Biblical Authorship

[Kaine for Senate '18]

There are a lot of theories about how the Bible was written; which one do you think is true?  I generally subscribe to the documentary hypothesis, for the Hebrew Bible.

For the Christian Bible, I follow that the 4 Gospels were written by separate people; the Synoptic Gospels using the Q source, and John using a completely different source, of unknown origin.  I do believe that the Pauline epistles were written by St. Paul, although the Letters of John and Peter were written later.

[J. J.]

I tend to believe that the OT started as oral traditions, but probably largely factual.

The NT, I think that there was a Q source, but I also think there were some first person accounts included.  Obviously, the disciples were not around taking notes at the birth of Christ.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Does the Catholic Church take a position on this?

[Daniel Adams]

Does the Catholic Church take a position on this?

I don't think the Roman Catholic Church has taken an official position on the authorship of the books of the Bible, but the editors of the Catholic "Jerusalem Bible" translation have a very "liberal" view on the issue and generally cast doubt on the traditional authorship (but they appear rather skeptical on the Q source theory, albeit not totally dismissive).

[Хahar 🤔]

The Islamic position is that the NT was written by ordinary men; though much of it is true, it is not holy. The OT, on the other hand, is a corrupted form of the actual Word of God.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I re-read Richard Elliott Friedman's book Who Wrote the Bible?, and I must say that the Documentary Hypothesis really does make sense.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I re-read Richard Elliott Friedman's book Who Wrote the Bible?, and I must say that the Documentary Hypothesis really does make sense.

Documentary hypothesis (or whatever it is called) is total conjecture.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I re-read Richard Elliott Friedman's book Who Wrote the Bible?, and I must say that the Documentary Hypothesis really does make sense.

Documentary hypothesis (or whatever it is called) is total conjecture.

It fits the evidence, though.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I re-read Richard Elliott Friedman's book Who Wrote the Bible?, and I must say that the Documentary Hypothesis really does make sense.

Documentary hypothesis (or whatever it is called) is total conjecture.

It fits the evidence, though.

No it doesn't...

Here’s the start of the complete conjecture:

From Wiki:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here’s the biblical account he is referencing:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2Cron 34 is in agreement with the 2Kings account

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wellhausen looks upon this passage as cloaking the rewriting/invention of scripture, but anyone with half a brain can see that it is an account of a spiritual problem of Israel and is a prophecy concerning the end times.

The old testament church of the day was soo busy collecting money that it’s devotion to God was absent.  They had even lost sight of the bible.  It wasn’t until a righteous king (Josiah, in the bloodline of Jesus) instructed the repairing of the Jerusalem Temple, that the word of God was found, having been hid by all the money the church had brought in.

Anyone with a TV in America can turn on “Christian” TV.  And what is the vast majority of Christian TV dealing with?  Bringing in more money!!!  When TBN holds its church service, repentance is NOT preached.  In fact, the word “repent” is very seldom heard during a TBN service. But what you will hear 95% of the time is the call to send in more money.  It’s all about bringing in more money, and how you can buy God’s favor by writing a bigger and bigger check, despite the fact there are passages in the New Testament where people were scolded for attempting to buy the favor of God.

It has always been a problem within the church, but even more so in the last days:

2Tim 3 1 "But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be…lovers of money rather than lovers of God."

Wellhausen was so busy trying to invent a story accusing the bible in order to justify his unbelief, he completely missed the whole point of the passage!!!  The word of God gets pushed aside and lost all the time within churches by money, but that doesn't mean the bible receives new authorship each time people repent and rediscover God's word.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

That has no relevance to the DH, and your interpretation makes little sense.  Instead, let's compare the Creation doublet:

Genesis 1:1-2:3 (P)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Genesis 2:4-2:25 (J)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The green was added in by another person, quite possibly Ezra, at a later date.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That has no relevance to the DH, and your interpretation makes little sense.

what?  it makes perfect sense.  The historic account is a prophecy showing that the heart of believers(which is suppose to be the temple of God) will be filled with the love of money instead of the love of God prior to the King of Israel (who represents the Messiah) cleansing the Temple.

Need proof?  Just turn on 95% of Christian TV programs.

---

  Instead, let's compare the Creation doublet:

Genesis 1:1-2:3 (P)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Genesis 2:4-2:25 (J)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The green was added in by another person, quite possibly Ezra, at a later date.

sorry, I don't see the color green as proof of your theory.  Maybe you should try the color blue, instead.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The green is just to show that those little parts were added in later; if you remove the green, then there is a clear distinction in the name of the Supreme Being in the two versions.  Except for the green, each name is only used in one version, never in the other.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The green is just to show that those little parts were added in later; if you remove the green, then there is a clear distinction in the name of the Supreme Being in the two versions.  Except for the green, each name is only used in one version, never in the other.

dude, that is a shockingly weak argument!  I use differrent titles or names for God all the time - That doesn't mean there are multiple people writing my post.

Also, in the New Testament, I can list at least a 100 titles and names referring to Jesus, but that doesn't mean there are at least 100 different authors of the New Testament:

Advocate (1 John 2:1)
Almighty (Rev. 1:8; Mt. 28:18)
Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8; 22:13)
Amen (Rev. 3:14)
Apostle of our Profession (Heb. 3:1)
Atoning Sacrifice for our Sins (1 John 2:2)
Author of Life (Acts 3:15)
Author and Perfecter of our Faith (Heb. 12:2)
Author of Salvation (Heb. 2:10)
Beginning and End (Rev. 22:13)
Blessed and only Ruler (1 Tim. 6:15)
Bread of God (John 6:33)
Bread of Life (John 6:35; 6:48)
Bridegroom (Mt. 9:15)
Capstone (Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7)
Chief Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)
Chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4)
Christ (1 John 2:22)
Creator (John 1:3)
Deliverer (Rom. 11:26)
Eternal Life (1 John 1:2; 5:20)
Faithful and True (Rev. 19:11)
Faithful Witness (Rev. 1:5)
Faithful and True Witness (Rev. 3:14)
First and Last (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13)
Firstborn From the Dead (Rev. 1:5)
Firstborn over all creation (Col. 1:15)
Gate (John 10:9)
God (John 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Rom. 9:5; 2 Pet. 1:1;1 John 5:20; etc.)
Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14)
Great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20)
Great High Priest (Heb. 4:14)
Head of the Church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23)
Heir of all things (Heb. 1:2)
High Priest (Heb. 2:17)
Holy and True (Rev. 3:7)
Holy One (Acts 3:14)
Hope (1 Tim. 1:1)
Hope of Glory (Col. 1:27)
Horn of Salvation (Luke 1:69)
I Am (John 8:58)
Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4)
Immanuel (Mt. 1:23)
Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42)
King Eternal (1 Tim. 1:17)
King of Israel (John 1:49)
King of the Jews (Mt. 27:11)
King of kings (1 Tim 6:15; Rev. 19:16)
King of the Ages (Rev. 15:3)
Lamb (Rev. 13:8 )
Lamb of God (John 1:29)
Lamb Without Blemish (1 Pet. 1:19)
Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)
Life (John 14:6; Col. 3:4)
Light of the World (John 8:12)
Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5)
Living One (Rev. 1:18)
Living Stone (1 Pet. 2:4)
Lord (2 Pet. 2:20)
Lord of All (Acts 10:36)
Lord of Glory (1 Cor. 2:8 )
Lord of lords (Rev. 19:16)
Man from Heaven (1 Cor. 15:48 )
Master (Lk. 5:5; 8:24; 9:33)
Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15)
Mighty God (Isa. 9:6)
Morning Star (Rev. 22:16)
Offspring of David (Rev. 22:16)
Only Begotten Son of God (John 1:18; 1 John 4:9)
Our Great God and Savior (Titus 2:13)
Our Holiness (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Husband (2 Cor. 11:2)
Our Protection (2 Thess. 3:3)
Our Redemption (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Sacrificed Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7)
Power of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
Precious Cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:6)
Prophet (Acts 3:22)
Rabbi (Mt. 26:25)
Resurrection and Life (John 11:25)
Righteous Branch (Jer. 23:5)
Righteous One (Acts 7:52; 1 John 2:1)
Rock (1 Cor. 10:4)
Root of David (Rev. 5:5; 22:16)
Ruler of God’s Creation (Rev. 3:14)
Ruler of the Kings of the Earth (Rev. 1:5)
Savior (Eph. 5:23; Titus 1:4; 3:6; 2 Pet. 2:20)
Son of David (Lk. 18:39)
Son of God (John 1:49; Heb. 4:14)
Son of Man (Mt. 8:20)
Son of the Most High God (Lk. 1:32)
Source of Eternal Salvation for all who obey him (Heb. 5:9)
The One Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5)
The Stone the builders rejected (Acts 4:11)
True Bread (John 6:32)
True Light (John 1:9)
True Vine (John 15:1)
Truth (John 1:14; 14:6)
Way (John 14:6)
Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
Word (John 1:1)
Word of God (Rev. 19:13)

[Kaine for Senate '18]

E only uses 1 name for God; J uses a different name.  J never uses E's name; E never uses J's name.  There is a difference between the names for Jesus and this.  Jesus is always known as Jesus; here, the name for God actually changes.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

E only uses 1 name for God; J uses a different name.  J never uses E's name; E never uses J's name.  There is a difference between the names for Jesus and this.  Jesus is always known as Jesus; here, the name for God actually changes.

the answer to this "riddle" is so obvious...the delineation of usage between the two different terms ("God" and "Lord God") is the high level account of creation (Gen 1:1 - 2:3).  God was NOT "Lord" of the universe until the universe was created, he couldn't be "Lord" of this world prior to the creation of this world.  So after Gen 1:1-2:3 establishes God as creator of the universe, he is now referred to as "Lord God" after Gen 2:3.

Once again, just as Wellhausen in the previous example missed the point about the greed of money crowding out the word of God, the point of God becoming the Lord of His creation is being missed here.

There is no contradiction between "God" in Gen 1 and "Lord God" in Gen 2, rather it's complementary - referring to God's progression as Creator to Administrator. 

The unbelieving "intellectuals" behind this authorship conspiracy theory may be "smart", but it's NOT about being smart.  Rather it is about having eyes that are able to see and ears that are able to hear.  That is why someone unschooled like me can walk into this conversation completely unprepared and quickly "solve" this.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'm not just talking about the Creation story, though.  If you look throught the Torah, you will see a clear distinction.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not just talking about the Creation story, though.  If you look throught the Torah, you will see a clear distinction.

and what, exactly, makes you think that after you missed the obvious points of the first two examples, one of which is the Creation story that you seem to be continuing to try to make a point about, that you're not missing the obvious points of whatever other examples you're thinking of?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'm not just talking about the Creation story, though.  If you look throught the Torah, you will see a clear distinction.

and what, exactly, makes you think that after you missed the obvious points of the first two examples, one of which is the Creation story that you seem to be continuing to try to make a point about, that you're not missing the obvious points of whatever other examples you're thinking of?

I think, rather, that you are reading far too much into the text.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not just talking about the Creation story, though.  If you look throught the Torah, you will see a clear distinction.

and what, exactly, makes you think that after you missed the obvious points of the first two examples, one of which is the Creation story that you seem to be continuing to try to make a point about, that you're not missing the obvious points of whatever other examples you're thinking of?

I think, rather, that you are reading far too much into the text.

How so?

1st Example) Church's money pushing aside attention to the word of God:  same thing as Jesus taught, "You cannot serve both God and Money".  In fact, Jesus himself cleared the temple of the greed of money TWICE during his ministry.

2nd Example) Creation Account:  The Supreme Being referred to as "God" during high level creation account, then referred to as "Lord God" when detailing his administration.

Dude, greed and God's administration are two regular themes in the bible.  One doesn't have to read too deep in order to put 2 and 2 together.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Like I said, you are reading too much into the text.  And regarding the God/Lord God thing, how do you explain throughout the text the clear divide between E and J?

[anvi]

Nobody really has any clear idea who wrote Biblical texts or exactly when they were written and redacted.  The Documentary Hypothesis of the Torah, as well as other critical hypotheses of the New Testament and other scriptures of the world like the Hindu Vedas and the Confucian Analects the the Daoist Dao De Jing, are all based on conjecture and hypotheses which are continually debated.  It just depends how reasonable the conjectures are.  The DH, or thories revolving around New Testament authorship, for instance, are not only based on historical conjecture about when the texts came into being or who did the writing, but about the diction used in a text, a text's literary style, common themes that appear in parts of texts and not in others, ect.  

So, for instance, when different sections of the  Torah always use consistent place-names along with consistent names for God together as opposed to other sections, or when one section makes reference to a specific narrative for an event while another section gives an alternative narrative for the same event, it's not unreasonable to conjecture that the sections were written by different authors.   Or, when for instance the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament Gospel of John are written in poetically beautiful, philosophically sophisticated and grammatically immaculate Greek and the corresponding manuscripts of the Book of Revelation are written in choppy and uneven prose that looks like it was written by a school-child, contining as it does a frequent number of grammatical errors, it's not unreasonable to suppose there were different authors, copying and transmission errors, ect. ect.  The exact same kinds of arguments go on, as mentioned, with regard to scriptures of author religious traditions.  I have read textual analyses of the Confucian Analects for instance that look closely at the Chinese diction and topical inconsistancies and hypothesize that no two of the aphorisms that make up the entire text were written by the same author.  

The authorship theories are of course conjectural, and they get revised all the time.  What is really at stake in these theories, what has been at stake rom the beginning for religious believers of all different traditions, is the idea that the texts may have not been revealed directly by a divine being and transmitted through scribes who made no errors.  Nobody gets offended when a textual scholar analyzes the Homeric epics using these same kinds of techniques because very few people (but there are still some!) worship Zeus and Apollo, but some (hardly all) Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists ect. are offended to have their religious scriptures analyzed like "mere" historical narratives written by fallible authors and transmitted by redactors who make mistakes or add their own "editorials" to the texts, because that can (though it doesn't have to) put too much at stake.

For my part, I have no idea who wrote the Torah or when.  I think it's reasonable to think that the five books were the result of a massive collaborative effort that spanned centuries.  Were the authors inspired by God?  That's a question of faith.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Like I said, you are reading too much into the text.  And regarding the God/Lord God thing, how do you explain throughout the text the clear divide between E and J?

the theory makes no sense.  First, it makes the ASSUMPTION that different uses of "Lord God" and "God" mean different authors, as if God is not allowed to refer to himself in different diction.  But there is no justification for such an assumption, for even I myself refer to God as "Lord", "God, "Lord God", etc.  If I can do it, why not God?

Furthermore, just in reading from Gen 1:1 through the account of the Flood, the terms are used interchangeably:

Gen 1:1–2:3 God
Gen 2:4-2:22 Lord God
Gen ch3-ch4 narrative uses “Lord God”; “God” is used by the Serpent, and both “God” and “Lord God” are used by Eve
Gen ch5 both “Lord God” and “God” are used
Gen ch6 both “Lord God” and “God” are used
Gen ch7 both “Lord God” and “God” are used
Gen ch8 both “Lord God” and “God” are used
Gen ch9 both “Lord God” and “God” are used

and since “Lord God” and “God” are both interchangeably within many individual scenes, the DH theory shows unreasonable complications that arise from its unwarranted assumptions.

When we flip over to Exodus, we see the same thing.  "God" is used up to the point where he steps in to personally administer in Ex 3, the account of the burning bush, at which point, "Lord" is used in Gen 3:2, and thereafter "Lord" and "God" are used interchangeably.

So, again, there is no reason to ASSUME that different uses of "Lord God" and "God" mean different authors.

[anvi]

The Documentary Hypothesis, as I understand it, is based on a lot more than just name usage, although name-usage is one tip about authorship.  According to the ways it is described in in old textbook of mine, Lawrence Boadt's Reading the Old Testament, the hypothesis revolves around general ways that stories are told, how God is described, what diction is used not just for God but lots of things like place-names, ect.  According to the hypothesis, J only uses YHWH (a proper name, and not a generic term, for God), contains narratives of God talking directly and intimately with people, tells intimate stories about leaders, is focused on the concerns of the kingdom of Judah, always uses the term Sinai and always refers to natives as Canaanites, while E always uses only "elohim," describes God as majestic and far often, often has God speaking to people in dreams, stesses prophecy, stresses concerns of northern kingdom of Israel, always uses the term "Horeb" and describes natives as Amorites, and P at times uses compound names for God (YHWH-Elohim) and writes a lot of lists and details about ritual schemes.  So, some examples of these different themes other than the two Genesis creation stories are the three different stories of how the patriarch les about his wife being his sister in Gen. 12, 20 and 26 or the two stories about how Abraham sends Hagar to the desert in Gen. 16 and 21 or the two stories of Moses' commission in Exodus 3 and 6.

The Documentary Hypothesis, as I said, is only one hypothesis among many before and since, and of course it's conjectural, but it's meant to explain a very wide array of literary phenomena in Biblical texts, not just different name-usages.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Like I said, you are reading too much into the text.  And regarding the God/Lord God thing, how do you explain throughout the text the clear divide between E and J?

the theory makes no sense.  First, it makes the ASSUMPTION that different uses of "Lord God" and "God" mean different authors, as if God is not allowed to refer to himself in different diction.  But there is no justification for such an assumption, for even I myself refer to God as "Lord", "God, "Lord God", etc.  If I can do it, why not God?

Furthermore, just in reading from Gen 1:1 through the account of the Flood, the terms are used interchangeably:

Gen 1:1–2:3 God
Gen 2:4-2:22 Lord God
Gen ch3-ch4 narrative uses “Lord God”; “God” is used by the Serpent, and both “God” and “Lord God” are used by Eve
Gen ch5 both “Lord God” and “God” are used
Gen ch6 both “Lord God” and “God” are used
Gen ch7 both “Lord God” and “God” are used
Gen ch8 both “Lord God” and “God” are used
Gen ch9 both “Lord God” and “God” are used

and since “Lord God” and “God” are both interchangeably within many individual scenes, the DH theory shows unreasonable complications that arise from its unwarranted assumptions.

When we flip over to Exodus, we see the same thing.  "God" is used up to the point where he steps in to personally administer in Ex 3, the account of the burning bush, at which point, "Lord" is used in Gen 3:2, and thereafter "Lord" and "God" are used interchangeably.

So, again, there is no reason to ASSUME that different uses of "Lord God" and "God" mean different authors.

That isn't the only evidence, just one of the more prominent.  There are major differences between the authors, and is easy to distinguish between them, if you look.

[Lief 🗽]

I took a class on Biblical Literature last semester, and we were taught the documentary hypothesis. It's always made sense to me. And anvikshiki is correct that the different names used for God are just one of many stark differences between the authors.