The truth about the Bible

[joules99]

exactly who wrote the bible, and how did it ever become so popular and when was it written?

[kempie]

Clanad - you say translation does not involve interpretation; is this why Easter, the most important festival in the Christian calendar, is called by a name derived from Pesach (Passover) in most languages and yet in both English and German it is named after a month dedicated to the pagan fertility goddess Eostre?

You also dismiss 'minor textual errors' as insignificant; it should not surprise you how important a (misplaced) comma can be - "eats, shoots and leaves" - and yet the passage I mentioned in my earlier post underpins the notion of a Trinity which is only ever inferred within the NT. Is not the belief in the Holy Trinity a fundamental schism within Christianity itself? Which version of the religion is the "true" religion?

Please do not think that I am just picking on Christianity. My unease with "religion" stems from the idea that followers of Christianity, Judaism and Islam believe in the same God, the One God, and yet they each follow divergent 'manmade texts', each believing that their way is the true way.

[Clanad]

Ah, so much controversy and so little time...

First to jake... as usual, you are simply wrong... The Council of Nicaea, June 19, 325 AD was called by Constantine, but was presided over by the Bishop of Alexandria.  The purpose of the Council was to address Arian heresy, which primarlily dealt with the Godhood of Jesus.  No issues of canonization of Scripture were even addressed. A second goal was met by adjudicating the proper method of determing the date of Easter, especially in its relationship to Passover. Other issues were addressed and from the meeting came the Nicene Creed affirming the eternal nature of Jesus as the Son of God.

I'll try to be brief in defense of this issue, but the canon of the New Testament didn't just happen overnight as the results of one or more convocations.  One must understand the relationship of the New Testament writings to those of the Old.  Paramount in the nature of Christianity is its origins in Jewish history and God's dealing with the Israelites. Secondly in importance is realizing the oral tradition and transmission of the earliest factual, historical events surrounding the life of Yeshua.  Parallell with this is the understanding of the importance and accurateness of the oral transmission, especially during that time period. It's obvious that early New Teatament writings were based on the oral transmission of the Apostles.  As they grew older, some having died, it became important to set to writing their memories.  I haven't located any reference from Papias as stated by Waldo, however, this does jump out at one: Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:


Contd.

[mimififi]

Im probably a usual suspect, but Im a nice and not a nasty!

I'm not as clever as all you clogs, and can't remember all the facts you site (that's my hubby's bag!) I have a pure, simple and honest faith.

In order to answer the question directly (and perhaps because I am naughty and like to incite heated debates) here is my 2p's worth.

IMHO: The Holy Bibe:

Author

[WaldoMcFroog]

The original text by Papias is lost, and is known from the reference you're about to (or have already, depending on when you post) reference.

[mimififi]

oops, don't know what happened there (maybe the enemy forces don't like what Im about to say and so are thwarting my efforts...Ill never give in:)

Author: God

Time: Long ago, but living today

Popularity:  Still the worlds number one best seller and the text that has been translated into more languages, including non-documented languages than any other text.  Is smuggled into countries where christianity is banned at great personal risk to both giver and receiver, is hungered for by the oppressed and destroyed by the theist.  Few people have no opinion of the bible, christians read it with a quiet humility, atheists do their best to dispute it in their life quests to protect their non-belief.  Much like marmite, you either love it or you hate it.

IPeople have been trying to get rid of the bible for years, but it's still here....

[Clanad]

Contd.

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

Seems Papias had no problem with the accuracy of Mark's writings...

Contd.

[Clanad]

Finally, Waldo, The manuscript attestation is, for the New Testament, unsurpassed.
 1) In the number of copies for the purpose of  comparison
               a) There are over 4,000 Greek manuscripts,13,000 copies of portions of the New Testament
               b) Contrast that with other historical documents
                  (Caesar's "Gallic Wars", only 10 Greek manuscripts;
                  "Annals" of Tacitus, 2; Livy, 20; Plato, 7;
                  Sophocles, 100)

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

In the time between the originals and earliest copies;
a) Fragments exist that are within 50-100 years; complete copies that are within 300-400 years after the originals were written.
b) Compare this with manuscripts of other classical
histories:
1/ "Histories of Thucydides" - earliest copy is 1300 years removed from the original
2/ "Histories of Herodotus" - earliest copy is 1350
years removed from the original
3/ Caesar's "Gallic War" - 950 years
4/ Roman History of Livy - 350 years (and the
earliest copy is only a fragment)
5/ "Histories" of Tacitus - 750 years
6/ "Annals" of Tacitus - 950 years (and there are
only two manuscripts) (Source: Singular Christ)

Contd.

[Clanad]

Finish:

This dialogue could continue for reams. One similar thread went for over 500 posts. The end result is really to small to be measured. Most readers rapidly become bored or overwhelmed by the factual information given. And the nature of this site is such that one cannot possibly answer each post to the satisfaction of the poster, hence, noones mind, much less their heart is changed.

The original question was simply 'who wrote the Bible...' I've tried, in the limits of this medium, to show that there are valid, thoughtful and educated alternatives to those usually posed. If Jesus of Nazareth lived, died and rose again, and if these events happened within an historically identifiable time and place, the implications are truly overwhelming to consider. Scientific attempts to determine these suppositions have shown, as much as humanly possible the extremely high probability that it is true. I would categorically state True.

I've asked before and will do so here again... How would you prove the existence of one of your ancestors if he/she existed before the age of photography. You'd be forced to rely on any written evidence and you would judge that evidence based on a number of criteria. Applying the same tools to Scriptural evidence leads, in my humble opinion, to only one rational conclusion... I'm sure you know what that is...

Have a really good day!

[Red_Pixie]

Having studied Theology at Cambridge University, and specialised in New Testament studies, I can affirm that Clanad is correct in what he has been posting.

It amazes me that everyone believes themselves to be an expert on the Bible, completely disregarding the millenia of study this book has inspired. Some of the most intelligent and learned people in the world today work in the field of Biblical studies - do you really think if it were all a load of tosh put together by a few rogues (or just edited by a few rogues) we'd be wasting our time? 

The Bible is one of the most important historical documents of all time. I'm afraid that whatever your religious viewpoint, that fact cannot be disputed!

[jake-the-peg]

I'm afraid as usual Clannad you're not reading me carefuly enough. I said the process was begun at Nicea and ended up with the Jerome Vulgate.

Constatine called the Council to resolve issues in the early church and firm up what was in and what was out which is why the creed was an important output along with the other doctrines from it.

The process eventually finished with Jerome's Vulgate a recognisable bible.

This is of course beside the point.

The point is that a compilation process happened. There was no flash of light resulting in a book.

A decision was made which books were to be part of the bible and which were not. If you believe in the literal truth of the bible you have to believe that this compilation process correctly preserved that truth and as that compilation occurred probably in the fourth century you have to believe in the guidance of the holy spirit in that process.

If anybody is still reading this thread and is interested I can thoroughly recommend John Romer's book Testament which goes into great detail about the history of the bible. He is a Christian but very objective about his subject.

[Clanad]

One last post to mimififi: Thanks for that!  Sometimes one can become so immersed in the forest that trees soon disappear.  You've cut to the chase on answering joules99's question in a simple and unequivocal way that surpasses anything I've offered here. 

Echad Adonai Eloheynu Adonai Yisrael Shema!

[Clanad]

In the New Testament  there are several places in which the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly implied. For example, concerning the Christ's Resurrection we are told that the Father raised Jesus from the dead (I Thess. 1:10), the Son raised Himself from the dead (John 2:19-22), and the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11). Yet, we are told in Acts 17:30,31 that God raised Jesus from the dead. Therefore, either the Bible contradicts itself or the three persons are the one God.

In the Great Commission, Jesus instructs his disciples to "go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." (Matt 28:19). It is important to note that the Greek word "name," used in this verse, is singular (homonos). It does not say, "in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," but rather, it says, "in the name...." In other words, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three distinct persons, have only one name. This clearly implies the Triune nature of God. Furthermore, the Trinity is revealed at Christ's incarnation (Luke 1:35) and baptism (Matt 3:16,17), in the Apostolic benediction (II Cor 13:13), and in Christ's own teachings (John 14:26; 15:26).

Sorry, can't help you on the vagaries of terms used in German and English for Easter.  Your point is?


I would dispute your contention that the god of Islam and the Judaeo/Christian teachings are the same... Although not probably politically to discuss that here...

[jimmer]

Clanad.

Proving one of my ancestors existed is possible without photographic evidence, in fact its quite easy. However, proving that one of my ancestors was the son of god..... well, that's not going to be possible. Your, quite frankly rather stunning, knowledge of scriptures has not one jot, nothing, to say about the existence of a higher being who created the universe. and who he came down to earth in human form to save us, let alone how he came to be. surely that takes blind faith and is not connected to science. Now i know many people who believe in Derek Acorah, and I know he exists, but can he really talk to the dead?

There are good Darwinian reasons why people follow religions and i don't object to faith. What i don't like is the Dogma which results in us and them conflicts that create misery and suffering almost exclusivly to the poorest people in the world.

jim

[Clanad]

Well, jake, you're still wrong... any attempt at canonization was begun over two hundred years previous to confront the  Marcion and other  heresies.  Even prior to this, Bishop Clement of Rome in about AD 96 he emphasizes the importance of apostolic authority: "The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the apostles from Christ. Both, therefore, came of the will of God in good order." His only specific references to the New Testament are from 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. However, there is evidence of his familiarity with a wider range of the canonical materials.  All later references to writings are based on this same Apostolic authority.

The early Church had shown an implicit awareness of this new collection of  writings, and of the fact that this collection stands on a par with the Old Testament with respect to authority. The significance of the heresies was that it forced the Church into a clearer understanding of what it had. The function of heresy is catalytic in this matter. It hastened a process. This explains why it is that during the period AD170-220 we get a clear glimpse of what was held to be the canon for the first time. I would recommend, for the serious inquirer, Bruce Metzger's Canon of the New Testament...

[kempie]

"I would dispute your contention that the god of Islam and the Judaeo/Christian teachings are the same..."

...and yet all three religions trace there heritage back to Abraham (Ibrahim - peace be upon him).

"...the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly implied."

...my very point - in what way is inference different to implication. Both mean to surmise, read between the lines, to convey an idea by subtle means i.e. not state directly and thus is open to interpretation.

"...the vagaries of terms used in German and English for Easter.  Your point is?"

...do you use the term vagaries to mean "erratic" i.e. deviating from the norm, which is often what happens when you translate between languages thus prompting the use of interpretation (and therefore bias). That would be my point.

[Clanad]

jimmer, you entirely miss the point.  Firstly, how would you prove the existence of an ancestor?  Secondly, the point of that dissertation was not to prove Yeshua as the son of God, but, that if the evidence proves sufficiently, that Jesus is an historical figure, then the question becomes, what do you do with that information?

Thirdly, you make the common error of accepting the Darwinian precepts unquestionably, which is certainly a blind leap of faith.  But that's another thread that has been covered equally as thoroughly with just as little satisfactory terminus...

[mimififi]

Clanad, your passion for this subject is inspirational.  I would like to say that if you ever do feel dispondent (hopefully you do not, but if you do) remember that we knew it was going to be like this.  "many will hear, but few will listen."

When Jesus walked this earth, he went around healing, helping, serving, loving, setting things right, he walked amoung men and still people did not believe he was the son of God, the messiah.  When we read the New Testament and read about how the early church was getting into mischief, we remember also that Jesus' physical existance had been so relatively recent, and yet how quickly man forgot about him.  It's amazing really to think that we can make any difference today.

But it is up to us to Never give in, right till our last breath, as when that time comes, and come it will, when two men walk up that hill and one is gone and one is left standing still; I wanna be the one that's gone.

I shall probably never meet you in this life, but Ill look forward to seeing you in glory.

Keep the faith!

[kaktus]

Sorry Joules and all other debaters, I'm going off topic...
Clanad You are Jewish aren't you?
All those assumptions one make about the person on the other end... Suddenly I was in doubt.
Joules as you can see your question has created some debate. This topic always does, just like it does in the "real world". Thankfully one has kept a decent tone which is not always possible. I rarely say anything in these threads because of a) I'm a happy atheist, I know some very wonderful religious people, we never try to change each other and we do have some nice debates now and then. But damn these post can get ugly sometimes, the main reason I don not participate. b) When the answers get as technical as these, I tend to just watch them with amazement and keep my head out. I simply do not have the energy to look for sources on what people write and then somehow check the sources validity...
Erhm I have no idea why I wrote the above, but I think there was a reason so I'll just let it be...
Back to your question. There are two major fractions here the religious and the non-religious. The first will  believe, as Clanad has pointed out, that OT was written by God and that NT was written by people witnessing God's son's doings. The other fraction will believe that OT was written by people with a need to explain unexplainable things and also to write down some basic law and moral and that NT was written by eyewitnesses (well most think so anyway) to what people think is God's son's doing, but actually is people witnessing a man called Jesus who did some things 2000 years ago (obviously these things now have effected practically every person on Earth, except for people living in most remote areas of the world).

[kaktus]

How did it become so popular? Well again there are two fractions. One side will say it became popular because God is. The other side will have psychological and emotional explanations.
When it was written� I�m not going to go into that, but could I say, without offending anyone, that the Christian bible was pretty much as it is today around 300 A.D? ;0)
The above (my post, not other�s!) is a bit(lot) crude, I am not sure whether I will get a good old beating or if it actually makes sense. But in my tired state it makes sense to divide it roughly into what I have written :0)
Happy debating!