Fundamental Principle 1: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

[Umar001]

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

 

[Woodrow]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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.

 

[Umar001]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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.

 

[Eric H]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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.

It almost seems a miracle that the Bible was ever written at all, and I find it truly remarkable. Above all else Jesus inspired people, and that message comes across though out the Bible today.

The Jewish authority opposed Jesus, and he lived in a land occupied by the Romans, yet there are no stories of Jesus carrying a sword to protect himself. It seems that he trusted in a higher authority to look after him. Stories of having faith in God and trusting in God run throughout the Bible. Jesus knew his destiny and his impending death and resurrection, which left him free to fulfil God’s work day to day.

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. He knew that he would inspire others to write it on his behalf. Jesus performed so many miracles, his parables carried a real power, his life experiences where extraordinary by any standards. He must have trusted in God to have this story written in the way that God wanted.

After the ascension of Jesus into heaven his disciples where given the gift of the spirit and they went of in all directions doing things and preaching the word of God. Because they wrote their stories from many countries over a period of years, we have to contend with translations from many languages. It seems the disciples did not consciously work together with the intention of writing the Bible, because like Jesus they were people of action and they spread the word in a more convincing way by doing things. These disciples were not able to complete writing the Bible and they inspired a next generation to continue.

Any communication between the disciples when they where scattered around different countries could have taken weeks or months to arrive, they could also have moved on. Their stories seem written very much from an individual perception as to how Jesus inspired each of them, and these individual inspirations are what inspire me.

Over the years I have been inspired more by one author in the Bible, then years later something written by another author about the same story helps me to understand another perception. Atheists, Buddhists, Hindu, Muslims have somehow helped me to understand the Bible from their opposing views, and I find this strange.

Over the last two thousand years language has changed, and scholars with all truthful sincerity have done their very best to faithfully translate the Bible in the way God intended. I believe that the message today remains extremely powerful and inspiring even though it is impossible to get an exact translation. There are footnotes throughout the Bible giving alternative translations so that the individual can try and find a best meaning and purpose.

I would struggle to learn Latin or any other language sadly it seems very difficult for me. I am so pleased that the Bible is available in just about every language, despite what people would call contradictions in translations, it was meant for all people, of all languages and not just scholars.

When I first started to think about the life of Jesus I wondered why he did not use all his powers of miracles to gain a status in life, become a ruler, a general or great high priest with people following him. He could have achieved a power base and written his own story. But now I look on the story of Jesus as not relying on the power of man to spread his word, rather he relied on the power of God. Jesus claimed no power on Earth. I wondered why Jesus had to die he could have avoided it.

But I believe that the destiny of Jesus was planned before the creation of the universe began, and he went through with God’s plan that was set out before creation began.

The question that remains is did Jesus truly trust in God to have his story written, and was God powerful enough to have the story edited in the way he wanted?

The very fact that there are translations and varying shades of meanings keep people searching, and striving to understand more. The Bible was written to inspire people to do things; and I believe that it has always had that power.

In the spirit of searching for a greater meaning

Eric

 

[Umar001]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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?

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.

 

[Woodrow]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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.

 

[Umar001]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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.

 

[Trumble]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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.

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.

It would all depend on how certain you are as to authorship, anyway... and that's usually as much a faith issue as a historical one.

 

[Umar001]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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.

 

[Trumble]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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.

 

[Ebrahim]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

I think authorship makes a difference, although may not be necessary, in EVERY text.

In terms of human writers, analysis of text is done much more deeply and differently when the person writing is analyzed. (e.g. Shakespeare's "Hamlet" is analyzed one way as just text, and then completely differently when the reader knows that Shakespeare wrote it soon after his son died).

In terms of divine authorship, this obviously matters since the divinity of authorship says something of the divinity of the text.

 

[Umar001]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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.

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.

 

[Eric H]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi;

So in conclusion would it be your view that knowing the authors of a book is not a neccesity?

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.

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.

Jesus knew that his message would get to me two thousand years later.

Mathew 28
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

I just trust this to be true.

In the spirit of praying for greater interfaith friendship,

Eric

 

[Umar001]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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?

I just trust this to be true.

I guess that is where we disagree

Eesa.

 

[Eric H]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi;

I guess that is where we disagree

Eesa

I believe that Allah has given you a sincere faith through Islam, but the same God has also given me a sincere faith through Christianity.

I believe there is a great need to pray for each other that we might all reach salvation despite our differences.

I shall leave it at that as I am straying from your opening post

In the spirit of praying to the one loving and merciful God,

Eric

 

[Trumble]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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.

 

[Umar001]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

Howdy,

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?

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;

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.

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.

 

[glo]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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

 

[Umar001]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

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?

 

[Trumble]

Re: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

I understood that by works of a religious nature you were speaking of, the books I had mentioned in the ealier post?

Yes, although I would include many others as well such as the Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, the Tao Te Ching, and so on.

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

Yes, pretty much.

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.

Yes, that is concievable. But you could think of a thousand scenarios that might be concievable, none are of any relevance unless there is evidence they might have actually occurred.

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.

In principle, then, no I don't think it is of essential importance, although it might well be of some significance. The sacred/text message should stand on it's own merits, if it can't do that it is worthless anyway.

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.

I don't see how it is not possible to (generally) make that assumption as the alternative simply makes no sense. In your everyday life do you refuse to make any sort of judgement about what people tell you, being constantly suspicious, even when there is no reason to suspect they may not be telling the truth? Of course not. If you read, say, an important article in political philosophy, are you always worried about lack of sincerity or hidden motives? I can read Marx and believe him mistaken about many things, but I have no reason to doubt his sincerity.

The only case where I can see the authorship of the sort of religious work we are talking about of being of any real significance is if that author is supposed to be God.