In order to fully grasp the significance of the mysteries and revelations shared on this site, it is imperative that one possess a working knowledge of when the books of the Bible were written. Without this framework of historical knowledge, one simply will be unable to connect the dots and understand why the Bible is a miraculous book that confounds man’s natural logic and defies the laws of time. In this article you will find: a.) a brief summary of the two competing approaches to biblical authorship and dating; and b.) the purported authors and estimated dates of authorship for each of the 66 books of the Bible according to these two approaches.
Biblical Authorship and Dating: Two competing paradigms
There are two competing scholastic paradigms which directly influence how one approaches questions concerning biblical authorship and dating. Because these two paradigms are upheld by two opposing belief systems, the view of any given biblical scholar regarding when and by whom a particular biblical book was written is inevitably going to be colored by the presuppositions and methods of whichever specific paradigm they are operating in. It is therefore needful that the student of the Bible is acquainted with these two schools of thought.
What I refer to as the “Traditional” approach to biblical authorship and dating is founded upon the belief that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and as such is the highest of all authorities.1. In accordance with this conviction, someone operating in the traditional paradigm will whenever possible defer to the Bible itself when attempting to determine when and by whom a particular biblical book was written.
To give a very simple example to demonstrate, the New Testament appears to affirm in multiple places that Moses wrote the Torah (Mark 10:3-5, 12:19, 12:26; Luke 16:29-31, 20:28, 24:27; John 5:46-47; Acts 26:22, 28:23; 2 Cor. 3:15). This is additionally affirmed by parts of the Old Testament outside of the Torah. Accordingly, the traditionalist believes that the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses–because the Word of God says so. We also know from the Bible that Moses was 80 years old when he returned to Egypt and stood before Pharaoh (Exod. 7:7), and that he died 40 years later at the ripe old age of 120 (Deut. 34:7). From this it can be inferred that Moses would had to have written the Torah sometime during those last forty years of his life, between Israel’s departure from mount Sinai after the Exodus, and his death in the plains of Moab. If the traditionalist can thus somehow pinpoint the date of the Exodus, he or she can thereby identify the 40 year period during which time Moses would have had to have written the first five books of the Bible.
The book of 1 Kings states that Solomon began to build the temple in the fourth year of his reign, 480 years after the Exodus from Egypt (1 Kings 6:1). The fourth year of Solomon’s reign can be dated with moderate precision to about the year 966 BC on our modern Gregorian calendar. Accordingly, the traditionalist counts back 480 years from 966 BC, and thereby arrives at the year of 1446 BC for the year of the Exodus. From this follows the conclusion that the last forty years of Moses’ life must have spanned from about 1446 BC – 1406 BC respectively, which means that the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy must have been written between 1446 and 1406 BC.
This is just one example that demonstrates how someone operating within the traditional paradigm approaches questions of biblical authorship and dating. For someone operating in this paradigm, the Bible is the ultimate authority and will always be the principle guiding light when determining when and by whom a particular biblical book was written.
What I call “the modern-critical” approach to biblical authorship and dating refers to the prevailing secular approach which dominates the academic study of the Bible today. Those operating within this paradigm are those who accept and adhere to the tenets of what is known as higher biblical criticism, commonly referred to as the historical-critical method or historical criticism.2 Unlike the traditionalist, modern-critical scholars reject the idea of biblical inerrancy, and do not believe that the Bible is a divinely inspired body of writings at all. As such, clues offered by the Bible with regard to who wrote a particular book and when often mean very little, because for those operating within this paradigm, what the Bible has to say about itself isn’t necessary true. In fact, the modern-critical scholar doesn’t even view the Bible as a unified testimony–but rather a conglomeration of ancient literature written by many different people who were all writing with their own private agendas. For the modern-critical scholar, the biblical texts must be subjected to a critical analysis in attempting to identify the likely author(s) and date of composition. This involves pouring over the texts and looking for historical clues that might shed light on the identity of the author and date of composition.
Although modern-critical scholars like to present themselves as the neutral and objective camp, in truth their views are just as colored by their own inherent set of biases and dogmatic presuppositions. To give just one very simple example to illustrate, consider the following commentary on the book of Isaiah from one very highly regarded modern-critical biblical scholar:
This analysis of the book of Isaiah shares several presuppositions and conclusions with the critical analysis of the Pentateuch. It assumes that an eighth-century BCE prophet in Jerusalem could not have known about the particulars of sixth-century history, such as the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586 BCE, repeatedly mentioned in Isaiah 40-55; the rise to power of the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 559, mentioned by name in Isaiah 44.28 and 45.1; and his defeat of Babylon in 539, mentioned in Isaiah 47 and 48.14. These specific historical references show that parts of the book were written after these events. This critical judgment does not allow for the possibility that the prophets could, under divine inspiration, know of events of the distant future. That is more in the realm of theology, but at least it should be said that the rise of a king in Persia who would conquer Babylon would have made little sense to an eighth-century Judean audience, for whom Persia was unknown and Babylon was no threat at all.3
Notice how Coogan himself admits that his analysis is founded on the presupposition that the prophet Isaiah could not have foretold of future events under divine inspiration. This is not an objectively true statement, but rather a dogmatic assumption which is foundational to the modern-critical approach to biblical authorship and dating. Modern-critical scholars like to depict themselves as cold rational secular academics who interpret the Bible neutrally and objectively–free from the intellectual shackles of religious bias. This of course is nothing but a strong delusion, as in reality they have their own tenets of faith which they hold sacred, and these color the way that they approach the Bible and directly influences their conclusions. If they were truly being as neutral and objective as they try to portray themselves to be, then they would not completely rule out the possibility that the prophets could speak of future events under divine inspiration. One cannot just presume that something could not have occurred merely because it conflicts with their own postmodernist belief system.
This is just one example of how a very common postmodernist presupposition colors the modern-critical view of biblical authorship and dating, that is–if a book of the Bible which claims to have been written by a particular individual at a particular period of history happens to accurately foretell an event that is known to have occurred long after the book was purportedly written, then the modern-critical scholar automatically concludes that at least that portion of the book was written after that event had occurred. In this case, Coogan automatically concludes that parts of the book of Isaiah are not authentic and date to the mid sixth century BC (150-200 years after Isaiah lived), in part because the writer twice calls the future Persian king Cyrus by his name in Isaiah 45. This is a form of intellectual bias which casts a veil over the spiritual eyes of the unbelieving and blocks them from being able to receive revelation.
Authors and Dates of Authorship
As I myself am a “traditionalist” who believes in the absolute authority and inerrancy of the Bible, I obviously reject the doctrines and methods of the higher critics and their modern-critical approach to biblical authorship and dating. Nevertheless, for the sake of being fair and objective–I have constructed two separate tables which list the purported authors and estimated dates of authorship for both sides. It is very important to note however that views on biblical authorship and dating tend to be characterized by a great diversity of opinion even within each camp, and therefore the dates in these tables should not be taken to necessarily represent some absolute consensus of opinion within each camp.
Much of the traditional view of biblical dating is largely dependent upon the year that one assigns to the Exodus. Note that I am using the most commonly accepted modern secular chronology among Conservative scholars which assigns the Exodus to the year 1446 BC (for reasons I have already explained). Note however that because our knowledge of ancient chronology gets progressively scantier the father back you go, it is practically impossible to date a biblical event this far back in history down to the exact year, although we can get it close. Thus although the year 1446 can’t be very far off, this date should only as a general estimate based on a careful analysis of the chronological clues given in the biblical narrative.
|Genesis||Moses||ca. 1446-1406 BC|
|Exodus||Moses||ca. 1446-1406 BC|
|Leviticus||Moses||ca. 1446-1406 BC|
|Numbers||Moses||ca. 1446-1406 BC|
|Deuteronomy||Moses||ca. 1446-1406 BC|
|Joshua||Joshua||ca. 1406-1003 BC4|
|Judges||Samuel?||ca. 1051-1003 BC|
|Ruth||Samuel?||ca. 1031-960 BC|
|1 Samuel||Samuel & disciples||ca. 1051-900 BC|
|2 Samuel||Disciple(s) of Samuel||ca. 1011-900 BC|
|1 Kings||Jeremiah?5||ca. 586-560 BC6|
|2 Kings||Jeremiah?||ca. 586-560 BC|
|1 Chronicles||Ezra||ca. 460-400 BC|
|2 Chronicles||Ezra||ca. 460-400 BC|
|Ezra||Ezra||ca. 457-400 BC|
|Nehemiah||Nehemiah||ca. 433-408 BC|
|Esther||Unknown||ca. 465-400 BC|
|Job||Unknown7||ca. 970-931 BC?8|
|Psalms||David & others||ca. 1446-400 BC9|
|Proverbs||Solomon||ca. 970-931 BC|
|Ecclesiastes||Solomon||ca. 940-931 BC|
|Song of Solomon||Solomon||ca. 970-931 BC|
|Isaiah||Isaiah||ca. 739-681 BC|
|Jeremiah||Jeremiah||ca. 627-560 BC|
|Lamentations||Jeremiah||ca. 586-560 BC|
|Ezekiel||Ezekiel||ca. 593-565 BC|
|Daniel||Daniel||ca. 605-536 BC|
|Hosea||Hosea||ca. 755-725 BC|
|Joel||Joel||ca. 835-800 BC|
|Amos||Amos||ca. 767-740 BC|
|Obadiah||Obadiah||anywhere between about 899-590 BC.|
|Micah||Micah||ca. 752-697 BC|
|Nahum||Nahum||ca. 663-612 BC|
|Habakkuk||Habakkuk||ca. 655-598 BC|
|Zephaniah||Zephaniah||ca. 630-625 BC|
|Zechariah||Zechariah||ca. 520-460 BC|
|Malachi||Malachi||ca. 433-425 BC|
|Matthew||Matthew||ca. 37-69 AD|
|Mark||Mark||ca. 40-80 AD|
|Luke||Luke||ca. 60-62 AD|
|John||John||ca. 85-90 AD|
|Acts||Luke||ca. 62 AD|
|Romans||Paul||ca. 56-58 AD|
|1 Corinthians||Paul||ca. 55 AD|
|2 Corinthians||Paul||ca. 55-56 AD|
|Galatians||Paul||ca. 54-55 AD|
|Ephesians||Paul||ca. 62 AD|
|Philippians||Paul||ca. 60 AD|
|Colossians||Paul||ca. 60-61 AD|
|1 Thessalonians||Paul||ca. 51 AD|
|2 Thessalonians||Paul||ca. 51-52 AD|
|1 Timothy||Paul||ca. 62-63 AD|
|2 Timothy||Paul||ca. 67 AD|
|Titus||Paul||ca. 64-66 AD|
|Philemon||Paul||ca. 60-63 AD|
|Hebrews||Paul?11||ca. 60-66 AD|
|James||James||ca. 40-45 AD|
|1 Peter||Peter||ca. 64-65 AD|
|2 Peter||Peter||ca. 64-67 AD|
|1 John||John||ca. 85-99 AD|
|2 John||John||ca. 85-99 AD|
|3 John||John||ca. 85-99 AD|
|Jude||Jude||ca. 65-80 AD|
|Revelation||John (Apostle)||ca. 90-100 AD|
|Genesis||J, E, P12||ca. 950-400 BC|
|Exodus||J, E, P||ca. 950-400 BC|
|Leviticus||J, E, P||ca. 950-400 BC|
|Numbers||J, E, P||ca. 950-400 BC|
|Deuteronomy||D||ca. 720-550 BC|
|Joshua||Deuteronomistic Historians13||ca. 720-550 BC|
|Judges||Deuteronomistic Historians||ca. 720-550 BC|
|Ruth||Unknown||ca. 1000-300 BC14|
|1 Samuel||Deuteronomistic Historians||ca. 720-550 BC|
|2 Samuel||Deuteronomistic Historians||ca. 720-550 BC|
|1 Kings||Deuteronomistic Historians||ca. 720-550 BC|
|2 Kings||Deuteronomistic Historians||ca. 720-550 BC|
|1 Chronicles||“The Chronicleer”||ca. 430-350 BC|
|2 Chronicles||“The Chronicleer”||ca. 430-350 BC|
|Ezra||Unknown||ca. 430-370 BC|
|Nehemiah||Unknown||ca. 430-370 BC|
|Esther||Unknown||ca. 400-300 BC|
|Job||Unknown||ca. 1000-200 BC15|
|Psalms||Many diverse unknown contributors||ca. 970-340 BC16|
|Proverbs||Unknown||ca. 970-340 BC17|
|Ecclesiastes||Unknown||ca. 500-200 BC18|
|Song of Solomon||Unknown||ca. 530-320 BC|
|Isaiah||Isaiah + disciples of Isaiah19||ca. 733-475 BC20|
|Jeremiah||Jeremiah + multiple later contributors21||ca. 627 BC – 550 BC|
|Lamentations||Unknown||ca. 586-580 BC|
|Ezekiel||Ezekiel + later editors||ca. 597-571 BC|
|Daniel||Unknown||ca. 160-100 BC|
|Hosea||Hosea + anonymous editors||ca. 740-550 BC|
|Joel||Joel||ca. 500-332 BC|
|Amos||Amos + anonymous editors||ca. 750-550 BC|
|Obadiah||Obadiah||ca. 586-575 BC|
|Jonah||Unknown||ca. 600-300 BC|
|Micah||Micah + later anonymous contributors||ca. 759-425 BC|
|Nahum||Nahum||ca. 625-612 BC|
|Habakkuk||Habakkuk||ca. 620-600 BC|
|Zephaniah||Zephaniah + anonymous editors||ca. 640-550 BC|
|Zechariah||Zechariah + later contributors||ca. 520-400 BC22|
|Malachi||Malachi||ca. 450-425 BC|
|Matthew||A Christian named Matthew||ca. 90 AD|
|Mark||A Christian named Mark23||ca. 65-75 AD|
|Luke||An unknown Gentile Christian||ca. 90 AD|
|John||The Johannine school24||ca. 100-110 AD|
|Acts||Unknown[efn_not]Although the author of Acts is disputed by critical scholars, it is generally agreed that the same individual who wrote the gospel of Luke is also the author of Acts.[/efn_note]||ca. 90-100 AD|
|Romans||Paul||ca. 56 AD|
|1 Corinthians||Paul||55 AD|
|2 Corinthians||Paul||56 AD|
|Galatians||Paul||ca. 55 AD|
|Ephesians||Unknown||ca. 80-90 AD|
|Philippians||Paul||ca. 60 AD|
|Colossians||Disputed||ca. 70 AD|
|1 Thessalonians||Paul||ca. 50-51 AD|
|2 Thessalonians||Unknown||ca. 90-100 AD?|
|1 Timothy||Unknown25||ca. 100 AD|
|2 Timothy||Unknown||ca. 100 AD|
|Titus||Unknown||ca. 100 AD|
|Philemon||Paul||ca. 61-62 AD|
|Hebrews||Unknown||ca. 80-90 AD|
|James||An unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian26||ca. 70-110 AD|
|1 Peter||Unknown||ca. 90 AD|
|2 Peter||Unknown||ca. 110 AD|
|1 John||Anonymous writer from the Johannine community.||ca. 95 AD|
|2 John||Anonymous writer from the Johannine community.27||ca. 90 AD|
|3 John||Anonymous writer from the Johannine community.||ca. 90-92 AD|
|Jude||Unknown||ca. 80-100 AD|
|Revelation||Unknown Jewish Christian prophet||ca. 90-95 AD|
In this analysis we have surveyed the two competing scholastic paradigms of the field of biblical studies, and have seen first-hand how one’s views with regard to who wrote a particular biblical book and when is going to be heavily determined by which school of thought they belong to. As I stated previously, the only reason I have included the views of modern-critical scholarship here is because I am designing this blog not only for my fellow believers, but also for skeptics who have intellectual strongholds that have caused them to doubt the divine authority and authenticity of the Bible. If you are one of those skeptics, this knowledge will serve as a very important foundation in your journey into all truth.
As one begins to witness with their own eyes the innumerable infallible proofs which affirm the divine authorship and authenticity of the Bible, it quickly becomes apparent that the Bible is a time-defying document–regardless of which view of biblical authorship and dating one takes. Even if one was to assume that the views of the modern-critical scholars were correct (they aren’t), it literally wouldn’t matter. For instance, if it were proven that the book of Numbers wasn’t written by Moses, but was rather a hodgepodge of various texts written at various times then merged together around 400 BC, the fact would still remain that the camp of Israel in the wilderness as described in that book was structured in the shape of the cross of Jesus. Likewise, even if it were proven that Isaiah was not the author of the second half of the book that bears his name, but was written by an unknown disciple of his in the mid sixth century BC–this would not alter the fact that the statements “Jesus is my name” and “I was crucified” are encrypted next to one another at different equidistant letter sequences in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53.28 Again, if it were somehow proven that the Gospel of John and the epistle of Hebrews were written later than Christian tradition contends, the fact remains that John 11:43 and Heb. 11:19 are alphanumerically equivalent in the original Greek–when the modern system of verse divisions weren’t even devised until the sixteenth century.29 You get the idea. The time-defying revelations of the Bible objectively prove that it was written by some being who is perfect in knowledge and not bound by the laws of time and space, and this is true regardless of which view one takes with regard to biblical authorship and dating. As a wise man once said: “There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.” (Prov. 21:30)
The data contained in the tables presented in this analysis took into account the perspectives of multiple scholars and biblical commentators from both the traditional and modern-critical camps. The following works were consulted in assembling this data:
Coogan, Michael David. The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, 2nd ed., New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament : A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Hindson, Edward E., ed. The King James Study Bible. Full color ed. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2017.
Mack, Burton L. Who Wrote The New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth. San Francisco, CA: HarperSan Francisco, 1996.
Newton, Isaac. “Bible Text Commentaries by Sir Isaac Newton.” Blue Letter Bible. Accessed May 3, 2022. https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/newton_isaac/prophecies/daniel01.cfm.
Schnelle, Udo. The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998.
- I refer to it as the traditional approach because this was the prevailing and dominant view up until about the mid-nineteenth century. It is common for those of the opposite camp to refer to it was “the conservative view.”
- Higher biblical criticism and modern-critical scholarship was born out of the war on the Bible that began at the dawn of the European Enlightenment and reached its climax in the nineteenth century.
- Coogan, Michael David. The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, 2nd ed., 330–31. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
- The traditional view is that the bulk of the book of Joshua are the writings of Joshua himself. In the most commonly accepted modern traditional chronology, this would place its date of authorship between the death of Moses in 1406 BC to the death of Joshua about 1366 BC. However, there are particular statements made in the book which were clearly written by another hand at a later time. Sir Isaac Newton makes a strong case in one of his commentaries that the book of Joshua was composed out of the writings of Joshua by Samuel, who lived in the eleventh century BC some 350+ years after Joshua. In this view, much of the material found in the book of Joshua are the writings of Joshua, albeit these writings are intermixed with the narrative story-telling of Samuel.
- According to Jewish tradition, Jeremiah is the author of the two books of Kings.
- Although the books of 1 and 2 Kings (which were originally one book) had to have been written sometime after 586 BC (due to the fact that 2 Kings concludes with the destruction of the Temple and deportation of the Jews to Babylon), a large chunk of the material in these books was probably written much, much earlier.
- In truth, there is no consensus amongst Conservative scholars on who wrote the book of Job. According to Jewish tradition, Moses is the author of this book. Personally, I have always believed Solomon to be the most likely author.
- This date range is based on my own opinion that the most likely author of this book is Solomon. Many traditionalists however believe that the book of Job was written during the time of the patriarchs, which if true would make it the oldest book in the Bible. Jewish tradition ascribes the authorship of Job to Moses, which if true would date it to sometime around 1446-1406 BC.
- The book of Psalms is a collection of songs that were all written at different times by different people over the course of a roughly 1,000 year period. This can be inferred from the observation that one psalm is attributed to Moses which would place its date of composition to the fifteenth century BC (Psalm 90:1), while another was very clearly written after the start of the Babylonian captivity (Psalm 137:1-9). The lyrics of the psalms were preserved by Jewish scribes down through the centuries and were eventually collected together and codified into the form of a book. This likely took place after the return of the Jews to Jerusalem, perhaps during the time of Ezra.
- Many conservative scholars believe that Jonah wrote the book which bears his name. Others, such as Sir Isaac Newton, believe it to have been written by some other anonymous hand.
- The authorship of the book of Hebrews has been hotly contested since the days of the early Church fathers. Although its Pauline authorship is far from certain, the fact remains that it would not be in our Bibles today were it not for a prevalent long-standing tradition in the early Church which attributed it to the Apostle Paul.
- Modern-critical scholars reject the Mosaic authorship of the Torah. Most cleave to some form of the Documentary Hypothesis, which contends that the books of the Pentateuch are composed of at least four discernible major source documents which were all written by different people from different places with different agendas who were all living at different times over a period of roughly 500 years. The theory holds that these documents were continually revised and eventually redacted and compiled into their present form by an anonymous group of priests in the mid to late fifth century BC.
- The Deuteronomistic Historians are a hypothetical school of writers who are believed to have lived in the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth and seventh centuries BC, whom modern-critical scholars believe are responsible for the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 2 Kings. Modern-critical scholars believe that these books constitute one complete work which they refer to as: “the Deuteronomistic History”. The Deuteronomistic Historians are believed to also be the “D” pentateuchal source of the Documentary Hypothesis.
- Modern-critical scholars are divided with regard to when the book of Ruth was penned. Proposed dates range between the tenth century BC and the fourth century BC.
- There is no consensus among modern-critical scholars as to when the book of Job was written. Proposed dates of authorship for this book tend to range anywhere from as early as the tenth century BC, to as a late as the the third century BC. See Coogan 472-473.
- The Psalms in the book of Psalms were composed at many different times over the course of several centuries. It is clear that the earliest of these were composed during the early monarchy. However, most modern-critical scholars believe that the 150 Psalms which comprise this text were not collected and compiled into what we know as “the book of Psalms” until sometime in the mid to late fourth century BC. See Coogan 451.
- While modern-critical scholars acknowledge that many of the proverbs in the book of Proverbs must date to the period of the monarchy (ca. 970 – 586 BC), the general consensus is that the body of material itself was assembled and compiled into book form sometime between the fifth century BC and the mid fourth century BC. See Coogan 464.
- Modern-critical scholars believe that the penning of Ecclesiastes occurred at some point between the fifth century BC and the third century BC. Most of these tend to date it within the later half of this range–during the Hellenistic period (after 331 BC). It could not have been written much later than the end of the third century BC, as the oldest manuscript of Ecclesiastes is one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which has been dated to the mid second century BC. See Coogan 482.
- Most modern-critical scholars believe the book of Isaiah to be a composite of three distinct works written by different hands at at different times. This conclusion is based upon perceived differences and historical clues present in chapters 1-39, 40-55, and 56-66. With the exception of a few chapters, the bulk of 1-39 is believed to likely come from the hand of the prophet Isaiah himself. Chapters 40-66 are believed to have been written by disciples of Isaiah, or members of a ”school of Isaiah”, writing long after his death.
- With the exception of chapters 13, 14, 24-27, and 36-39–the consensus of modern-critical scholars is that the first section of the book of Isaiah was likely written by Isaiah, which would place the dating of this material to about 740-700 BC. Chapters 40-55, on the other hand, are believed to have been written by certain disciples of Isaiah sometime following Cyrus’ decree of liberation following the end of the Babylonian captivity. Chapters 56-66 are believed to have been written by an even later hand, who was writing sometime after the reconstruction of the Temple—perhaps during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.
- Because the length as well as the arrangement of the contents of the book of Jeremiah varies greatly across ancient manuscripts and versions–some modern-critical scholars such as Michael D. Coogan contend that the book wasn’t really a fixed text, but functioned as something like a hypertext to which successive generations felt free to expand and add their own material. It is debated whether any of the material in the book is authentic and attributable to the prophet Jeremiah. Modern-critical scholars also contend that the book was later edited by the Deuteronomistic Historians. See Coogan 364-366; 374.
- Modern-critical scholars believe that the book of Zechariah is a composite of two distinct works that were later assembled together into one volume. It is generally agreed that the first eight chapters of the book were likely written by Zechariah himself between 520 and 518 BC. On the other hand, chapters 9-14 are believed to have been written by anonymous contributor(s) who were probably writing sometime in the following century. See Coogan 420-421; 433.
- Schnelle, 200.
- “The Johannine school” is a hypothetical community of early Christians believed to have been associated with the apostle John. Most modern-critical scholars believe that this community was responsible for much of the material which was traditionally ascribed to the Apostle John (the Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John).
- Although most modern-critical scholars reject the Pauline authorship of the three pastoral epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus), most are nevertheless persuaded that all three were written by the same unknown author. See Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament : A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 388.
- Schnelle, 388.
- Although modern-critical scholars do not believe that the letters of John were written by the apostle John, they do believe that someone from the community associated with him wrote 2 John. They also contend that the letters of 2 John as well as 3 John were written by the same person.
- See my article on the Bible code of Isaiah 53.
- See my article on Greek Isopsephy in the New Testament