Main Menu

Book Recommendations

Back to the Main Page

Biblical Origins

In the nineteenth century, however, beginning in Germany, scholars of Biblical languages (Hebrew and Greek) began looking at the Bible as a collection of documents, rather than as a coherent divine message to humanity. These were eventually known as the "higher critics," or "source critics," since they were examining the possible sources of each book of the Bible.

This scholarship was sporadic, for it was laborious, and only a small number of scholars dared engage in such studies. However, a number of facts emerged, which are now generally accepted even by theologians and "believers."

The Old Testament

Scholars have determined that a number of scribes originally composed the Bible. They base this on the numerous double-narratives (that is, narratives repeating the same motif, such as successive early patriarchs having to pass their wives off as their sisters).

First, is the scribe known as the Yahwist, or "J," who used YHWH as the name of God. He composed the creation stories and the earliest parts of the narrative. Next is the Elohist, or "E," who used Elohim as the name of God. Later portions of the narrative were written by him. Another scribe, "P" for priestly, wrote a few of the later portions as well, and his work centered on the priesthood (particularly Leviticus). Finally, a fourth scribe was involved, the Redactor (editor), since there seems to have been a consistent editing job done on all the various pieces; the modern construction of the Pentateuch into five books, was his doing.

The "History" portion of the Old Testament was composed by several chroniclers. They have been traced according to their particular prejudices. Evidence of this is seen, again, in duplicated narratives, especially where the exact same event is recounted more than once, in a different way. This has been known prior to the research of the source critics, however, they managed to distill the nature of each chronicler, where he came from, and even the rough time period in which he lived.

The prophetic and wisdom books were written over a longer period of time. Some, such as Job, show signs of great age, although they were certainly edited in later times. In fact, around the turn of the century, a possible source for Job, outside of the Hebrews, was found, on an ancient Sumerian tablet. The "Sumerian Job" is very much like the Hebrew Job. Other prophetic books, while they appear to be more recent Hebrew inventions, contain passages or motifs from other literature of the area, such as Mesopotamian lamentations, or Ugartic or Aramaic proverbs.

Some of the Old Testament books are of very late authorship, some as late as the second century BCE. One of the latest was Daniel, which shows some signs of having had passages swapped around, even after it was written, in order to coincide with more recent events.

New Testament

Perhaps the most important of these, and the one which really got source criticism of the New Testament off the ground, was the "synoptic problem." Matthew, Mark and Luke have many aspects in common — many more than any of them has in common with the fourth gospel, John — and so these three are known as the synoptic, or similar, gospels. Scholars began plotting the portions that they had in common, and how they linked to each other. It appeared to them that the three had at least one source in common, which they supposed to have been a list of Jesus's sayings (along with just enough narrative to stitch them together). They called this supposed source "Q" (for Quelle, the German word for "source"). Scholars have even composed suggested versions of Q.

Even so, this didn't help much. Mark contained significantly less of Q than the other two, to the point where some scholars wondered if Mark had even had access to Q at all; perhaps Mark's author had not had a written copy of Q, and could only use that portion of it which he happened to remember. Furthermore, Mark appears to have been a source for both Matthew and Luke, although each of these has some material not found either in Q or Mark (such as birth narratives).

While most scholars and theologians concede that there must have been a Q, there's still some question as to its nature, and how it and Mark fit together in order to create Matthew and Luke.

Another problem that source critics discovered, is that portions of the New Testament, especially the epistles, were edited long after they were first written (as late as 1,000 CE!). They've spent a good deal of time looking for redactions (that is, places where material must have been removed) and interpolations (portions that were added in). Redactions and interpolations occurred, in order to support certain theological positions. While many interpolations are agreed upon, and scholars have even determined who their authors were, many are still controversial.

The question of authorship of the New Testament books also remains controversial. Christian tradition, for example, claims that two gospels (Matthew and John) were written by apostles. This is almost certainly not the case, however, for scholars have determined these were written between 95 and 135 CE; actual apostles could not have survived that long. Some of Paul's epistles, could not have been written in the first century (Titus and the Timothys), mostly because they address theological issues which were not known to have been a concern in the first century.

Stripped of all the known interpolations, with some of the redactions restored, the oldest documents of the New Testament take on a whole new personality. They appear to be far more in line with mystical Gnostic thinking, than literalist Christianity of later times. Source criticism has thus revealed that Gnosticism was more tightly integrated into "original" Christianity, than had been thought.

Finally, source critics have determined that Christianity in the first century, doesn't appear to have been a single movement which radiated out from a single point (Judea). Rather, it was a complex fusion of several minor movements which somehow united, around the turn of the second century. This has proven to be most troubling for "believers," as it appears to remove the "apostolic tradition."

For those so inclined, I posted a forum message (1067.5) about authorship of the Bible, which offers a few more details.