Fundamental Principle 1: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

Howdy,

I have wondered, do people think knowing the author/provider of a 'Holy Book' matters?

Does it matter who wrote/brought forth the Qur'an/Gospels,Epistles/Torah,Psalms and other scriptures?

I am not asking whether we know who wrote them, that is a discusion within itself I guess.

But I am just asking on principle, is it important to know how did wrote/bring forth the books?

I would have thought everyone would think it did, but I've read works which claim it doesn't. So what's yall's view and why?

Eesa

Just my opinion, but to me the knowing of the origin of a book is as important as knowing the content. By knowing the Author, we understand the purpose.

Because most Holy books are quite ancient, our guide to finding the author often comes from tracing the historical passage of the book. We need to know how it was preserved and throught whose hands it was transmitted and perpetuated. Only then can we have reason to decide if what we have is the original work or if it is an explanation of a previous work. There needs to be a clear easily followed path to the original and from there we can evaluate the claim of authorship and decide on the purpose and validity of the book.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

Just my opinion, but to me the knowing of the origin of a book is as important as knowing the content. By knowing the Author, we understand the purpose.

You mean the purpose of why the author wrote? But with some books it is possible to know the purpose without knowing the author, i.e. Gospel of John makes clear its purpose.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi; thanks for starting this thread

In a way the many authors of the Bible are not so important to me, I place my trust in God who I believe had the power of edit.

And with you Eric! So in conclusion would it be your view that knowing the authors of a book is not a neccesity?

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

Jesus came with a powerful message and he knew who he was. It might seem strange that he did not have the need to write this story down himself so it would be passed onto others as he wanted. But if you stop and think a little further, it just empathises his trust in God.

Or it could be that he never had the desire to pass his message on to others outside those who he did pass it to? Or that he thought the end of th world was imminent and thus didn't waste time on spreading the message.

I just want to stick to the main part of the thread though, whether knowing the authors and their life is important to people when believing or coming to believe in a faith.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

You mean the purpose of why the author wrote? But with some books it is possible to know the purpose without knowing the author, i.e. Gospel of John makes clear its purpose.

Often the apparant purpose of a book is not what is stated. Sometimes the author may use a misdirection in order to disguise his/her true purpose.
Or the reader may misunderstand the purpose and read something that was not intended.

To carry to an extreme, the Gospel of John does have a stated purpose, that is in accordance with who you believe to be the Author. Now, suppose that (this is an exaggeration and not true) it were discovered the Book was actually written in the 1800s by Karl Marx. The purpose of the book would be totally different even though the words were the same.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

Often the apparant purpose of a book is not what is stated. Sometimes the author may use a misdirection in order to disguise his/her true purpose.
Or the reader may misunderstand the purpose and read something that was not intended.

To carry to an extreme, the Gospel of John does have a stated purpose, that is in accordance with who you believe to be the Author. Now, suppose that (this is an exaggeration and not true) it were discovered the Book was actually written in the 1800s by Karl Marx. The purpose of the book would be totally different even though the words were the same.

Okey, I see and I agree if I understand correctly.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

True, but I wouldn't consider that a significant criticism in the case of dubious authorship unless you can produce a plausible alternative intention of the author and purpose of the book that is considerably more probable than the generally accepted one.

So you would accept something as genuinely sincere/accurate unless evidence is brought that the author may not have been sincere/accurate?

What if the purpose which is generally accepted is wrong? I mean, how would you know, I'm confused as to how you'd decide that as a principle.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

So you would accept something as genuinely sincere/accurate unless evidence is brought that the author may not have been sincere/accurate?

What if the purpose which is generally accepted is wrong? I mean, how would you know, I'm confused as to how you'd decide that as a principle.

I think you need to consider the context somewhat. We are talking about religious works; some of, if not the, most important books in history. They have been studied in great depth by many brilliant minds over many centuries. With that in mind I think I would certainly accept them as 'sincere' in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary simply because any convincing evidence would have emerged long before now. "Accurate" is a little different, you can be perfectly sincere without always being accurate.

Likewise, I think the chances of the generally accepted purpose being wrong are remote. The traditions are documented too well in the case of all the works mentioned and the Eastern religions as well, and I don't consider it likely that such a misunderstanding could arise unless there was a deliberate deception right at the start. That's always possible for any author (other than God, of course) but, again, I suspect that's a matter of faith rather than history. At some point you have to "accept" on trust, that's what religion is all about.

None of that would apply to other sorts of writing or even more recent religious (or 'religious') writing such as, say L. Ron Hubbard's stuff or the Urantia book.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

I think you need to consider the context somewhat. We are talking about religious works; some of, if not the, most important books in history. They have been studied in great depth by many brilliant minds over many centuries. With that in mind I think I would certainly accept them as 'sincere' in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary simply because any convincing evidence would have emerged long before now. "Accurate" is a little different, you can be perfectly sincere without always being accurate.

If you mean that due to the works being of a religious nature one should thus be safe in knowing that the author was most likely sincere, then that is absurd. There are people who make money from religion, go to Pakistan for example you will find 'friends of God' who sell amulets for a costly price, you can look at televangelists, some of whom, make a large amount of money. If we don't know the authors then would it not be possible that the reasons for any of them to bring forth a book/religion could be for material gain and thus they were not sincere?

What if the evidence if their lack of sincerity was supressed? Example being someone starts a religion, people find faults in the religion and bring their evidences, but by this time, the founder of the religion has got so much power so as to destroy such works which hold evidences against his sincerity. It would be a hard thing to do now, what with internet and news, but in the olden days it wouldn't have been so.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Likewise, I think the chances of the generally accepted purpose being wrong are remote. The traditions are documented too well in the case of all the works mentioned and the Eastern religions as well, and I don't consider it likely that such a misunderstanding could arise unless there was a deliberate deception right at the start. That's always possible for any author (other than God, of course) but, again, I suspect that's a matter of faith rather than history. At some point you have to "accept" on trust, that's what religion is all about.

But what if the generally accepted purpose only arised due to misunderstanding at an earlier stage?

I mean there is always going to be an element of 'faith' in what decisions we make when speaking on most ancient matters, but there is a difference between saying I hold this view due to just hope to saying I hold this view as most possible due to the evidence, or better yet, I don't know due to the lack of conclusive evidence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi;

Despite all the doubts of some scholars as to who might have written the Bible, despite all the stories of it being written two or three centuries after Jesus, I believe it to be the inspired work of God. I believe that the Bible I read today could not exist without God; its message is so powerful about this life and the life after death. To me the human authors are not so important.

Hey

Of course if one believes/knows that a book/message is from God it does not matter who brought the book/message forth. But if one did not, if one was just simply searching around, do you then think your view would change?

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

I just trust this to be true.

I guess that is where we disagree

Eesa.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

If you mean that due to the works being of a religious nature one should thus be safe in knowing that the author was most likely sincere, then that is absurd. There are people who make money from religion, go to Pakistan for example you will find 'friends of God' who sell amulets for a costly price, you can look at televangelists, some of whom, make a large amount of money. If we don't know the authors then would it not be possible that the reasons for any of them to bring forth a book/religion could be for material gain and thus they were not sincere?

I'm sorry, but you need to re-read my last post. I made perfectly clear which "works of a religious nature" I was talking about. If you don't know who L.Ron Hubbard was, or what the Urantia book is I suggest you go Google them. Your examples are irrelevant as they would clearly be excluded.

What if the evidence if their lack of sincerity was supressed? Example being someone starts a religion, people find faults in the religion and bring their evidences, but by this time, the founder of the religion has got so much power so as to destroy such works which hold evidences against his sincerity. It would be a hard thing to do now, what with internet and news, but in the olden days it wouldn't have been so.

I don't understand how that is relevant to the identity of the author? Were that founder to gain such power, how could there be any doubt as to his identity?

But what if the generally accepted purpose only arised due to misunderstanding at an earlier stage?

I mean there is always going to be an element of 'faith' in what decisions we make when speaking on most ancient matters, but there is a difference between saying I hold this view due to just hope to saying I hold this view as most possible due to the evidence, or better yet, I don't know due to the lack of conclusive evidence.

I don't see your point. Yes, there is a difference but I said nothing about "just hoping". If views are based on preponderance of evidence, which is reasonable enough, how can a scenario for which there is no evidence be relevant at all? If there is evidence that the assigned authorship is wrong, or that some sort of cover-up or conspiracy occurred, then that obviously needs to be taken into account. The weight given to evidence will vary among individuals, usually according to what you believed in the first place. Not very scientific, maybe, but very human. Religion is not science, or philosophy, or history. Hence all the 'conclusive proof' that believers in religion A present that religion B is 'wrong' which believers in religion B think irrelevant or absurd. And all the 'conclusive proof' that believers in religion B present that religion A is 'wrong' which believers in religion A think irrelevant or absurd.

Howdy,

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

I'm sorry, but you need to re-read my last post. I made perfectly clear which "works of a religious nature" I was talking about. If you don't know who L.Ron Hubbard was, or what the Urantia book is I suggest you go Google them. Your examples are irrelevant as they would clearly be excluded.

I read your post and still am confused at what you are talking of here. I understood that by works of a religious nature you were speaking of, the books I had mentioned in the ealier post?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

I don't understand how that is relevant to the identity of the author? Were that founder to gain such power, how could there be any doubt as to his identity?

I was speaking with regards to sincerity of the author;

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

With that in mind I think I would certainly accept them as 'sincere' in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary simply because any convincing evidence would have emerged long before now.

What if the evidence if their lack of sincerity was supressed? Example being someone starts a religion, people find faults in the religion and bring their evidences, but by this time, the founder of the religion has got so much power so as to destroy such works which hold evidences against his sincerity. It would be a hard thing to do now, what with internet and news, but in the olden days it wouldn't have been so.

Just knowing a name is not enough to know the condition of an indvidual, you spoke of, if there is no evidence to say that the individual may be insincere then I'll accept it as sincere, or at least thats how it seems you wrote, what I am saying is that, if the individual's religion became popular enough, strong enough, it could in turn supress, not his identity, but the true nature of who he was.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

I don't see your point. Yes, there is a difference but I said nothing about "just hoping". If views are based on preponderance of evidence, which is reasonable enough, how can a scenario for which there is no evidence be relevant at all? If there is evidence that the assigned authorship is wrong, or that some sort of cover-up or conspiracy occurred, then that obviously needs to be taken into account. The weight given to evidence will vary among individuals, usually according to what you believed in the first place. Not very scientific, maybe, but very human. Religion is not science, or philosophy, or history. Hence all the 'conclusive proof' that believers in religion A present that religion B is 'wrong' which believers in religion B think irrelevant or absurd. And all the 'conclusive proof' that believers in religion B present that religion A is 'wrong' which believers in religion A think irrelevant or absurd.

As much as I disagree wih some parts I dont think theres a point in delving into it. I guess in some places, I can only assume, I have misunderstood your sentences.

I wanted to discuss the principle, not neccesarily the evidence, i.e. does one agree in principle that knowing the author of a sacred text/message is of importance.

I still fail to understand how anyone may think it is not, how we can assume sincerity because it is a religious text or because followers of the text claimed s/he was sincere, how we can say, if there's no evidence to say s/he was a liar I will think he is truthful.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

I just want to stick to the main part of the thread though, whether knowing the authors and their life is important to people when believing or coming to believe in a faith.

Many parts of the Bible were written by people completely unknown to us.
Therefore, for me as a Christian, the question who wrote the Bible and what their lives were like, cannot be of great importance.

What is more important is how - given that the 66 books in the Bible were written by numerous different authors over several millenia, people of different backgrounds, different times and circumstances - the Bible remains amazingly coherent and clear in the message it gives.
Namely that of God's relationship with his people, and his continued revelation to us, finally ending in his direct salvation through Jesus Christ.

That is, to me as a Christian, the true sign of God's divine working in the Bible as the holy book which I believe in.
In comparison to that the authorship (other than God's promise to us that all authors were divinely inspired - see below), seems much less important.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

Many parts of the Bible were written by people completely unknown to us.
Therefore, for me as a Christian, the question who wrote the Bible and what their lives were like, cannot be of great importance.

What is more important is how - given that the 66 books in the Bible were written by numerous different authors over several millenia, people of different backgrounds, different times and circumstances - the Bible remains amazingly coherent and clear in the message it gives.
Namely that of God's relationship with his people, and his continued revelation to us, finally ending in his direct salvation through Jesus Christ.

That is, to me as a Christian, the true sign of God's divine working in the Bible as the holy book which I believe in.
In comparison to that the authorship (other than God's promise to us that all authors were divinely inspired - see below), seems much less important.



Peace

So for you, you would hold that since the Bible is so consistent with itself over the numerous books, the individual authors of each books are not relevant. Adding to that that God himself promised the inspiration of all scripture.

Ok. If the Bible was just one book, would the authorship matter?