount, he equates lust with adultery. While it’s hard to imagine that he thought the two entirely equal, it’s likely that he meant to encourage his followers to guard their thoughts as well as their actions.

Finally, it’s clear that in other world religions, such as Islam and Hinduism, the same prohibitions on extramarital sexual involvements apply, prohibitions which also encourage curbing inner desires. While in some cases the reasons for these differ from each other, in practice, requirements of fidelity and chastity look quite similar across traditions.

To Whom Was the Gospel of John Written?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Distinct in style, theology, and tone from the other three Gospels, the Gospel of John presents a portrait of Jesus that is at once intimate and cosmic, grounded in narrative yet soaring in philosophical depth. But behind its poetic language and bold claims lies a fundamental historical question: to whom was the Gospel of John written?

Exploring this question can shed light on the origins of the Gospel of John. It can also deepen our understanding of early Christianity itself—a movement far more complex, contested, and dynamic than it is often assumed to be.

Who Wrote the Gospel of John?

While the name John has been assigned to this Gospel since at least the 2nd century CE, our oldest manuscripts of it, like those of the other three Gospels, have no such title or authorial ascription. In fact, it was written anonymously, leaving us to decipher textual clues about who wrote the book and with what purpose. Because of this, biblical scholars over the last couple of centuries have formulated theories about who the anonymous author of the Gospel of John was and to whom it was written.

As Bart Ehrman points out, the first Christian author we see attributing this Gospel to the disciple known as John, the son of Zebedee, is Irenaeus, a bishop and heresy hunter who wrote around 185 CE. Unfortunately, that’s almost a century after the Gospel was written, so it’s hard to know the accuracy of such a designation. Ehrman goes on to mention how ancient readers arrived at the conclusion that John had written this book.

John 19:35 and 21:20–24 seem to say that the author was one of the 12 disciples, the unnamed “one whom Jesus loved.” Based on that assumption, Ehrman writes, ancient readers had to decide which of the disciples this author could be:

The only choice left, then, was John, the son of Zebedee. While there are many good reasons to doubt this conclusion from a historical perspective, it seems to have been the thought process by which ancient Christians came to believe in John as the book’s author. But whether John or someone else wrote this Gospel, what clues can we find in the text itself to identify its intended audience and purpose?

Modern Theories on the Intended Audience of the Gospel of John

It’s fairly certain that the Gospel of John was written with a specific audience in mind. Since John is so different from the other Gospels, most scholars believe that it is addressing a specific Christian group and their sociohistorical situation. In fact, there’s a clear statement of purpose near the end of the Gospel in 20:30–31:

The “you” in this passage is the second person plural in Greek, addressing a group. This group, whoever they were, apparently saw belief in Jesus as both transformative and life-giving. Or perhaps the author wanted the group to believe this and wrote in order to convince them.

In attempting to identify John’s audience, the first question modern scholars of the 19th and early 20th centuries had to address was whether the Gospel of John was written in order to convert non-Christians or for the edification or education of an already-established group of Christians. Was it for insiders or outsiders? While early theorists believed it was written as a missionary text to convert non-Christians, by the second half of the 20th century, the scholarly consensus had determined that it was written for insiders. But who were these specific Christians?

One idea, represented well by the book History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel by J. Louis Martyn, said that they were a group of Jewish Christians who had been expelled from the synagogues for their belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Where did this notion come from? In John 16:2–3, Jesus warns his disciples of what will happen to them in the future:

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Many scholars thus concluded that the author was part of a community to which he was writing, a Johannine community, as scholars called it, which was rejected by Jewish leaders and was being persecuted by more mainstream forms of Judaism in the late 1st or early 2nd century. The purpose of the book, then, as well as the letters of 1, 2, and 3 John, was to encourage this community of believers not to despair and to maintain their Christian faith until the end despite persecution to attain eternal life.

Alternative Theories About the Gospel of John’s Audience

In 1979, scholar Raymond Brown wrote a book called The Community of the Beloved Disciple. In it, Brown argued that the story of Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman in John 4 indicated that the Johannine community included Samaritan members. He furthermore claimed that the encounter with Greeks who wish to follow Jesus in John 12:20–26 and the reference Jesus makes to “other sheep” in John 10:16 (possibly referring to future Gentile followers) mean that the group contained Gentile members as well. In other words, this was not a Jewish-only group as had been assumed.

While agreeing with Brown’s thesis about the presence of Samaritans and Gentiles in the group, Adele Reinhartz, writing in Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology, believes that the occasion of the Gospel was less about external persecution and more about infighting. Thus, she argues that while all the members believed in Christ,

In other words, Reinhartz believes that the author of John wrote his Gospel to foster unity in a diverse group in which disagreements were frequent. Part of fostering this unity was distancing themselves from “the Jews,” who frequently play the villains in John’s Gospel. Reinhartz points out that while John refers to many binaries— light/dark, life/death, above/below— the positive term in each pair is associated with Jesus while the negative is associated with Jesus’ opponents, framed by the author as “the Jews.” This created a rhetorical situation in which one can either be on the side of Jesus or on the side of the Jews, but not both. Even Jewish members, whom Reinhartz believes were the majority of group members, had to make their allegiances clear.

Another Theory: No Group at All!

While the theories I’ve discussed so far have focused on the composition and social situation of a Johannine group, a more recent work argues that such a group may have been entirely fictional. In his article “Did the Johannine Community Exist?,” and in his book The Gospel of John: A New History, Hugo Méndez argues that the combination of the Gospel of John with the three Johannine letters in the New Testament created the idea of a group which was entirely imaginary.

His theory begins with the notion that the supposed eyewitness who is claimed as the source of the Gospel (John 21:24) is likely a useful fiction, which might explain why this “beloved disciple” is never named:

If this eyewitness were in fact one of the original 12 disciples, why not name him? In fact, Méndez points out that ancient pseudepigrapha, literature written in someone else’s name, usually increased credibility by claiming an ideal eyewitness as source or author. This lends credence to the idea that this Beloved Disciple and his group may not have actually existed. However, if there were no Johannine community, who was the intended audience of the Gospel of John?

Méndez believes that the book and its ideas were the work of a single author, putting out an extraordinary claim not found in the Synoptic Gospels:

Méndez goes on to theorize that the author, while he may have been attached to a local congregation somewhere, may not have written the book for them but rather in order to disseminate his own ideas more widely, perhaps depositing the book into a local library or a literary collection. Furthermore,

In other words, perhaps the Gospel of John was not written to an already existing community, but to create a community of people who agreed with the author’s unusual perspective on Jesus.

Conclusion

It has long been noted that the Gospel of John differs from the Synoptics in a number of ways. Rather than focusing almost entirely on the Kingdom of God, the Jesus of John’s Gospel focuses more on his own identity as a celestial man and Messiah. In addition, its miracle stories are designated explicitly as “signs” of Jesus’ identity, and its structure and timeline are distinct from the other three Gospels. Noting these differences, we must ask to whom the Gospel of John was written.

While the earliest modern theories argued that the book was a tool used for evangelizing to non-Christians, more recent scholars claim that it was written instead for a group of insiders, a Johannine community. Early ideas about this community said they were Jewish Christians who had been expelled from synagogues because of their belief in Jesus as the Messiah. However, some later scholars have speculated that the community was made up of Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles, and that internecine fighting between these groups inspired the author of John to write a unifying narrative.

The most radical notion of all, though, comes from recent work by Hugo Méndez, who argues that there was no such Johannine group. Instead, he theorizes that the shadowy nature of the unknown “beloved disciple” who is supposed to be the author and/or source of the book was an invented character used to propagate the radical spiritual views of a single author. This author was ultimately able to popularize his views, which resulted in widespread copying and use of the text. There was no Johannine community, in other words, until the Gospel of John created it.

Is Being Gay a Sin in the Bible?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Is being gay a sin in the Bible? That’s one question that consistently generates debate among Christians today. At first glance, the answer can seem obvious: certain passages appear to speak directly and negatively about same-sex behavior. But a closer look reveals a far more complex picture—one shaped by language, culture, and ancient assumptions that are very different from our own.

In this article, I’ll take a closer look at the key biblical texts commonly associated with homosexuality, from the story of Sodom in Genesis to the writings of Paul in the New Testament. Along the way, we’ll explore how historical context, translation, and evolving interpretations complicate simple answers—and why understanding the ancient world is essential for making sense of what the Bible does, and does not, say about being gay.

What Does the Bible Say About Gay People? Sexual Identity in the Ancient World vs. Today

It may seem strange to us now, but ancient people did not think of sexuality as an identity issue. In fact, as psychologist and scholar Chris Cooper writes,

In contrast to viewing sexual desires and acts as defining one’s identity, sexual acts instead defined social status in the ancient world. As David Halperin writes in his article “Is There a History of Sexuality?”, sex in many ancient documents is portrayed “not as a mutual enterprise in which two or more persons jointly engage but as an action performed by a social superior upon a social inferior.” For example, it was acceptable for a man to have sex with another man as long as he was the penetrator. The one being penetrated, whether a woman or a man, was considered socially inferior, as this position was seen as degrading.

It’s important to understand this before we look at specific references to homosexual activity in the Bible because looking at it from our modern perspective—where sexuality is considered part of one’s essence—can easily obscure the intent of the passage. Is being gay a sin? The question actually makes little sense in the ancient world because while there were, of course, homosexual desires and acts, there was no identity category for “homosexual people.”

Having established that ancient viewpoint, I’ll now investigate passages commonly referred to from the Bible in reference to homosexuality. Let’s see what the above way of understanding ancient sexuality can tell us about those biblical passages.

Genesis 19:1–11: The Story of Sodom

This passage from Genesis is the longest of those I’ll be considering today, but I think it’s important to quote it here in full before we start our analysis. The pretext of this story concerns Abraham’s cousin Lot who, along with his family, has moved to the wicked city of Sodom. Since God has decided to destroy the city, two angels are sent to warn Lot to flee:

The demand of the citizens of Sodom that Lot send out the men “that we may know them” has an unusual meaning in the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word for “know” in this sentence can simply mean to have knowledge of something. However, in The Bible Now, Richard Friedman and Shawna Dolansky, note that in addition, “the word ‘know’ in biblical Hebrew can indeed mean to know someone with sexual intimacy.” In other words, the men of the city do not simply want to meet and greet the two angels. This is a threat of rape.

afBecause of this, many later interpreters of the passage have assumed that the wickedness for which God eventually destroys Sodom is homosexuality. But many scholars have seen a different side of the story. First, Ezekiel 16:49 does not agree with this interpretation. Instead, the author writes that

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

This is completely different from the sexual sin interpreted by most later Christian commentators. In fact, in his article ”Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality”, Robert Gnuse notes that the “sin of Sodom” is more likely rape or attempted rape.

Furthermore, in A Tale of Two Cities: Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, Early Jewish and Early Christian Traditions, J.A. Loader writes that for the authors of the Talmud, the central text of rabbinic Judaism, God destroys Sodom for a lack of generosity, and says the attempted rape of the angels was an indication of the city's infringement of the near eastern social mandate of hospitality.

These different interpretations call into question the idea that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, despite the fact that the English word “sodomy” was coined from the name of that doomed city.

Let’s move on to another book from the Pentateuch and the Old Testament passage most often used to condemn homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13

For many who condemn homosexuality, these two verses are a clear indication of the divine prohibition of homosexual acts:

If this seems entirely cut and dried, let’s start by remembering that “homosexual” as a category of identity didn’t exist when Leviticus was written. Instead, these passages are condemning a certain type of activity rather than a certain type of person. Other than that, however, what else could this verse be referring to?

Over time, an interesting range of interpretations of these passages have emerged. In his article “Don’t Do What to Whom? A Survey of Historical-Critical Scholarship on Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13,” Mark Preston Stone notes no less than 21 different interpretations of this biblical law. Among these is the idea that it is not condemning all homosexual activity, but merely pederasty—sexual activity between a man and a boy. The ancient Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria interpreted the passage this way, as did Protestant reformer Martin Luther.

Meanwhile, later scholars, including James Brownson and Robert Gagnon, assert that this Levitical law refers to common cultic prostitution practices of other Near Eastern cultures at the time the law was written. In other words, male-male sexual activity was tied to the prohibited activities of idolatry.

Finally, other modern scholars such as Jacob Milgrom and Adrien Schenker that the reason for the prohibition on male-male sex acts is that it wastes procreative possibilities. In other words, God told human beings to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Thus, any sex act which cannot result in conception is a sin against God.

While no one can confirm with certainty that any of the 21 interpretations catalogued by Stone are infallibly correct, we can at least say that the interpretation of these passages is anything but straightforward and simple.

As we move into the New Testament, let’s begin with a look at Jesus’ perspective on homosexuality, according to the Gospels.

What Did Jesus Say About Homosexuality?

Let’s start with the most obvious answer: Jesus said nothing explicitly about homosexuality in the Bible. For all the moral injunctions we find in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, none of them say anything about homosexuality.

Having said that, it’s important to note that some scholars and theologians argue that if you read between the lines, Jesus did argue that homosexuality was forbidden. For example, take a look at this passage from Matthew 19:4–6:

Based on this passage, Robert Gagnon writes “It is obvious that Jesus presupposed a two-sex requirement for marriage…” Gagnon therefore argues that “there is no basis for assuming that Jesus took a different view of” gay marriage.

However, Bart Ehrman, writing on the same passage, says that this argument is dangerous in that it assumes facts not in evidence.

In addition to the lack of evidence, Gagnon’s argument leaves out the context which makes sense of Jesus’ words. Preceding this passage in Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees have asked Jesus if a man can divorce his wife for any and all reasons. In other words, the question is not “who should get married and who shouldn’t?”, a question that would probably not have occurred to someone in the ancient world.

As Ehrman notes, if we’re really going to look for Jesus’ position on homosexuality, we have to admit that it may not have concerned him, since “In our surviving records Jesus says nothing about same-sex acts or sexual orientation.  Nothing.  Nada.”

But what about Paul’s writings? Does Paul condemn homosexual behavior?

1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:10

Writing to the Christian community in Corinth, Paul certainly seems to be more explicit about homosexuality than Jesus:

At issue in this passage, as in many biblical passages, is the translation of two Greek words from the oldest manuscripts. The first is malakoi, a word which my lexicon translates with a variety of words, including soft, gentle, mild, and cowardly. However, near the end of the definitions, the word “effeminate” is included as well (in the NRSV translation above, they’ve translated it as “male prostitutes”).

The second word, translated above as “men who engage in illicit sex,” is arsenokoitai, a word comprised of two words: arsen meaning “man” and koitēn meaning “bed.” However, the word is first found in the writings of Paul and does not appear in the writings of his contemporaries. So while it might mean “homosexual,” scholars still debate the meaning of this apparently newly-coined Pauline word, which is also used by the author of 1 Timothy 1:10, a letter written in Paul’s name that was probably not written by Paul.

For instance, in his book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell writes that arsenokoitai "did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers." In addition, Boswell writes that, in the writings of other Christian authors, the word is used, not for homosexuality, but possibly for prostitution, while church historian Eusebius used it to refer to women.

So, in this passage, did Paul condemn homosexual behavior? Maybe, but it’s far from clear. He may have been referring instead to the common Greco-Roman practices of male prostitution and pederasty. To be sure, though, let’s look at one more passage from Paul’s letter to the Romans.

Romans 1:26–27

In a passage in this letter in which Paul is discussing pagans, he writes

Scholars have written a variety of interpretations of this passage, although we must admit that many have simply interpreted it as a blanket condemnation of all homosexual activity. Nevertheless, in the The HarperCollins Study Bible, Leander Keck writes that Paul’s “repetition of the word ‘exchanged’ is deliberate: moral confusion follows idolatry.” In other words, because pagans were worshipping the wrong gods, they lost track of what God wanted them to do. In addition, Mark Nanos, writing in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, notes that

In other words, Paul may simply see same-sex acts as a refusal to procreate, which was the first commandment God gave humans in Genesis. In addition, it is clear, many Jews in Paul’s time stereotyped Gentiles as immoral and overindulgent. Perhaps Paul is simply reflecting this common prejudice in this passage.

In his book The New Testament and Homosexuality, Robin Scroggs argues that this passage “does not condemn homosexual relations as such, but rather the exploitation involved in the relations between master and slave, or between young adults (pederasty), or prostitution.” Meanwhile, in their book What God Has Joined Together: The Christian Case for Gay Marriage – How Faith Communities Can Bridge the Divide with Love and the Bible, David Myers and Letha Scanzoni claim that Paul “is only considering the case of heterosexuals having homosexual relations. One cannot therefore use Romans 1 as an argument to condemn the stable union of two homosexuals.”

Again, what is most clear is how contested the interpretation of these passages is when you have all, or at least more of, the historical facts.

Conclusion

Whether the Bible condones or condemns being gay, the topic has long been a contentious issue in Christianity. There are biblical passages which may seem to prohibit it until you consider a few relevant facts.

First, the idea of “being gay” is extremely new in human history. Until the 19th century, people were not defined by their sexual activity; it was not considered a part of their identity but rather as a type of sexual activity. If we try to read our notions of homosexual identity back onto ancient writings, we are sure to misinterpret them. The Bible does not discuss sexual orientation as an identity, but it does include passages about same-sex acts.

Second, even in biblical passages which either connote or denote homosexual acts, the intended emphasis is rarely on those acts themselves. For instance, many scholars interpret the “sin of Sodom” from Genesis as attempted rape and/or a refusal to grant hospitality to strangers rather than homosexuality as such.

Third, despite the assumptions of many readers who want to imprint their own morality on Jesus, he said nothing about homosexuality. Either it didn’t concern him as a sin or it was low on the totem pole, far behind the refusal to give to those in need, for example.

Finally, even in passages like Romans 1:26–27 where Paul clearly does condemn same-sex acts, his intended meaning is far from clear. In fact, as with any biblical text, meanings have to be negotiated between reading individuals and communities with respect to what we know of the cultures and reasoning of ancient people.

Honor Your Father and Mother: Meaning & Verses

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Few biblical teachings are as familiar—or as deceptively simple—as the command to “honor your father and mother.” This directive, traditionally the fifth of the Ten Commandments, has shaped moral thinking for thousands of years, appearing straightforward on the surface yet revealing surprising depth when examined closely. What does it truly mean to “honor” one’s parents? Is it merely about obedience, or does it point to something richer—something rooted in culture, language, and evolving religious thought?

In this article, I’ll explore the “honor your father and mother” verse across its many dimensions, beginning with its earliest form in Exodus and tracing how its meaning develops through different translations, historical contexts, and biblical traditions. Looking closely at the language, history, and interpretations surrounding this well-known verse, we can get a deeper understanding not only of what it meant in the past, but what it might still demand of us today.

Different Translations of the Commandment

As with any important biblical text, there are multiple forms of the fifth Commandment, some of which contain different wording. Let’s look initially at what is likely the oldest version we have, from Exodus 20:12. Below is the NRSV translation from the authoritative Hebrew version known as the Masoretic Text:

A note on translation is important here. The Hebrew word translated as “honor” is kab·bêḏ. While the adjective form kabad means “to be heavy” or even “to be a burden,” the active form, kab·bêḏ, means “to give weight or significance to.” In other words, the literal translation of the Commandment says to treat your mother and father as weighty or important, to honor and/or respect them, in other words.

I note this translation because the Greek Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, uses a different verb for “honor.” In the Septuagint, the fifth Commandment begins with the word tima. This word certainly does mean “honor” but can also mean “to set the value” of something. In other words, while this Commandment in Greek instructs people to honor their parents, it also wants them to establish for themselves the value of their parents. Then, they are not just honoring them because of their genetic connection but also because they are people who literally add value to their children’s lives.

In most English translations, the wording of the Commandment is remarkably similar. In addition to the NRSV above, here are five other English translations of Exodus 20:12:

Despite huge differences in the wording of many biblical passages in different translations, this Commandment is fairly straightforward in lexical terms.

Different Versions of This Commandment in the Hebrew Bible

The closest we have to a direct repetition of this Commandment in the Old Testament is found in Deuteronomy 5:16, although it is slightly different:

Notice that in this version, the reward for honoring parents is not merely a long life but also that things “go well” for you in the Promised Land. This is a recontextualizing of the narrative surrounding the granting of the Ten Commandments. In the Exodus version, Moses receives this Commandment directly from God on Mount Sinai while the Israelites are still wandering in the wilderness. While they hope to arrive in the Promised Land, they are told to follow this Commandment simply to have a long life in whatever situation they are in.

In Deuteronomy, however, the Israelites are about to enter the Promised Land when Moses gives the long speech which includes the Ten Commandments. In fact, obedience to the Commandments is required by God for the Israelites to take possession of the land. The promised reward, then, includes the success of the attempt to take the land forcibly from its current inhabitants.

Both this version and the Exodus version also include, in later verses, the designated punishment for not honoring one’s parents: “Whoever curses father or his mother shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:17). The harshness of this penalty shows the extreme significance given to honoring one’s parents. In fact, Deuteronomy 21:18–21 makes the punishment for disobeying parents both more specific and harsher:

Why would such an extreme sentence be given merely for disobeying—and thus dishonoring—one’s parents? The answer to that lies in the family structure of ancient Israel.

How and Why Ancient Israelites Honored their Parents

In Families in Ancient Israel, Carol Meyers writes that honoring parents could literally be a matter of life and death for ancient Israelite families, and not just because harsh punishments awaited those who disobeyed. Meyers notes that ancient Israelites were an agrarian society, raising crops for their own consumption. Meyers notes that this mode of living affected how personal identity was conceived:

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

For this reason, Meyers says that the kind of individual identity that is the basis of most modern societies simply did not exist for ancient Israelites. She goes on to note that the very survival of the individuals in a family depended on  parents being able to pass down knowledge and skills related to farming to their offspring:

So why the extreme punishments outlined in Exodus and Deuteronomy for those who failed to obey parents? Meyers writes that

In other words, disobeying parents in a precarious agrarian society could mean the difference between life and death, not only for the one disobeying but for the whole family. Since identity was essentially collective, honoring the authority of the family patriarch and matriarch was absolutely essential. There was no room for error.

“Honor Your Father and Mother” Meaning in the New Testament

Pauline literature, especially those letters written in Paul’s name by later followers, preserves the mandate to honor father and mother, although predictably, the context is quite different from that of Exodus and Deuteronomy.

In fact, in the face of the urban reality of most early Christians, agrarian survival was not the main priority. However, “Paul,” in a section of writings in Ephesians and Colossians known as the Household Codes, gives specific instructions to communities on how a Christian household should operate:

It’s important to note here that the purpose of the Commandment in these writings, as well as others from the Decalogue, has changed. Whereas before, honoring parental authority was basically a matter of life and death, here it is simply a religious duty undertaken to please God. Since Christians believed in an afterlife of rewards and punishments, this did ultimately have high stakes, but the rewards and punishments were less immediate than those implied in the Pentateuch.

So what about the Gospels? Did Jesus honor his parents and encourage others to do the same?

Did Jesus Honor His Parents?

In a story from Luke 2:41–52, a 12-year-old Jesus goes to Jerusalem with his parents for Passover. When the festival is over, Jesus’ parents leave, believing Jesus to be among other travelers they know. When they don’t find him, they rush back to Jerusalem, only to find Jesus in the Temple, talking and listening to religious teachers:

Note that Jesus acted either on his own initiative, or perhaps based on what he felt God wanted, by not leaving obediently with his parents when they left. However, the last sentence of the passage says that he obeyed them from then on. Many biblical interpretations of this passage say that in this scene, Jesus was modeling the correct order of authority, with God first and family second. But what about during Jesus’ ministry? Did he honor his parents in that later context?

In a scene from Mark 3:31–35, Jesus is speaking to a crowd when his family comes calling:

A faith-oriented note on this passage in The Orthodox Study Bible, says that “Christ’s relatives have not yet understood His identity and mission. He points to a spiritual family based on obedience to the will of My Father.” While this is certainly a common religious interpretation, it’s difficult in the context of the Ten Commandments, to discount how Jesus seems to have no particular regard for his mother in this scene.

This is essentially confirmed by Lawrence Wills, writing on the Gospel of Mark in The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Wills notes that “New religious movements often create “fictive families” of social networks outside of traditional families, with members called ‘brothers and sisters,’ ‘saints,’ and so on.” In other words, the new “family” found within the group often supersedes the members’ original families in importance.

A further example of Jesus’ attitude toward honoring parents can be found in Luke 12:51–53, where Jesus says the following:

The Orthodox Study Bible interprets this passage without explicitly referring to Jesus’ claims to divide families:

However, in the HarperCollins Study Bible, David Teide notes that in this passage we see that “the promise of peace becomes a threat of division if the Messiah is rejected.” Again, this could simply be interpreted as an encouragement to prioritize God above family, but since the commandment to honor parents came from God, it’s not easy to reconcile Jesus’ attitude with it.

Furthermore, in Luke 14:26, Jesus is even more explicit about his attitude toward family:

The Orthodox Study Bible says “The command to hate one’s kindred and his own life also is not to be taken literally. Rather we are to hate the way our relationships with others can hinder our total dedication to the Kingdom of God, which takes precedence even over family ties.” While this might make sense in a religious sense, Teide writes that the word hate is “prophetic hyperbole for the uncompromising loyalty required toward Jesus and the true family of disciples.” In other words, the command to honor your father and mother seems to be supplanted by the command to follow Jesus.

Conclusion

The fifth Commandment—“Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you—seems completely straightforward. As we’ve seen, though, there are layers of culture and necessity underlying even its simplest iterations.

For the ancient Israelites, living in a subsistence-level agrarian society, skills and knowledge necessary for survival had to be passed down effectively. This could only be done if the source of those skills and knowledge—parental figures—were granted the significance and authority that ensured children would listen to them. In this sense, honoring parents was literally a matter of life and death.

For early Christian writers, on the other hand, this Commandment was one of the foundational principles on which to base a Christian household.. Since God, the reputed source of this command, was also the Father of Jesus Christ, following its directive meant loving and valuing God by respecting one’s parents.

The story gets more complicated in the Gospels, however. Jesus seems to frequently disrespect his family members, including his parents. He willfully stays behind in Jerusalem to visit the Temple, he ignores his mother and brothers when they come to visit him, and he tells people he has come to divide families, thus encouraging loyalty to him over loyalty to parents.

Religious interpretations of Jesus’ behavior say that he was merely modeling the priority that should be given to God over family, with family a close second. This is harder to reconcile, however, with Jesus’ words in the Gospels, a fact which creates a tension between the commands of the Old Testament and those of Christ himself.

If you’d like to know more about this and other Old Testament topics, check out Bart Ehrman’s course “The Hebrew Bible” featuring scholar Dr. Joel Baden.

The Two Versions of 10 Commandments: Deuteronomy vs Exodus

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The Ten Commandments are among the most famous passages in the Bible and have shaped religious thought, ethics, and law for thousands of years. Traditionally understood as divine instructions given by God, these commandments form a central part of the Hebrew Bible and have played a foundational role in several religious traditions. Yet the biblical text itself reveals a more complex picture than many people realize.

What many don’t realize is that there are two versions of the Ten Commandments and that they are worded slightly differently in each version. By examining these different versions—particularly those found in Exodus and Deuteronomy—we can better understand not only what the Ten Commandments say, but also how they developed over time and why they have been interpreted in different ways across centuries of religious history.

What Are the Ten Commandments?

The Ten Commandments are a set of moral and religious instructions from the Hebrew Bible. In the original Hebrew they are called ʿĂśéreṯ had-Dibbərôṯ, which simply means “the ten words (or sentences).” In the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible known as the Septuagint, they are called dekálogos, again “ten words,” from which we get our English word, the Decalogue, another name for the Ten Commandments.

According to the Hebrew Bible account, God gave the commandments to Moses—first orally and then in written form—who then gave them to the Israelites.

The Ten Commandments are an important part of the Torah for Jews (along with more than 600 other commandments). However, they are also foundational for Christians and Muslims, although interpretations may vary slightly within the three traditions.

In this article, however, we’ll look at two versions of the Ten Commandments, the first from Exodus 20 and the second from Deuteronomy 5, and analyze their differences. Take a look at the comparison chart below, borrowed from “The Decalogue or Ten Commandments: Similarities and Differences in Religious Traditions” by Felix Just.

The first thing you’ll notice is that the two versions are nearly identical. The main differences occur in only two of the Commandments. However, before we look at those differences, we need to understand that different religious traditions enumerate the commandments differently. Look specifically at the middle columns, telling us how Jewish, Orthodox Christians, the majority of Protestants, Lutherans specifically, and Catholics enumerate the commandments differently.

Adherents of Judaism traditionally view the prologue—“I am the LORD your God”—as the first Commandment, followed by “You shall have no other gods before me” as the second. Protestants, on the other hand, see the Jews’ second Commandment as the first. Why are these numbered differently in different traditions, resulting in two versions of the Ten Commandments? It all comes down to how the manuscript evidence presents the passage. As Felix Just notes, the Ten Commandments

The line breaks that we see between Commandments in our modern Bibles, as well as chapters and verses, were not there in ancient manuscripts but were a later innovation. The original versions were simply included in blocks of text. Early interpreters thus had to decide which lines constituted commandments and which were merely prologues or explanations of the Commandments. For this reason, I won’t refer to the first or second Commandments in this article. Instead, I’ll just quote each Commandment itself, leaving out the numbers.

How and Why Are the Two Lists Different?

When it comes to any biblical text, including the Ten Commandments, interpretations vary. In fact, in The Decalogue through the Centuries: From the Hebrew Scriptures to Benedict XVI, Daniel Block writes that the Commandments were written as broad and general, which permitted varied interpretations. In other words, the author(s) of the Commandments supplied guiding norms that could be relevant across changing situations and conditions.

It’s also important to note, as Michael Coogan does, that the fact that the Exodus Ten Commandments and Deuteronomy Ten Commandments are (slightly) different shows that the text of the Ten Commandments remained somewhat fluid and changeable at the time they were written. As we’ll see, the dissimilarities indicate that the two versions had a different focus.

First, in the Commandment about the Sabbath, there is a major distinction between the explanations for why it is necessary to “remember” or “observe” the Sabbath, which in this case means to refrain from all work on that day. In the Exodus version (Exodus 20:11) we see this:

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

In this Ten Commandments Exodus passage, the reason given for resting on the Sabbath is to commemorate the completion of God’s creation by making the next day holy. However, in Deuteronomy 5:15, we see a different rationale for not working on the Sabbath:

In that Ten Commandments Deuteronomy excerpt, the Sabbath is a day for the Israelites to honor God for liberating them from Egypt. What do those differing rationales tell us?

In his Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, John J. Collins writes that the two versions were written by two different sources. The Exodus version is generally believed to have been written by the E or Elohist source in the 9th century BCE, while the Deuteronomy version was written later by the D or Deuteronomist source in the 7th century BCE (if you’re not familiar with these sources, this article on Genesis explains them). This means that the D source likely used the E source version as a basis, much like the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. However, the two sources were from different regions and thus had a somewhat different emphasis.

We can see the different emphasis in the two versions of the Sabbath commandment. While both prohibit working on the Sabbath, the Exodus version is grounded in a theology of creation, acknowledging that their God is the Lord of the universe. The Deuteronomy version, on the other hand, is based on the notion of liberation. God is the great liberator of the Israelites and, by implication, loyalty to him will keep them free.

The other difference in commandment wording occurs in the final commandment, which prohibits coveting. In Exodus, the list of possessions not to be coveted begins with “your neighbor’s wife,” while in Deuteronomy, it begins with “your neighbor’s house.” Was this an intentional reordering of priorities between the two or just a scribal accident or mistake?

While there’s no way to be entirely sure, scholars have speculated about this. Since we know that the Exodus list was written earlier than that of Deuteronomy, it seems at least plausible that this change was made on purpose. Shawna Dolansky points out that the point of both prohibitions on coveting

If this is the case, it might be that the author of the Exodus Decalogue believed wanting another’s house was more likely to lead to unlawful activity, while the Deuteronomist believed that wanting another’s wife would do so. This is, again, speculation, but is a possible interpretation of this difference.

More Than Two Versions of the Ten Commandments? The Case of Exodus 34:11–26

While the two versions of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are remarkably similar overall, there is a third version which is quite different from them. The first two, the ones with which most of us are familiar, are often called the Ethical Decalogues, but the third is generally known as the Ritual Decalogue.

There is a specific narrative context for the Ritual Decalogue in Exodus. When Moses descends from Mount Sinai in Exodus 32 with the two stone tablets containing the Decalogue, he sees his people worshipping a golden calf instead of God. This infuriates him, causing him to smash the tablets in anger. God then tells Moses to carve out two more stone tablets and writes out the Commandments again. But wait! This time, they are almost entirely different.

The Exodus 34 version is, in large part, a set of cultic instructions for how to make sacrifices and keep holy festivals. Why would these be so different in emphasis from the Ethical Decalogue?

Well, the Ethical Decalogue is linked to the E source, as I stated above. The Ritual Decalogue, on the other hand, is linked to the J or Yahwist source, and emphasizes cultic responsibilities in order to maintain the covenant with God. Since the golden calf incident broke the covenant between God and the Israelites, scholars believe that J wrote the Ritual Decalogue to re-sanctify the people and renew that covenant.

Conclusion

The Ten Commandments have been influential for millennia. While biblical texts claim that their mandates came directly from God, there are three versions of them which seem to have different emphases.

The first version, in Exodus 20, is a list of ethical imperatives meant to preserve the fabric of Israelite society and their covenant with God by preventing conflicts. The version in Deuteronomy has this same emphasis. The main difference, owing to their different sources, is that in Exodus, God as creator is highlighted while in Deuteronomy, God as liberator is the focus.

Then there’s version number 3. The version in Exodus 34 takes the emphasis (mostly) away from ethics and focuses on the importance of the correct performance of rituals. This shows, among other things, that a third source wrote this version.

All of this goes to show the patchwork form that characterized the creation of these two biblical books and how different traditions in ancient Israel focused on different interpretations of the Israelites’ relationship with God.

By the way, if you’re interested in learning more about the Hebrew Bible, check out Bart Ehrman’s course In the Beginning: History, Legend, and Myth in Genesis.

Pseudepigrapha: Forged Writings in Early Christian Literature

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Who wrote most of the books of the Bible? For many readers, the answer seems straightforward: the titles of biblical books combined with the authors’ claims tell us who wrote them. Modern biblical scholarship, however, has shown that the reality is often far more complicated.

In this article, I’ll investigate these complications by defining a subgenre of ancient literature known as pseudepigrapha. Understanding pseudepigrapha can help us better grasp how religious texts were produced, transmitted, and interpreted in the ancient world. It also raises important questions about authorship, authority, and authenticity—questions that are far more complex than they might initially appear.

What Is the Meaning of Pseudepigrapha?

Exploring the pseudepigrapha meaning requires taking a closer look at two Greek words. The first is pseudḗs, which means “lying” or “false.” The second is epigraphḗ, which can mean “title” or “the attribution of a deed or literary work to its author.” Therefore, pseudepigrapha means a literary work that is falsely attributed to an author. If I claim that George Washington wrote this article, the article itself becomes pseudepigrapha, since Mr. Washington was not actually involved in the article’s composition. So what does this have to do with the Bible?

Well, scholars have known since at least the 19th century that several books of the New Testament were falsely attributed to important early Christian figures (although doubts about the authorship of some biblical books occurred even in some ancient writings). Although scholars tend not to use the pseudepigrapha label for these works, that’s exactly what they are.

In addition, there are a number of Jewish books written between about 300 BCE and 300 CE, that fit this pattern. Most of these claim to be authored by well-known Jewish religious figures long after their deaths. However, before looking at specific pseudepigraphic books, we need to understand why the notion of the genuineness of authorial attributions is not as simple as it might seem.

Authority and Authenticity

In his book Introducing the New Testament: A Historical, Literary, and Theological Survey, Mark Powell identifies seven levels of authenticity that can be attributed to ancient texts:

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Here’s where it gets complicated. In the case of dictation, an extremely common method of letter-writing in the ancient world, what if the scribe uses slightly different words from those dictated by the author? Does that make the scribe a co-author? If so, can that letter be accurately attributed to the author alone, or is it in some sense pseudepigrapha since the unnamed scribe’s own words are involved?

What about delegated authorship? If an author says to a scribe “Write a letter in my name and explain my ideas,” does that make it a genuine letter attributable to that person alone? How do we know how much input the scribe had in the text (spoiler alert: we usually don’t.)?

I hope you can see the difficulties inherent in deciding the true author of any ancient text. There are, of course, cases of clear forgery where the ideas in the letter have nothing to do with—or even directly contradict—the author’s ideas as expressed elsewhere. But determining authorship, at least in the way we modern people tend to think about it, is always complicated.

Having discussed the meaning of pseudepigrapha and some of its challenges, let’s now look at some actual examples of these texts and see what scholars think about them.

Non-Canonical Pseudepigrapha

As I said before, there is a group of Jewish pseudepigraphic texts written between 300 BCE and 300 CE. While these books are not part of the current Jewish canon, it’s certain that some of them were considered authoritative for Jews before the Hebrew Bible canon was closed. For example, fragments of the non-canonical Book of Enoch were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicating that, by that community, the book was highly respected.

At this point, we need to define the difference between apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. The Apocrypha is a group of books left out of the Hebrew Bible canon and written between 400 and 200 BCE. Some apocryphal books are also pseudepigrapha: The book of Enoch claims to be written by Enoch, for example, so there is some overlap between the two categories.

For now, though, let’s look at one well-known example of pseudepigrapha called the The Apocalypse of Abraham. The book’s author claims to be Abraham, the patriarch of the Jewish nation and others, according to Genesis 17:5. The entire book, in fact, is written in the first person in Abraham’s name. In his book The Formation of the Biblical Canon, Lee Martin McDonald writes that The Apocalypse of Abraham was likely written between 70 and 150 CE and is not considered a canonical work for either Jews or Christians. It opens with Abraham telling the story of how he stopped worshipping idols in favor of the one true God:

However, since scholars date the book’s composition between 70 and 150 CE, we know that it was written long after the death of Abraham, who, if he was indeed a historical person, would have lived at around 2000-2200 BCE. Nevertheless, it presents an interesting apocalyptic vision experienced by Abraham, as well as several legends about his life. While scholars agree that it was originally written in Hebrew, the only surviving manuscripts are in Old Church Slavonic, an early precursor to Russian and other Slavic languages.

Another example is 2 Esdras, otherwise known as the 4th book of Ezra. While the original book of Ezra is part of the Hebrew Bible canon, scholars have known for a long time that 2 Esdras was written in a different era. Although the author claims to be the prophet Ezra, who lived in the 5th century BCE, most scholars agree that it was written sometime after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, probably between 95 and 100 CE. In terms of content, 2 Esdras uses a series of apocalyptic visions to deal with the trauma of the destruction of the Temple and all the theological problems caused by it. It is considered extracanonical in the Jewish tradition and in most Christian traditions, with the exception of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, in which it is considered a canonical work.

Finally, there is at least one universally canonical book in the Hebrew Bible that most scholars consider to be pseudepigrapha: the Book of Daniel. While its author claims to be the prophet Daniel, who would have lived in the 6th century BCE, scholars such as John J. Collins in Daniel: Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, write that it was actually written in the 2nd century BCE by an anonymous author.

New Testament Pseudepigrapha

There are far more pseudepigrapha Bible examples in the canonical New Testament than in the Old. However, in many cases we must make a distinction between books that are pseudepigraphic and others which were merely written anonymously. Case in point: the four canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

As Bart Ehrman notes in his book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, the oldest and best manuscripts of each of the four Gospels don’t identify their authors, nor do they contain the titles by which we know them now. The titles of these books were added to them, probably in the 2nd century, according to most scholars. The same is true of the authorship of Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John. The author of these books does not name himself in the oldest manuscripts. However, later traditions would ascribe authorship of Hebrews, for example, to the Apostle Paul, and 1, 2, and 3 John to John the Apostle who was also supposed to have written the Gospel bearing his name. In other words, these are not classified as pseudepigrapha because the authors don’t name themselves.

The Pauline Epistles, on the other hand, are more complicated. Virtually all scholars believe that Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and Philemon. Meanwhile, the letters to the Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, whose authors claim to be Paul, are probably pseudepigraphic, according to most scholars (although some of these are still debated).

Since we’ve looked at Pauline letters in other articles, let’s look at some other pseudepigraphic books in the New Testament. For instance, the letters of 1 and 2 Peter claim to be written by the Apostle Peter. In Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Bart Ehrman notes that while most scholars doubt that Peter wrote 2 Peter, the authorship of 1 Peter is still debated. However, Ehrman himself believes it unlikely that even 1 Peter could have been written by the Apostle Peter. Why? The letter was written in Greek, a language which a Galilean fisherman would probably not have known how to speak (since the language of Galilee was almost exclusively Aramaic). In addition, Ehrman writes that

In terms of non-canonical NT books, though, we can look at the Gospel of Thomas, a book purporting to be a collection of Jesus’ sayings and found in the Nag Hammadi Codex. The book begins by noting who supposedly wrote these sayings down:

This author is apparently the Doubting Thomas found among lists of Jesus’ disciples in all four Gospels. However, the scholarly consensus puts authorship of this book in the early 2nd century, probably by an adherent of a Gnostic sect. Other examples of noncanonical Gospels which are also pseudepigrapha include the Gospel of Peter. It is a 2nd-century work probably written by a member of the heretical group known as the Docetists.

Conclusion

Pseudepigrapha are texts whose authors falsely claim to be a person of authority in a religious tradition. In the realm of Scripture, there are both canonical and non-canonical examples of this genre of literature.

In determining authentic authorship of ancient texts, it’s commonly understood that the majority of texts were dictated by the author, either word for word or simply by giving the gist, and then physically written by a scribe. This is certainly the case with Paul’s letters, and it brings up some issues. For instance, if a scribe gets only the main idea of a letter from the author but then uses his own words to write the letter, is it an authentic letter from that author?

Questions such as these abound in the study of ancient literature. Nevertheless, there are some ancient texts we know to be pseudepigrapha simply because the texts were written long after the death of the supposed authors. This is the case with Jewish works such as 2 Esdras and The Apocalypse of Abraham.

In other cases, such as the letter of 1 Timothy, the style and content of the letter contradict that of letters we know to be authentic. In cases like these, while authorship can still be debated, the most likely conclusion is that the letter is a fake written in the author’s name. This only highlights an unfortunate truth: we don’t know who wrote most of the books of the Bible.

When Was Genesis Written? (Debates and Evidence)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

As the opening book of both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament, Genesis introduces foundational accounts of the creation of the cosmos, the origins of humanity, and the ancestral history of Israel. These stories have shaped theological reflection, ethical traditions, artistic expression, and even political discourse for millennia. Yet one fundamental historical question remains the subject of intense scholarly debate: when was Genesis written?

This debate has touched on fundamental questions about Scripture, history, and interpretation. In this article, we’ll investigate both traditional claims and modern scholarly evidence to better understand how this ancient text came into being. Who was Genesis written to? We’ll also briefly explore that question and the surrounding historical context.

When Was Genesis Written (and Why Does It Matter)?

While they may see cultural value in the knowledge, even some devout Jews and Christians have wondered whether the dating of Genesis matters at all. If they accept that it explains divine truths about the origins of the universe and the Jewish people, what is so important about precisely pinning down when it was written?

Atheists, meanwhile, might say that while the book has a certain historical value, showing the ancient beliefs and practices of the Jewish people over time, nailing down an exact date isn’t all that necessary. So, how old is the Book of Genesis, and why should it matter?

First of all, as John J. Collins writes in his Introduction to the Hebrew Bible,

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

While this is certainly true of the entire Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), it is perhaps even more true of Genesis, which purports to describe the creation of the universe.  Knowing when the Book of Genesis was written can therefore point us to the authorship of the book and the intended scope of its author or authors. As Collins says,

In addition, we are all aware of the vast influence the book has exerted over everything from theology to public policy. This may explain why interpretations of Genesis throughout history have varied so widely and been debated so fiercely. Knowing a bit about the sociohistorical context of the book’s composition through accurate dating can help us to ground our interpretations in historical facts and thus to see the text more clearly.

Finally, in a world in which the Bible has often been interpreted as scientific fact, Peter Enns writes

Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the Genesis narratives can merely be discounted, of course, but it does mean that more information about when and why it was written can help us to get more interpretive information from those narratives.

However, since the author or authors of Genesis never name themselves, let’s look at theories that have been proposed about its authorship.

Traditional Claims: The Books of Moses

Tradition says that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible — known as the Torah in Hebrew and the Pentateuch in Greek (from pente "five" and teukhos “vessel or tool"). The word “Torah” is usually translated into English as Law, and while this is technically correct, John J. Collins notes that the sense of the Hebrew word is also tied to the idea of traditional teachings passed down from generation to generation.

Where did the idea come from that Moses wrote these books? Mostly from other biblical books. For example, the last book of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy, begins by saying “These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan.” Thus, the rest of the book is attributed to him, prompting ancient interpreters to believe that all the books of the Pentateuch were written by Moses.

Moreover, Collins notes that

By the 1st century CE, the Gospel writers reported that Jesus had indirectly claimed that Moses wrote the Torah as well:

Likewise, while debating with Jewish authorities in John 5:45–47, Jesus says

While this doesn’t prove that Moses wrote the books, it does prove, at the very least, that the Torah was widely attributed to Moses in Jesus’ time.

However, cracks in the theory of Mosaic authorship started to form, first in the medieval period. A 12th-century rabbi and scholar named Abraham Ibn Ezra questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Torah, raising several logical questions that were impossible to ignore. For example,

When did Moses write Genesis? Modern scholars have concluded that if Moses indeed wrote Genesis and the other four books of the Pentateuch, he could only have done so in the 13th or 14th centuries BCE, the period written about in Exodus. However, as Simon Oliver writes in his book Creation: A Guide for the Perplexed, modern scholars have confirmed that Genesis’ composition occurred much later (more on that below).

If Moses didn’t write Deuteronomy, then his authorship of the rest of the Torah, including Genesis was also in doubt.

Modern Study of the Pentateuch

While opinions about the authorship of Genesis and the rest of the Torah continued to proliferate, modern scholarly studies began, oddly enough, with the writing of a French professor of medicine Jean Astruc (1684–1766). Although not a biblical scholar, Astruc posed one simple question that Peter Enns says initiated a multitude of further studies: Why does God have two names in Genesis?

The two names Astruc was referring to were Elohim, the name for God in Genesis 1, and Yahweh, the name for God in Genesis 2 and 3. However, Astruc also noticed that the name change corresponded to two very different creation stories. Based on this, he decided that these two versions of creation were written by two different authors. Still clinging to the idea of Moses being involved in Genesis’ composition, Astruc proposed that Moses, as an editor, had stitched the material from these two sources together into one book.

Meanwhile, a 17th-century British scholar, Richard Simon, had gone even further than Astruc. In The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues, John Van Seters writes that Simon, a Catholic priest and scholar, believed that the Pentateuch was the result of multiple authors writing in different time periods. Although vague, this theory would be verified and supplemented with more detail by later scholars.

This would eventually result in the documentary hypothesis, an idea proposed by several 19th-century German biblical scholars, but most commonly associated with Julius Wellhausen. This hypothesis proposed that the Pentateuch was the result of four different sources: the Yahwist, or J source, the Elohist, or E source, the Deuteronomist, or D source, and the Priestly, or P source.

This was a profoundly influential theory, remaining the most prominent theory all the way through the 1970s. Based on it, scholars like Wellhausen determined that the final form of the Pentateuch as a compilation of all four sources was completed by the 6th or 5th centuries BCE.  However, in the 1980s, this theory was called into doubt and has since been discarded, or heavily amended, by many critical scholars.

Instead, the current scholarly consensus, known as the supplementary hypothesis, says that there were only three rather than four Pentateuchal sources. While J, D, and P remain the designations of these three sources, the Elohist source is now seen as revisions of the J source.

Some scholars have differing views when exploring what year was Genesis written and how it fits into broader history. Simon Oliver writes that since the beginning of the 21st century, the majority of scholars have agreed that the book of Genesis was written after the Babylonian Captivity and exile, the conquest of Jerusalem in which many prominent Jews were forcibly taken to Babylon in 597 BCE. There is, however, some variation in this opinion.

For instance, in his book How Old Is the Hebrew Bible?: A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study, Ronald Hendel says that based on the type of Hebrew used in Genesis, the book was written around 550 BCE. However, a general date of composition in the 5th century BCE is the virtually unanimous scholarly consensus, although most acknowledge that its narratives were based on earlier oral traditions that may go back much further. While it would be nice to know what precise year the book of Genesis was written, nailing down the exact year of such an ancient text is all but impossible without more information.

Who Was Genesis Written For?

Many people curious about this text’s place in history also wonder to whom was Genesis written. As I noted, the current consensus of a date of composition in the 5th century BCE rules out Mosaic authorship. This makes it more likely that the book of Genesis was written by and for post-exilic Jews struggling to maintain — and perhaps even refashion — their collective identity after a long exile and widespread Jewish assimilation to the Babylonian way of life.

Conclusion

In Hebrew, the name of the book of Genesis is Bərēʾšīṯ (pronounced behr–eh–SHEET), the word meaning “beginning” or “in the beginning.” This indicates not only how the book starts but that it is concerned with how the world came to be as it is. But in which historical period? When was Genesis written?

The oldest traditions, both Jewish and Christian, said that Moses wrote the book, along with Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Various ancient sources, including other books of the Hebrew Bible and even the Gospels, verify that this theory of authorship was long held to be true. In fact, many Jews and Christians still adhere to this belief.

However, beginning in the 17th century, scholars began to seriously question this assumption. They noticed, for instance, that God was given two different names aligned to the two very different creation stories in Genesis. This led eventually to the widespread notion that Genesis was written by multiple authors (or authorial traditions). While the theory has been adjusted over time — the original theory of 4 sources has been whittled down to 3 — this general idea has remained dominant.

Beyond its authorship, is the question of when was the book of Genesis written. Modern critical scholars studying the matter are confident that the final form was finished sometime in the 5th century BCE. While this is much later than tradition claims, it makes better sense of the historical and archeological information available to us now.

If you’re interested in learning more about the Hebrew Bible, check out Bart Ehrman’s course In the Beginning: History, Legend, and Myth in Genesis and his virtual conference Insights into the Hebrew Bible.

Book of Jubilees: Authorship, Dating, and Summary

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

What is the Book of Jubilees—and why did some ancient Jews treat it as sacred Scripture while most sects of Judaism eventually left it out of the Hebrew Bible? Modern readers often assume that the boundaries of the biblical canon were always fixed. But until the late 1st or early 2nd centuries CE, Jewish communities were still debating, expanding, and reinterpreting their sacred texts. It was in this dynamic world that the Book of Jubilees emerged.

In this article, I’ll examine the Book of Jubilees, stepping into the rich and contested world of Second Temple Judaism—a world in which Scripture was not only being preserved, but actively rewritten in the service of theology, identity, and communal boundaries.

What Is the Book of Jubilees?

In his book Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, Geza Vermes noted that the Book of Jubilees belongs to a category he called “the Rewritten Bible.” This is a category of ancient Jewish texts that retell biblical stories—principally those from the Hebrew Bible—to add details and make them more relatable to readers of later generations. Other examples in this category include canonical books such as 1 and 2 Chronicles, which retell the stories from the books of Samuel and Kings, and the Genesis Apocryphon, which retells and expands on the stories of Abraham and Noah.

Beyond merely reaching out to different audiences, though, the whole point of this category of Jewish literature was to emphasize things not highlighted in the original books. The Book of Jubilees is a great example of this, as it expands upon the books of Genesis and Exodus.

Interestingly, it is not considered canonical by any form of mainstream Judaism and is only part of the biblical canon for the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and Haymanot Judaism (Ethiopian Jews). I’ll explain the connection to Ethiopia and Eritrea as we get into the book’s history.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

History of the Jubilees Book

We know that early Christians were aware of Jubilees. Such renowned Christian authors as Justin Martyr, Origen of Alexandria, and Epiphanius of Salamis used quotations from the book in their own writings. Since these early Christians all wrote in Greek, it must be assumed that there was a Greek version of the text, although the original was presumed to have been written in Hebrew. For many years, however, the only manuscripts of Jubilees were written in the ancient Ethiopian language known as Ge’ez and came from the 15th and 16th centuries CE.

However, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the mid 20th century, there were 15 fragmentary copies of the Book of Jubilees found among them. According to James C. VanderKam, the book seems to have been highly respected and significant for the Essenes, the group presumed to have lived in the Qumran community where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. VanderKam writes that

When Was the Book of Jubilees Written?

In his analytical guide to the Book of Jubilees, James VanderKam writes that the earliest scholarly analyses speculated that it was an early Christian book written in the 1st-century CE.

So if the Book of Jubilees was written before the advent of Christianity, when was it written? As always, with ancient literature, determining a precise date is all but impossible. However, the Hebrew copies found at Qumran have definitely helped. The oldest of them has been dated to 125–100 BCE, so the original book must have preceded that date.

VanderKam points out that in addition to this information, the other way to date an ancient text like Jubilees is to see when other ancient documents refer to it. In this case, a reference to Jubilees was made in the fragmentary Hebrew text known as the Damascus Document, which was dated around 100 BCE. Combining these two pieces of evidence, the book of Jubilees must have been written before 100 BCE.

How late could it have been written? There are several possible indicators of this, but VanderKam says that one piece of evidence carries more weight than the others:

It is therefore safe to conclude that the Book of Jubilees was written between 164 BCE and 100 BCE.

Who Wrote the Book of Jubilees?

Unfortunately, the author of the Book of Jubilees followed the well-trodden path of ancient anonymous authors writing on sacred topics. Nevertheless, we do know that the book was written by a Jewish author, since it was written in Hebrew.

The earliest scholarly theories said that the book was written by a Pharisee. This opinion was based on the content of the book, which focuses heavily on strict adherence to the Torah and keeping the sacred festivals (more on this later). However, since Hebrew copies were found at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholarly opinion now leans towards the conclusion that the author was a member of the Essenes.

In addition, VanderKam says that the author was also likely a priest, based on his focus on faithfulness to the Torah and on the biblical characters offering sacrifices like priests. A final piece of information about this mysterious author can be implied from the story. One character in the text, against whom the narrative seems to be arguing, says that things were better for the Jews when they were not separated from Gentiles and that they should form a new covenant with the Gentiles. However, as VanderKam notes,

This emphasis on maintaining separation between Jews and Gentiles is one of the main indications that the author was a member of the Essenes, whose very existence as a group was driven by the notion of separating not only from Gentiles but also from Jews they believed were not truly faithful to God.

Book of Jubilees Summary

As I noted before, Jubilees is a retelling and expansion of Jewish biblical history from the creation to Moses receiving the Torah on Mount Sinai. The first paragraph of the book, Jubilees 1:1, previews this content, as well as its focus on divisions of time:

The time element is extremely important in Jubilees. The author adds details to the stories of Genesis and Exodus, but also divides them into time frames called Jubilees, referred to in Leviticus 25:8–10:

The author claims that from the creation of the world up to Moses receiving the law spans 50 Jubilees. He then subtracts 40 of those years for the time the Israelites spent wandering in the wilderness. The total number of years the book recounts, then, comes to 2,410.

The opening chapter of Jubilees also says that while Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the Torah, God also “taught him the earlier and the later history of the division of all the days of the law and of the testimony.” This is followed by God’s instruction to Moses about what to do with this information:

Like the Pentateuch, then, the Book of Jubilees was traditionally attributed to Moses.

In his book The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology, Michael Segal summarizes the book’s content in this outline:

Section 1 – Chapter 1: Introduction, narrative framework
Section 2 – Chapters 2–10: Stories about Adam and Noah (Primeval history)
Section 3 – Chapters 11–23:8: Stories about Abraham
Section 4 – Chapters 23:9–32: Appendix following Abraham’s death
Section 5 – Chapters 24–45: Stories about Jacob and his sons
Section 6 – Chapters 46–49: Slavery in Egypt and the Exodus
Section 7 – Chapter 50: Conclusion

Segal goes on to note that although sections 2-3 and 5-6 are based on the stories already found in the Torah, each story has numerous additions, including lengthy blessings from parents to their children. VandenKam says that

But beyond adding to the stories, the author crucially organizes the narrative, as I said above, into periods called Jubilees, a fact which is just as important to the author as the content of the stories. VanderKam explains that

A Jubilee year, as he notes, was every 50th year —that is, the year after 7 divisions of 7 years each—and in these years, according to the Torah, Israelites were supposed to free all slaves and return any land that had been taken to the original owner (although we never see the recommendation that they should return Canaan to the Canaanites).

Additionally, many ancient societies viewed numbers as indicators of sacred truths, as in the numerological system known as Gematria. The author of Jubilees does something similar with his division of time in the retelling of biblical stories. VanderKam notes that the Essenes, unlike mainstream Jews in the Second Temple period who used a lunar calendar, used a solar calendar (although one of 364 days rather than 365).

What was the significance of this calendar for the Essenes? VanderKam says

Having a distinct calendar provided both social cohesion—everyone in their community used the same calendar—and a stability the lunar calendar did not provide, at least in terms of conflicts between special holy days and the Sabbath.

Conclusion

The Book of Jubilees presents itself as a work much more ancient than it is. However, it fits comfortably into the genre (defined by modern scholars) known as the Rewritten Bible, in which well-known material from the Hebrew Bible is added to and reinterpreted in light of a future generation of readers/listeners.

While Christians in the first few centuries after Jesus knew and referred to the book, it was only the Essenes, a strict Jewish separatist group living at Qumran near the Dead Sea, who considered the book canonical and authoritative. In fact, scholars believe that it was likely an early member of the Essenes who wrote the book, since its date of authorship seems to coincide with the group’s separation from mainstream Jewish life.

Jubilees is a rewriting of stories from the creation to when Moses receives the divine law on Mount Sinai. In fact, its opening chapters say that God dictated the book to Moses on Mount Sinai. The author often quotes biblical stories verbatim from the Hebrew Bible, but then adds extra details, including long blessings and other discourses.

In addition, by dividing up the time span of the book into 50 periods of time, known as Jubilees, it establishes the significance of its own solar calendar as opposed to the lunar calendar of the rest of the Jewish world at the time. This is only one way that the author of Jubilees emphasizes the separation between faithful Jews, such as the Essenes, and anyone else, Jew or Gentile, who does not make the same commitment to God’s law.