Bible Scholars: Two Types and Why You’re Only Hearing One Side

For roughly 1,700 years, Bible scholars generally agreed that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The epistles were accepted as being written by Paul, and 1 and 2 Peter by Peter. They dated the writing of the books of the New Testament as early as AD 40. The Old Testament was likewise attributed to its respective authors and dated appropriately.

But today, you will hear that Bible scholars no longer believe the authors of the Gospels are even known. They date the Gospels no earlier than AD 70, with some New Testament books even being dated to the second century AD. Old Testament books have also received the same treatment.

The fact is, Bible scholars aren’t what they used to be. At least not all of them.

You see, when you hear about Bible scholars making these kinds of claims, you aren’t being told the whole story. There are actually two different kinds of Bible scholars:

• Conservative Bible Scholars
• Critical Bible Scholars

Typically, when you hear the term “Bible scholars,” what is meant is “critical Bible scholars.” Conservative Bible scholars are often ignored in the conversation.

These aren’t just descriptions of the character of the people. These are actual classifications. The difference between the two types of Bible scholars changes things considerably. They both have the same evidence and the same level of education. But they come to the table with a different set of foundational beliefs about how the Bible should be studied.

Conservative Bible Scholars

The conservative Bible scholar generally begins with the assumption that the Bible is what it claims to be.

• God is real.
• Miracles are possible.
• Prophecy can be genuine.
• The text means what it says unless it tells you otherwise.

Unless something is proven false, they don’t automatically assume it to be false.

Critical Bible Scholars

The critical Bible scholar generally claims to be neutral, but in practice, they begin with a different set of assumptions.

• The Bible is simply a literary work.
• Many (though not all) believe God is not, or may not be, real.
• Miracles are not possible.
• Prophecy cannot genuinely predict the future.
• Words can mean different things depending on Hebrew and Greek dictionary definitions rather than the context itself defining the words.

To the critical Bible scholar, the Bible is a collection of ancient texts to be studied with the same historical and literary methods used for other ancient writings.

And the truth is, there is nothing wrong with that—if it were not for one problem. The Bible isn’t just any other text, and God isn’t just any other myth. The method they use for examining the Bible automatically rejects anything that is not “natural.” Meaning divine intervention, miracles, and prophecy are not allowed.

Most critical Bible scholars use a research rule called methodological naturalism. It means that when doing historical analysis, you only consider natural causes.

That means if a prophecy was fulfilled perfectly, then you must find a reason other than prophecy being real. Typically, the solution is to date the writing of the book to after the event took place instead of before. Then this artificially forces other books to be dated further into the future by necessity.

That’s why, when you present prophecy as evidence, skeptics say, “Bible scholars date those books after the events took place. So it’s prophecy after the fact.” But the reality is that only critical Bible scholars do. And the reason is mostly because of the prophecy being fulfilled in the first place. Take away the assumption that prophecy can’t be real, and their remaining arguments for later dates are far too weak to stand.

What Divided Bible Scholars

Did something happen that caused this major shift among Bible scholars?

Yes, something happened that changed how critical scholars handle the Bible. But it wasn’t new evidence, smarter scholars, or new discoveries. It was a change made in the heart of the universities.

Earlier, I said the dates and authorship were considered known and much earlier than they are today for 1,700 years. That’s not a number I picked out of a hat. That’s approximately the number of years between the writing of the final book of the Bible and a specific period of time just a few hundred years ago.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, there was a movement called the Enlightenment. This was a time when people began to elevate human reasoning to the point that many believed science would eventually explain everything. Skepticism about religion became a virtue, and anything that claimed divine intervention or miracles came to be viewed as backward thinking.

During this time, universities began teaching with these kinds of foundational assumptions. After all, they were centers of higher education. But sadly, they valued their own worldly wisdom over God’s wisdom.

This is when the modern critical Bible scholar was born. Universities began teaching what is called the historical-critical method.

Some of the rules used in this method of study include:

• Books must be examined without assuming traditional authorship.
• Church tradition is useful but not always truthful.
• Claims of authorship must be demonstrated internally.
• Later editing is common in ancient literature.
• Miraculous events must be explained naturally.

You cannot take centuries of previous scholarly study at face value. Church tradition and history should be viewed as unreliable information. Unless the author signs his book, it must be considered anonymous no matter what other evidence may point to that author. It must be assumed that there are likely forgeries. And you must prefer skepticism over supernatural intervention.

In other words, the new rule of the day was to be a skeptic. And skepticism is what the universities have been teaching ever since.

There’s nothing wrong with avoiding assumptions, questioning what we know, and exploring alternative avenues. It’s when we begin to look at things as guilty until proven innocent, and when we require everything to be completely naturalistic, that we have gone too far. And that’s what has been taught for the last few centuries.

How This Affects Us Today

When you search for “When was Matthew written?” Google is going to prioritize:

• University sources
• Encyclopedias
• Academic publications
• Major study Bible articles

Are you starting to see the problem? Those sources come from university-educated scholars. Those scholars have been taught to be skeptics and to employ methods that automatically exclude the potential for the divine.

To be completely fair, not all critical Bible scholars are skeptics. Some claim to be Christians. They may actually believe the Bible when it speaks of Jesus being raised from the dead. But as professionals, they must keep their own opinions out of their work.

So instead of making a bold statement they believe to be true, they would write something like:

“The earliest followers believed Jesus was raised and experienced what they interpreted as appearances.”

In other words, they would leave their conclusions about its truthfulness out. This often gives the appearance that they have concluded it isn’t true. At the very least, it doesn’t lend any weight to the idea.

But now we have a system in which you are graded and evaluated by how well you adhere to a method of historical study.

• If you don’t comply, you don’t graduate.
• If you don’t graduate, you won’t be taken seriously.
• If the academic world doesn’t take you seriously, neither will the general public.

The result is that the only views taken seriously are skeptical ones. And eventually, they are the only views you hear about when you do research because they are the majority.

So when someone tells you, “Bible scholars say…” make sure you ask:

• Do they mean modern critical Bible scholars or conservative Bible scholars?
• Was the conservative scholar being ignored or marginalized?
• Did the methods of study force a certain conclusion?

Conservative Bible Dates

To offer you information that may be harder to find, these are the books of the Bible and how conservative Bible scholars date them:

Old Testament

• Genesis — c. 1445–1405 BC
• Exodus — c. 1445–1405 BC
• Leviticus — c. 1445–1405 BC
• Numbers — c. 1445–1405 BC
• Deuteronomy — c. 1407–1405 BC
• Joshua — c. 1400–1370 BC
• Judges — c. 1050–1000 BC
• Ruth — c. 1100–1000 BC
• 1 Samuel — c. 930–722 BC
• 2 Samuel — c. 930–722 BC
• 1 Kings — c. 560–550 BC
• 2 Kings — c. 560–550 BC
• 1 Chronicles — c. 450–400 BC
• 2 Chronicles — c. 450–400 BC
• Ezra — c. 440–400 BC
• Nehemiah — c. 430–400 BC
• Esther — c. 460–350 BC
• Job — events c. 2000–1800 BC; written c. 1400–500 BC
• Psalms — c. 1000–400 BC
• Proverbs — c. 950–700 BC
• Ecclesiastes — c. 935 BC
• Song of Solomon — c. 950 BC
• Isaiah — c. 740–680 BC
• Jeremiah — c. 627–580 BC
• Lamentations — c. 586 BC
• Ezekiel — c. 593–571 BC
• Daniel — c. 605–530 BC
• Hosea — c. 755–715 BC
• Joel — c. 835–796 BC
• Amos — c. 760–750 BC
• Obadiah — c. 840 BC
• Jonah — c. 780–750 BC
• Micah — c. 735–700 BC
• Nahum — c. 650–620 BC
• Habakkuk — c. 609–605 BC
• Zephaniah — c. 640–609 BC
• Haggai — c. 520 BC
• Zechariah — c. 520–480 BC
• Malachi — c. 430 BC

New Testament

• Matthew — c. AD 40–60
• Mark — c. AD 50–60
• Luke — c. AD 58–63
• John — c. AD 80–95
• Acts — c. AD 62–64
• Romans — c. AD 57
• 1 Corinthians — c. AD 54–55
• 2 Corinthians — c. AD 55–56
• Galatians — c. AD 48–55
• Ephesians — c. AD 60–62
• Philippians — c. AD 60–62
• Colossians — c. AD 60–62
• 1 Thessalonians — c. AD 50–51
• 2 Thessalonians — c. AD 51–52
• 1 Timothy — c. AD 63–65
• 2 Timothy — c. AD 66–67
• Titus — c. AD 63–65
• Philemon — c. AD 60–62
• Hebrews — c. AD 60–70
• James — c. AD 44–49
• 1 Peter — c. AD 62–64
• 2 Peter — c. AD 64–67
• 1 John — c. AD 85–95
• 2 John — c. AD 85–95
• 3 John — c. AD 85–95
• Jude — c. AD 60–80
• Revelation — c. AD 95–96

But if you ask a skeptic, or even Google, you will find much different dates by default. You will find articles claiming that the authors are unknown. You will not find many articles by conservative Bible scholars by default—not because their views have no value, but because they are not operating according to the preferred skeptical methods. And since the majority of scholars are trained in those methods, that is the narrative you are most likely to encounter first and hear most often.

The bottom line is that there are two different kinds of Bible scholars, and the differences between them have nothing to do with the evidence they use. The difference is how they evaluate the evidence. And both sides start with assumptions.

The question is: Are both of them fair about it?

I believe I’ve made my point that the answer is no. When your method rejects the divine from even being considered, how can you ever come to the conclusion that the divine is involved? Because even if you personally believe it to be true, your method prevents you from making that claim in academic work.

This is why skeptics who quote Bible scholars often think they are relying on the most educated information. But in reality, they are often reflecting the majority opinion of self-reinforcing skepticism.

Not all work performed by critical Bible scholars is flawed. Some are actually Christians but are using a flawed method of study. However, it is important that we do not simply take the “wolf” at their word just because they study the “sheep.”

Now that we have covered so much about the Bible, it’s time to learn the most important skill you can have. In the next study, I’m going to tell you how to understand the Bible. You will learn how to read it in its proper context and understand how it all connects.

Continue To Unit 1:19 – How to Understand the Bible: Rightly Dividing the Word of God OR

Return To Christianity 101 Unit 1 – The Bible and Faith in God