A little history on the Bible

by gumby 55 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Dansk
    Dansk
    If that were true then all who have died for following witness doctrine were also correct.

    Gumby

    No they weren't, Gumby. Didn't they have to be Catholics?

    Dansk

  • hooberus
    hooberus
    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!

    Gumby, where did you get this "information"?

  • hooberus
    hooberus
    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’.

    How can it be said that none of the gospels took their present form before C.E. 150? To make such a claim one would have to have manuscript evidence showing that the later forms were different than the earlier gospel writings. I believe that the earliest manuscripts are essentually the same as the later ones (see Comfort "Early manuscripts"). Also the earliest citations from fathers as well as the earliest versions of the gospels are essentually the same as the later ones.

    The idea that Revelation was written before the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is not held even by liberal scholars that I am aware of such as Kummel who places it at 96 A.D. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are dated well before this by most schloars from conservative to fairly liberal. In addition they were cited by Clement of Rome C.E. 95.

    The idea that the last 12 verses of mark were borrowed is also dubious due to the fact that they are found in 99.5% of the extant mqnuscripts of Mark. The counter position relying on the testimony of Aleph and B is more than offset by the citations of fathers well before this time. see below:

    http://www.holyspiritinfo.net/mark_169-.htm

  • gumby
    gumby
  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Hooberus...Revelation was the work of at least two hands. The first living when the second temple was still standing (some suggest 69CE)and the final redactor about 96-98CE. I think the Christian scholar Richard Friedman shares this deduction.

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    The Jesusneverexisted.com site has been brought up here before. Here is one example of the way the site presents evidence: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

    Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty -eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:

    What the site doesn't mention here is that the same book of Josephus that talks about Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel also talks about James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ. The reference to Jesus Christ is even in the same chapter as the others, and even in the same paragraph as one of the others!

    While the site mentions and disputes the first reference of Josephus regarding Jesus (the Testamonium) , I can't find where it even mentions the second reference to Jesus which is generally accepted. The site uses Joesphus as a source for the historicity of Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel and ignores the reference to Jesus who was called Christ (a reference which occurrs in the same book, chapter, and even paragraph!).

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    This is the same site where the "Nazareth never existed" arguent came from, where you said:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/51334/1.ashx

    First off I would like to apologize for a "hit and run". I posted this thread and didn't return for a while because I couldn't. Thanks to those who looked into this and commented.
    Be careful of sites such as offered here that are sponsored by church groups or apologists, their facts may be correct but the impression of certainty they give is often biased. Of course the same caution is merited at sites dedicated to Bible debunking.

    Very well said Peacefulpete.

    The site I used to post this presents some weak arguments in other areas also I have noticed. I perhaps should have checked out a little more on this subject before posting this as there seems to be some ideas to the contrary.

    Hooberous.....you were correct on one of the sites you mentioned I used. This site has some lame arguments, but also has some very solid arguments that are agreed upon by many others in this field.

    Seedy,

    Yes, some of the arguments were a bit weak I presented,

    I have found, that although I feel the bible is a very inaccurate book on historical events, it does appear to be very accurate on places and the location of them. Which would be true if a group was trying to rewrite history and wanting it to be seen as accurate using the common names of places and locals

    Well said.

    Double edge...thanks for the article....it had some good points

    Earnest........thanks so much for your story of your visit there. Perhaps you should share the whole trip sometime........sounds like it was intresting.

    Now that I got a good ass chewin from ya all......... next time a little more proof will be in order

    Whether Nazareth was Jesus home or not.....will no doubt be a mystery as is many other things.....until more evidence is found to prove it was or wasn't.

    Gumby

  • gumby
    gumby

    Hooberus,

    This is the same exact comment you made about the site before.Why don't you examine some of the evidence that were discussing?

    The Bible and it's formation is not just on these "anti-god/bible" sites. This information can be found in all well respected Encyclopdia's also.

    Gumby

    (edited to take the o out of hooberous)

  • hooberus
    hooberus
    Hooberus,

    This is the same exact comment you made about the site before.Why don't you examine some of the evidence that were discussing?

    I have examined some of the evidence see my posts here.

    The Bible and it's formation is not just on these "anti-god/bible" sites. This information can be found in all well respected Encyclopdia's also.

    Why don't you quote from well respected encyclopedias then, or better yet ancient writers and manuscripts to back up these wild assertions.

  • hooberus
    hooberus

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit