Were all the Bible authors men?

[Jack K]

I've heard it said more than once (sometimes in a positive way and sometimes in criticism) that all the books of the Bible were written by men, and none by women. But can we say this with certainty?

Clearly, some sections of some books include things written by women—Hannah's song, Mary's song, Deborah's (co-authored) song. But was the primary human author of each book a man? If you say yes, how sure are you and why?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Yes. Because none of the books that have "questioned" authorship were written by women.

 

[Tim]

Well, would there be any books for which this disputed?

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

I heard person on the radio once posit that Hebrews was written by Priscilla, but the "proofs" were silly, In my humble opinion.

 

[jambo]

There is a view held by some that Priscilla wrote the book of Hebrews and that it does not carry the author's name for this reason. With the likes of Mary's song, Luke as the author of his gospel is simply recording what Mary sang.

Personally I don't believe Priscilla wrote Hebrews and I don't think there is much doubt that men wrote all the other books. Liberals may argue whether there were 1, 2 or 3 Isaiahs or some may question which John wrote the epistles, but other than Hebrews I have not heard a valid case for female authorship of any biblical books.

 

[Phil D.]

I heard person on the radio once posit that Hebrews was written by Priscilla, but the "proofs" were silly, In my humble opinion.

The fact that, in a self-reference to the author, Hebrews 11:32 employs the masculine participle διηγούμενον ("fully describing") supports the idea that they were male.

 

[Jack K]

We have many more books than Hebrews for which the authors are unnamed. There are the history books of the Old Testament, plus Psalms and Proverbs which are compilations of the writings of more than one person. The question popped into my head when I heard a preacher I respect speak of the author of Ruth as "he or she."

Yes. Because none of the books that have "questioned" authorship were written by women.

Okay. But how do you know that? I know what answers I might give if I were defending that proposition, but I'm more interested in what others here might say.

 

[OPC'n]

Doesn't Paul say that women should be quiet and learn from their husbands and not to teach men? I think that is our answer.

 

[jambo]

It should be borne in mind that the Jewish culture in OT times would have made it very difficult, if not impossible, for a book written by a woman to be accepted. Although this in itself proves nothing, the fact is the Jews were very diligent and particular about what was acceptable. Female authorship of anything let alone anything of such religious value, would have been unacceptable.

In terms of the NT only the book of Hebrews is in question but of all the arguments made for various possible authors, Priscilla comes quite far down the list.

 

[John Bunyan]

It is not likely that a woman would be the author of the Historical Books (if you want to posit an author based on probabilities only, it would be a scholar or priest or some other learned man)

 

[Jack K]

After a day of thinking about it, here's what I'm left with...

- The male headship principle regarding spiritual leadership in general is well supported by Scripture. And in particular, the fact that all the apostles were men and apostolic authority is linked to the New Testament books gives support to the idea that God would use men only to write Scripture. So we can strongly expect that all the Bible authors would be men on that basis. It fits what we know about how God works. Still, I'm mindful that God has at times worked through people we'd least expect.

- What we know about what was culturally acceptable at the time also suggests the authors would all be men. But that's an argument from history and culture rather than one based on God's character, so I'm less interested in it.

- 2 Peter 1:21 specifically mentions men: "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." But might it be possible that Peter is using the word in general terms to mean "human"? Especially given the main point of the verse, that sounds like a reasonable possibility.

So I'm left with a strong likelihood that all the Bible authors were men, but something short of certainty. I like the argument from the male headship principle best. And I'd like to be able to say with certainty that the authors were men because that would add support to the male headship principle, which I like to defend. But to do so is a circular argument ("All the authors were men because of male headship. And male headship is evidenced by the authors all being men").

Am I missing something that settles the question with more certainty?

 

[JennyG]

I've always assumed all the authors were male. But it could be argued that since Hannah's song (for eg) does appear in the book of Samuel, to that extent she didn't entirely "be quiet and learn from [her] husband and not teach men".
There are various passages which look as if they must have been reported by women, such as Mary's encounter with Gabriel, or Esther's with the King and Haman. Reporting an episode is not a million miles away from being behind a whole anonymous ms. I mean, if a woman's words can't be profitable, does that undermine the value of the magnificat or Hannah's song for male readers? Surely not, if the Holy Spirit chose to incorporate them in Scripture.

 

[Rufus]

It's the patriarchy!!! Gender is a social construct!!!

 

[JennyG]

It's the patriarchy!!! Gender is a social construct!!!

amen, testify!!
I've probably been spending too much time with my feminist daughter (not to mention my lawyer son, who whatever anyone argues will argue the opposite, just out of contrariness).