| Writers: Why? |
| Writers: Why? |
|
THE CONCEPT OF WRITERS I suspect most Christians would not entertain this question. Obviously God's message demands a writer. Done. But the question is germaine to analysis of the text, since it can both assist in analytical design, and also in the interpretation of the analysis. Last night on the History Channel, there was a program 'Who Wrote the Bible?'. It was actually not too bad. The experts tended to be on the liberal side (plus Liberty University for 'balance'), but the general flow didn't move too far from mainstream Christianity. What perked my ears up was the statement from the jewish rabbi that the Song of Solomon was from Solomon ... along with Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Now, of course, that statement probably isn't too surprising. But if you've run large neural network analyses on all the hebrew text, these three books are not even remotely close to Solomon's time. More like the captivity. Certainly after Isaiah. Is it important? Probably not. But it does beg the question, just how much reliance can you place on 'tradition'? You'd like to. But, as you browse the computer analyses, you begin to wonder. Moses wrote the Torah, right? The Bible didn't say he did. The analytical patterns definitely don't support a common writer. And just reading the text doesn't give you much confidence. But that's the conservative tradition and maybe yours. Why would he write? He's busy trying to keep over a million people fed and alive, fight off the various enemies, and move toward the promise land. And write the Torah. Why? I would guess there are motives for 'assigning' writers. Deriving some kind of authority for the words. Plus answering the age old question ... 'who wrote this'? Oddly enough, there's a comfort level with simply assigning a name. As if the name translates to trust. You have met 'Moses', haven't you?? ANALYTICAL WRITERS From an analytical point of view, it's really not necessary to know the name of who wrote something. But it is reasonably important to separate out the different writers. Here's an example. Most researchers agree with Paul as the author of the Corinthians, Thessalonians and Romans. Probably Galatians. For a good analysis, the more styles of a writer you can include, the more accurate the analysis. So, if you group these Pauline books together, is that 'Paul'? Yes and no. You see, parts of these books are clearly not 'Paul'. Well, the style is different and the 'aging' is later. How do we know it's not Paul? We actually don't. They're just 'different'. Different from what? Do you see the problem? We have a situation where we actually don't know the writers. We don't even know if all of a book is one writer (some aren't). So the concept of a 'writer' is hypothetical. The most we can discuss is 'consistency' ... or degrees of 'similarity'. |
|
WHY NOT WRITE? Personally I think this question is much more important. In the Old Testament, it's probably not too significant. Writing was a profession. So, whoever ended up 'writing' ... well, that's who wrote. But what if there are significant periods with no writings? The most obvious is the 'northern kingdom'. You have many books from the south, and they 'easily' survived the captivity. What happened to the north? Of course you JEPD'ers know the theory about that. Another example is in the post-exile period, with Ezra being one of the last. Why no more writers? Was it because God always revealed his word in Hebrew (or aramaic per the jewish rabbi above). That's the implication (a key canon-selection criteria). 300 empty years? Of course the Catholic church includes the apocrypha. In the New Testament, the situation is more curious. Writers were more common ... certainly secretaries. Paul had several. Let's start with 'Peter'. He seems pretty well known to Paul (as Cephus) and the gospel writers. 'Maybe' a letter from him, at most. So where was the leader of the Christian church/movement and his years of guidance? The Catholic church says he was the first bishop of Rome ... probably about 40-50 years of 'writing-life' missing. And inspired too. Alternatively, consider 'James'. A very similar situation. Considered a very late book, commentaries discuss who the author 'James' really was. But the leader of the Jerusalem church wasn't a mystery. According to both Paul and Luke (Acts), James would 'put his foot down', whenever needed. And he didn't write or dictate to a secretary? How likely is that? In fact, if you think about it, what happened to the nine apostles (not counting Peter(?), John, and maybe Matthew)? They were inspired but didn't write? Keep in mind, this was a period of many writings. Just a few from the apostles. It is kind of curious. Effectively, you're 'missing' the whole 'eastern church' or more properly 'the church' at the time. Gone. Isn't that a little odd? And even more curious is that the second century had considerably more writings. Just the wrong kind. My guess? The destruction of Jerusalem was more than just the destruction of the jews. IMPOLITIC WRITERS? Where 'non-writing' becomes an issue, is when a likely author isn't too popular a choice. Take the James epistle, discussed above. Actually the syntax in James is quite similar to Paul ... probably written about the same period. James probably wrote James. Surprise. And take 'Hebrews' ... the syntax certainly doesn't come close any of the 'Paul' samples. But it is quite similar to Jude. Jude??? Huh? Special Note: Did you ever think about Jesus? Didn't/couldn't write. But he had TWELVE disciples as his only witnesses. And THEY couldn't write either? And, this to save mankind??? (ok ... maybe Matthew). |
| Copyright ©, 2007, dmbarnhart |
| Prev Back Next |