Who Wrote the Bible?

[Polycarp1]

It seems like quite often when we get discussing some element of the faith and Scripture gets brought into the picture, we end up dealing with source-criticism, the J/P/E/D theory, the Q hypothesis, whether Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, and all that sort of sidelight.

So this thread is intended as a gathering place for people who are interested in discussing the authorship of the books of the Bible, what the evidence is for and against the various concepts, etc. (Hopefully, it will have some input from learned folks who understand the Two Samuel Sources theory and such-like stuff -- informed as I am about the theories, the Samuel theory is one I don't have a good handle on.)

A bit later, I'll cut-and-paste my "Matthew was Q" write-up, to get us started.

The one thing I'd ask is that we not be dogmatic about the topic. You may believe firmly that Moses wrote the entire Torah -- but it's not a part of the inspired text that he did. Likewise, a lot of evidence points to the various source theories -- but none of them is proven in the sense that "Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address" is proven. With that caveat, I think this could be a very interesting discussion.

 

[Reader Nilus]

I subscribe to the J/P/E/D theory of the Old Testament, I am not so sure about Q, and I think St Paul wrote the Pastorials.
Jeff the Finn

 

[daveleau]

I think real simply if you go to Jesus and find out what he said about the first five books you'll be amazed that he stands over the liberal theologians as knowing who was the author of the Pentateuch.
Matt 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Matt. 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Matt 22:24. Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
Mark 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
Mark 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away.
Mark 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Luke 16:32 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and [yet] none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?
John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
I think the authorship was clearly spoken by the greatest theologian, our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Well said. It is reasonable that Moses did not sit down at once and write these in one sitting or in one short period of time. I think what the people are seeing is the difference or development of Moses' writing, rather than a different author. It is likely that Moses kept these scrolls with him for a long period of time and worked on them for a longer period. Surely as his experiences grew, his writing styles would change. I know that I write very differently than I did even 3 or 4 years ago. It is more likely that styles would change in those times, since formal education would not be (as?) available. So, as people learned from one another different writing and speaking styles that grew from states where people of different nation's cultures clashed and melded, it is very possible that the style of Moses simply changed.

The reason that this is believed, at least in regards to J and E, is that the proper name used for God is different. I don't think this is enough to overcome what Jesus says in the NT about the Pentateuch's authorship.

 

[seebs]

If Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch, how did he get the details right on that one funeral... his?

 

[Reader Nilus]

The flood story is what convinced me of the source theory, I mean a single author would not weave two accounts of the flood story together as Genesis does.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Polycarp1]

If Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch, how did he get the details right on that one funeral... his?

Actually, Seebs, the "Moses-wrote-the-whole-Torah" folks do have an answer for this one -- He wrote the whole thing except for the last few verses of Deuteronomy, which were added by Joshua to tie off the story of the Law and the lawgiver (with a lowercase L, that means Moses, as opposed to God the Lawgiver with an uppercase L).

There are, by the way, Dave, a great deal more in disparate characteristics attributed to the J, P, and E sources than what names they use for God -- style is one primary thing. J is a raconteur -- most of the familiar Bible stories where the characters "come to life" in the hearing are J's work, according to the theory. E is as fond as Isaac Asimov of "natural" explanations for quasi-miraculous events. J has God parting the Red Sea waters at the elevation of Moses's arms; E has a "strong east wind" doing the job. P is a classic genealogy-and-ritual-minded bean-counter for whom the stories and the moral law are not so significant as the lineages they trace and the ritual that is prescribed. P gives the six-day Creation story; J follows it with what matters to him -- he glides over the creation with "In the day when God created the heaven and earth..." and gets down to the characters of Adam and Eve, and their temptation and fall.

I can grant a difference in style being possible as Moses aged -- but any writer, much less an inspired one, is going to at least clean up his remarks, so that he doesn't contradict himself within the same chapter, or tell the same story a couple of times with the details slightly different.

However, supposing four traditions carrying Moses's work on, with local interests focused on, and then the whole thing put back together with honor paid the four accounts by leaving in the apparent contradictions because they supposedly came from him, you preserve the idea of the respect given the Torah as Moses's work and still account for the fact that it looks like four different styles from four different writers.

 

[daveleau]

Moses was guided by God and was given these revelations as he was given the inputs from God for the rest of the book. IMO, we put undue limits on God if we don't at least address that issue. For instance, how did Zephania, David or Isaiah know about the Messiah? How did John get his inputs for Revelations? I think it is possible and even likely that this is the case since Jesus never mentioned anyone but Moses regarding the Pentateuch.

 

[Katydid]

OK can someone take me through the basics. I have never heard of J P E D or Q. What is that?

 

[Gold Dragon]

OK can someone take me through the basics. I have never heard of J P E D or Q. What is that?

Hey Katydid. J P E D are part of the theory of Documentary Hypothesis that separates the Torah (Pentateuch) into what appear to be four different sources, largely based on the words certain verses/sections use to refer to God and differences in literary style.

The "J" source: In this source God's name is always presented as YHVH, which scholars transliterated in modern times as Jahweh (the previous transliteration was Jehovah).
The "E" source: In this source God's name is always presented as Elohim (Hebrew for God, or Power) until the revelation of God's name to Moses, after which God is referred to as YHVH.
The "D" or "Dtr" source: The source that wrote the book of Deuteronomy, and the books of Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel and I and II Kings.
The "P" source: The priestly material. Uses Elohim and El Shaddai as names of God.

The Q document is a theoretical source document that tries to encapsulate what appears to be common passages between the gospel of Matthew and Luke that do not appear in the gospel of Mark. The assumption being that Matthew and Luke made use of the earlier writings of Mark and Q as their primary source material.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Polycarp, I'm interested in your "Matthew as Q" theory. Although I've never heard anyone say it before, it's certainly a thought that has occurred to me as I've studied the different theories of the synoptic problem. I assume what you mean is some sort of proto-Matthew, perhaps the lost Hebrew or Aramaic writing of Levi the tax collector that some of the Fathers mention, and/or a Greek translation of that document.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Moses was guided by God and was given these revelations as he was given the inputs from God for the rest of the book. IMO, we put undue limits on God if we don't at least address that issue. For instance, how did Zephania, David or Isaiah know about the Messiah? How did John get his inputs for Revelations? I think it is possible and even likely that this is the case since Jesus never mentioned anyone but Moses regarding the Pentateuch.

I think the concept of authorship was different in the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman world. Many ancient books claim to have been authored by someone when we know someone else actually wrote them. This didn't seem to bother anyone, since I can't remember reading about any controversies over who actually wrote particular books.

Also, what reason would Jesus have to argue about the authorship of the Torah? I often name the reputed author, rather than saying "the author of ________." I'll bet you do this sometimes, too, when authorship has nothing to do with the point you want to make and your audience understands a certain theory of authorship. "Moses" seems to me to be synonymous with "the Mosaic Law." Does it seem inappropriate for Jesus to speak this way?

I think assuming Jesus could not possibly have said "Moses" when referring to the Law unless he meant that he thought Moses personally penned every word is reading too much into it. It just doesn't seem to be what is meant by the context.

 

[PaladinValer]

I believe that the JPEDR theory is accurate due to the doublets and triplets used, not to mention the overwhelming archaeological/linguistical evidence that points to the theory's authenticy.

I believe that the Q theory probably is true or is in the right direction. The argument behind it is logical and rational, but there isn't as much evidence I would like to see.

I believe that St. Paul only wrote about half of the Epistle's attributed to his authorship. The rest are still inspired, but the authors (IMO wrongly) used his name, as if God wouldn't inspire them otherwise...ah well.

 

[daveleau]

I'm not familiar with the R source.

 

[PaladinValer]

Then why do you have an opinion on the JPED when R is a vital part of it?

R is the Redactor (probably Ezra) who compiled each source and edited them into one.

 

[Polycarp1]

THE PROBLEM: Matthew, Mark, and Luke use almost identical narratives of everything but the Birth of Christ and the Crucifixion -- their accounts of His ministry are nearly identical, though they differ greatly in what teachings He did where and when. And that similarity is not merely a matter of three reporters telling the same story, but a near-verbatim identity of phrasing, with differences attributable to some simple rules. E.g., Matthew will use Heaven in place of God, as in "Kingdom of Heaven"; Mark emphasizes "the Messianic secret," where Jesus is adamant that His Messiahship not be widely spread during His earthly ministry.

Now, traditionally they were supposedly written in the order they are found in the Bible. But some modern scholars think that Mark wrote first. However, either order leaves us with a case of a ridiculous assumption: Either (1) God inspired verbatim, separately, two or three near-identical accounts of Jesus's ministry; (2) Matthew Levi, one of the Twelve, used John Mark's report of Peter's reminiscences and preaching about Christ's life rather than writing what he was himself an eyewitness to; or (3) Mark produced a "Readers Digest Condensed Matthew" by leaving out two-thirds of Jesus's teachings. All three presumptions leave us going "Why?"

Further, Matthew and Luke both report many of the same teachings of Jesus -- but they place them at different times, for different purposes, and sometimes making quite disparate points. Why might this be?

This summary is, in a nutshell, what scholars call "The Synoptic Problem."

THE Q THEORY: Many scholars, seemingly unwilling to allow that anybody who actually appears in the Bible stories had anything to do with writing the books bearing their names, think that Matthew and Luke were later developments based on using Mark as a "frame story" into which they inserted Birth and Passion narratives, separately, and Jesus's teachings, getting the majority of them from a source that has not been preserved called "the Q Source." (This is something of a solecism, like "VCR recorder," because Q stands for the German word Quelle, which means "source." So they're calling it "the Source Source.")

The problem is that, with one exception, no writer, even those writing the days contemporaneous with John's last days, ever makes any reference to such a source having ever existed.

MY THEORY: The very early Church writer Papias reports that "Matthew first wrote down the logia of Jesus in the Hebrew language, though not in order." Logia is a Greek plural related to logos, word, meaning, roughly, "teachings, utterances" -- "words" in the more figurative sense.

Matthew, however, gives every evidence of having been composed in Greek, not translated from Hebrew, and in any case is a full narrative gospel, not a collection of sayings like the so-called Gospel of Thomas is.

But one can work from these facts and come up with a logical analysis of what must have happened that makes only one assumption about editors and compilation not documented in Scripture or early church history.

I came up with this theory independently, but I've since learned that there are reputable scholars who think that it's the logical way to resolve the Synoptic Problem.

1. As Papias reports, Matthew Levi, elderly tax collector become Apostle, collects Jesus's teachings before his own death.

2. After Peter's martyrdom, John Mark compiles his account of Jesus's life based on Peter's reminiscences and sermons.

3. Luke says explicitly in 1:1-4 that he is compiling for Theophilus a report of which among the many stories and teachings about Jesus can be trusted to be the truth. We can assume that he worked with Mark's Gospel, Matthew's collection of teachings, and his own researches, which would include, as very early Church tradition says, his friendship with Mary the mother of Jesus, and speaking to whatever eyewitnesses to Jesus's ministry he encountered.

4. Independently of Luke, a gentleman whom we will call "Matthew of Antioch" makes a free translation of Matthew's collection of Jesus's teachings into Greek. Either Matthew Levi or "Matthew of Antioch" arranged them into a topical collection, with stuff on moral obligations in one place, stuff about the Last Days in another, etc.

5. Then "Matthew of Antioch" took Mark, and inserted into it this Greek translation of Matthew's collection of Jesus's teachings. As was a widespread custom in those days, before tape recorders or shorthand reporting, he reconstructed five of Jesus's sermons, known to have been made at particular times and places, from the teachings Matthew Levi had recorded. This was completely in accord with standard literary practice in those days -- it was no more fraudulent or an act of misrepresentation than my saying "Jesus said that we should love all our fellow men" -- the 'that' in the middle of that sentence makes clear that I am making an indirect, paraphrased statement of His teaching, not a verbatim direct quote. And it would be automatically assumed by First Century readers that what purports to be an account of a sermon or speech is not a verbatim record of the sermon/speech, but an accurate reconstruction based on things the man (in this case, Jesus) had actually said at one time or another on the topic that the sermon/speech was about.

With the complete text of Matthew's collection available in the context of Jesus's life (as borrowed from Mark), the original Matthew collection, which probably did not circulate widely, fades from the scene. And because the Antioch gospel includes the complete Matthew collection of teachings, it becomes known by his name, and becomes the First Gospel.

This minimizes the number of assumptions that one needs to make, and yet resolves the questions raised in the Synoptic Problem without suggesting that anyone did something silly.

 

[johnd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism



Higher Criticism is where all this interminable hairsplitting came from. The actual authorship is:



2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.



So, whichever of the prophets actually recorded the message, God is the one who came up with it. Now let us strive to get the message.



Regards,

 

[JohnJones]

I believe that St. Paul only wrote about half of the Epistle's attributed to his authorship. The rest are still inspired, but the authors (IMO wrongly) used his name, as if God wouldn't inspire them otherwise...ah well.

So now God inspires lies? I mean by that simply that if someone other than Paul started a letter off by saying "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ..." that would be a lie. Yet you say this is what was done and that it is still inspired, hence you believe that God inspired a lie. Obviously you do not believe in the same God that Christians do, and the simple fact is that if you don't belive that the epistles which start off "Paul an apostle" were written by Paul, then you don't believe the Bible at all.

 

[Polycarp1]

So now God inspires lies? I mean by that simply that if someone other than Paul started a letter off by saying "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ..." that would be a lie. Yet you say this is what was done and that it is still inspired, hence you believe that God inspired a lie. Obviously you do not believe in the same God that Christians do, and the simple fact is that if you don't belive that the epistles which start off "Paul an apostle" were written by Paul, then you don't believe the Bible at all.

Bovine waste products! The priest at my church read a passage of the Gospel aloud at the service tonight -- does that mean that he wrote it?

One goes on what was the custom of the time -- just as a collection of short writings by a man now dead, put together by an editor after his death, is published as a book "by him" -- even though it had no separate existence as a book until after his death. (For example, there are several books by C.S. Lewis, who died the same day as JFK, published for the first time in the 41 years since his death.)

Take Socrates. People are unanimous that he was one of the great philosophers of the Golden Age of Greece -- but what do we actually know about him? Answer: What Plato and Xenophon report, putting words in his mouth -- as was the accepted custom of the time.

For someone to cobble together a bunch of fragments of Paul's writings and what they're sure he would have said in a given situation, and call it his work, was perfectly acceptable under the literary standards of the First Century.

And your all-or-nothing gimmick is really offensive. Want a disproof of the Bible? The "molten sea" water vessel in the court of the Temple is said to have been circular, ten cubits across and thirty cubits around -- and the ratio pi indicates that one of those measurements is incorrect. But by your standards if any single part of the Bible is wrong, the whole thing is. Therefore Erwin can save himself some money by closing this whole thing down, because no part of the Christian faith can be believed.

I hope that you see how ludicrous that statement is. And I can only hope that you will apply the point it makes to your own attitude.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Your solution to the synoptic problem sounds plausible.

 

[Breetai]

So now God inspires lies? I mean by that simply that if someone other than Paul started a letter off by saying "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ..." that would be a lie. Yet you say this is what was done and that it is still inspired, hence you believe that God inspired a lie. Obviously you do not believe in the same God that Christians do, and the simple fact is that if you don't belive that the epistles which start off "Paul an apostle" were written by Paul, then you don't believe the Bible at all.

I think that it's very unlikely that all of the psuedo-Pauline epistles were actually written by Paul, yet I believe that the Holy Bible is the one inspired book of God.

I strongly recommend taking a BA in religious studies or Biblical studies before saying such obsurd things as you've just did. I'll guarantee that you will have a different opinion of you do. I mean no offense by this, but you seem to be commenting of a whim and not on a well researched base. plagiarism wasn't a concern at all back then, while it is now. To attrubute a work to Paul is to honour him. Anyway, you may be correct in your assumption. Paul may have wrote everything attrubuted to him in the Bible. We aren't certain that he didn't, just pretty sure.

As for Q, I'm of the same opinion as Polycarp and have been for a few years now. Polycarp, have you ever gotten your hands on the [size=-1]The International Bible Commentary? It's actually a Roman Catholic commentary, but it's a good collection. Check out Leske's "Matthew" in there, you'll probably like it. Plus, I am completely biased toward the author. He let's me drink his wine and offers to drive me home when I've had too much. Who wouldn't like that?

With the Pentateuch, I would have to say that Moses would've written it(other then what is attributed to Joshua in Deuteronomy). Since our Lord and Savior Jesus gave Moses credit for it, then, as Christians, we must as well.
[/size]