"Date of Composition" in Regard to Biblical Books and Writers

While having spent much of my life studying the Bible and ancient history at several universities and seminaries, I am by no means a "scholar" myself, so I am writing as an amateur theologian and historian.  I am, therefore, writing as an amateur to fellow amateurs.  I am also writing as a clergyman, so I think it is important for Christians to have an understanding of how scholars determine when they think a particular Biblical book or passage was written, especially since there are some prejudices that often come into play.

Scholars utilize a variety of methods for dating texts.  They often analyze the structure, content, historical details, literary devices, vocabulary, grammar, personal names, place names, common expressions, word choice, literary style, handwriting, etcetera.  Scholars compare the given text with other known texts attributed to the same author or time period.  They may also have archaeological data that informs their opinion.

Sometimes, scholars claim a precise window of time for authorship, say within a decade or two.  At other times, scholars place the composition of a text within a wider range of multiple centuries.  Dating is a tricky process for scholars, not usually an exact science, but an art that is based on available data, relevant skills, general knowledge, instinct, and some presumptions.

These presumptions can make a difference in how scholars date a text.  Besides presumptions based on archaeological, anthropological, literary, and historical data, there are presumptions that inform their opinions.  One big presumption that comes into play is belief or disbelief in supernatural events, such as miracles, future prophecies, and the active participation of God in history-making.  

For instance, if a Biblical passage mentions an event that most historians agree took place at a particular time, then a nonbeliever in supernatural events might naturally assume that the passage was written after the event occurred.  Or, if all/most of the other evidence points to an earlier date of composition, then the nonbeliever might naturally assume that information about the event was added to the passage later.  On the other hand, a believer in supernatural events (or someone who is open to that possibility) is not forced to make such assumptions.  If a Biblical writer implied or explicitly stated that they were writing about an event in the future, then a scholar who believes in the supernatural can date the composition of the passage to a time before the event took place, assuming that there is not overwhelming data suggesting otherwise.

Maybe that's not a big deal to some of you, but it is a big deal to many Christians, especially if the Biblical writer to whom the book or passage was traditionally attributed would have been too old at the time to have written it.  A scholar who does not believe in supernatural prophecy naturally rejects the whole notion of so-and-so having written the book as a fairytale or myth.

Here's an example of the thought pattern of the scholar who does not believe in the supernatural:

Starting point:  There are no supernatural events.

1. Therefore, future prophecies are not possible.
2. Hence, the writer was writing after the event described.
3. The traditional writer would have been dead or too old by that time to have written about the event after-the-fact, so someone else must have written this book/passage.
4. Thus, the traditional writer lied to his readers about his identity and 2,000 years of tradition is false.
5. Whoever the "real writer" was, he lived later, so he was not an eyewitness.
6. Since he wasn't an eyewitness, he may have his facts wrong.
7. The reader should beware.

That means that the presumption of the scholar who does not believe in the supernatural has just inadvertently created an argument against the Bible being a truthful, much less, historical narrative. Their presumption is a philosophical one, not one that can be proved or disproved. Even if 2,000 years of tradition and the preponderance of evidence points to an earlier date of writing, it must be rejected on the basis that it is an impossibility.

In contrast, here's the logic of the scholar who is open to the possibility of the supernatural

Starting point: Supernatural events are possible.

1. Therefore, miracles, divine revelations, and future prophecies are possible.
2. Hence, the writer may have been writing before the event took place.
3. The traditional writer may have been alive at the time to have written about an upcoming event before-the-fact.
4. Thus, the traditional writer may have written the book or passage in question and possibly been an eyewitness to the truth and to the facts recorded.

The open-minded scholar has a simpler line of thinking that allows for more possibilities.  It allows for eyewitness testimony and allows that testimony to be both truth and historical fact.  It also does not force the scholar to reject evidence.  Open-minded scholars do not even have to be believers in the supernatural.  Nonbelievers in the supernatural, on the other hand, are forced to conform with 

One example:

Jesus talked about the destruction of Jerusalem taking place in the future.  Jerusalem was besieged and then destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, some 40 years after his crucifixion. Following the logic of a scholar who does not believe in the supernatural leads to the conclusion that the New Testament writers who attributed these words to Jesus must have been writing during or after the siege of Jerusalem.  An open-minded scholar may conjecture that the words of Jesus were included because the writer witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem (thereby giving those words greater importance), while leaving open the possibility that the writer recorded them much earlier.  (Actually, there is strong evidence for these words of Jesus to have been recorded early by the Gospel-writers of the New Testament.)

Conclusion:

The next time you read how an Old Testament prophet or New Testament evangelist could not possibly have written this or that book because scholars assume that this or that book had to have been written decades or centuries after the events recorded, consider how certain prejudices affect the opinions of some scholars.  

For further study, click here to watch a video I found on the web by Testify:  https://youtu.be/lrF1tlrqrbI