Question about the authorship of Moses and the gospels

[xdisciplex]

Hi!
I'm confused.
I always thought that the ones the books are named after also wrote them. Why should God allow the books of the bible to be attributed to the wrong people?
But then I found this here on the net.

Almost all Christian theologians I have ever studied believe that at least 3 out of the 4 Gospels were not actually authored by the names on their covers. I attended a Christian university and studied under Christian professors and none of them believed that the Gosples were actually authored by the church fathers who are on their covers. It was common practice in the early church to attach the names of apostles to writings in order to affirm their authority.
By the way...do you think Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible? If so...he supernaturally narrated his own death...

 

[BobRyan]

The fact that the book of Deuteronomy closes with the writing of Joshua adding the footnote to Moses' biography - detailing his death and burial does not negate all the works of Moses. Christ and the NT authors attribute the books of Moses TO Moses -- where they also "in error"??

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all written by the stated author. There is no reason to invent stories about them lying about it. But the question remains as to what source they used. Did Luke borrow from Mark and Matthew?

The question of compiling and borrowing is most applicable when it comes to Luke since he gives us no reason to think that he was walking around with Christ as we know John and Matthew were doing. Not only this - but he explicitly tells the reader that his work is a result of careful inquiry and research.

Now I know of course that many evolutionists on this board adopt the motto "doubt God first - believe the Bible last - trust man always" -- but Bible believing Christians have no need for such agnostic values.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

There is a fair chance that Deut was written during the Babylonian captivity in the opinion of Donald Harmon Akenson.

 

[donnA]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
Hi!
I'm confused.
I always thought that the ones the books are named after also wrote them. Why should God allow the books of the bible to be attributed to the wrong people?
But then I found this here on the net.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Almost all Christian theologians I have ever studied believe that at least 3 out of the 4 Gospels were not actually authored by the names on their covers. I attended a Christian university and studied under Christian professors and none of them believed that the Gosples were actually authored by the church fathers who are on their covers. It was common practice in the early church to attach the names of apostles to writings in order to affirm their authority.
By the way...do you think Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible? If so...he supernaturally narrated his own death...

</font>[/QUOTE]I've read a couple of your threads, and I think you are listening too, and reading the wrong people, these people do not believe the scripture, they have no faith.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

Faithful scholarship means not only examining the Scripture text for what it says, but also means taking into account the results of a variety of other disciplines -- literary criticism, archaeology, history, etc. The process of thinking is not the same as the process of believing. One may think, on the basis of scholarship, that a traditional author is not the actual one, and still believe in the content of the revelation.

 

[BobRyan]

Taking the wild guesses of mankind over God's Word led many to believe that NOTHING in the books of Moses COULD have been written by Moses since formal writing did not exist in those days!

Later - they "discover" that the wild guesses of man were "Wrong". So (just as in the case of atheist-darwinist evolutionism) the question is "how much faith should we place in the guesswork of man"?

That becomes the real issue.

 

[xdisciplex]

Hi everybody!

But what I don't understand is why did Luke have to do research? I mean when God inspired him then why did Luke need to do the research? Why did not God simply tell Luke to sit down and grab a pen and then everything flew through him?
I mean God didn't need Luke to do research to be able to write the bible, did he? God could also have told him what to write down word for word, right? This is a bit confusing because basically there are 2 different opinions about this. Those which believe the writers wrote down exactly what God wanted and God made sure they did it exactly his way and those which believe God only guided their writings which means that they had freedom how to express something, but if they had this freedom then does this mean that God only cared about the general message of the bible and not about every single word?

And if some writers really copied from each other then wouldn't this go against being inspired from God? I mean why should they have copied when God inspired them? You only have to copy something when you don't know it.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
Hi everybody!

But what I don't understand is why did Luke have to do research? I mean when God inspired him then why did Luke need to do the research? Why did not God simply tell Luke to sit down and grab a pen and then everything flew through him?
I mean God didn't need Luke to do research to be able to write the bible, did he? God could also have told him what to write down word for word, right? This is a bit confusing because basically there are 2 different opinions about this. Those which believe the writers wrote down exactly what God wanted and God made sure they did it exactly his way and those which believe God only guided their writings which means that they had freedom how to express something, but if they had this freedom then does this mean that God only cared about the general message of the bible and not about every single word?

And if some writers really copied from each other then wouldn't this go against being inspired from God? I mean why should they have copied when God inspired them? You only have to copy something when you don't know it.

I think the answer lies in how the Scriptures were compiled.

First, none of the Gospel writers (and I, by the way, think that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote them as the titles imply) knew they were writing the Bible. They were, in the context of their time, writing to people in various cultures about what Jesus had said and done, and especially about His gift of salvation through the Cross and resurrection.

It's reasonable to expect that God did not dictate, but guided the research and minds of the writers. Each Gospel account differs in details, not because they are flawed, but because each one addresses a different set of concerns, and because each of the Gospels resulted from different experiences, recollections, and sources.

I think Mark wrote his first. Was he an eyewitness? Likely he was there at the arrest (only in Mark do we see a young man running off without his nightshirt). Matthew's was likely next, then Luke, all working with a combination of the previous writer's work, their own experiences, and the recollections of other eyewitnesses they had spoken to. It is my contention that Matthew, Mark, and Luke completed their work around AD62, before Paul was martyred and before the destruction of Jerusalem. John's Gospel was apparently written without regard to the chronology or content of the Synoptics and around AD100.

And al -- all -- were inspired by God and are reliable sources of doctrine and spiritual truth. "Inspiration" is not "dictation," it is guidance.

 

[xdisciplex]

Hi pizza!

But there are christians which have a different opinion about this. I mean if the bible was only guided then how could Jesus say that the holy spirit was speaking through David? Speaking through is not the same as guiding, speaking through means God used David as a vessel and this means David wrote it down exactly the way God wanted it. Now are there books which are directly "breathed in" by God while others are only guided? This doesn't make much sense.
I asked a baptist pastor the question about the different styles in 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy and he replied this here:

That's a great question. It is true that the different Bible writers reflect different writing styles. You can not say that one is bad and one is good. The rules of Greek grammar are not the same as English, and even English rules are constantly changing. It is best to understand it this way: 1. The Bible is eternally settled in heaven. That means that the manuscripts (Greek, Heb., etc.) comprising the Bible are eternal. The very words are as old as God Himself! 2. God providentially used men to transmit His word. He designed everything about them--their background, vocabulary, etc. to fit a book He had already written. 3. When the Bible writers wrote, they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This does not mean that they wrote involuntarily. Their minds, wills, and emotions were active in the transmission process. The words chosen fit--in most cases--their "personalities" yet the words were specifically chosen by God.In this sense, God "dictated" (however, not mechanically) His Word. 4.The words that God dictated are available to us today in the Textus Receptus (the Greek text underlying the KJV) and the Hebrew text (non-critical editions). I hope this helps out. Always remember, God is the Author of His word, the Bible writers were penmen faithfully writing the words God had chosen. Thanks for listening!! God bless.

I like this idea that the bible always existed in God's mind. I mean doesn't this make sense? God is omniscient, then didn't he always know how the bible would look like word for word? If he always knew how the bible would look like word for word then this means that God made sure that everybody wrote it down exactly the way he wanted it.

 

[billwald]

The LDS uses the same argument and they also change their documents when it is convenient for their current theology.

People who worship the Bible don't trust the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth. They trusted the HS to edit a book.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
Hi everybody!

But what I don't understand is why did Luke have to do research? I mean when God inspired him then why did Luke need to do the research? Why did not God simply tell Luke to sit down and grab a pen and then everything flew through him?
I mean God didn't need Luke to do research to be able to write the bible, did he? God could also have told him what to write down word for word, right?

You are right - God could simply have used Luke as His Penman - He could dictate in a dream or vision as He did with Daniel.

The book of Daniel is a good comparison of the different methods God uses. In the first 6 chapters you see stories told - some visions are included there - but most of it is simply relating history of what happened - what really happened to Daniel and the various kings living while Daniel served in court.

But then you also have direct visions where Daniel then writes down what he saw. In some cases Daniel says "the Angel said ......" and tells you exactly what the Angel said.

John does the same thing in Revelation. But in the BOOK of John he almost never says "THE angel said - In the beginning was the word..." He does not tell the story of John 4 "the woman at the well" in the form of "the angel said...".

God inpsires the Bible authors as they write the text no matter how they actually accessed the material. Vision, Dream or research or memory about their own history (as in the case of Dan 1-6)

The point is "God OWNS it" but He uses various methods to get the information to the Bible writer!

those that believe God only guided their writings which means that they had freedom how to express something, but if they had this freedom then does this mean that God only cared about the general message of the bible and not about every single word?

And if some writers really copied from each other then wouldn't this go against being inspired from God?

We know without a doubt that NT authors quote OT authors and they don't always give a "reference note" when they do it.

We know that much of the book of revelation uses language from Isaiah.

But this does not mean they were not inspired. God has no moral/principle such that one part of God's Word MUST NEVER be referenced or quoted in another part of His Word. Rather He seems to want us to see the various sections tying back together with other sections.

I don't see this as arguing against inspiration.

Christ quoted the OT quite a bit - that did not lessen His role as the Messiah.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
Hi pizza!

But there are christians which have a different opinion about this. I mean if the bible was only guided then how could Jesus say that the holy spirit was speaking through David? Speaking through is not the same as guiding, speaking through means God used David as a vessel and this means David wrote it down exactly the way God wanted it. Now are there books which are directly "breathed in" by God while others are only guided? This doesn't make much sense.
I asked a baptist pastor the question about the different styles in 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy and he replied this here:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> That's a great question. It is true that the different Bible writers reflect different writing styles. You can not say that one is bad and one is good. The rules of Greek grammar are not the same as English, and even English rules are constantly changing. It is best to understand it this way: 1. The Bible is eternally settled in heaven. That means that the manuscripts (Greek, Heb., etc.) comprising the Bible are eternal. The very words are as old as God Himself! 2. God providentially used men to transmit His word. He designed everything about them--their background, vocabulary, etc. to fit a book He had already written. 3. When the Bible writers wrote, they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This does not mean that they wrote involuntarily. Their minds, wills, and emotions were active in the transmission process. The words chosen fit--in most cases--their "personalities" yet the words were specifically chosen by God.In this sense, God "dictated" (however, not mechanically) His Word. 4.The words that God dictated are available to us today in the Textus Receptus (the Greek text underlying the KJV) and the Hebrew text (non-critical editions). I hope this helps out. Always remember, God is the Author of His word, the Bible writers were penmen faithfully writing the words God had chosen. Thanks for listening!! God bless.

I like this idea that the bible always existed in God's mind. I mean doesn't this make sense? God is omniscient, then didn't he always know how the bible would look like word for word? If he always knew how the bible would look like word for word then this means that God made sure that everybody wrote it down exactly the way he wanted it. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, that's more a discussion of sovereignty than of how the Bible came to exist.

The biggest difficulty in understanding the idea of inspiration vs. dictation (if you'll allow me to state it in this fashion) is that some books record the same events in different ways. Some books miss the historical chronology or make a simple geographic mixup. It doesn't happen often, and it doesn't challenge at all the reliability and authority of Scripture.

Yet if God dictated the Scriptures, they'd be 100% accurate in all points at all times. Thus it is apparent that Scripture, divinely inspired and absolutely, unshakeably authoritative, wasn't written mechanically, as if Paul or Peter's hand was under the direct manipulation of the Almighty; but was inspired in the minds, hearts, and spirits of those God directed to write.

Yes, there are sections wich are direct dictation. For example, prophets (and John, in Revelation)were told "write...," and they did, verbatim.

xdisciplex, keep asking. Keep seeking. But take care that you ask and seek from a place secure in the knowledge of Christ.

 

[tragic_pizza]

By the way, xdisciplex, a note about the "Textus Recepticus" mentioned by your preacher friend: This was the best manuscript in existence at the time of the translation to the KJV. Since then, arguably more reliable manuscripts and manuscript families have been found. It's interesting to note that, even though this is so, the KJV remains alongside the newer translations (NIV, NASB, NLT, etc.) as a reliable source of doctrine and spiritual truth.