Talk:Authors of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article lacks citations for numerous assertions concerning authorship "according to scholarship". This distinction between tradition and scholarship is dubious and "scholarship" is neither a person nor are scholars unified in their conclusions. This is a very low quality article.

This article is sheer dogma and should be removed as it has not been researched. Is it believed that Moses wrote about his own death in the fifth book of the bible? It is known that the gospels circulated for two centuries without names. Why? Paul it is said by scholars may have written four of the books attributed to him or maybe even none.

Contents

[edit] This article is poorly researched and of little value.

I agree that this article is poorly researched. For example citation 5 gives the impression that Carson and Moo support the view that Peter certainly did not write 2 Peter when in fact they argue he did (while acknowledging that most modern scholars do not think this is the case). The assertions regarding John and the Johannine letters are likewise extremely simplistic and don't reflect the current state of play in academia (see for example the discussions in Raymond Brown's commentary on John). There is almost no book of the Bible where it is possible to assert the author clearly recognized "according to scholarship". There is a great diversity of opinion depending on the presuppositions of the scholar. Each book requires an entire article summarizing the main arguments for and against the main proposals for it's authorship. A simplistic table such as this unfortunately achieves little and the article should be removed. Hisimon (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I must agree that this article is so poorly researched as to be valueless. The only area I know fairly well is the Torah/Pentateuch, and the description of authors "according to scholarship" is simply the very old-fashioned Wellhausian view - over a hundred years old now. Things have moved on since Wellhausen, and Friedman - the source of this information - is one voice among many, and a minority voice at that. Would someone like to start the procedure for deleting this article?PiCo (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this article shouldnt be deleted, but should instead be marked for serious overhaul. This is very useful and interesting information, it just needs some help. --Omnipotence407 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Dr. Luke?

Who would Dr. Luke be ... besides a musician?--Omnipotence407 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I suspect that might be vandalism, in which case the rest of this edit is called into question too. Hopefully someone with more knowledge on the subject comes by... -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul of article

I have made a complete overhaul of the article - previous comments on this page indicate that the general opinion is that in its previous form it was so poor as to valueless. I would still be inclined to delete it entirely, given that the subject matter is so vast and that the article son the individual books are a better place to find information. But this is at least an attempt to point the article towards a more useful role. PiCo (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name/Move

I think a better name would be Authorship of the Bible. --Eliyak TยทC 22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)