A little history on the Bible

by gumby 55 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  gumby

  It's always intresting to hear the answers you get from people about how and when the bible was formed.

  Many minds go only as far as believing it was simply a compilation of god ordained books that we have to this day.

  Below is just a small bit of information that many may not be familiar with.

  What is not apparent, when we pick up the holy book,( the bible), is the extensive editing that has prepared that volume for public consumption, and this editing applies just as much to the central story and its main characters as to any subsequent tinkering – more so, in fact. In the first two centuries of the Christian era, when a ‘Bible’ as such did not exist and the proselytes of the new faith were scouring the Jewish scriptures for confirmation of their heresy, many scribes turned their hand to ‘gospel’ writing. These publications were severely ‘limited editions’, painstakingly written by hand. Often untitled and unsigned these texts passed from hand to hand, in time acquiring the authority and aura of an antique and blurring the distinction between fiction, history and scripture.

  It was well into the second century before a number of these ‘testimonies’ were collected together and bound into a single volume. From the mass of available material ecclesiastical editors selected what would and what would not be included in the Good Book. But of course different editors made different choices.

  Search the Bible in vain for the gospels of Thomas, Matthaias or the ‘The Twelve’; for the Acts of Andrew or Acts of John; for the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache; for the Shepherd of Hermas or the Apocalypse of Peter. Yet for the first two centuries of Christianity all of these were holy scripture, the revealed Word of God.

  On the other hand rejected by the early church fathers were Paul’s letter to Philemon, the second and third letters of John, the second letter of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, all part of the canon after Christianity became the state religion!

  Clearly the Big Guy had had a major rethink. Roman bibles after the fourth century hedged their bets and included ‘doubtful’ and previously rejected material at the end as ‘Apocrypha’ (‘hidden’). Clearly this was God’s rough draft, not really meant for publication. Luther kept the apocrypha in his bible whereas Calvin and most other Protestant reformers excluded them. Revelations didn't even make the "cut" till the 4th century.Wow!

  So then......how much of a hand did god have in these books when it took 400 years from christ to get a book that we now call the bible?

  Gumby
• 

  Dansk

  Gumby,

  I'm liking you more and more

  I only wish more people on this forum would research the origins of the Bible - and I don't mean just using apologist books and websites. That's of no use at all for a critical analysis. No one is saying not to believe in God, but understanding Bible origins actually enhances one's appreciation for other beliefs because one is no longer constrained by fear. Education really is a wonderful thing!

  A very good and interesting post, Gumby.

  Dansk
• 

  Simon

  There was a mini series last year presented by Joh McCarthy called "It Ain't Necessarily So" which was investigating the truth of the biblical past.

  Good series and the book is interesting too.

  All about the old testament, story of the jews conquering the land and so on and why, despite the overwhelming evidence that it didn't happen like in the bible, people won't let go of the story (for politica reasons as much as anything).
• 

  gumby

  Dansk,

  Thank you for the compliment.

  I too enjoy your posts along with the few others here that enjoy discussing a subject I feel is the most important subject to mankind. I wonder why more are not as intrested.

  I have come to find that many are literally terrified to think that the bible could possibly be not from god at all. When a person realizes this........then the question of whether any god exists at all seems to follow. A person is left all alone standing in the dark with nobody to help them but themselves. It's apparent that many Christians on this site do not look at material presented on the sceptical side of the bible. If they did......there would be more people aking questions. It's always nice to discuss with someone openminded enough to consider "other" possibilities.

  Many who delve into this feild we are discussing become as obseesed with learning more about it and convincing ourselves of it's truths, and wanting to tell others ...."it's all a lie" it becomes QUITE an issue in our lives on a daily basis. It has mine.

  The question of why we are here and how, will someday in be realized in the minds of people....... we can only hope to live to see it.

  Gumby
• 

  Gopher

  That was an interesting post, Gumby.

  Some of the books that were originally left out but somehow got back in seem quite irrelevant, like Philemon and 2nd and 3rd John.

  Anyhow, it seems that the process of selecting what stayed in the canon was quite arbritrary.

  Just goes to show that the Bible and Judeo-Christianity is merely another man-made attempt to sort out life's mysteries and impose viewpoints on followers. As a results, groups get formed and impose strange subsets of viewpoints blended with their own ideas, and people get led further away from logic.
• 

  gumby

  Gopher,

  Always like your inputs.

  and people get led further away from logic.

  That's so true for people who get sucked in to another belief system.......but,

  I think we are finally at a time in which Science and people having the balls to present truths, are exposing religion for what it is. Christianity although having adherants that won't look past their shoes........is being challenged to a degree it hasn't seen before.

  People wonder why Christianity is attacked and fail to see the REASON why it is attacked. It divides people........period!

  Gumby
• 

  Dansk

  For anyone seriously interested in how the Bible was put together I strongly recommend the following book, which is available from Amazon by mail order (can you all see the picture?).

  Dansk

  
• 

  gumby

  A few more goodies on "the word" .

  The ‘books’ are arranged in a particular order, one that appears to be an unfolding story – from Jews to Jesus, from Jesus to Church, from birth of the Messiah to a vision of the Day of Judgement yet to come. It appears to be chronological. It is not. The order is largely reversed. Exodus was written before Genesis. ‘Prophesies’ written after events are reassigned to an earlier authorship in order to establish their veracity. An ancient and heroic ‘history’ reflects the contingencies of a much later time. The final book, the ‘Revelation of St. John’ is the earliest, not the latest, part of the New Testament, save for the correspondence of St Paul, which itself pre-dates all the gospels – and not one of the favoured gospels took on their present form before C.E. 150.

  Similar liberties have been taken within the individual books themselves, with later additions used to preface or addend the original work. Mark is earlier than Matthew, yet its ending has been extended by borrowings from the later work. The ‘Revelation of St. John’, in its original draft a composite of several Jewish apocalyptic dramas was later Christianised by a preface of ‘letters to the churches of asia’.

  Gumby
• 

  Hamas

  You can't believe what these people say just as you cannot believe what the Bible says.

  How does anybody know these things
• 

  SpannerintheWorks

  Very interesting, Gumby. Do you have a reference for this work? Thanks.

  Spanner