Biblical authorship

[Memento Mori]

I don't know that much about biblical scholarship. I was wondering how much support there is for traditional authorship (e.g., Matthew wrote Matthew, Moses wrote Genesis).

 

[TimRout]

There is some support for some biblical authors. For example, Jesus seemed fairly convinced that the Law was written (at least primarily) by Moses [Jn. 7:19]. It is important to remember, however, that a Christian's confidence in the canon of Scripture has never rested on the identity of the human authors. For example, we have absolutely no idea who wrote 2 Kings, yet Jesus made reference to this text in identifying Jonah as a prophet [see 2 Kings 14:25 and Matthew 12:38-41]. The issue isn't whether or not Matthew wrote "The Gospel According To Matthew". The issue is, who inspired the biblical writers to write. And the biblical answer to this question is, GOD [2 Tim. 3:16-17].

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

When the Bible talks about thoroughly preparing Christians for life and service, it points them to only one place. Itself! The Bible alone is God's Word, and when we want to hear from Him, we need go only to His Word. So then, the real question is, "How do I know that the 66 books in the Bible are Scripture?" Throw that one around and see who bites.

 

[TimRout]

Sorry...had another thought. While I don't always agree with our dear brother Norm Geisler, he has written (edited) an excellent book designed to introduce new students to the subject you raise. It's called "Inerrancy", and I highly recommend it. Another helpful book that's even easier to read is an old one by James White called "The King James Only Controversy". Now don't let the title fool you. It's actually a great introduction to textual criticism and scholarship for those with a limited theological background --- VERY readable.

Inerrancy: Norman L. Geisler: Amazon.ca: Books

King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?: James R. White: Amazon.ca: Books

 

[wayseer]

I don't know that much about biblical scholarship. I was wondering how much support there is for traditional authorship (e.g., Matthew wrote Matthew, Moses wrote Genesis).

All depends on what sort of support you are looking for.

The literalists will tell you that Moses wrote a lot of the books, Matthew, Mark, Luke etc all wrote their own stuff.

The problem is no one really knows. Some calculated guesses can be made - we know David wrote a lot of the Psalms. But the sad fact is that all those books attributed to Moses were not written, from memory, until the 8th Century BCE at the earliest.

Much of the NT work were attributed to some well know and respected person - and do not necessarily reflect authorship. This was common practice about that time.

But, as I said, it all a bit of a mystery - and perhaps that's the way we should leave it.

 

[TimRout]

All depends on what sort of support you are looking for.

The literalists will tell you that Moses wrote a lot of the books, Matthew, Mark, Luke etc all wrote their own stuff.

The problem is no one really knows. Some calculated guesses can be made - we know David wrote a lot of the Psalms. But the sad fact is that all those books attributed to Moses were not written, from memory, until the 8th Century BCE at the earliest.

Much of the NT work were attributed to some well know and respected person - and do not necessarily reflect authorship. This was common practice about that time.

But, as I said, it all a bit of a mystery - and perhaps that's the way we should leave it.

Ok bud. You laid it out there and I'm calling you on it. Where is your evidence for the so called "fact" of 8th century BC dating of the Pentateuch?

 

[wayseer]

Ok bud. You laid it out there and I'm calling you on it. Where is your evidence for the so called "fact" of 8th century BC dating of the Pentateuch?

Where is your evidence that it is not?

And, I was not addressing my post to you.

 

[ebia]

I don't know that much about biblical scholarship. I was wondering how much support there is for traditional authorship (e.g., Matthew wrote Matthew, Moses wrote Genesis).

On the whole, not a lot.

Some of Paul's letters are pretty much indisputed.

A good but disputed case can be made for many of Paul's other letters and some of the other epistles.

A limited case can be made for Mark and John can be made but it's hardly conclusive.

Likelyhood of the rest of the N.T. varies - Luke/Acts may have been written by Luke but there's not much one can produce to support it.

In the case of the O.T. there isn't much that can be substantiated to its traditional authorship except some Psalms and for much all the external evidence would indicate that traditional authorship is no more (or less) than tradition. One also needs to remember that many of these books were compiled from existing oral and written sources and have been redacted at different times - so who exactly does one mean by their authors?

 

[TimRout]

Where is your evidence that it is not?

And, I was not addressing my post to you.

You're the one asserting dates my friend. You assert it, you defend it.

 

[wildboar]

I don't think it's really correct to say that the identity of the human authors was never an issue. Debates in the early church over the book of Hebrews centered completely around the question of whether or not Paul wrote it. The Gospels and the Pauline Epistles were all pretty widely accepted at a very early date because of who wrote them.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Ok bud. You laid it out there and I'm calling you on it. Where is your evidence for the so called "fact" of 8th century BC dating of the Pentateuch?

I think if you do a quick search on Biblical Minimalism you will find scholars who believe the Torah was written during the Babylonian captivity.

 

[daveleau]

There are those who tend to be antisupernaturalists (deny miracles) that support late dating of many OT books. What you are asking is a very complex topic that cannot be remotely touched on in this forum. There is just way too much to discuss.

What I recommend is that you check out the book "An Introduction to the Old Testament, Revised Edition" by Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman from Zondervan in 2006. This book believes that Scripture can tell the future (as opposed to antisupernaturalist). For instance, looking at Isaiah, this book discusses the reasons why modern scholars often date Isaiah to post-exilic times rather than being a pre-exilic book. They say that Isaiah is too specific and mentions the actual name of the king that will free the Israelites (Cyrus), and that means Isaiah must have written after this. What the authors of this writing do is provide strong evidence that the book is indeed written in pre-exilic times and that Isaiah was given the name by God to record in his prophetic writings and speeches.

The above books covers the post-modern theories that are mentioned by ebia above, but tend to disagree with them based on the facts. (Scholars that purport the theories ebia mentions above throw out all evidence if there is any foretelling involved, as they believe that is impossible, again, being anitsupernaturalists.)

There are many NT books that are comparable and discuss authorship and dating. DA Carson and Douglass Moo's book called "An Introduction to the New Testament" is really a superb work of scholarship. They do for the NT what Dillard and Longman do for the OT, but in an even better way.

Remember not to discount miracles simply to discount miracles. This is the primary factor behind late dating of books and authorship beliefs that conflict with Scripture.

 

[ebia]

Sorry, but there are plenty of reasons for dating some books much later than their 'traditional' dating that have nothing to do with rejecting the possibility of miracles or accurate foretelling.

There are some instances where that is the primary reason, but it's not the only reason and there are plenty of scholars who don't have such a presupposition who will date books much later than 'tradition' would have it.

Oh, and very little of this is post-modern. If we want to use such terms, let's get them approximately right.

 

[daveleau]

I agree with the Pentateuch (regarding it not being an antisupernaturalist focus), but the late dating of the Prophets and Minor Prophets is almost exclusively due to antisupernaturalism. As for postmodernism, it is true that Higher Criticism is much more modern, than postmodern.
Regardless, the arguments for late dating often ignore much traditional evidence (evidence from the texts and from historical records) to stand on debatable lexical dynamics as 'evidence' within the text. If one supports late dating, the key is to not ignore one segment of evidence to support the theory, but one must take into account all evidence. That is why the above books I recommended are good, because they deal directly with a lot of the claims of Higher Critics, giving them their due when appropriate, but quashing their theories when they are from left field.

 

[St. Paul]

You're the one asserting dates my friend. You assert it, you defend it.

I believe he is referring to the documentary hypothesis or JEDP. A quick google search will provide you with the information.

 

[ittarter]

.