http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/01/my-take-it-doesnt-matter-who-wrote-the-bible/

My Take: It Doesn't Matter Who Wrote The Bible
By David Hazony, Special to CNN

I am a person of faith. But sometimes I like to step outside of faith and just think about things rationally. Usually this oscillation between faith and skepticism serves me well, with faith giving reason its moral bearings, and reason keeping faith, well, reasonable. It’s a nice balancing act — except when the question of who wrote the Bible comes up. My Jewish faith tells me that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah or the Pentateuch. Reason tells me to be open to the idea that somebody else had a hand in it. And there are definitely a few glitches in the text that back up those suspicions - notably the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, which describe Moses’ own death.


But try as I might, I just can’t believe that the Five Books of Moses were written by J, E, P and D – the four main authors whose oral traditions, biblical scholars say, were cobbled together to make the Torah. (The letters stand for the Jahwist, the Elohist, the Priestly source and the Deuteronomist. Those, we may assume, were not their real names.) Call me an academic infidel. I know, it’s been generations now that Bible study scholars at universities around the world have accepted as true that:

(a) the Pentateuch was composed over many centuries through these four oral traditions, which were later written down;
(b) these main texts were woven together by an editor or series of editors living around the 6th century B.C.E.; and
(c) these different traditions are detectable by scholars today, to the point where you can justify entire conferences and an arena’s worth of endowed chairs to figure out not only the source document of every scrap of biblical text, but also the gender, political inclinations, subversive intentions, height, weight and personal traumas encumbering every one of its authors.


The first two are plausible, I suppose. But the third has always struck me as pure fantasy, the point where idle speculation gives way to heavily funded hubris. Of course, if I’m right about the third, the first two lose their authority as well. Why don’t I buy it? It’s not just because of how stark, uninspiring and vaguely European those four letters look in a byline. Nor is it the fact that in more than a century’s worth of digging up the Middle East by archaeologists, not a single trace of any of these postulated “source texts” has ever turned up. And it’s certainly not because the scholars’ approach contradicts my faith — after all, it was the willful suspension of faith that led me to consider it in the first place. No, faith and skepticism dwell together in my confused bosom like pudding and pie. Rather, my rebellion against these scholars comes from experience. Specifically, my experience as an editor. It all started a few years back when, as the senior editor of a Jerusalem-based journal of public thought, I ran into trouble on a 10,000-word, brilliantly researched essay about Israeli social policy composed by the sweetest man on earth who, unfortunately wasn’t a stellar writer. I spent a few weeks rewriting, moving things around, adding and cutting and sweating. Finally I passed it up the chain to Dan, my editor-in-chief. "Hey Dan," I said. "Could you take a look at this? I added a whole paragraph in the conclusion. Tell me what you think." A few days later I got it back, marked up in red ballpoint. On the last page, in the conclusion, he had written the words “This is the paragraph you added,” and drawn a huge red arrow. But the arrow, alas, was pointing at the wrong paragraph.


You see, it turns out that it’s not very easy to reverse-engineer an editing job. To take an edited text and figure out, in retrospect, what changes it went through — it’s about a million times harder than those tenured, tortured Bible scholars will tell you.


Language is fluid and flexible, the product of the vagaries of the human soul. When an editor has free rein, he can make anything sound like he’d written it himself, or like the author’s own voice, or something else entirely. It all depends on his aims, his training, his talent and the quality of his coffee that morning. A good editor is a ventriloquist of the written word. That’s when I started to suspect that what Bible scholars claim they’re doing — telling you what the “original” Bible looked like — might be, in fact, impossible to do. Think about it. My case was one in which the author, editor and reader are all known entities (in fact, they all know each other personally); the reading takes place in the exact same cultural and social context as the writing and editing; and the reader is himself a really smart guy, Ivy-league Ph.D. and all, who had spent a decade training the editor to be a certain kind of editor, with specific tools unique to the specific publication’s aims. Not only that, but he was even told what kind of edit to look for, in which section. And still he couldn’t identify the change.



Now compare that with what Bible scholars do when they talk about J, E, P, and D. Not only do the readers not know the writers and editors personally, or even their identities or when or where they lived. The readers live thousands of years later and know nothing about the editors’ goals, whims, tastes, passions or fears — they don’t even know for sure that the whole thing really went through an editorial process at all. (If anything, the same textual redundancies, narrative glitches, awkward word choices and so forth that the scholars claim are the telltale signs of an editing process are, in my experience, very often the opposite: the surest indicator that an author needs an editor, desperately. If the text was edited, it was done very poorly.) As with any field of research that tries to reconstruct the distant past, biblical scholars get things wrong on a daily basis. And that's OK: Getting things wrong is part of the nature of reconstruction. Whether you’re talking about the origins of galaxies, dinosaurs, ancient civilizations, medieval history or World War II, the conclusions of all historical research come with a big disclaimer: This is the best we’ve got so far. Stay tuned; we may revise our beliefs in a couple of years.

With biblical scholars, however, you often feel like they’re flying just a little blinder than everyone else. At what point does a scholar’s “best guess” become so foggy as to be meaningless? I LOVE THIS QUOTE! lol.


The Five Books of Moses take place somewhere in the second millennium B.C.E., centuries before our earliest archeological corroborations for the biblical tales appearing in the Book of Joshua and onward. We have no other Hebrew writings of the time to compare it with. So all that scholars really have to go on is the text itself — a wild ride on a rickety, ancient, circular-reasoning roller-coaster with little external data to anchor our knowledge of anything.
This would be fine, of course, if there weren’t so much riding on it. With other fields, we usually don’t have our own dinosaur in the fight. But with the Bible, it’s not just the scholars duking it out with the clergy. There’s all the rest of us trying to figure out what to do with this stupendously important book — either because it anchors our faith, or because it contains enduring wisdom and the foundations of our cultural identity.


Where does that leave us? Some people, sensing their most cherished beliefs are under siege, will retreat to the pillars of faith — whether that faith is religious or academic. Either it was Moses, or it was J, E, P, and D. End of discussion. As for the rest of us, it may raise questions about whether we really ought to care that much about authorship at all, or instead just go with Mark Twain’s approach. “If the Ten Commandments were not written by Moses,” he once quipped, “then they were written by another fellow of the same name.” Using our reason means sometimes admitting there are things we just don’t know, and maybe never will.


Maybe that’s all right. After all, isn’t it enough to know that the book is really important, that it has inspired love and hate and introspection and war for thousands of years, that it is full of interesting stories and wisdom, poetry and song, contradiction and fancy and an unparalleled belief in the importance of human endeavor - in the possibility of a better world - despite the enduring and tragic weaknesses that every biblical hero carries on his or her back? That it is an indelible part of who we are? Isn’t that enough to make you just read the thing and hope for the best, forever grateful to Moses, or that other fellow by the same name? lol

noetic16:

madam, for the sake of the lazy ones like my humble self . . . , pls summarize his point.

JeSoul:

LagosShia & Sweetnecta,

my brothers, can either of you prove Mohammed wrote the Quran? and that it is indeed of divine inspiration from allah?

Very good toys to keep 'em toddlers sucking at. . .while the thread prays some tranquility this lady is sure some goodish!


OP very educative too!

JeSoul:

LagosShia & Sweetnecta,

my brothers, can either of you prove Mohammed wrote the Quran? and that it is indeed of divine inspiration from allah?

Pastor AIO:

Simply excellent. And I see what you mean about his writing style. Obviously a professional writer. Great arguments too!

Tonye-t:

Very good toys to keep 'em toddlers sucking at. . .while the thread prays some tranquility this lady is sure some goodish!

OP very educative too!

LagosShia:

my dear brother,two wrongs do not make a right.will you prove to the atheist who is neither muslim nor christian that the bible must be accepted at face value because the muslim too cannot prove his Quran to have being written by Muhammad (sa) or that it was authored by Almighty Allah (swt)?let me for argument's sake accept that the Quran was neither written by Muhammad (sa) nor was it authored by Almighty Allah (swt).does that make your bible correct?does it make your point that "it doesn't matter who wrote the bible" correct?this your thread is about the bible,so stick to it.discuss the bible.if you find yourself lacking or your argument beaten then dont try to say "two wrongs make a right".

if you want to know about the Holy Quran,i am muslim and i will wholehearted tell you that your argument is wrong and therefore it does matter who wrote the Quran unlike the bible as is the case with you.if you want to know about the Holy Quran,you're are very welcome.open a new thread and throw a challenge at me to prove to you that the Holy Quran is the word of Almighty God and it was written by Muhammad (sa).i will prove to you that the Quran is the word of Almighty God and was written by only one man, Muhammad (sa).then you will also have your chance to prove me wrong if you can.while the content of the bible disproves itself as being the inerrant word of God,only the content of the Holy Quran can prove that it is indeed the infallible word of Almighty God.the Holy Quran,and historical sources and materials at our disposal prove that Muhammad (sa) and only him is responsible for narrating the word of God (the Holy Quran) to humanity and not some hundreds of confused men as is the case with your "holy bible".

JeSoul:

goodish lol. See as our brother miss road again, lol -
Oga, you took a very good Free Kick, but unfortunately you not only missed the goal post, you also shot the ball at your own goal.

If you would slow down and not see this as a bible vs. quran battle . . . there are several top points of which one is one's faith cannot rely on ever-changing scholastic estimations of biblical authorship. There's plenty we don't know and probably never know. The content of the bible (or in your case the quran) should speak for itself. So when I asked you if you could prove who wrote the quran - it was not a challenge, but merely another way of making the same point.

Oya, take another free kick . . .

LagosShia:


[size=18pt]Jeremiah 8:8[/size]

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

Na so one time some years ago now, the Ghanaian bobo wen [Bleep] bin put for him Ghana church come vex when them wan transfer am. The bobo kuku seize control of the church for himself. As him and him erstwhile "spiritual father" come they fight (dem bin go court sef) na him e emerge say them bin dey smuggle money from Ghana come Naija like rogues and other nefarious activities.

This is very interesting. In a proper setting, the "church" will have a governing board; the governing board will set the monthly or annual salary (or income) of the "pastor". On this monthly/annual salary/income, the "pastor" should then pay tax --- as the amount is a fixed or set amount, calculating the amount of tax due will not be difficult. The problem we have is as identified by one poster earlier; our modern "pastors" (and their family in many cases) treat all church funds/incomes etc as personal or family assets for all practical purposes e.g. they alone use the "ministry"'s jet etc but for government and tax purposes they will claim that these assets belong to the "ministry" and therefore exempt from tax.

LagosShia:

too bad, you do not have a goal post!
read it in both ways.

Deep Sight:

I think this summarizes it all: and being from scriture itself, gives a lie to the presupposition of the OP.

Enigma:

Re the point on reverse editing in the OP, while a certain writing style may be associated with a particular person one should also note the capacity of that individual to modify/change writing style on a particular occasion for any number of good reasons. Somebody reading the two quotations below without further information would not readily think they were written by the same person.

Na so one time some years ago now, the Ghanaian bobo wen [Bleep] bin put for him Ghana church come vex when them wan transfer am. The bobo kuku seize control of the church for himself. As him and him erstwhile "spiritual father" come they fight (dem bin go court sef) na him e emerge say them bin dey smuggle money from Ghana come Naija like rogues and other nefarious activities.

This is very interesting. In a proper setting, the "church" will have a governing board; the governing board will set the monthly or annual salary (or income) of the "pastor". On this monthly/annual salary/income, the "pastor" should then pay tax --- as the amount is a fixed or set amount, calculating the amount of tax due will not be difficult. The problem we have is as identified by one poster earlier; our modern "pastors" (and their family in many cases) treat all church funds/incomes etc as personal or family assets for all practical purposes e.g. they alone use the "ministry"'s jet etc but for government and tax purposes they will claim that these assets belong to the "ministry" and therefore exempt from tax.

Inna de church dem plenty downpressors, plenty sunday-gimmal, tek smadi mek poppy-show. Instead affa luk after the people like em breddas, de preacherman come took alla de money for imself straight to babylon. Nuttin' nah go right, nun uh di bredden fi a say nuttin. Me sef cyaan believe it. Com dutty the bible instead affa unity, na harbor shark. Jah know alla dem well well. Mek we look, mek we pray. Mek we resist babylon enter inna de church.

JeSoul:

^Okay DS, I have heard you. Me I no get time for dilly-dally and shilly-shally -

JeSoul:

You can google dilly-dally if you didn't understand what it means.

JeSoul:

your usual psuedo-pro-bono irritated-lawyer style today. So please indeed, [b]

Pastor AIO:

I don't know how the Islamists thought they could get some mileage out of this thread for exercising their futilities. It is a fact that Mohammad could neither read or write and that the Koran was written after his death and there were various versions of it.
What puzzles me is whether or not Mohammad actually communicated with Gabriel face to face, with familiarity, or not. If he did and it wasn't that he was just imagining the interaction then I remain puzzled cos I cannot fathom how after such familiarity he could fail to tell the difference between Jibril and Satan. Can they be that similar? How come the Koran became infected with Satanic verses.

LagosShia:

another bible thumper and his loser attitude.

again changing the subject of this thread from one about the fallible bible to one on the Quran is a loser's attitude the bible thumper exhibit to no avail.your doubts only reveal your ignorance.there were no so called "satanic verses" and Muhammad (sa) did see the angel face to face as the Quran clearly states.you can read more about the fictitious story of "satanic verses" that you devils like propagating like parrots (losers!):

"Language is fluid and flexible, the product of the vagaries of the human soul."

nork:

I agree, that to large extent that the bible and some of its accounts are relatively in accurate, one such notion are the accounts of the Jews being enslaved in Egypt and migration of the Jews across the desert. Not only is there no fact supporting this but based well documented Egyptian account before, within and post migration of the Jews from Egypt, there is absolutely no account of Jews being enslaved in Egypt. By my understanding the quran equally speaks of Jewish enslavement in Egypt, thus making it a provider of equally without fact and untrue accounts of history, this also includes accounts in the Jewish Tora, which once again Mohammad drew from in his scripting or assumed scripting of the quaran. To be honest the Koran is actually the bible, the Tora and other pagan perspectives (extracts of religions at least a 100 years before Muhammad this facts are known).
A more laughable account is the one you call upon that Mohammad saw an angel face to face, what did u honestly expect him to say in order to give greater credibility to his political fairy tale. Would you believe the quran if he didn't say that, and to further ensure no one else used the same scam he comfortably said he was the last one. Its funny that u claim the bible is fallible without considering the implications, not that i don't agree, infact i concur, but i think you are not considering the other perspective of this. Define a fake that is coined from a fake, and what do you have, If there is one book on this planet, that is a gross bamboosom and fraud, it is the quran, abrogation exists in a total of 71 chapters out of the 114 quran chapters, so the abrogation is existing in about 62.28% of the quran (62.28% is the percentage of Soura's which has been claimed to contain abrogated verses) and yet it was Allah, that wrote it right? Ok if u say so