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]

1. Lots of people (later Xeroxed by 'illuminated' scribes)
2. People liked it.
3. Many, many years after the events allegedly happened (see 1).

[mibn2cweus]

Answer to part 2:  Because it says pritty much what ever you want it to.

[Clanad]

Fortunately, the science involved in the study of ancient document, doesn't support the aforementioned opinions.  I usually get into a long, drawn out and vindictive debate when this subject comes up.  Suffice it to say, there's libraries of evidence that indicates quite the opposite of what's been opined in this thread...

[estie]

Please elaborate, clanad.

[mfewell]

Yes, Clanad, at least one brief post please. I have just finished a particularly vindictive anti-Christian book and could do with a lift. I don't know why I read such stuff, but it was originally on the reasoning that if I read 10 different versions of why Christ is a myth, etc, etc, then I could safely dismiss at least 9 as piffle, and probably all 10.

[Clanad]

So... OK, realizing that it won't be long before the 'usual suspects' arrive and begin their personal attacks (they seem drawn to this subject like vultures to offal).  Some things that are factual and need to be considered... don't tak my word for it, but check them for veracity.

Firstly,  there exists no translation of Scripture (I mean by that term, both the Old and New Covenants) that was taken from a previous translation.  For some reason, many people believe that the English translation, for example, in the King James was derived from the Latin, which was derived from the Greek, which was derived from, ad infinitum... Every translation, especially those in use today, were constructed by studying the original languages.  The science of the study of ancient documents relies on inspection of the copies made most nearly to the time of the original autographs. The Bible has more evidence in the way of ancient copies, by far, than any other comparably old documents.  For example, almost the entire book of Isaiah is contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Prior to the discovery of the those copies, the oldest copies available were the Codex Sinaiticus contained in the the British Library.  Those were dated at about 350 AD, whereas the Dead Sea Scrolls pushes this date back to about 150 BC.  The Hebrew canon was known to be closed or finished about 500BC and translated into Greek in 200BC (Septuagint or LXX). So what, I hear from the opposition.  The importance cannot be overstated that the copies we hold in our hands today are exactly the same as the oldest copies available.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Secondly, eyewitness testimony.  Again, I will hear from the contenders against anything in the way of belief in Ha Shem, that this bears no great importance... however, the entire foundation of Western jurisprudence lies on the bedrock of coroborated eyewitness testimony.  Luke, the Physician and author of Luke and The Acts of the Apostles says, (paraphrasing) 'I diligently investigated all of these things and talked to those that were there'.  All of the New Testament books were set to papyrus before 55AD some as early as 44 or 45 AD.  Importance?  This was only some 12 to 15 years after the death, burial and resurrection of Ha Massiach. Almost all of the eyewitnesses to the events were still living and available to refute the evidence... except there is a strange silence when it comes to that refutation...

Contd.

[Clanad]

Thirdly, no archaeological discovery has ever refute anything recorded in Scripture.  This is not to infer that every fact described in the writings has been confirmed, but it does mean that there has to be great truths contained therein.

Lastly, at least for now... none of these things means much if there is no evidence for the facts contained in the books having the ability to affect those that read them.  I, for one, am just one small voice added to the crescendo of history affirming the ability of the Scripture to change a person.  The peace that comes from knowing that I know is unestimable. 

I think it's extremely significant that whenever a thread similar to this gets its start, the interest and participation  (usually anti) indicates, even for the agnostic/atheist predominance of Europe in general and perhaps Britain in particular, speaks volumes for the searching of the human soul for something far greater than itself. 

I'll leave at this for now... just asking that, before anyone believes, as article of faith, those things they've been told by someone, they take the time and effort to investigate the truth... it is available...

Sha-alu Shalom, Yirushalayim!

[WaldoMcFroog]

Hello. Do I count as a 'usual suspect'? Its interesting that you cite eyewitness testimony and stress the importance of provenance; I agree.

What I would contest is the value of Luke's claim to have personally investigated and spoken to eye witnesses. Are you seriously making the claim that Luke's acounts are true 'because he says they are'? Luke's accounts may or may not be true, but his statement holds no value whatsoever without corroboration from outside sources. I could say tell you that I know for a fact that Clanad is a convicted fraudster who has conned several old ladies out of thousands of pounds and I know this is true because I have spoken to the old ladies concerned. It doesn't stop it being complete nonsense.

So, looking for evidence of mentions of Jesus outside of the bible itself, we find the earliest undesputed reference to a human being called Jesus is in the writings of Tacitus in 115AD. Work by the writer Josephus in the 90s does appear to make two references to Jesus, but one is universally acknowledged to be a later amendment by Christians, the other strongly suspected of the same.

Strangely enough, even the bible itself is not consistent in its treatment of Christ, which makes it difficult to accept as a legitimate source. For example; St Paul, perhaps the single biggest influence on the early church does not ever make reference to Christ as a human being, but only ever describes him in terms of a spiritual person. Even Paul's description of the crucificition are clearly used in an allegorical context, rather than to describe the torture and death of a real human being.

[kempie]

I do hope that I am not one of the 'usual suspects' however, even though I commend your lucid and rational defence of the Bible as we know it, I must take issue with some of the points you raise.

"Every translation, especially those in use today, were constructed by studying the original languages."

Translation, or more correctly interpretation, is hardly an exact science as indicated by corruptions such as the Comma Johanneum (First John 5:7), which supports Trinity doctrine, first evidenced in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible (New Testament published 1514). This spontaneous error exists to this day in the New Testament because the catholic church pressured Erasmus to include it in his Textus Receptus (his 'interpretation' of the original Greek scriptures), the third edition of which formed the basis for the KJV. Another corruption is found in 1 Timothy 3:16; Sir Isaac Newton showed how, by a small alteration in the Greek text, the word "God" was inserted to make the phrase read "God was manifest in the flesh." He demonstrated that early Church writers in referring to the verse knew nothing of such an alteration.

"Secondly, eyewitness testimony."

Ask any professional within the fields of law enforcement and prosecution and they will tell you that the least reliable of any evidence of a crime is 'eyewitness testimony'; if an eyewiness is not interviewd within a half-hour of the event you may as well not bother and even if they are questioned the account will contain bias and interpretation.

Contd.

[kempie]

"Thirdly, no archaeological discovery has ever refute anything recorded in Scripture."

However, Scripture (or the interpretation thereof) refutes archaeological discovery - Creationism vs. evolution.

"...the ability of the Scripture to change a person."

I have no reason to deny this - it is my humble opinion that humans have a fundamental desire to believe and that belief may be in many guises, but why can't it manifest itself in something other than that which we call RELIGION. Why must I accept others belief in God whereas my lack of belief in same is deemed unacceptable? Orthodoxy is not my doxy.

[Clanad]

It's not going to be long before joules99 is going to be weary of the incessant e-mails notifying him/her of yet another response... however.. for Waldo... considering Saul/Paul's conversion, I don't find it particularly commentable that throughout his life, Paul emphasizes the Diety and Spiritual nature of Yeshua.  Having said that, he certainly did have references to the humaness of Ha Massiah.  For example, in I Corinthians 15:4-8 Paul equates the appearance of Jesus to Cephas, the Twelve, and many others with Jesus' appearance to Paul himself. The only distinction he makes is in stating that Jesus appeared to him last (as one abnormally born). Additionally, in Galatians he refers to James as "the Lord's Brother". This would certainly seem to have in mind an earthly Jesus.  Paul's references to resurrection from the dead would tend to profoundly accept that Jesus had been alive. Paul's contending with the Pillars of the Church in Jerusalem (Galatians) indicates his belief that he is just as much an Apostle as they, the only difference being his exposure to the risen Savior on the road to Damascus and their walking with Him.  He obviously equates the two experiences to be equal in importance.

Contd.

[Clanad]

As to Waldo's concern regarding Luke's experience.  I'm surprised that as well written and thoughtful as your post was that you rely on the old, worn canard of no extra-Biblical reference for Jesus.  Firstly, further examination of Josephus' reference within the last year or so now indicates that it may well have been his original thoughts put to paper and not, as you say, crafted later by Christians.  However, I would pose the question to you; Why do think it's necessary to prove validity to have such references?  The New Testament writers are widely regarded as being excellent historical sources.  Their writings are consistently similar and paint the same broad picture of events.  I find it unique that you would reference Tacitus since he does clearly refer to Jesus as an historical figure.  But, what extra-Tacitus writings am I to search for to add verification to all of his observations... None! Yet we tend to accept his writings as authentic.

Again to Josephus; another well-known passage in his Antiquities is the reference to "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" (Antiquities 20:200). Scholars generally agree that this is authentic Josephus. They do so for several reasons: First, this narrative is found in the major Greek manuscript tradition of Antiquities without variation. Second, Christian editors would not refer to James as "the brother of Jesus." Instead, they would use the reverential phrase, "the brother of the Lord" (see, for example, Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19).

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

For kempie, my response is there are certainly minor textual errors caused, primarily, by copiest errors.  However, almost all accounts of credentialed textual critics (citations at your request) find these to be minor, especially when the works are viewed as a whole. The few references you cite are prime examples of such 'tempest in a teapot'.  The overwhelming mesage of the New Covenant is clear and resounding... not because I say so, but the evidence of the texts says so. ( I would certainly disagree, by the way, that translation equals interpretation.  Interpretation can only be achieved when the context of the writings is considered.  Translation requires no such contextualism). 

You may well be correct in your discussion of eyewitness testimony as discussed by law enforcement personell. However that's certainly not the way such evidence was viewed in first century Israel.  As I'm certain you must know, false testimony was punishable by death.  The testimony of two or more witnesses was given the highest esteem, and rightly so.  Therefore the comparison of the more's and customs of those times cannot be made with today's.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

Unfortunately, you've bought into the belief that Biblical evidence and science are mutually incompatable.  While there are 'Young Earth Creationists' that maintain the earth is only some 10,000 to 20,000 years old, there is another contention with the backing of many, many scientists of almost all specialties that believe there is great conformity within the two.  Space does not permit a thorough discussion of the subject here, but you are simply mistaken to paint all with the same broad brush.

Finally, friends, family and colleagues will clearly not describe me as being in anyway 'orthodox'.  If anything, I probably have an equal animus towards the 'old' established relgiosity prevalent for centuries.  I find it extremely refreshing to witness the explosion of belief and testimony in third world countries... Africa, South America, etc., as expressed through experiential Christianity.  Much as it was in the time when Yeshua walked the Earth...

[jake-the-peg]

As already mentioned the Bible was written by a number of authors - whether or not you believe the contents of it's books it's worth remembering that it underwent a significant editing and compilation process to bring it together in what we'd recognise a the bible today.

This was mostly started about 320CE at what was called the Council of Nicea where the Roman Emperor Contantine basically wanted to standardise Christianity (some might say he wanted his standard). An early church man called Eusebius later known as Saint Jerome translated and added the old testament and ended up with the Jerome Vulgate which is what many would recognise as the first Bible.

Of course a lot of stuff got thrown out in this process - what is now known as the apocrypha see here http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/

There is even a fifth gospell (of St. Thomas) - which comes from the Gnostic tradition. The Gnostics lost the war of words in the early church and the bible was rather written by the winners.

So the simple answer is many people wrote it, it was put together by St. Jerome during the 4th century it became popular because Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.

Regards

A usual suspect :c)

[WaldoMcFroog]

Clanad, I am not familiar with this new examination of Josephus you discuss, but even if it were genuine, it still puts a gap of some 60 years between the events of the NT and the earliest known extra-biblical reference. I think this is a considerable period of time, particularly given contemporary lifespans. If the canard is old and worn, perhaps this is because it is an obvious and
important point to make? You ask why do I think it is necessary?

I would like to introduce the writing of the mad Arab Abdul al Hazrad. al Hazrad is the author of the Necronomicon, a book of magic and other writings concerning the Elder Gods. It is a fictional text and author invented by the horror writer HP Lovecraft as a part of his Cthulhu Mythos writings. There are a considerable number of people who believe that the Necronomicon is a real text, and it is a much sought after text - ask any second hand bookdealer. There are, it should be noted, published books claiming to be the Necronomicon by al Hazrad, but none are real; most are adapted from Babylonian\Sumerian magical rituals. In order to prove that the book is fictional (HPL's stated claim of invention of the book apparently insufficient for some) one can look to see whether references to such a tome exist in other locations. There are none prior to HPL's own use of the term; good Prima Facie evidence that the book cannot be an ancient text as claimed.

To bring this back to why it should be necessary to seek proof of the Bible's provenance, are you kidding? One of the most influential tomes ever written, one that affects the day to day lives of thousands and has been used to support wars, torture etc etc and you want to know why it's important to know if its genuine or not? I don't really believe that you need that answering.

[WaldoMcFroog]

You mention that the NT authors are an excellent historical source and appear to cite their similarity as supporting their veracity. It does nothing of the sort. It simply indicates a common source/ set of sources, but this doesn't prove whether they're true or not. The numerous websites dedicated to exposing the fact that Paul McCartney was replaced by an imposter after the real Paul's death in 1967 are consistently similar and paint the same broad picture of events but they're not true (most people would agree). Ditto Moon Landing conspiracists - likewise. It doesn't mean man didn't land on the moon though.

You ask why we tend to accept Tacitus' writings. The most obvious answer is that we know a great deal about Tacitus from other contemporary sources (Plutarch, Pliny the Younger) and he cites his sources. We know he was in a position to carry out the research he claims to have done. Can you do the same for the authors of the NT? Mark, a disciple of Peter, was not attributed as author of the gospel that bears his name until the second century. Moreover, in the attribution to Mark (from Papias) is a statement which clearly says 'Peter adapted what he told Mark in order to make it understandable by the target audience'. Provenance is murky, I'd say. Luke acknowleges he did not witness the events, but claims to have recorded them impartially. Scholarship since the 19th C tends to suggest the Gospel of John was written after AD 70 and and after the break between Christian Jews and Pauline Christianity. Some suggest dates as late as the second century AD. I don't think anyone's questioning when Tacitus was writing. The point is not about Tacitus or Josephus per se; simply to make the point that the provenance is highly debated and contentious. With the book being as influential as it surely is, this is a serious point that should not be dismissed by either side.

[chakka35]

The simple answer to joules99's first question is that the only biblical writer who can be positively identified is Paul (Saul of Tarsus) who wrote most of the epistles attributed to him.  All the rest of the Bible is anonymous.