Scripture, Scholarship & Authorship: My Thoughts So Far

[Glaurung]

Not that long ago I decided to read the Bible cover to cover. Right now I am up to Numbers and I hope to be done with the Pentateuch by tomorrow night. I read one book per sitting and I have two books to go. And while I have things to say about my experience thus far I will leave my thoughts on the actual books for a future thread. Perhaps I will compose a thread where I will give my thoughts on each book and what I liked and disliked about them.

But aside from just reading the Bible I have also been reading a fair bit about the Bible. I have been listening to lectures about the composition of the Pentateuch and why scholars believe that the traditional attribution to Moses has no basis in reality. As far as I understand it the consensus is that the Pentateuch is a product of the Babylonian captivity. And that it is a compilation of earlier traditions which have been copied-and-pasted together into something of a (mostly) coherent whole. What the implications for my Christian faith are as far as this question is concerned is something I have yet to think about.

More pertinent to me as a Christian is the scholarship on the Pauline Epistles. To put it bluntly scholars believe that about half of the works which claim to be by Paul are forgeries. I say forgeries because this is not a question of a mistaken tradition of attribution as we see in Hebrews (which is anonymous) or the Pentateuch (which nowhere claims Mosaic authorship). The works in question explicitly claim to be written by Paul. And if the findings of modern scholars are correct then we are left with a rather troublesome reality that the supposedly inspired word of God contains works which lie about their authorship.

I have seen some Christians argue that it does not matter who wrote them. What matters is the content. But this does not satisfy me because the authorship of these disputed epistles is not a trivial detail. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to be troubled by the possibility that a significant portion of the New Testament lies about its authorship. Especially given that a significant theme of the New Testament is the importance of truth.

The other option is to dismiss the scholarship all together. To take it on faith that Scripture is what it claims to be. But I'm not sure I can maintain such fideism. The truth as we can best discern it does not go away simply because we don't like the conclusion.

So where does this leave me? I don't know. To wrestle with doubt is an intrinsic part of the faith journey and doubt is something I wrestle with a lot. For the immediate future I'll continue reading the Bible and practicing the faith. I will just have to pray that God (whoever he is) sees fit to one day enlighten me. Where that enlightenment will lead me I cannot say.

 

[thomas t]

The other option is to dismiss the scholarship all together.

I think they are wrong with their conclusion about it being a forgery.
However, they usually make many good points about the letters, in my opinion.

Last week I discussed things over with a scholar - at least he cited many of them, which lead me to the conclusion he is one of them himself.

He came up with an interesting conclusion (citing from own memory): he said since parts of the Bible are similar to stories understood as myth (such as the Gilgamesh epos, for instance), this serves as evidence that the Bible is also a myth.

My take on this stance. It's a valuable contribution by a scholar to point out there are similarities between the Bible and other ancient stories.
Scholars always make good points analysing the similarities among them both with regard to style and content. Many good facts get cited, and yet the scholars' conclusion of the Bible being purportedly untrue... I believe to be wrong.

In my opinion, these similarities just don't prove the Bible wrong.
So my take here is as follows: great details, wrong conclusion.

Same applies to Paul's letters also, I suggest.

 

[Harel13]

But aside from just reading the Bible I have also been reading a fair bit about the Bible. I have been listening to lectures about the composition of the Pentateuch and why scholars believe that the traditional attribution to Moses has no basis in reality. As far as I understand it the consensus is that the Pentateuch is a product of the Babylonian captivity. And that it is a compilation of earlier traditions which have been copied-and-pasted together into something of a (mostly) coherent whole. What the implications for my Christian faith are as far as this question is concerned is something I have yet to think about.

Are you thinking of fully delving into the subject of biblical criticism (in terms of the Tanach, I mean) or are you just sticking with the Pentateuch?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not that long ago I decided to read the Bible cover to cover. Right now I am up to Numbers and I hope to be done with the Pentateuch by tomorrow night. I read one book per sitting and I have two books to go. And while I have things to say about my experience thus far I will leave my thoughts on the actual books for a future thread. Perhaps I will compose a thread where I will give my thoughts on each book and what I liked and disliked about them.

But aside from just reading the Bible I have also been reading a fair bit about the Bible. I have been listening to lectures about the composition of the Pentateuch and why scholars believe that the traditional attribution to Moses has no basis in reality. As far as I understand it the consensus is that the Pentateuch is a product of the Babylonian captivity. And that it is a compilation of earlier traditions which have been copied-and-pasted together into something of a (mostly) coherent whole. What the implications for my Christian faith are as far as this question is concerned is something I have yet to think about.

More pertinent to me as a Christian is the scholarship on the Pauline Epistles. To put it bluntly scholars believe that about half of the works which claim to be by Paul are forgeries. I say forgeries because this is not a question of a mistaken tradition of attribution as we see in Hebrews (which is anonymous) or the Pentateuch (which nowhere claims Mosaic authorship). The works in question explicitly claim to be written by Paul. And if the findings of modern scholars are correct then we are left with a rather troublesome reality that the supposedly inspired word of God contains works which lie about their authorship.

I have seen some Christians argue that it does not matter who wrote them. What matters is the content. But this does not satisfy me because the authorship of these disputed epistles is not a trivial detail. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to be troubled by the possibility that a significant portion of the New Testament lies about its authorship. Especially given that a significant theme of the New Testament is the importance of truth.

The other option is to dismiss the scholarship all together. To take it on faith that Scripture is what it claims to be. But I'm not sure I can maintain such fideism. The truth as we can best discern it does not go away simply because we don't like the conclusion.

So where does this leave me? I don't know. To wrestle with doubt is an intrinsic part of the faith journey and doubt is something I wrestle with a lot. For the immediate future I'll continue reading the Bible and practicing the faith. I will just have to pray that God (whoever he is) sees fit to one day enlighten me. Where that enlightenment will lead me I cannot say.

I applaud your effort. It is inspiring. The ten commandments are formed using a finger, but Adam is formed using the whole hands. You are using your whole hands on this.

 

[Glaurung]

I think they are wrong with their conclusion about it being a forgery.

In regards to the Pentateuch I did not claim it to be a forgery. I said the attribution of the Pentateuch to Moses is a mistaken tradition, if the scholarship on the question is to be accepted.

Are you thinking of fully delving into the subject of biblical criticism (in terms of the Tanach, I mean) or are you just sticking with the Pentateuch?

For now my interest is focused on the Pentateuch. But as I make my way though the Tanakh this will certainly expand to the whole canon.

 

[Harel13]

But as I make my way though the Tanakh this will certainly expand to the whole canon.

Then I recommend hearing out opposing views, as well. While fairly few, there are still scholars out there that disagree with the widespread consensus on these issues.

 

[Glaurung]

Then I recommend hearing out opposing views, as well. While fairly few, there are still scholars out there that disagree with the widespread consensus on these issues.

This is good advice and I'll take it up.

 

[SA Huguenot]

From my research I learned the following, it is good to see if there are any truth in these allegations that the OT for instance, was compiled after 500BC, and the NT after 100AD; that they include mythogy and other ancient scriptures, was coppied from such. Or that the letters of Paul was forgeries etc.

On the OT:
Keep history in mind, and the accusations by these so called "Scollars" are found questionable.
Lets say there was a Moses who led Israel out of Egyot into Canaan and wrote the Pentateuch.
Israel would enter a land where the normal Governmental structures was still to be constructed. There was no temple, and no libraries where scribes could copy the scriptures, historians would record the events of the Kings and people etc.
400 years later did Solomon built the Temple with libraries, scribal rooms and a formal governmental burocracy was established. During this time the older scriptures, Originals, would simply have crumbled up and dissappeared. Then for the next 270 years, these burocratic governing body would continue to compile the History of Israel, untill the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by Shalmanezzar in 721 BC. Samaria and its scribes would just vanish.
From 721 BC to 605 BC, Jerusalem kept their government going, and guarded their scriptures at the Temple grounds, untill Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the whole Temple mount, including their scribal chambers and libraries.

70 Years later, only 42 360 people returned to Jerusalem, and it was these people who still had manuscripts in their posession, which they themself coppied from the older ones, which perrished by time.
Now, If any "Scholar would claim that the OT was compiled during this period of the second captivity, the one of Judah, they will be half correct, for there is many reasons to know that what they compiled, was the same as the older manuscripts they had.

One solid example is:
If these people "compiled" their scriptures, would they have recorded all the bad stuff within it?
Never, they would have concocted some glorious history, not one of paganism, slavery, genocide etc!

Now, as for the NT. There are not a single thread or shread of evidence that there was a pre existing Gospel "Quelle". furthermore, The oldest surviving piece of papyri manuscript dates from 70AD, which shows that the changes in the Gospels werealready in existence during the lifetime of the apostles and Paul. This means that Christians in 45AD already knew the Gospels.
Now, Why would the first Christians, disciples and apostlesl eave their Jewish religion give their lives for believing that Jesus was God. At first the Jews persecuted these apostates, then the Romans, for over 300 years!

There is only one reason.
They knew, saw, and heard Jesus spoke.
They knew the disciples speak about Jesus.
They read what the Gospels said, and from their recollection, they never had the notion that what was written was false, or a concoction.
for about 30 to 70 years after Jesus died, there was still apostles amongst the congregations in Asia Minor.

Anyhow, if we were to take the archaeological and Historical evidence into consideration, including the above environment, with the absence of any "Q" gospel, or evidence of another OT and the poorly informative Emua Eilish and other manuscripts, such as the Babilonian creation story, the Bible is very reliable indeed.

 

[Left Coast]

Not that long ago I decided to read the Bible cover to cover. Right now I am up to Numbers and I hope to be done with the Pentateuch by tomorrow night. I read one book per sitting and I have two books to go. And while I have things to say about my experience thus far I will leave my thoughts on the actual books for a future thread. Perhaps I will compose a thread where I will give my thoughts on each book and what I liked and disliked about them.

But aside from just reading the Bible I have also been reading a fair bit about the Bible. I have been listening to lectures about the composition of the Pentateuch and why scholars believe that the traditional attribution to Moses has no basis in reality. As far as I understand it the consensus is that the Pentateuch is a product of the Babylonian captivity. And that it is a compilation of earlier traditions which have been copied-and-pasted together into something of a (mostly) coherent whole. What the implications for my Christian faith are as far as this question is concerned is something I have yet to think about.

More pertinent to me as a Christian is the scholarship on the Pauline Epistles. To put it bluntly scholars believe that about half of the works which claim to be by Paul are forgeries. I say forgeries because this is not a question of a mistaken tradition of attribution as we see in Hebrews (which is anonymous) or the Pentateuch (which nowhere claims Mosaic authorship). The works in question explicitly claim to be written by Paul. And if the findings of modern scholars are correct then we are left with a rather troublesome reality that the supposedly inspired word of God contains works which lie about their authorship.

I have seen some Christians argue that it does not matter who wrote them. What matters is the content. But this does not satisfy me because the authorship of these disputed epistles is not a trivial detail. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to be troubled by the possibility that a significant portion of the New Testament lies about its authorship. Especially given that a significant theme of the New Testament is the importance of truth.

The other option is to dismiss the scholarship all together. To take it on faith that Scripture is what it claims to be. But I'm not sure I can maintain such fideism. The truth as we can best discern it does not go away simply because we don't like the conclusion.

So where does this leave me? I don't know. To wrestle with doubt is an intrinsic part of the faith journey and doubt is something I wrestle with a lot. For the immediate future I'll continue reading the Bible and practicing the faith. I will just have to pray that God (whoever he is) sees fit to one day enlighten me. Where that enlightenment will lead me I cannot say.

I appreciate your openness to the truth despite the fact that it is sometimes at odds with your faith. I found myself in a similar place several years ago as a Catholic. Keep studying and thinking critically!

 

[pearl]

As far as I understand it the consensus is that the Pentateuch is a product of the Babylonian captivity.

The Pentateuch represents the final compilation during the Exile, but of very antient traditions, sources. So I wouldn't refer to it as the sole product of the Exile. I would add that in order to understand the Pentateuch, or for that matter Christian Scripture, one needs to begin with Exodus.

I have seen some Christians argue that it does not matter who wrote them. What matters is the content. But this does not satisfy me because the authorship of these disputed epistles is not a trivial detail. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to be troubled by the possibility that a significant portion of the New Testament lies about its authorship. Especially given that a significant theme of the New Testament is the importance of truth.

Its not a question of lying, but writing anonymously, the names later attributed by the Church. We cannot or ought not to subject 1st century writers to what would not be acceptable today.

More pertinent to me as a Christian is the scholarship on the Pauline Epistles. To put it bluntly scholars believe that about half of the works which claim to be by Paul are forgeries.

Or the product of a Pauline school following Paul.

So where does this leave me? I don't know. To wrestle with doubt is an intrinsic part of the faith journey and doubt is something I wrestle with a lot. For the immediate future I'll continue reading the Bible and practicing the faith. I will just have to pray that God (whoever he is) sees fit to one day enlighten me. Where that enlightenment will lead me I cannot say.

It leaves you with the question; Do you believe that Hebrew and Christian Scripture are inspired by the Spirit of God, God who remains a mystery? As the Gospel of John closes with its purpose of writing, 'so that you may have faith....' If not, all the lectures, scholarly reading will not help you.

 

[Brian2]

Not that long ago I decided to read the Bible cover to cover. Right now I am up to Numbers and I hope to be done with the Pentateuch by tomorrow night. I read one book per sitting and I have two books to go. And while I have things to say about my experience thus far I will leave my thoughts on the actual books for a future thread. Perhaps I will compose a thread where I will give my thoughts on each book and what I liked and disliked about them.

But aside from just reading the Bible I have also been reading a fair bit about the Bible. I have been listening to lectures about the composition of the Pentateuch and why scholars believe that the traditional attribution to Moses has no basis in reality. As far as I understand it the consensus is that the Pentateuch is a product of the Babylonian captivity. And that it is a compilation of earlier traditions which have been copied-and-pasted together into something of a (mostly) coherent whole. What the implications for my Christian faith are as far as this question is concerned is something I have yet to think about.

More pertinent to me as a Christian is the scholarship on the Pauline Epistles. To put it bluntly scholars believe that about half of the works which claim to be by Paul are forgeries. I say forgeries because this is not a question of a mistaken tradition of attribution as we see in Hebrews (which is anonymous) or the Pentateuch (which nowhere claims Mosaic authorship). The works in question explicitly claim to be written by Paul. And if the findings of modern scholars are correct then we are left with a rather troublesome reality that the supposedly inspired word of God contains works which lie about their authorship.

I have seen some Christians argue that it does not matter who wrote them. What matters is the content. But this does not satisfy me because the authorship of these disputed epistles is not a trivial detail. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to be troubled by the possibility that a significant portion of the New Testament lies about its authorship. Especially given that a significant theme of the New Testament is the importance of truth.

The other option is to dismiss the scholarship all together. To take it on faith that Scripture is what it claims to be. But I'm not sure I can maintain such fideism. The truth as we can best discern it does not go away simply because we don't like the conclusion.

So where does this leave me? I don't know. To wrestle with doubt is an intrinsic part of the faith journey and doubt is something I wrestle with a lot. For the immediate future I'll continue reading the Bible and practicing the faith. I will just have to pray that God (whoever he is) sees fit to one day enlighten me. Where that enlightenment will lead me I cannot say.

It is certainly good advice to read the more conservative scholars on these issues, both about the New and Old Testament. I have found that they usually have good reason for seeing the Bible books to have been written by whom and when the Bible suggests.
In many fields of academia the consensus view is just the majority view. It is as if the truth is determined by a majority vote.

 

[1213]

...The other option is to dismiss the scholarship all together. To take it on faith that Scripture is what it claims to be. But I'm not sure I can maintain such fideism. The truth as we can best discern it does not go away simply because we don't like the conclusion....

Interesting question to me is, why have more faith to modern scholars than to Bible?

 

[Windwalker]

More pertinent to me as a Christian is the scholarship on the Pauline Epistles. To put it bluntly scholars believe that about half of the works which claim to be by Paul are forgeries. I say forgeries because this is not a question of a mistaken tradition of attribution as we see in Hebrews (which is anonymous) or the Pentateuch (which nowhere claims Mosaic authorship). The works in question explicitly claim to be written by Paul. And if the findings of modern scholars are correct then we are left with a rather troublesome reality that the supposedly inspired word of God contains works which lie about their authorship.

I have seen some Christians argue that it does not matter who wrote them. What matters is the content. But this does not satisfy me because the authorship of these disputed epistles is not a trivial detail. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to be troubled by the possibility that a significant portion of the New Testament lies about its authorship. Especially given that a significant theme of the New Testament is the importance of truth.

The other option is to dismiss the scholarship all together. To take it on faith that Scripture is what it claims to be. But I'm not sure I can maintain such fideism. The truth as we can best discern it does not go away simply because we don't like the conclusion.

So where does this leave me? I don't know. To wrestle with doubt is an intrinsic part of the faith journey and doubt is something I wrestle with a lot. For the immediate future I'll continue reading the Bible and practicing the faith. I will just have to pray that God (whoever he is) sees fit to one day enlighten me. Where that enlightenment will lead me I cannot say.

It sounds like you are in a wonderful place right now. I mean that sincerely from a place of hindsight. This is not just learning more things, but learning to shift the entire ways of understanding things. It's not fun during it, but neither is any birthing process, as I see it.

Yes there are pseudepigraphal texts ascribed to Paul in the NT. They, along with all the other books of the NT were added based upon the decisions of church councils. So not only do you have these texts added, you also have texts that were not added. Books were included that members in the council hotly contested and did not want added, such as that horrid book of Revelation. Other writings were voted out, and later banned, burned, and all of that very human political decision making argument stuff.

Even when I was a student in a fundamentalist bible college long ago, I couldn't rationally believe that God was somehow guiding all that process for just the right book that "He" chose personally for us would get added! You mean to say, the Holy Spirit presided over them and guided them just right to get this book I have now? I eventually just pushed that question to the side, as it was inconvenient to ask at that time. But it kept pestering me, right along with its growing friends of other inconsistencies with what I was being taught to believe.

Where does one go from there once the narrative of infallibility and inerrancy has been shown to be itself a created mythology? How does that change how one now looks at these stories of our faith and the symbols and meanings, if they are not exactly as we were told and had learned to see them that way in our faith, believing they were as we imagined them?

It's kind of the same thing I say to believers who insist that evolution isn't true, because the bible says God created people from the dust, as it says in Genesis. The problem isn't belief in God. The problem is that how we think about God, what we see when we read the texts, or expect to see or hear from them, is what needs to be examined, and or let go of. It's not you must believe in either God or evolution, but you can't believe in both (I was told that here on RF not more that 2 weeks ago). Rather, it's not abandoning faith in God, as he primed that scenario, rather it is about modifying how we think about God as part of our faith.

So same thing with the whole house of cards infallibility and inerrancy myth. Is one's faith in God, or in their beliefs about God? That's the whole thing right there. If it's the former, you'll figure it out. If it's the latter, you wouldn't be asking this in this thread.

 

[Glaurung]

Interesting question to me is, why have more faith to modern scholars than to Bible?

It's not so much about having faith in modern scholars so much as being willing to take an honest look at what scholars believe about the biblical texts and why they believe what they do. If you hold that the biblical texts are the inerrant word of God then yes, much of the consensus is threatening to that view. One could double down and insist on traditional beliefs anyway. To just not ask certain questions. But I too much believe in truth to just ignore certain questions simply because I may not like the potential answers.

And let's not overstate what I have said in my original post. I have not abandoned Christianity. But as I read and explore the Bible I may have to be open to the possibility that certain traditional beliefs about the Bible have become very questionable.

 

[1213]

...To just not ask certain questions. ... I may not like the potential answers....I may have to be open to the possibility that certain traditional beliefs about the Bible have become very questionable.

I think it is good to ask questions. I just think it is disturbing how easily people accept all claims that are made against the Bible and don’t usually question anything else similarly as they question the Bible. It seems that the message in the Bible is so hated that people rather believe anything else someone tells, even without any proof or reasonable evidence. And no, disbelief is not to me a problem, I just don’t like the biased and hypocrite way that many seem to have.