Talk:Authorship of the Bible/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Conversion to table format

I've converted the article to a table format, as I believe this will make it easier to study. The information has been supplemented at some points from the article Dating the Bible. The information is substantially the same as before. More work needs to be done to check sources and references.PiCo (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get in the way of your work, as it seems to be ongoing, but I wonder if once the dust settles it might be possible to have the article begin with some kind of summary statement, rather than the abrupt "Table 1 shows ..." Alephb (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It might :). I'd be happy for you to write it. What I'm doing now is going through checking sourcing.PiCo (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Perkins

Perkins 2003 and 2009 shortened footnotes appear to lack the corresponding source in the bibliography. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm going through checking sourcing. I'll fix that sort of problem as I go. Or if I miss any, feel free to intervene.PiCo (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's Perkins 2003. Alephb (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Super, thanks a lot, —PaleoNeonate – 04:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Two Bibliographies

Hey User:PiCo, why are there two bibliographies? Any objection if I just fold everything in Bibliography 2 into the first one? Alephb (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I started revising the article and created a new bibliography as I went. Then as is so often the case, I lost interest before finishing. So sure, merge them. Weeding out unused entries would also be useful, but very tedious.PiCo (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I live for tedium. Alephb (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going through the references that are missing in the bibliography. There's a reference to Goldingay 2001 that I think you added, in the caption to the picture of the Isaiah scroll. I'm thinking that's to Goldingay's commentary Isaiah, but I can't confirm for absolutely certain due to limited preview. Any chance you can confirm I've got the right work here? Alephb (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't find it. I removed the illustration, not so much because of the lack of Goldingay as that the section already has an illustration (of a sefer torah).PiCo (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

If you feel inclined to take the trouble, dates could be moved to the narrow left-hand column and the right-side column used for composition histories.PiCo (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'll probably go after the references first. Bandstra 2008, Eskenazi 2009, Goldingay 2001, Brettler 2008, Soggin 1989, Gelston 2003, Rogerson 2003, and Hayes 1998. Thanks to having to make a living, I better get to better go to bed. Tomorrow: Fitzmeyer 2003, Meyer 2007, and Perkins 2003. And then maybe formatting all the references to make them look similar and then removing stuff not cited from the bibliography. Alephb (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, User:PiCo. As I keep working my way through the references, I'm noticing that Collins 2007, p. 667 doesn't have a bibliography entry, and I'm having trouble figuring out what book you were using when you added the citation. Any idea? Alephb (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Never mind. Stupid question. I found it. Alephb (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Good show :) Please feel free to update actual entries if you see the need.PiCo (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Undue

@Lionboy-Renae: You are promoting minority views, which is contrary to WP:DUE. Explain instead of edit warring. Also is believed to quote from is WP:Editorializing. WP:RS quote at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

"Is believed to quote from" is not editorializing in this case, because I am accurately summarizing the views of the cited source. It is the cited source which is doing the "believing". The stated claim – that 2 Peter quotes from Jude – is the opinion of the author of the source, not an objective fact. Therefore the wording is appropriate in this case.

See section below, on this talk page.

Lionboy-Renae (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

On dating of General Epistles

Hello, I seem to be engaged in an edit war with another user regarding the adding of sources supporting both early and late composition of the General Epistles of James and Peter, on this article.

The version my edit was reverted back to is a version which promotes a minority view of a highly late composition of the epistle of James, with the earliest offered date being after James' death. There is NOT a scholarly consensus on the pseudonymity of James. The pseudonymity of James is a minority view. As the article on the epistle clearly states, there is a widespread diversity of views on the dating of that epistle, with a solid majority of scholars placing it prior to James' death and being genuine, due to the strong interplay between it and the Pauline epistles concerning the matter of justification by faith. The majority position is that James is responding to, and refuting, Paul. Disunity between apostolic writings is a sign of a highly early composition date. In my edit, I made only a conservative change to this entry: I stated that the conclusion of James as being the work of a later author is not a consensus position, and added TWO sources supporting this statement. My edit was reverted.

The original version of the article which I modified also claimed 3 reasons for the late composition of the second epistle of Peter:

1. Apparent quoting from Jude.

2. Assumed familiarity with the Pauline epistles.

3. Reference to the story of the Transfiguration of Jesus from the Gospel of Mark.

These are all poor reasons to assume late composition: Jude could have been quoting from 2 Peter rather than vice-versa; the Pauline epistles have very early composition dates circa CE 50; and the Transfiguration story originated from Peter's own account, so the epistle would not need to have been written after the gospel of Mark in order to include such a reference.

The previous edit also did NOT mention several GOOD reasons to support a late composition of 2 Peter:

1. Significant stylistic differences (possibly explainable by use of a different amanuensis/translator, since Peter was known to be illiterate in Greek).

2. Reference to "false teachers", something which did not become a major concern in the early Church until later in the first century.

3. Encouragement in face of a delayed parousia, also not a major concern until later that century.

I added all of this information, as well as two sources – one supporting early composition, and one supporting late composition. My edit was reverted.

I also added two or three additional sources for the dating of 1 Peter, and extended the beginning of the proposed date range from CE 75 back to CE 60, since CE 75 requires it to be pseudonymous, whereas, once again as with James, the pseudonymity of 1 Peter is not a consensus/majority position. My edit was reverted.

Concerning the matter of my addition of the phrases "appears to" or "is believed to" to the statements of 2 Peter quoting from Jude, I feel that these were appropriate additions, since it is the cited source, Perkins (2012), which makes these claims. It is not an objective claim that 2 Peter quotes from Jude, when Jude could just as easily be quoting from 2 Peter. That is the opinion of the author of the cited source, not an independent fact to be stated without equivocation.

I would ask that my edit not be reverted a second time. It was not biased, and it was not promoting any minority views. I added sources for each of my changes. Thank you.

Lionboy-Renae (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman (Forged) and Dale Martin (2009 (lecture). "24. Apocalyptic and Accommodation" on YouTube. Yale University. Accessed July 22, 2013. Lecture 24 (transcript)) opine that Peter did not write anything from the Bible, and that that's the view of the majority of Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not a consensus. James, 1 Peter, and 1 John all have substantive bodies of debate regarding their composition dates and genuinity, with many scholars disagreeing with one another on the subject for various reasons. If this article is to maintain a neutral tone, it cannot cut off the date ranges for composition of these works after the purported authors' deaths, thus implying that the debate is settled one way or the other. It is not.

James and 1 Peter both read like first generation epistles (CE 35 – 65): they do not contain references to heresy, their understanding of the second coming is that it is imminent, and they speak of persecution only in vague terms, and only obliquely of Church organization. Textual analysis to determine the validity of the Petrine epistles, in particular, is flawed, since Peter was known to be illiterate and used amanuenses (such as Mark and Silvanus).

On the subject of 2 Peter, I did not dispute that it was likely to be pseudonymous, only the reasoning as to why it was likely to be pseudonymous. I also extended the date range to accommodate the minority (but not discountable) position that it may have been genuine (unlikely as this may be).

I included sources for ALL of my changes.

Lionboy-Renae (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lionboy-Renae: You might need to review WP:RS/AC and WP:UNDUE (these are part of the WP:RULES). WP:CHOPSY is not part of the WP:RULES, but offers a neat rule of thumb for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it is a violation of WP:RS/AC and WP:UNDUE to offer only a single source for all general epistles other than the epistles of John, with that source promoting only late dates of composition and pseudonymous views of authorship, when multiple epistles, particularly James and 1 Peter, have many prominent scholars' voices in support of early composition and genuinity?

Do you think it is a violation of WP:CHOPSY to provide only a strawman's argument in favor of the pseudonymity of 2 Peter, when stronger arguments are offered on 2 Peter's own article?

Lionboy-Renae (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

If it represents the most recent scholarly consensus, yes the single source could be used (I can't confirm this in an instant, however). —PaleoNeonate – 14:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

And what if an editor provides seven sources for his/her revision, as I did? Do seven sources that all pass the WP:CHOPSY test trump one? Lionboy-Renae (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lionboy-Renae: As a general rule, Wikipedia editors don't have a say in the articles, they just render the views of reputable scholars. WP:RS/AC is a WP:PAG which tells us how to determine what the academic consensus is, namely that a reputable scholar wrote "the academic consensus is..." or "the majority of scholars thinks that...". It's not rocket science. If you think that your own analysis could trump three WP:RS/AC claims by major scholars, you're dead wrong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It isn't my own analysis. I provided a total of seven sources – two for the early composition of James, three for the early composition of 1 Peter, one for the early composition of 2 Peter and one for the late composition of 2 Peter – all taken directly from the articles for James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter, to support everything I said in my revision.

It seems to me like you have a personal view on the subject of the genuinity of the general epistles, and want your view to be the only view presented in this article, poorly cited though it may be.

Lionboy-Renae (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lionboy-Renae: As I have stated, at Y from CHOPSY Dale Martin taught that both epistles of Peter from NT are pseudonymous, according to the majority of Bible scholars. Q.e.d. Ehrman did grant the point that the consensus for 2 Peter is stronger than for 1 Peter, but in the end both are forgeries. I'm neither Martin, nor Ehrman. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

"I also added two or three additional sources for the dating of 1 Peter, and extended the beginning of the proposed date range from CE 75 back to CE 60" Interesting. That would place the composition date before the First Jewish–Roman War (66-73), and before the destruction of the Second Temple (70). Are there any indications in the text concerning the author's knowledge of these events? Dimadick (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup, about James, it is quite possible that it wasn't a Christian writing to begin with. I offered the source above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

From the article on James—

According to Robert J. Foster, "there is little consensus as to the genre, structure, dating, and authorship of the book of James." There are four "commonly espoused" views concerning authorship and dating of the Epistle of James:

1. the letter was written by James before the Pauline Epistles,

2. the letter was written by James after the Pauline Epistles,

3. the letter is pseudonymous,

4. the letter comprises material originally from James but reworked by a later editor.

From the article on 1 Peter—

The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author, the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter have led many scholars to conclude that it is pseudonymous. Many scholars argue that Peter was not the author of the letter because its writer appears to have had a formal education in rhetoric and philosophy, and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language, none of which would be usual for a Galilean fisherman.

Graham Stanton rejects Petrine authorship because 1 Peter was most likely written during the reign of Domitian in AD 81, which is when he believes widespread Christian persecution began, which is long after the death of Peter. However, current scholarship has abandoned the persecution argument because the described persecution within the work does not necessitate a time period outside of the period of Peter. Other scholars doubt Petrine authorship because they are convinced that 1 Peter is dependent on the Pauline epistles and thus was written after Paul the Apostle’s ministry because it shares many of the same motifs espoused in Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles. Others argue that it makes little sense to ascribe the work to Peter when it could have been ascribed to Paul. Alternatively, one theory supporting legitimate Petrine authorship of 1 Peter is the "secretarial hypothesis", which suggests that 1 Peter was dictated by Peter and was written in Greek by his secretary, Silvanus (5:12). John Elliot disagrees, suggesting that the notion of Silvanus as secretary or author or drafter of 1 Peter introduces more problems than it solves because the Greek rendition of 5:12 suggests that Silvanus was not the secretary, but the courier/bearer of 1 Peter, and some see Mark as a contributive amanuensis in the composition and writing of the work. On the one hand, some scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter; according to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor. On the other hand, some scholars argue that there is enough evidence to conclude that Peter did, in fact, write 1 Peter. For instance, there are similarities between 1 Peter and Peter's speeches in the Biblical book of Acts, and early attestation of Peter's authorship is found in 2 Peter (AD 60–160) and the letters of Clement (AD 70-140), all supporting genuine Petrine origin. Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested.

If you feel that the articles on the epistles of James and 1 Peter are in error, @Tgeorgescu:, then perhaps you should edit them first, instead of coming after me for merely bringing this article into consistency with what they have each said, which is that a consensus on the dating of James and 1 Peter does not exist, and there are scholars on both sides of the fence. James is considered genuine or partly genuine by a majority of scholars. 1 Peter is considered pseudonymous by a slight majority of scholars, with a considerable number of scholars dissenting from this view and arguing in favor of its genuinity.

This article should reflect that disagreement.

Lionboy-Renae (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That's basically a teach the controversy approach. In the secular academia seems to be little to no controversy about Ehrman's claim that we only know the authors of eight NT books (seven Pauline epistles are orthonymous and the Revelation is homonymous). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

If there is actual scholarly controversy on an issue, then yes, absolutely, a range of dates reflective of the dates proposed by scholarship should be presented! "Teach the controversy" was a sham when it came to evolutionary science, because there was no controversy; all serious biologists conceded the truth of evolution, and only a fringe disagreed. But you cannot say that if 51 % of scholars say 1 Peter is fake and 49 % say it's legitimate, then the proposal of the 49 % doesn't even deserve to be presented for consideration!

Tell me: why are those dissenting scholars' views worth discussing in the articles on James and 1 Peter, as quoted above, but not here? Answer me that.

Lionboy-Renae (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lionboy-Renae: Maybe you should read https://ehrmanblog.org/how-do-we-know-what-most-scholars-think/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

"What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually pretty sure what I’m talking about. I might make a mistake about that on occasion. But then again, no one would ever claim that I am inerrant or infallible!"

So he basicly concludes by saying he hasn't actually even performed a rigorous literature survey, and he might totally be wrong. Cool.

I think you are a personal fan of this Ehrman fellow, and I frankly think you just swallow up and regurgitate whatever he says, uncritically. Your bizarre devotion to this one source, to the exclusion and marginalization of all others, is mystifying.

The article on James clearly indicates that there is a scholarly majority opinion in favor of legitimate Jacobean authorship, either wholly or in part, with some disagreement about dating/drafts, and a minority opinion advocating pseudonymity. The article on 1 Peter does not give an idea of what the true distribution of scholarly opinions on the matter of the epistle's genuinity is; but based on the back and forth, frequent invoking of phrases like "some scholars", "other scholars", and "many scholars", and the fact that it never once says the words "most scholars", indicates to me that the legitimacy of 1 Peter is still an open question, at least in the minds of the editors who composed that article. Therefore, this article, if only out of consistency, should give the full range of possible dates proposed in the scholarship – which, if we want to be frank, goes back further than CE 60, since there is no explicit Pauline influence in 1 Peter, unlike in 2 Peter, indicating that, if it were indeed written by the real Peter, it would most likely be from before he and Paul began their final ministry together in Rome in that year.

Lionboy-Renae (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Evangelical scholars have an axe to grind against any heterodox interpretation of the Bible. So they are by default not part of the critical views. Ehrman became famous by simply rendering the consensual information among critical Bible scholars. And perhaps I was not clear enough: all we do here is regurgitate what scholars wrote. Personal opinions (whether yours or mine) are unwelcome inside Wikipedia articles. About how Ehrman can find out which is the consensus view: Video on YouTube. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Inconsistency

"The proposal that Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings make up a unified work (the Deuteronomistic history) was advanced by Martin Noth in 1943 and has been widely accepted, with revisions.[8] Noth proposed that the entire history was the creation of a single individual ... Few scholars accept his idea that the History was the work of a single individual.[36]"

This paragraph seems inconsistent and self-contradictory. It could at least use some better wording. I'm not good enough on the subject to edit anything, so I'm just writing there hoping someone better at this to take action. --Betty (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

- I think it means that scholars have accepted that Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings make up a complete narrative within the bible, but scholars do not agree that it was the work of a single individual - in other words, there were multiple authors involved. - Epinoia (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

- But the paragraph continues to say "Noth proposed that the entire history was the creation of a single individual", not the several authors (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings). Maybe it means that Noth proposed it was the work of a single individual, few scholars agree to that and they proposed Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings are also authors, and the latter proposal is widely accepted? Or, Noth first proposed there was one author and then changed his idea and proposed there were several authors, and scholars disagree with his earlier idea and agree to his later proposal? Either way, the paragraph could certainly be reworded to express the meaning more clearly and avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty (talk • contribs) 05:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Corinthians

I was sorry to see my edit on 2021-01-15 quickly reverted. The point I was trying to make was that Corinthians is not simply 'Another of the genuine Pauline letters' but at least 2 letters, as is explained in the article on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. HuPi (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added Second Corinthians to the Table. Couldn't find a date.Editor2020 (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Deutero-Pauline Epistles

I would like to point out that it is quite misleading to state that the Deutero-Pauline Epistles (2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians) are pseudoepigrapha; it is true, there are scholars who believe so, but there are also others who support their authenticity and the debate is still ongoing. On the other hand, this identification is correct for the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus), which most scholars see as pseudoepigrapha.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Gullible fringe trash

@MaccWiki: Stop inserting that gullible WP:FRINGE trash. You cannot pass it for mainstream academic learning, so you have to stop! tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No. It's a historical question. And by "theological points of view", you're not referring to the mainstream theological position but what is essentially a fringe theory held by fundamentalist theologians. The purpose of theological study of the bible is hermeneutical - it's about interpretation, and most respected theologians accept that Genesis was written somewhere between the reign of King David (c. 1000 BCE) and the exile period (560 BCE). Claritas (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Gathercole

If we speak about Simon J. Gathercole, he looks like a bona fide scholar. But he has an enormously difficult task to convince the majority of mainstream scholars that the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were really written by... Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (i.e. Apostles chosen by Jesus himself, or companions of such Apostles). If that's not what he claims, please state it clearly. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that one of my edits was recently reverted. Wether most mainstream scholars are convinced by Gathercole is irrelevant to whether what he states is true or not. Collateral generalities (i.e. an appeal to a consensus of authority) should not obscure the concrete specifics of any given argument.

Simon Gathercole notes various places on Gospel manuscripts where an author's name could be identified; (i) in a superscription or initial title above the main body of the work proper, (ii) in a list of the contents of the work (the capitula list) preceding the main body of the text, (iii) in a running header, (iv) as an end title, in a subscriptio or longer colophon appended after the end of the work. Other methods included (v) title pages, or (vi) the inscription of the author’s name on the back of the roll, or (vii) a ‘name tag’ inserted into the roll, in a form rather like the modern bookmark (called variously silluboi or sittuboi). He argues that there is no evidence that there was a period during which the authorship of the gospels were unknown or unattributed.

In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true. Whether the various name tags on the Gospels were added later, apart from the various authors or their close associates giving their approval, is possible but not probable. The original custodians of the manuscripts unanimously believed the Gospels were not written by unknown authors. Just because the titles can appear in multiple variations, such as ευαγγελιον κατα Μαρκον, κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιον, or just κατα Μαρκον, only indicates those title variations may not go back to being a fixed feature of the original texts. Even in our modern era, one should not rashly reject the authenticity of a book's author on the basis of observing a changed book cover or title.Gouais (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

As you appear to be new to Wikipedia, I allow myself to correct you. What you say is completely wrong, sorry. Whether mainstream scholars are convinced by the arguments or not is exactly what we take into account here. Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Jeppiz (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

As Bart Ehrman stated, He might have called it “The Gospel of Jesus Christ” or “The Life and Death of Our Savior”, or something similar, i.e. Mark would not have called it κατα Μαρκον. Source: Bart D. Ehrman (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-19-512474-3.

If Gouais wants to make a case for it, it should be done at Gospel of Mark, not inside this article. This article is not the place for such arguing. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Although, I am new to Wikipedia I respectfully disagree. In response to the quote from Ehrman that you note, Martin Hengel (The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, p. 49) explains:

"The unusual titles of the Gospels already indicate that the evangelists are not meant to appear as 'biographical' authors like others, but to bear witness in their works to the one saving message of Jesus Christ. As is already shown by the beginning of the oldest Gospel, Mark 1:1, 'beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,' the title of this Gospel could not be 'Gospel of Mark' because the content of his book was the 'Gospel of Jesus Christ,' the saving message of Christ—as subjective genitive (or genitivus auctoris), 'coming from Jesus Christ' and objective genitive, 'about Jesus Christ'—but only 'the Gospel (of Jesus Christ) according to Mark.' The real 'author' of the one Gospel was Jesus Christ himself."199.245.140.215 (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

We do not settle stuff by logical argumentation, but merely by citing reliable sources, and this article only is concerned with the broad consensus of mainstream scholars, i.e. not counting biblical inerrantists, and discarding works which are theological instead of historical. There are other Wikipedia articles wherein there is more space for rendering the scholarly dispute. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)