I absolutely think human authorship matters, and I am constantly irritated by the “theories” of the “scholars” who spend so much time trying to debunk the idea that anyone whose name is associated with a book, especially in the New Testament, actually wrote it. As far as I’m concerned they can keep their theories. So what if someone had help from a “scribe” or secretary or whomever? The sheer arrogance of these people is what probably irritates me the most. I always read those introductions and most of the footnotes as well with large doses of salt.
Of course, these so-called scholars don’t stop with attacking traditional belief in the identity of human authors–they attack the substance of the Scriptures as well. The Holy Father’s discussion in the early pages of his marvelous book, Jesus of Nazareth, gives an excellent guide to how these modernists’ theories should be considered. In short, he says while they may present some helpful information, their critiques have to be read in the light of faith, and can’t be taken as authoritative in all things.
The whole idea of the “quelle” or “Q” document is a perfect example of the methods of which we should, IMHO, be wary. Their reasoning goes something like this: 1. The three synoptic Gospels describe many of the same events, in roughly the same order. 2. The traditionally ascribed human authors, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were most likely not living close together at the time they wrote their material, so they couldn’t have personally collaborated. 3. Therefore, they must all have been referring to some other document, the “Q”.
Of course, no one has ever found the “Q” document, nor is there any real evidence it ever existed, except the circumstantial line of inferences I just paraphrased. All of which leads many people, including me, to ask: Gee, folks, isn’t it just maybe a little bit possible that the stories are so similar because they are basically TRUE? And, you know, maybe even inspired by God? What a concept!!!
