Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 4 of 4)

Assumption # 5: "Ancient authors were reclusive individualists, solely involved in the production of their works with no outside influences or contributors."

Paul by Rembrandt

     If a writer’s unique literary habits can be identified, a seemingly objective standard is then available to discern between authentic and spurious works produced in his name. However, the entire focus of this popular analysis is limited to the individual author, while no consideration is given to any number of significant external factors. Were biblical writers as solitary and confined as current critical scholars seem to imagine?
     The concepts of solidarity and individuality may be relevant to modern literary cultures and westernized thinking but are viewed quite differently in the context of oral cultures and ancient practices. The more common procedure in the ancient Mediterranean world was to orally dictate information to a skilled amanuensis who was then responsible for putting it into writing. Note, for instance, that Baruch wrote for Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:1-32), Tertius wrote for Paul (Romans 16:22), and Silvanus wrote for Peter (1 Peter 5:12). The intriguing question is, how much compositional freedom was the trusted scribe allowed in the writing process? While a definitive answer is beyond determination and would no doubt have varied from one situation to the next, the reality of tandem compositions makes the appraisal of an author’s literary features much more tentative if not contestable, particularly when more than one secretary may have been involved. 
     Beyond the secretarial component and of even greater consequence is the issue of joint-authorship. Consider, for example, the book of Psalms, which is universally understood as the product of multiple authors. David, Asaph, Korah’s sons, Solomon, Moses, Heman, Ethan, and various anonymous writers all contributed to this collection of poetic compositions. Would it then be legitimate to isolate the authorial peculiarities of only one of these contributors and then critique the entire volume with this restrictive focus? In light of conventional literary procedures in the historical-cultural settings of biblical writings, how should the compositional features of a given text be evaluated? The idea of a lone author producing his work in solitary confinement is a fairly modern, westernized concept that does not fit the ancient biblical model.
     Probably more than anyone else the apostle Paul has been victimized by this anachronistic misrepresentation. The real historical Paul comprehended, executed, and communicated his mission in the context of a community of fellow believers and co-laborers. Not only is this demonstrated in the Acts narrative, where Paul is rarely depicted alone, but even in his own writings we find copious references to co-senders and co-workers, prolific use of exclusive "we" terminology, and allusions to collaborative ministry. He was undoubtedly an influential leading figure in his group of associates, but "Paul the individualist" is an unfounded misconception. Collective responsibility appears to have been the norm. To speak of "Pauline theology," for example, fails to effectively appreciate that the theology of Paul was something mutually formulated and shared within a cooperative environment. Far from being a lone maverick, the apostle understood his calling, his message, and his work as an integrated part of a whole, never discounting the indispensable partnership of trusted companions.
     Seeing that most of the New Testament documents were written in letter-form, a unique insight into the production of a first-century apostolic manuscript is provided by the letter embedded in Acts 15:23-29. The context reveals that after a group discussion and consensus among the Jerusalem apostles and elders under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (v. 28), a letter was commissioned to convey their decision. Two of their number, Judas-Barsabbas and Silas, served as amanuenses (note v. 23, graphō = to "write"). These two men were further authorized to verbally communicate the contents of the letter to the recipients (v. 27). Upon its completion, Judas and Silas delivered the letter to the Antioch congregation by publicly reading it, while they (as prophets) also imparted additional instruction (vv. 30-32).
     In view of current critical analysis, how would one go about assessing the language and style with which the contents of this apostolic missive were conveyed, and to which of the multiple contributors would the whole enterprise be ascribed? Even though a negative case against the traditional authorship of a number of biblical books has been carefully constructed by generations of liberal scholars, the foundational premise is invalid. The presumption of an author’s virtual independence is contrary to what the evidence supports. Notwithstanding the prophetic instrumentality and influence of a prominent figure, the legitimacy of any objection that focuses on the literary features of a solitary writer must therefore be called into question.
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Authorship of Ephesians, Biblical Authorship Part 1, Biblical Authorship Part 2, Biblical Authorship Part 3

Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 3 of 4)

Valentin de Boulogne's St. Paul and His Writings

Assumption # 3: "An author’s entire vocabulary is limited to a select handful of his writings."

     This seems to be the underlying assumption when the authenticity of a particular document is challenged due to its message containing a number of words or phrases that are absent from other writings attributed to the same author. Critical scholars tend to place a great deal of emphasis on hapax legomena, i.e., words occurring only once in a text or a literary collection. Ephesians, for example, is among the most disputed documents in the Pauline corpus because it employs over ninety words not found in the rest of the letters bearing Paul’s name. However, this is a tremendously subjective criterion. Consider the fact that Ephesians is the only extant Pauline epistle wherein the term "water" appears. Is it logical to assume that this basic word was not in the apostle’s vocabulary and that he did not and could not have ever used it?!
     Each book of the Bible has a distinctive thrust that necessarily calls for specific terminology. Some teachings naturally overlap and share the same or similar wording, whereas others do not. An effective communicator is aware of his intended audience and their particular needs, and his word-choice is influenced accordingly. It is not realistic to expect any writer to say the exact same things in precisely the same manner with the very same words, irrespective of his audience, his topic, his purpose, or his circumstances. Further, when attempting to evaluate the perceived vocabulary of a given author, his utilization of quotations and other borrowed materials must be factored in. And of even greater significance is the prospect of co-authors, collaborators, and secretaries. If multiple works were produced by an author with the assistance of different colleagues, who’s to say which words belong to which contributor and which ones do not? The issue of vocabulary is a notoriously weak determinant for questions of authorship.

Assumption # 4: "An author’s writing style is static, irrespective of when, where, why, and how his respective writings are composed."

     In almost every discussion about the Bible’s disputed books, literary features, particularly language and style, are involved. If an author’s characteristic writing style can be quantified, any document that exhibits variations, even if it bears his name, is removed from the list of authentic writings. Why are 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastorals considered by so many New Testament scholars as having been authored by persons other than the apostle Paul? One of the main reasons, according to current critical analysis, is that the writing styles of these epistles differ from the "genuine Paulines" and thus "do not sound like Paul."
     The most obvious question is: how does one determine which of the Pauline letters are genuine to begin with, thereby providing a standard of comparison? Since, for example, Colossians claims to be from "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1:1), why not start with Colossians and then systematically dismiss the other Pauline letters that do not conform to its manner of presentation? The truth is, consistency of vocabulary and rigidity of writing style are unrealistic expectations. This is especially true when one’s writings span a number of years, involve a variety of circumstances and topics, and address different audiences and issues. Furthermore, the limited size of the writings in question (a single chapter in some instances!) makes any attempt to assess specific authorial characteristics impracticable.
     In order for these arguments to seem plausible, a key factor that must be completely ignored is the potentiality of literary collaboration. If an author has dictated his message to a capable amanuensis, or has discussed the contents of the composition with influential colleagues, or has partnered with one or more co-authors, the language and style with which the final product is conveyed would likely betray the collaborative influences of more than one person. Of all the reasons offered by hostile critics for questioning the authorial integrity of a biblical text, the hypothetical "writing-style" premise most noticeably represents the friction between theory and reality.
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Biblical Authorship Part 1, Biblical Authorship Part 2, Biblical Authorship Part 4, Authorship of Ephesians

Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 2 of 4)

Duccio di Buon insegna, Christ Taking Leave of the Apostles

Assumption # 2: "The earliest stages of the Christian movement were necessarily simplistic and unsophisticated, requiring several decades for Christian theology and church organization to gradually develop."

     This assumption is rooted in modern evolutionary thinking that arbitrarily identifies teachings and practices that seem more "developed" as later, and equates "simpler" with earlier. Since, for example, the epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus describe the established position of overseers (elders) and thus exhibit a refined form of church organization, the authorship references cannot be taken at face value if the documents are seen as having been composed during a later period in the development of the church, after the lifetime of Paul.

     Long before the Christian era, the intellectual and technological genius of the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, and many other ancient civilizations is demonstrated in their remarkable advances in engineering, mathematics, physics, astronomy, agriculture, metalworking, architecture, navigation, and a host of other complex disciplines. But when the multinational Christian movement appeared on the scene in the first-century Greco-Roman world, we are expected to believe that it consisted of a bunch of ragtag imbeciles void of intellect and competence. In reality, the ancient church across the Roman empire included highly educated people, skilled writers, government officials, military leaders, theologians, doctors, businesspeople, and those among society’s elite (cf., e.g., Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.96). Is it realistic to conclude that these early believers were incapable of resourcefulness and proficiency, at least until a greatly extended period of time had elapsed?
     The bottom line is that Christianity professes to be a divinely revealed religion. Granted, the complete revelation did not come all at once and special gifts and duties were necessary in the formative years to grow the church from infancy to maturity (cf. Romans 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12:4-31; Ephesians 4:11-16). Nevertheless, within the first three decades of the Christian movement, during the lifetimes of all the conventional New Testament authors, "advanced" theological insights and organizational structure were already evident in the undisputed writings of Paul (Romans 1:16–11:36; Philippians 1:1; 2:5-11; et al.). Thus, on the basis of doctrinal matters, with the probable exception of the Johannine writings, there is no convincing reason to insist that other New Testament documents, whose authorship is challenged, must have been written considerably later.
     The book of Acts clearly demonstrates that early on in the history of the church a developed organizational structure was in place (11:30; 14:23; 15:6; 20:17). If the historical integrity of Acts is then called into question or the book is dated much later to accommodate this information, biased assumptions have given place to circular reasoning.
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Biblical Authorship Part 1, Biblical Authorship Part 3, Biblical Authorship Part 4, Authorship of NT Gospels, Authorship of Luke-Acts

Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 1 of 4)

     Who wrote the books of the Bible? Whether divine guidance is conceded or not, all agree that human beings were involved in the production and transmission of the sacred writings. On the "fundamentalist" end of the spectrum, as long as God is recognized as the primary author, human instrumentality is of little consequence. On the opposite end, the legitimacy of the biblical record can be more easily challenged if orthodox attributions are discredited.

      In many scholastic circles there appears to be a general aversion to accepting or even considering conventional authorial appellations, including the self-claims of the texts. But alternative judgments based on conjectural argumentation, unwarranted assumptions, circular reasoning, and excessively complicated redaction and compilation theories manifest a strong appearance of grasping at straws. A number of significant variables must be ignored or trivialized in order for the opposing position to seem credible (to be discussed).
     When a biblical text does not fit into the restrictive mould of a critic’s rigid presuppositions, it is immediately called into question. Even though a circumstantial case may be articulated in such a way that seems reasonable and persuasive, how does it measure up to the scrutiny of hard evidence and basic common sense?

Assumption # 1: "Because pseudepigraphy (literary forgery) was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, pseudonymity (false attribution) must have been an acceptable literary practice and thus common among early Christians."

     It is an enormous leap to conclude that the prevalence of pseudonymous writings in antiquity implies that the practice was morally accepted. In fact, the ancients were just as concerned about literary integrity as modern man with his "copyright mentality." When spurious works were detected, they were denounced and rejected as forgeries. While anonymity was fairly common in Jewish and early Christian writings, it is nothing short of deceptive for a writer to have appended another’s name to his work without authorization, purporting that the ideas, personal details, and authoritative directives were from a well-known historical figure rather than himself. Since the Romans, the Greeks, and the Jews were extremely careful to maintain the authenticity of their literary collections (spurning all pseudepigraphical documents), why would anyone suppose that the followers of Christ were any less scrupulous? The fact of the matter is, no Christian writings that were known to be spurious were ever accepted as genuine in the early church (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.12.3). This is especially true of apostolic letters, as the deceitful practice of epistolary pseudepigrapha was decisively condemned. Therefore, to casually label certain biblical documents as literary forgeries is out of place, prejudicial, and without solid justification.
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Biblical Authorship Part 2, Biblical Authorship Part 3, Biblical Authorship Part 4, Authorship of NT Gospels