Do Protestant Ministers Study Bible Authorship In Seminary?

[LongWayAround]

Does anyone know if protestant ministers typically take courses in seminary that study bible authorship?  In those courses, are they taught the authors of most of the books of the bible are unknown except for the books by Paul?

 

I ask this because in my many years in church, I never heard a minister that didn't attribute the things written in Matthew to Matthew or Exodus to Moses, etc.  It wasn't until I started down the path of deconversion and was researching on my own that I discovered the truth.

 

So, when the ministers make statements like the apostle Peter tells us in 1 Peter 3:4 that we should not blah, blah, blah, are they lying about Peter the fisherman being the author or do they just not know any better?  I know you could say that they were Peter's words that were written by one of his followers but I have heard ministers explicitly say the books were actually written by Moses, Matthew, Mark, John, etc.

 

Along the same lines, do they learn about bible canonization?  Again, until I studied outside sources on my own, I had no idea how many other gospels existed or the fact that the canonized bible itself references books that it does not contain.

 

 

[GraphicsGuy]

The various denominations have their own sets of curriculum that are designed to essentially teach people how to be good Pentecostals or Seventh-Day Adventists or Baptists or Catholics or whatever they happen to be.

 

The progressive and more liturgical denominations (Episcopalians, Anglicans, United) definitely do study authorship because they generally do not believe that the Bible is infallible.

[Geezer]

Probably depends on the University. If it is affiliated with some fundamentalists denomination then they likely teach tradition rather than what has been recorded in history. If the school is a secular school they are more likely to teach what is recorded in history.

 

You noted Paul's writings have been authenticated, but not all scholars accept the traditional view that such a person actually existed. Dr. Robert M Price has a book out about Paul and is one of the minority of scholars that are not convinced Paul was a real person or that his epistles reflect real events.

 

Many, if not most secular scholars, don't believe Paul was familiar with an earthly Jesus. Paul's writings reflect a Gnostic view and many scholars are convinced his Damascus Road encounter with the risen Christ is fiction. Scholars can list numerous reasons why it isn't likely this event, as recorded in Acts, actually occurred.

 

You can find Dr. Price's book on amazon and there is a kindle addition. Amazon also references other scholars/books who hold a similar view.

[Brother Jeff]

I would recommend Dr. Bart Ehrman over Dr. Price any day. There is no question that Paul was a real person, and his views were not Gnostic by any stretch of the imagination. Paul refers to a real earthly Jesus several times, and he believed him to be the preexistent Angel of the Lord (see Galatians 4:14). Dr. Ehrman discusses these issues in his books "Did Jesus Exist?" and "How Jesus Became God", both of which I have just finished reading.

[pratt]

i was on a short stint on methodist local preacher course. they do give the history and the canonisation of the bible, including acknowleding some authors are NOT who they are,,,,,

 

but you must rely on faith,,,,,

 

that was 30 years ago

[00LukeMan]

In my fundamentalist college, they don't teach about authorship, but there is a class called Historical Expansion of the Church which includes the process of canonization. They try to spin it as "well obviously these books are the inspired ones," but man, if I hadn't been an atheist already it would have done serious harm to my faith. There is absolutely nothing miraculous about the early church or the formation of the canon.

[TrueFreedom]

I studied authorship as part of courses dedicated to individual books and collections of books.  I even had to defend my own opinion of who most likely authored certain books.  I wish that courses had covered canonization.  The closest that we came to that was church history.

[kolaida]

Probably depends on the university, professors, and a number of other thing.  I only ever remember one pastor talking about authorship of the Bible and even saying stuff as the book of Job was written as an allegory and should be taken as such.  He was sometimes considered a little radical by the elders of that church (even though he wasn't the youngest pastor by any means).  Unfortunately, this kind of stuff tended to get him booted from churches (Southern Baptists). My family being military, we attended a lot of churches over the years, but that's the only pastor I can remember talking about authorship of the Bible even stating we incorrectly believed tgat certain authors wrote certain books, I remember him saying that there was no way to verify who actually wrote the books....  but obviously God wanted the books in the Bible or they wouldn't be there (that was his logic). 

[Blood]

Does anyone know if protestant ministers typically take courses in seminary that study bible authorship?  In those courses, are they taught the authors of most of the books of the bible are unknown except for the books by Paul?

 

I ask this because in my many years in church, I never heard a minister that didn't attribute the things written in Matthew to Matthew or Exodus to Moses, etc.  It wasn't until I started down the path of deconversion and was researching on my own that I discovered the truth.

 

So, when the ministers make statements like the apostle Peter tells us in 1 Peter 3:4 that we should not blah, blah, blah, are they lying about Peter the fisherman being the author or do they just not know any better?  I know you could say that they were Peter's words that were written by one of his followers but I have heard ministers explicitly say the books were actually written by Moses, Matthew, Mark, John, etc.

 

Along the same lines, do they learn about bible canonization?  Again, until I studied outside sources on my own, I had no idea how many other gospels existed or the fact that the canonized bible itself references books that it does not contain.

 

It depends on which seminary. If it's one of the few good ones like Harvard or Princeton, then yes, they teach the students that the NT books are anonymous. 

 

The vast majority, I imagine, teach otherwise, because they are basically apologetics factories. The main thing is to teach you how to make illogical statements sound logical. So they probably approach authorship by saying, "Some liberals believe that Peter didn't write these letters, but we are going to give you torturous arguments from personal incredulity to prove that he, or someone really close to him, did write them." 

[Blood]

I would recommend Dr. Bart Ehrman over Dr. Price any day. There is no question that Paul was a real person, and his views were not Gnostic by any stretch of the imagination. Paul refers to a real earthly Jesus several times, and he believed him to be the preexistent Angel of the Lord (see Galatians 4:14). Dr. Ehrman discusses these issues in his books "Did Jesus Exist?" and "How Jesus Became God", both of which I have just finished reading.

 

There very much is a question if "Paul" (or any main Biblical character) was a real person. And some of the views expressed in some of the Pauline epistles do indeed sound Gnostic. Is Ehrman claiming otherwise? 

[LongWayAround]

Wow!  Great information.  Thanks for sharing.

 

Shortly after deconverting, during the period when my christian wife was open to discussing religion, I told her that most biblical scholars believe the authors of the bible were anonymous rather than being the person the book is named for in our modern bibles.  She pointed out that a little handbook that we had called "Know Your Bible" states the authors are the ones traditional taught by the church.  When we looked at the handbook together, it was interesting to note that it in fact states for each of gospels "Author: Not stated but traditionally attributed to _____".

 

It was easy to gloss right over things like that when I was a xtian.

[Brother Jeff]

 

I would recommend Dr. Bart Ehrman over Dr. Price any day. There is no question that Paul was a real person, and his views were not Gnostic by any stretch of the imagination. Paul refers to a real earthly Jesus several times, and he believed him to be the preexistent Angel of the Lord (see Galatians 4:14). Dr. Ehrman discusses these issues in his books "Did Jesus Exist?" and "How Jesus Became God", both of which I have just finished reading.

 

There very much is a question if "Paul" (or any main Biblical character) was a real person. And some of the views expressed in some of the Pauline epistles do indeed sound Gnostic. Is Ehrman claiming otherwise? 

 

 

I don't agree. It may be true that the Gospels contain much information that is not historically accurate, but I don't think that translates into legitimate reason to question the historical existence of the main characters. Almost no serious historian or biblical scholar questions the existence of Jesus or any other main character in the NT.

 

I have read the the letters of Paul many times over the years both as a believer and a nonbeliever. He was definitely not a Gnostic, or even remotely so. He believed in a real historical Jesus who really suffered and really died and was really physically resurrected. That takes him firmly out of the Gnostic camp right there. Where are you getting your ideas that Paul was a Gnostic and what did he say that leads you to believe that he was? I'm genuinely curious...

 

As for Bart Ehrman, he makes a very strong case that Jesus existed in his book "Did Jesus Exist?", and he addresses the issue to some degree in "How Jesus Became God". I would be extremely shocked if he questioned the historical existence of Paul or any other main NT character, and I would want to know why he was doing so. I am, in fact, planning to email him on this issue. Inquiring minds want to know. I'm a paying member of his blog, so hopefully he will be able to make the time to respond to me, though I know he is a very busy man. We shall see... Glory!

[Geezer]

Brother Jeff, Dr. Ehrman is one of my favorite scholars. I've read most of his books. I've read a number of other scholars too. Dr. Ehrman's books had a lot of influence on my decision to walk away from religion. That noted, I try not to metaphorically fall in love with any particular scholar or author because I fear that could lead to tunnel vision & a bias for that writers point of view.

 

Scholars note their findings & conclusions are stated as probabilities bases on theories & circumstantial evidence. I've read Ehrman's reasons for believing Jesus was a real person. I've read other scholars reasons for believing both Jesus & Paul were mythical characters. Either conclusion is a theory based on circumstantial evidence.

 

After examining several scholars works & opinions on this matter I decided a mythical Jesus & Paul was the more plausible alternative. Others reading the same material I did could very well come to a different conclusion. It is unlikely we will ever know for certain if they were real people or not. Unless Jesus was God incarnate it wouldn't seem to matter if he was a myth or a real person.

[Brother Jeff]

Hey Geezer, I plan on reading other scholars besides Ehrman. He just seemed like a good place to start. The evidence for a historical Jesus isn't circumstantial. In "Did Jesus Exist?", Dr. Ehrman makes some powerful arguments for the existence of a historical Jesus, plenty enough to convince me. The "Jesus Myth" theory isn't taken seriously by the vast majority of trained historians and biblical scholars, so that's reason enough for me to discount it as very improbable. I guess in the end it doesn't really matter if Jesus actually lived in history or not since he wasn't and isn't God. 

[Blood]

 

 

I would recommend Dr. Bart Ehrman over Dr. Price any day. There is no question that Paul was a real person, and his views were not Gnostic by any stretch of the imagination. Paul refers to a real earthly Jesus several times, and he believed him to be the preexistent Angel of the Lord (see Galatians 4:14). Dr. Ehrman discusses these issues in his books "Did Jesus Exist?" and "How Jesus Became God", both of which I have just finished reading.

 

There very much is a question if "Paul" (or any main Biblical character) was a real person. And some of the views expressed in some of the Pauline epistles do indeed sound Gnostic. Is Ehrman claiming otherwise? 

 

 

I don't agree. It may be true that the Gospels contain much information that is not historically accurate, but I don't think that translates into legitimate reason to question the historical existence of the main characters. Almost no serious historian or biblical scholar questions the existence of Jesus or any other main character in the NT.

 

I have read the the letters of Paul many times over the years both as a believer and a nonbeliever. He was definitely not a Gnostic, or even remotely so. He believed in a real historical Jesus who really suffered and really died and was really physically resurrected. That takes him firmly out of the Gnostic camp right there. Where are you getting your ideas that Paul was a Gnostic and what did he say that leads you to believe that he was? I'm genuinely curious...

 

As for Bart Ehrman, he makes a very strong case that Jesus existed in his book "Did Jesus Exist?", and he addresses the issue to some degree in "How Jesus Became God". I would be extremely shocked if he questioned the historical existence of Paul or any other main NT character, and I would want to know why he was doing so. I am, in fact, planning to email him on this issue. Inquiring minds want to know. I'm a paying member of his blog, so hopefully he will be able to make the time to respond to me, though I know he is a very busy man. We shall see... Glory!

 

 

On your first point: of course no "serious" Bible scholar questions the existence of the main characters in the NT. Positing the NT as purely allegorical would mean instant dismissal from their job. Jesus and his Twelve Merry Men must remain historical somehow, even if one posits that everything attributed to them is legendary. This is apologetic thinking, not critical reasoning. We do not need to insist on the reality of a "historic" Robin Hood even though Sherwood Forest is real. All of this can come out of one's imagination, including the characters in the story. 

 

There have been innumerable discussions over the Gnosticism in Paul's letters, see for example the book "Gnosticism in Corinth" by Walter Schmithals. 

 

My inquiry "Is Ehrman claiming otherwise?" was whether Paul's letters contained Gnostic elements. not the existence of Paul. 

[Blood]

Ehrman is great as a textual scholar. Anything beyond that is questionable. He often makes specious apologetics-type arguments.

[mymistake]

The evidence for a historical Jesus isn't circumstantial.

 

 

The only historical Jesus with direct evidence is Jesus Sirach.  He died about 250 or 300 years before

 

Paul was born.  And Jesus Sirach wasn't executed.  He lived before Rome had moved into that region.

 

I'm perfectly fine with Jesus Sirach being the one true historical Jesus.  I just wish Christians would

 

admit that their historical Jesus didn't do squat.

[Brother Jeff]

Ehrman is great as a textual scholar. Anything beyond that is questionable. He often makes specious apologetics-type arguments.

 

I've read two of his books and I'm working on a third one. I have yet to encounter him making anything remotely resembling an "apologetics type" argument. The books I have read are "How Jesus Became God" and "Did Jesus Exist?" I learned a lot from both, and in "Did Jesus Exist?", Ehrman makes a very solid case for the historical existence of Jesus. Quite enough to satisfy me, or in my opinion, anyone else who isn't heavily biased toward the silly and unsupportable "mythicist" position. The fact that almost no serious historian or biblical scholar takes such a position seriously tells me all I really need to know about it. The book I'm reading now and still working through is "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium". It's good too, but not as easy a read as his other books. I haven't read it in a while, so I will likely start over rather than try to pick it up again where I left off since it's been at least a couple of months.  I got distracted for a while with several Hardy Boys books, lol... Much more fun to read, but not very educational.  

 

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree with you on the issues of the historical Jesus or the historical Paul (not interested in a debate on either issue). I personally don't see any reason at all to believe that either one of them didn't actually exist, and to me the notion that either of them wasn't historical is just silly. Ridiculous.  

[Blood]

Have you read any G.A. Wells? You might feel differently after checking out his oeuvre. 

 

Most so-called "serious bible scholars" are Christians who go to church and believe magic things happen when they drink a cup of cheap wine. They actually are not serious critical thinkers at all, as bible scholarship very strongly discourages logical, critical questions and arguments. 

[Brother Jeff]

No, I haven't read any of Well's stuff, but Bart Ehrman addresses his claims in his "Did Jesus Exist?" book to my satisfaction. I don't agree with you about the serious bible scholars. It's true that many of them are believers, and for that reason alone I have a hard time taking them seriously. But there are also plenty of serious bible scholars who are not believers or who are former believers, and they are much easier to take seriously. I do have an interest in checking out the works of people such as N.T. Wright just to see what they are saying, but of course with a huge grain of the proverbial salt...

[readyforchange]

Does anyone know if protestant ministers typically take courses in seminary that study bible authorship?  In those courses, are they taught the authors of most of the books of the bible are unknown except for the books by Paul?

 

I ask this because in my many years in church, I never heard a minister that didn't attribute the things written in Matthew to Matthew or Exodus to Moses, etc.  It wasn't until I started down the path of deconversion and was researching on my own that I discovered the truth.

 

So, when the ministers make statements like the apostle Peter tells us in 1 Peter 3:4 that we should not blah, blah, blah, are they lying about Peter the fisherman being the author or do they just not know any better?  I know you could say that they were Peter's words that were written by one of his followers but I have heard ministers explicitly say the books were actually written by Moses, Matthew, Mark, John, etc.

 

Along the same lines, do they learn about bible canonization?  Again, until I studied outside sources on my own, I had no idea how many other gospels existed or the fact that the canonized bible itself references books that it does not contain.

 

This is an interesting question to me as well.  I recently heard a pastor preach his entire sermon on the Pericope Adulterae, the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11).  This passage seems to be universally accepted as a late addition to the Gospel of John.  I understand there are some writings from early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries that allude to this story.  I can understand the popularity of the story and how it could be used to make a point of not judging others.  But the earliest copies of the Gospel of John do not contain it.  During the pastor's sermon, he never stated this or gave the audience a disclaimer or caveat about the passage.  I kept waiting for that or some type of clarification, but it never came.  I believe the pastor had to know that the passage was a late addition, and it seemed odd to me that the pastor would not have stated this at some point.