Who wrote the Bible?

[Agent Robert Mitchell]

You're going to a public university, aren't you?

Actually, I'm going to a Christian university (hence, why I'm required to take Intro to O.T.)
My prof is a Christian and believes in the truth of the Scriptures, just not that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. At first I found this hard to believe, but taking a closer look at some of the Pentateuch and I had to agree that it was doubtful that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch (and I don't just mean the obvious parts like his death). I don't agree completely with the documentary hypothesis either.
An argument against the authorship of Moses is the existence of doublets. Take a look at the creation account and the Flood. You'll find two seperate accounts that have slightly different details. In one account Noah is to take 2 of each animal, in the other 7 of some and 2 of others. Also, in one God is referred to as YHWH, and in the other as Elohim.
Basically, this is an area of controversy, which isn't really what I wanted to get into, but I have seemed to enter anyways. The issue I wanted to address is: does it matter who wrote the Bible? Does it matter if Moses wrote the Pentateuch or someone we never heard of and don't know anything about?
To me what is important is God's inspiration. Since we know about Moses' life and know he had a close relationship with God, we can more readily believe God inspired him to wrote the Pentateuch, but does it matter if God inspired someone we don't know about?

Well, if I were to have someone dictate for me say...a letter. Would who writes it down or what I say matter?

[ajamj]

^ Exactly.

[Catspaw]

Both would matter to me, rendering the analogy somewhat flawed. What if Shadowpaw was writing a letter to me with important information, and he was dictating it to a three-year-old. Both matter. Is the person who is writing down what the other person says accurately? Are they trustworthy as well? Both matter. Of course, one could argue that God would choose the exact right person/people to dictate to, rendering the whole discussion unneccesary, since God could choose somebody who would be as accurate as possible. But such a statement does not clarify anything on its own.

[Agent Robert Mitchell]

Quite true, Catspaw. The problem is, so many people use the argument that since it wasn't straight from God's hand, it shouldn't be trusted. I do believe that God would make sure he doesn't have a 'three-year-old' (borrowing from your post) write down what would change history. By the way, would you let a three-year-old write a letter for you?

[Catspaw]

Probably not, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an option. I'm not saying that's what God did, just that the analogy presented did not end all possibilities for discussion.

[Clodius Albinus]

Mosaic authorship is important, and it is my understanding that theories to the contrary have been largely discredited in recent years. The textual criticism that purported to see four separate sources in the Pentateuch, the J, E, D and P documents (Jahweh/Yahweh, Elohim, Deuteronomic and Priestly), each with its own distinctive and sometimes (we are told) contradictory theology lost favor over the last few decades, and never had the support of many scholars outside the most liberal of traditions.

Why is it important to believe that Moses authored the Pentateuch? For one thing, because scripture itself indicates it, cf. Joshua 8:31, Mark 7:10 and 12:26, Luke 2:22-23 and Acts 15:1.

For another, there is no reason to hold traditional views suspect in this regard. Until recently, none who subscribed to the text questioned Mosaic authorship. We have histories and accounts going back to times only a few centuries after the books were authored, and all assert Mosaic authorship.

Joshua is widely believed to have wrote the closing passages of Deuteronomy, and a few scholars believe that certain verses may be the work of others, or may be the incorporation of the work of others (although this is far from definite), but that Moses wrote the Pentateuch seems reasonably certain.

To respond briefly to other statements in this thread, I would dispute the comparisons made to dictation. The concept of inspiration does not turn the authors of scripture into mere scribes or cosmic secretaries, jotting down a stream of words as God dictates. The work of inspiration does not negate thought processes, circumstances, or culture. The authors' distinctive styles and perspectives do come through in the Bible.

This does not mean that we can't rely on scripture. We can. It is God-breathed, and we know that all scripture is given by inspiration of God (II Tim 3:15-17). The authors of scripture added nothing God did not want added, and did not fail to include anything He desired. However, the Lord worked through them. He used more than just their hands. That's why John's words sound so different than Luke's, and why the Pauline epistles give emphasis to different aspects of Christianity than Peter's did. They're all inspired; they're all profitable for all the reasons Paul listed in his second epistle to Timothy. God chose those people whose experiences and styles would convey His word as He willed, and He inspired to write what He gave them -- as authors, not stenographers.

[Jeremy]

Good post, Zedekiah. You said a lot of what I was thinking about saying.

I would like to add that we can trust that the Bible is in fact more accurate than if God had simply "dictated" it to people, who could have then made mistakes in writing down what God had dictated. They wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and He worked through them, so that everything that was written down, including every single grammatical mark even (Matthew 5:18), was exactly how He wanted it and there were no mistakes. Every word is inspired by God (verbal inspiration) and He made sure that it was written accurately without the mistakes one might expect if it was simply dictated to a person.

Of course, some portions of Scripture were "dictated" by God (such as in the passages which claim such), but even in those passages the Spirit also worked through the men as they wrote and He made sure that every word was written down accurately, as dictated by God.

Jeremy

[Kris Doyle]

God made sure his story was preserved, and over time small details, which in ancient times were deemed unimportant (like the number of animals on the ark), may have been slightly changed. But, the essense of the story remained in several forms so that when the stories were written down, the writer made sure the truth was contained by writing down both versions.

I would have to say (respectfully) that since Jesus said in Matthew 5:18 that not even "one jot or one tittle" will pass from His law until everything is fulfilled, it follows that He made sure every detail was written down accurately. If God had inspired two authors to write different accounts of the flood with changes in the minor details (like the number of animals), He would have been lying. This does not shake our faith in God, however, because the details given don't contradict each other! In Genesis 6:19, God told Noah to take two of every sort of animal, but He never said only two. In Genesis 7:2-3 (a different conversation from 6:19, because this was just seven days before the flood), He gives Noah additional instructions: that not only is he to take two of every kind (he's still supposed to do that), but he must also take more than two (seven) of certain kinds. In Genesis 7:8-9, God tells us that two of every kind went in, but again (like in verses 2-4) He doesn't have the writer say there were only two.

It's kinda like saying, "I need a 50-man work team from each town in the county, but I also need 10 extra from certain towns." You would still say that 50 people came from every town in the county. Some towns sent more (50+10), but all sent 50. It's the same with the animals. God sent two of each animal, but sent 2+5 (or maybe 2+7 if the seven were additional) of some.

I know I don't have all the answers, but if people doubt that some 'small details' are important enough to be consistent in two accounts (we know that if they're not consistent, one account is not accurate), then it's a slippery slope. People will go from believing that little things are inconsistent to saying, "Oh, this isn't a much bigger detail than the first one," and "This isn't much bigger of a detail than the second one," and the 'inconsistencies' that they think exist will be bigger and bigger. There are no true inconsistencies once we study them out and pray , because "Every word of God is pure" (Proverbs 30:5--the word for "pure" is translated as "flawless" in the NIV). Also, the rest of the verse calls Him "a shield unto them that put their trust in Him," reminding us that because every word (not just the message's main essence) of God is pure, we know we can trust Him. If we couldn't trust His God-breathed writings on even the smallest things, He wouldn't be reliable in the big things.

[H34TH4R]

The way I look at it, God wrote the Bible, through the men he inspired. WHO he inspired doesn't matter as much as the fact that God wrote through them.

ditto what he said.

[Anne]

A few notes on Kris's response:
If you want to get technical, Genesis is not part of the Law, but that's jsut a small point.
What I really want to point out is that we can trust the Bible, despite its inconsisties. To say the Bible has no inconsisties is a lie. Not only do small details, like the story of Noah, sometimes clash, but larger messages as well. For example, there is a confliction on the view of retribution theology (righteous are blessed, wicked are cursed) in the wisdom literature (Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes). In Proverbs, the righteous are blessed and the wicked are cursed (see, Prov. 3:9-10; 6: 6-11; 13:21). In Eccl., the wicked and righteous are treated the same. Work is not rewarded like it is in Proverbs and everything is meaningless (Eccl. 1:2-3, 2:11, 17:22, 9:11). How can God say by inspiration in Proverbs: work hard and you'll be rewarded, and in Eccl.: you don't gain anything from working hard, everything is meaningless? The answer, simply is to me, that he is God so he can. Both Prov. and Eccl. have truth and present the whole picture. Hard work often is rewarded with success, but not always. So, while we can see why both Prov. and Eccl. were inspired, they do directly contradict each other.
As for the small details, we have to look at the context of when it was written. In ancient times small details really didn't matter like they do now. They were concerned about the point of the story: for Noah, God saved mankind and the animals, how many animals really wasn't the point. For us to get caught up over it is also pointless.
So, why did I start this topic - a momentary lapse of insanity. Why do I continue to respond when I know most people don't agree with me is because I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God - which I know most people here do believe - but that doesn't mean that we have to rationalize "inconsistencies" away. We can accept the Bible as it is. We don't have to defend it and say that there are no inconsistencies. We can be thankful that we have a God that preserved his work in the memory of people so well that when it was written down there were two identical accounts of it (minus a small difference in details, which as I already said wouldn't have bothered the people back then).
Okay, enough about that, now just to make this post even longer, I will reply to Zedekiah's post.
None of the scriptures listed indicate that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
Joshua 8:31 - refers to the "Book of the Law of Moses." Saying that something if the law of someone does not mean they wrote it, just that they gave the law. Also, it only refers to the law, not a book like Genesis which has no laws in it.
Mark 7:10 - Jesus does attribute some words to Moses, but again no mention of authorship, and it is only a few lines attributed to Moses
Mark 12:26 - again, reference is only to part of Exodus
Luke 2:22-23 - mentions "Law of Moses", see my notes for Josh. 8:31
Acts 15:1 - "custom taught by Moses" does not indicate that Moses wrote anything, just that he taught a custom.
So, in general the passages would indicate that the Law came from Moses, which I do not dispute in any way. The passages certainly do not indicate that Moses wrote the Pentateuch

[Jeremy]

The term "the Law" in Matthew 5:18 certainly does include the book of Genesis, and I would argue the entire OT. Sometimes "the Law" was used to refer to the Pentateuch and sometimes it was used to refer to the entire OT. In verse 17, Jesus said "the Law or the Prophets"--this phrase referred to the entire OT ("the Law" being the first five books [the Pentateuch], including Genesis, and "the Prophets" being the rest of the OT). Then when Jesus shortens it to "the Law" in verse 18, He is referring to the entire Old Testament!

Regarding Mark 12:26, Jesus is obviously saying that the book of Exodus was written by Moses, and Exodus is simply a continuation of Genesis.

Jeremy

[Chandler]

Hey Anne... you probably believe like I do but your post sounds like it's heading toward the idea that the Bible isn't fully inspired. We can find contradictions... on the surface. To God they make sense. We finite humans have to grapple with all kinds of seeming contradictions in Scripture and find a good balance. But a lot of us don't say that the Bible is wrong or inaccurate. Just deep.

[Oba-rai]

First of all, when we say 'who wrote it' as what counts, we take into consideration the people who are believed to or did write it. For example, when the Holy Spirit is upon someone who writes something down, the thing written down may be what God said, just written in a way the person who wrote it down would express it. Like if God told someone who had an absent father that HE was the Father to the fatherless, the person might write it down "He is the loving father to those who have no father"...they would be writing it down in the way they would express it.

Now, when God directly speaks in an audible, real voice, people write it down exactly. But when God's Spirit (which, we are told to be filled continuously) burdens someone to write something down, it often comes out in a distinctly unique way.

My two cents, I just took that off the top of my head...and it's late...and I was writing in a flurry of emotion. *goes and sits quietly somewhere*