BIBLIOLOGY
I. THE GENUINENESS OF THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE
By genuineness we mean that a book is written by the person or persons whose name it bears or, if anonymous, by the person or persons to whom ancient tradition has assigned it, or if not assigned to some definite author or authors, to the time to which tradition has assigned it. A book is said to be forged or spurious if it is not written at the time to which it has been assigned, or by the author professed by it. A book is considered to be authen- tic when it relates facts as they really occurred. It is corrupt when the text has been in any manner changed.
That the books of both the Old and the New Testament are authentic and genuine can be shown in the following manner.
A. THE GENUINENESS OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
For a complete survey of the evidence the student is referred to the scholarly works on Old Testament Introduction. We can at this point only deal with the subject in a general way. The Old Testament Scriptures will be ap- proached in their threefold division: the Law, the Prophets, and the Kethubhim.
1, The genuineness of the books of the Law. Much modern criticism denies the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The documentary hypothesis di- vides the authorship of these books up into the Jehovistic, Elohistic, Deuteronomistic, and Priestly codes, with many redactors. l For our purpose
‘For a summary statement, evaluation, and refutation of this position, see Allis, The Five Books of Moses; Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, pp. 73-154;
and Harrison, Zntroduction to the Old Testament, pp. 495-541.
50
The Pentateuch is a homogeneous composition of five volumes, and not an agglomeration of separate and perhaps only rather casually related works. It described, against an accredited historical background, the manner in which God revealed Himself to men and chose the Israelites for special service and witness in the world and in the course of human history. The role of Moses in the formulation of this literary corpus appears pre-eminent, and it is not without good reason that he should be accorded a place of high honor in the growth of the epic of
52
Israelite nationhood, and be venerated by Jews and Christians alike as the great mediator of the ancient law.2
2. The genuineness of the books of the Prophets. The Hebrew speaks of the former and the latter prophets. To the former prophets belong Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings; to the latter belong Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the so-called Minor Prophets. First, looking at the former prophets, there is no reason for rejecting the traditional view that Joshua wrote the book that bears his name, nor that Samuel wrote Judges. Judges was written after the commencement of the monarchy (19:l; 21:25) and before the accession of David (1:21; cf. 2 Sam. 5:6-8). In 1 Chron. 29:29 we read of the things “written in the chronicles of Samuel the seer, in the chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the chronicles of Gad the seer.”
Tradition has, accordingly, felt justified in assigning 1 Sam. l-24 to Samuel, and 1 Sam. 25-2 Sam. 24 to Nathan and Gad. Jeremiah has been commonly considered the author of the books of Kings; at least the author was a contemporary of his. Kings speaks of the book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel (1 Kings 14: 19), and the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29);
and it has frequent insertions of the records of eyewitnesses in the portions about Elijah, Elisha, and Micaiah, in which older material is used.
Second, the latter prophets are also genuine.3 The acts and deeds of Hezekiah are said to have been written “in the vision of Isaiah the prophet”
(2 Chron. 32:32); Isaiah is also said to have written “the acts of Uzziah”
(2 Chron. 26 : 22). The prophecy of Isaiah is assigned to him (1: 1). Jesus and his apostles speak of the writing of Isaiah, assigning even the disputed parts to him (Matt. 8:17, cf. Isa. 53:4; Luke 4:17f., cf. Isa. 61:l; John 12:3841, cf.
Isa. 53:l and 6:lO). Jeremiah was instructed, “Write all the words which I have spoken to you in a book” (Jer. 30: 2), and we are told that he “wrote in a single scroll all the calamity which would come upon Babylon” (Jer. 51:60).
No doubt Baruch was his amanuensis for a large part of his work (Jer. 36; cf.
45:l). Ezekiel also was asked to write (Ezek. 24:2; 43:11), as was Habakkuk (Hab. 2:2). It is commonly assumed by conservative scholars that the names which appear in the opening verses of a prophetic book are intended to give us faithfully the name of the author of that book. Even Malachi is probably intended as the name of the author as well as of the book, and not as a reference to 3: 1.
3. The genuineness of the Kethubhim. The remaining books were divided into three groups: the poetic books, which consist of the Psalms, Proverbs, 2Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 5 4 1 .
“For a valuable introduction to the Old Testament prophets, see Freeman, An Zntro- dirction to the Old Testament Prophets.
The Genuineness, Credibility, and Canonicity of the Bible 53 and Job; the Megilloth, which consists of Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamenta- tions, Ecclesiastes, and Esther; and the non-prophetical historical books, which include Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Chronicles. Several things can be noted. As for the Psalms and the works of Solomon, we read of “the writing of David” and “the writing of his son Solomon” (2 Chron. 35:4).
Although the inscriptions to the Psalms are not a part of the original text, they are generally accepted as accurate. Of the 150 Psalms, 100 are assigned to authors: 73 to David, 11 to the sons of Korah, 12 to Asaph, two to Solomon, and one each to Ethan and to Moses. The remainder are anony- mous. According to the headings in Proverbs, Solomon was the author of chapters 1 to 24. He was also the author of chapters 25 to 29, although these chapters were copied from his writings by the men of Hezekiah. Chapter 30 is ascribed to Agur the son of Jakeh, and chapter 31 to King Lemuel. The Book of Job does not give us the name of the author, but it is not unlikely that Job himself wrote the book. We regard the book as narrating faithfully the experiences of the man Job in the days of the patriarchs, and as not being mere poetic fiction. Who but Job himself could narrate faithfully his own experiences and sayings and also the speeches of Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, Elihu, and God?
The Song of Solomon is also inscribed to Solomon (1: 1), and there is no reason for questioning the truthfulness of the inscription. Archer writes, “It has been the uniform tradition of the Christian church until modern times that Canticles is a genuine Solomonic production.“4 Ruth has frequently been associated with Judges and was probably written by the same man who wrote the book of Judges, probably Samuel. Though as Davis observes, “This cannot be verified.“5 That David’s name is mentioned (Ruth 4:22) and not Solomon’s is an argument favoring the dating of the book as not later than David.
Lamentations is ascribed to Jeremiah by the heading in our Bibles, and tradition has always attributed the book to this prophet. In form of expres- sion and in general argument it has much in common with the book of Jeremiah, and we may confidently ascribe the book to this writer.
Ecclesiastes is said to be by “the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem” (1: l), and this expression has usually been taken by conserva- tives to be none other than Solomon. There is reference to the author’s incomparable wisdom (1:16), and the great works which he made (2:4-11).
Until the Reformation period, the book was assigned to Solomon by uniform consent of all Jewish and Christian scholars, and most conservative scholars still assign it to him, though there is some linguistic evidence that it may have been written by someone other than Solomon.
Esther may have been written by Mordecai the Jew, who best knew the 4Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, pp. 472, 473.
“Davis, Conquest and Crisis, p. 156.
54 Bibliology
facts related in the book, but 10:2f. seem to argue against this position.
Whitcomb concludes, “The author must have been a Jew who lived in Persia at the time of the events narrated and who had access to the official chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia (2 :23 ; 9:20; 10:2) .“6 Critics tend to agree that it was written by a Persian Jew, because of the absence of marks of its being written in Palestine. The diction is admittedly late, being comparable to that of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.
Daniel was undoubtedly written by the statesman who bore that name.
The author identifies himself as Daniel and writes in the first person (7:2;
8: 1, 15 ; 9: 2 ; 10:2). Further, Daniel was commanded to preserve the book (12 : 4). There is a noticeable unity in the book, with the name Daniel appear- ing throughout. Jesus attributed the book to Daniel (Matt. 24:15). Conserva- tive scholarship dates the book to the 6th century B.C., though because of their rejection of predictive prophecy, modern critics generally place the book into the Maccabean period and assign it to a date between 168-165 B.C.
Ezra was undoubtedly written by Ezra the scribe. Since some of the book is written in the first person singular by a man identified as Ezra (7:28; cf.
7:1), and because the book bears the marks of unity, “it would seem to follow that the remainder is his also.“’
Nehemiah was no doubt written by Nehemiah, the Persian king’s cup- bearer. This is made clear by the opening words, “The words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah” (1: l), and the fact that the author speaks in the first person many times. It was written in the time of Malachi, somewhere be- tween 424-395 B.C. The Chronicles are placed by the critics on a much lower plane than the books of Kings. The reason seems to be that while Kings deals with the prophetic aspects of the history, Chronicles deals more with the priestly aspects. Tradition has assigned these books to Ezra. The position of the books in the canon, the closing of the history at the very point where that of Ezra begins, and the style make this possible if not probable. They must have been written about 450425 B.C., before Ezra.
B. THE GENUINENESS OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Here again the student must be referred to the works on New Testament Introduction for a complete statement, 8 but a few facts can be noted. Criti- cism is more and more returning to the traditional view as to the date and authorship of the several books. There is reason for believing that the Synop- tic Gospels were written in the order: Matthew, Luke, and Mark. Origen hWhitcomb, “Esther,” The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 447.
‘Young, An Zntroduction to the Old Testament, p. 370.
%ee Hiebert, An Introduction to the New Testament, 3 vols., and Guthrie, New Testament Introduction.
The Genuineness, Credibility, and Canonicity of the Bible 55 frequently cites them in that order, and Clement of Alexandria before him puts the Gospels that contain the genealogies first on the basis of the tradi- tion which he received from the elders before him.9 This view is supported by the consideration that the Gospels grew out of the circumstances and occasions of the time. Tradition declares that for fifteen years Matthew preached in Palestine, and that after that he went to minister to foreign nations. On the basis of the famous statement in Papias that “Matthew composed the Logia in the Hebrew (i.e., Aramaic) tongue,” we must hold that it is most natural to suppose that when he left Palestine he left behind him this Aramaic Gospel, about A.D. 45, and that a little later he also wrote the Greek Gospel that has come down to us, for his new hearers, about A.D.
50. There is also very general agreement that the second Gospel was written by John Mark. From the circumstances of the times and internal evidence, we assign it to the years A.D. 67 or 68. There is also very general agreement that the third Gospel was written by Luke, the beloved physician. It was probably written about the year A.D. 58.
The Gospel of John is rejected by some because of its emphasis on the deity of Christ. It is said that the Synoptics do not reveal any such belief concern- ing him during the first century. But this is not true, for in the Synoptics he is no less deity than in John. The discovery of Papyrus 52, containing five verses of John 18 and dated in the first half of the second century, has done much to confirm the traditional date of the Gospel of John. Metzger writes,
“Had this little fragment been known during the middle of the past century, that school of New Testament criticism which was inspired by the brilliant Tiibingen professor, Ferdinand Christian Baur, could not have argued that the Fourth Gospel was not composed until about the year 160.“l”
The book of Acts is today quite generally ascribed to Luke, the same man who wrote the third Gospel. Ten of the so-called Pauline Epistles are today for the most part attributed to Paul, doubt being cast only upon the Pastoral Epistles, on the basis of style. But style changes can be due to change in subject matter and the age of the author.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is anonymous and no one knows who wrote it.
It was undoubtedly written by a learned Christian somewhere between A.D.
67 and 69. James and Jude were undoubtedly written by two of the brothers of Jesus. 1 and 2 Peter were written by the Apostle Peter. Some cast doubt upon 2 Peter on the ground of style. But Peter may have had Silvanus as his amanuensis in the first Epistle (1 Pet. 5:12), and so have had some help with his diction, and may have written the second Epistle without his help.
The three Epistles of John and the Revelation were written by the Apostle John. The difference in style in the book of Revelation as compared with the
‘Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, VI:xiv.
‘OMetzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 39.
56 Bibliology
Epistles may be accounted for in the same way as the differences in 1 and 2 Peter. That is, he may have had help in the writing of the Epistles, but have written the Revelation all by himself, and further, the subject matter would itself account for the difference of style. This does not affect the question of inspiration in the least, for we argue for the inspiration of the final result that was produced and not for the inspiration of the man as such.