Who wrote the Bible?

open a fucking tab and google it fag

BAIT TROLL WEAK -100/10

>>340633
A handful of people.
A better question would be who translated it into the King James version and why did he hate the gays so much.

>>340633
A bunch of Jews over the course of like a thousand years

>>340633
>Stories told orally and hand copies for millennia
I seriously don't know.

>>340647

Im guessing St. James

>>340647
what will really bake your noodle is that King James was probably gay himself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I

>>340633
A bunch of people who liked telling fairy tales

Allah.

>>340633
No one knows, it's a well known fact we have no fucking idea who wrote it.

>>340633
Way too many people. The apostles wrote a lot of it, which was then translated over so many years. Each translation was up to that writer, so they could add or remove anything they wanted. At least, this is what I was told in Catholic school so I may or may not be correct.

>Jesus
>Bronze age

Are you even trying?

>>341711
Well reguardless of who wrote it, throughout most the middle ages only the priests were able to read it, they honestly could have changed anything they wanted, we don't know what the original form of the bible was, hell the Bible, the Talmud, and Koran could all be the same fucking book just edited by different people. We just don't have the records to show any of the origins with accuracy.

>>341737
This is bait.

Old Testament, nobody knows for sure, mostly various people. But it isn't too important theologically.
New Testament, I'm of the idea that its safe to say the people who are claimed to have written it have written it. Hebrews, I'd wager Apollos but its anyones guess

>>341737
I believe the only book that isn't heavily edited is the Quran, but my Muslim friends told me that so I have no proof whether that is true or not. Paul of Tarsus apparently had a lot of the New Testament in scrolls, but it's probably lost/destroyed by now unfortunately. It sucks since I'd like to see how far the current Bible translations compare to the original scriptures.

>>340647
>handful
The NT alone was written by, like, seven or eight people, the OT by a lot more.

>>341755
>It sucks since I'd like to see how far the current Bible translations compare to the original scriptures.
Scholars have TONS of ancient NT manuscripts. Moreso than any other ancient document. We know from comparison of them, more or less how the originals looked.

>>341763
How old? And source?

>>341768
Old and plentiful enough to be considered reliable by all but the most liberal of scholars (aka militant atheists and Muslims pretty much are the only ones who would contend that the NT is significantly edited)

Here are some examples of important manuscripts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_72
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
Keep in mind, these documents were written most likely independently of each other, and are sill uncannily similar. and these are only a couple of examples

>>341778
Huh nifty, hadn't seen these before, so it follows the same as the Catholics I am gonna guess not some of the other offshoots.

>>341778
You can actually read the Codex Sinaiticus online actually. I just found a site that has the scan of the original Greek pages and an English translation on the side. It's pretty cool actually, since I've never heard of it until now.

>>341782
>so it follows the same as the Catholics I am gonna guess not some of the other offshoots.
Huh? don't know what you're saying tbch honest witchu senpai
>>341784
I know a site similar, not sure if this is what you mean
https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Matthew+1
A tab to the right lets you read the Greek/Hebrew along with the english

>>341711

>Apostles
>Authors of the gospels


Christians are funny.

>>341794
You're right m8 it was all written by Constantine himself.

>>341794
Wow, I never thought of it that way. You might be on to something there, anon!

>>341711
>>341737
We have multiple ancient manuscripts of every book of the bible in multiple ancient languages. There are variants among them, as there are variants in all ancient texts with a vibrant manuscript tradition, but through textual criticism we can discern a more or less original form for the books of the bible.

>>341796
>>341797

Most likely they were written by various Christian communities in Greek speaking regions of the empire around the time that the manuscripts start surfacing.

The Gospels as a whole make a lot of errors concerning Judea, stuff that you'd expect natives to get right. Proper titles, the theological backdrop of the native sects of Judaism, discussions about the native language.

The Apostles are very unlikely authors, since you know, they'd be actual natives and should be able to spot things like this right away.

>>341737
This is zeitgeist level trash. Either that or a pretty decent bait.

>have the Septuagint in Greek from 300 BC
>have many copies of the Tanakh
>have NT manuscripts from centuries before Nicaea
>have the Dead Sea scrolls

LEL NO MEDIEVAL MONKS REWROTE IT FROM SCRATCH AND NOBODY NOTICED xDDD

>>341814
>The Gospels as a whole make a lot of errors concerning Judea, stuff that you'd expect natives to get right. Proper titles, the theological backdrop of the native sects of Judaism, discussions about the native language.
What errors are in Matt or John?
Also, as Christians, we hold all scripture to the same standard of perfection, no matter who wrote it, because ultimately the Holy Spirit (God) is who writes it. Any discrepancies have more or less been worked out over the centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron

>>341814
Didn't Paul write chunks of the new testament and is also an apostle? I don't know about the others but I think John did too? That's what nuns told me and the bible documentary on history channel so I have nothing else to back this. Not that I think you're wrong or anything since I'm not super knowledgeable in Christianity, but from what I remember I was told it was mostly apostles.

>>341841
>Didn't Paul write chunks of the new testament and is also an apostle? I don't know about the others but I think John did too?

Nope, no one knows who wrote them or where they got their information from.

>>341830
I see your Zeitgeist and raise you Formenkoism.

How can the Bible be modified during the middle ages, when the middle ages was written from scratch in the 15th century?

>>341863
So you're telling me that the totally credible and legit movie about the bible on the history channel was wrong? I can't say I'm surprised actually,

>>341863
nigga what? Paul's epistles are almost universally attributed to him by scholars.

>>341870
Many of them are highly disputed

>>341885
I don't think I'd say "highly". There are no convincing arguments against their legitimacy.

>>341889
Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus are not written by Paul

>>341929
No convincing arguments

>>341937
The writing style, moral message, and vocabulary is completely different than the other books. It is also hard to place their creation time within Paul's life

>>340633
Steve. Fucking Steve.

>>340633
a bunch of people over a long period of time

>>344170
The communist manifesto was written by someone a long time ago

>>340633
The Bible says that it is God breathed

>>345920

Would you belive anything I put in this post if I said God breathed it?

Chihuahuas are spiders, God breathed it.

>>345964
>God breathed it.

No he didn't, don't be silly

>>340859
Well those deepest in the closet are the ones that spew the worst vitriol.

>>340633
>I will appear as a human
Stopped right there. One of the specifics about God on the Old Testament is that he appeared as a ton of weird shit, such as a flaming bush or a column of clouds

>>347240

Pretty sure it's referring to Jesus anon.

And let's face it, Christianity generally only pays a passing nod to the OT anyway.

>>347240
>a column of clouds

Wat?

>>341691
seriously

>>344126
7/13 are unarguably written by Paul you stupid nigger

>most of them are highly disputed

>>347584

Probably referring to the "Pillar of Clouds" that appeared around the Israelite camp mentioned in Exodus.

>>347254
As a former Christian, I feel like none of the philosophy of Christianity is based in OT. It's more like a backlog if you need argument fodder that you can't find from the all too permissible jesus (compared to his own religion anyway).
I quite like Jesus. I wonder if he just considered himself a prophet and if all the followers after him decided to worship him as a deity. Or if his philosophy is even that well represented by what's written of him.
Gore Vidal has an alternative version of history where Jesus was an obese neckbeard with a lisp. And his most vocal follower is an unabashed liar who makes up shit on the spot.

>>347609
OK fine, roughly half of them are highly disputed then

>>341841
The church holds that John wrote one gospel

>>340970
Pbuh

>>347732

I'm not a huge fan of Hyam Maccoby, but you might want to check out Revolution in Judea if you want someone writing about a "historical Jesus who probably considered himself a millenarian prophet".

Just be warned, I don't think his arguments really hold together all that well. He spends a lot of time pointing out a lot of flaws in the Gospels relating to what would be common contemporary knowledge to (IMO fairly convincingly) argue that the Gospel authors weren't eyewitnesses and weren't natives and only had a vague idea of what they were talking about when it came to 1st century Palestine, but then turns around and mixes the Gospels, especially Mark, with his own gut intuition to try to reconstruct a "historic" Jesus.

>>349605
Thanks, I looked him up! I'll have to wait until finals are over to check it his book, but I will over the break.

>>349736
Also Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman, together with The Mystery of Acts by Pervo. Two excellent and short books about why the new testament is the way it is by the experts in that field

>>350532

The guy who recommended Maccoby with some reservations here: What's The Mystery of Acts about? I've actually always been more interested in Paul than in Jesus, since the latter IMO contributed a lot more to "modern Christianity".

>>350792
Richard Pervo, who has dedicated most of his scholarly life to the study of Acts, is an international authority in this area. In The Mystery of Acts, Pervo explores the problem of history in Acts by asking, and answering, the fundamental questions: Who wrote Acts? Where was Acts written? When was Acts written? Why was Acts written? How was Acts written?

>>351412

Interesting. I think I'll grab a book off of this thread as well.

Also, the name of "Richard Pervo" is a truly, truly unfortunate one.

>>351423
Glad I could help. Hope you enjoy it. Maybe we should make a reading list thread or something.

File: Johannes_op_Patmos_Jeroen_Bosch.jpg (186KB, 750x1114px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 750x1114px

I took my Confirmation name after the "John" who purportedly wrote the Book of Revelation. Years later, I realize that this wasn't John the Apostle or any other known John. Literally all they know is that the author claimed to be named John and writing from the island of Patmos.

Yes, I regret that choice in retrospect.

Did you know Job was the first book written?

>>351986
How could you be at the stage of _confirmation_ and not know that?

>>352002

It's old, old old. Very possibly the first of the Old Testament books. I've seen scholars alternatively put it and Genesis as first, probably around the 7th century B.C.

Linguistically, it's probably the furthest removed from the rest of the Hebrew Bible, you have a lot of words that appear in Job but nowhere else. There's even some fringe views that it wasn't originally composed in Hebrew and was translated from some other language, although the poetic structure in Job makes that difficult.

>>352021
I was 13. Wikipedia didn't exist. Most kids took it as a joke and tried to come up with gimmicky or funny names or just used their relatives' names. I had a sense that the authorship wasn't airtight but I didn't do my due diligence.

>>352035
>translated from some other language
What might that other language be?

>>352491

To be honest, I'm not to up on it. As I said, it's something of a fringe theory. At a guess, whatever the local Canaanites wrote in.

>>352041
Damn, I thought the Catholic Church took its shit more seriously

>>352002
Oldest is the Enûma Eliš

>>348313
The church holds that the church is a credible authority

>>340650
Don't forget the Christians who edited it or threw out books entirely

>>358155
>who edited it
Didn't happen
>or threw out books entirely
That's called canonisation

>>359268
>Editing didn't happen
Depends on your perspective.
Christians certainly edited portions of the bible.
The fact that the 3 Synoptic Gospels share significant amounts of text (Triple and double traditions) show that there was editing when they were adapting their sources (Whether these were other documents or a different Synoptic Gospel being adapted doesn't matter).
And then there's the matter of any deliberately botched or favorable translation work in Old and New Testament.

>Canonisation
Or it's called cherrypicking since canon is simply the accepted books.
It's certainly anything but an accurate process.

>>340633

It was a collaboration by ALLAH and Ezekiel.

>>359268
>Didn't happen

Here is just one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Authorship

>That's called canonisation

They literally just took the books that were most popular across all of the independent churches and threw out the rest

>>340633
It's a mix of stuff from everywhere.

>>354986
Yup, that is literally Genesis 2

>>340633
King James

>>340633
There is a good book with this title actually

>translated into other languages

That's why Quran is the only holy book that can only be read in its original text and shouldn't be translated to other language to prevent mistranslations.

Quran may only be translated for the purpose of deep learning, because Quran is like an art, its content can be differently interpreted.

>>363712
That doesn't help with misinterpretation though

>>363712
Are you saying literally every Muslim has to learn Arabic?

>>365668

Classical Arabic. Even modern Arabic speakers can't read the Qur'an without learning it.

>>365681
Damn, that actually makes me more surprised how many Europeans convert then

>>363712

Yes, except for the fact that it has loanwords from other languages

>>347624
Ah, the cartoon showed it as fire

>implying the church wasn't the leader in science and art
>implying the church brought the only form of stability
>implying western civilization would exist without a monotheistic religion holding it together

All these damn fedorites acting like religion and Christianity is the worst thing to touch Earth without ever experiencing a world without it.

"B...b...but John Lennon told me to imagine a world with no religion! He even said it's easy!"
Literally a world of failed societies, barbarism, and moral ineptitude.

>>340633
>that picture
Holy shit, all that fedora.

File: 1392056412432.jpg (172KB, 683x716px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 683x716px

>>366711

>>366727
He's right though, it's so smug and shit-eating

>>366700
>the church was a leader in science

Please educate yourself http://pastebin.com/maCmNbgQ

>>366742
He's one of /lit/'s worst tripfags. It's generally not wise to agree with such people.

Smug and shit-eating though it is, you can't really deny its valid points. Very little of the Jesus's story makes sense, which is why the "the Lord works in mysterious ways" became a meme early on.

>>366752

I hate that meme so much. It is endorsed even by Catholics who claim to be scholarly, claiming that god has some reason for the way the shitty world is and the nonsensical Bible message is. We can’t know what this reason is because it must be so complicated or profound that human minds could never grasp it. It’s a “mystery.”

Of course, there is no reason to believe such a mysterious reason exists, apart from its unwholesome use in preventing us from facing the fact that there is no God. Moreover, I can justify belief in the existence of hundreds of dreadful beings if I am allowed to use this excuse to explain away the complete lack of evidence for them. So clearly such an excuse is unallowable, especially to use it so arbitrarily in just the one case—that is simply hypocrisy.

For even if there were such a mysterious reason, it would entail something unacceptable about God: it would entail he was not the Supreme Being. For if there is anything that exists that is so powerful even God cannot overcome it, and so overwhelming it literally compels God to remain totally quiet and inactive against his every longing to express his boundless compassion, then God is a miserable prisoner, a slave to a far superior entity. Whatever this dreadnought was, this cosmic bogeyman, it would clearly not be created by God, for no compassionate being would create something that would so hog-tie him as to ensure the needless misery of billions of creatures and stymie his every desire to stop it. Nor could it be a part of God, since God is supposed to be perfect and all-compassionate (not to mention omnipotent and omniscient). But, as every theologian would have it, there cannot be anything that is not God and not created by God. And even if for some reason such a thing existed, and was superior to God in power—as this thing would have to be—it would be the Supreme Being, uncreated and mightiest of all, reducing God to a quivering, helpless piss-ant. Absurd!

>>340633

jewish reptoids wanting to divide and conquer humanity... pre-jewshit we all got along relatively well

>>366752
You also can't deny its invalid points, which I think that the "fedora" accusation was directed at.

>>366804
>invalid points

Like what?

>>366804
Tallis is a shithead. I'd bet money he didn't think about it beyond "I don't like this...thank God the fedora meme exists, giving me something to say!"

Polite sage.

>>366829
Maybe you're right; I don't know anything about Talis.

>>366817
>Bronze Age
But that seems to be one of the only real glaring flaws it has.

>>366838
Though you are correct that this is an error in the image, it doesn't make the point invalid.

>>366855
The point that mass distribution and general literacy was not a thing is still valid.
But bronze age is definitely way off the mark.

I'm not disagreeing with the fundamental message though anyway.

>>366817
The ones that stand out the most are the first, the seventh, the eighth, and the second to last.

Christians believe in the Transfiguration, during which he appeared as divine, and that he appeared as something almost ghostlike after his resurrection.

Christians, particularly Catholics, Orthodox, and High Church Protestants, believe that in addition to scripture, Christians were given an organization (the church) to pass down the traditions of Jesus

Some popular Christian texts were rejected from Holy Scripture, while some not- so- popular texts made the cut.

I think that everyone on this board is historically literate enough to know why the second to last point is wrong. I'm going to assume that you missed that one or something.

Something can be said against the rest of the points OP's meme makes, but the rest of the points are more debatable/ discussable and less glaringly wrong.

Also, I intentionally haven't said anything about the truth or falsity of the Christian beliefs I mentioned. I only mean to point out that half of OP's meme is just a big straw man.

>>366925
>Christians believe in the Transfiguration, during which he appeared as divine, and that he appeared as something almost ghostlike after his resurrection.

Yes, but for most of his life (and when he was claiming he was God and spreading a message) he appeared as just a regular human. That would probably be the most critical time for his message to be spread.

>Christians, particularly Catholics, Orthodox, and High Church Protestants, believe that in addition to scripture, Christians were given an organization (the church) to pass down the traditions of Jesus

Not sure how this is relevant to any of the points made. Are you debating the authorship of the NT? Or claiming that document written decades after an event by unknown authors with unknown sources and credentials are somehow reliable because of tradition?

>Some popular Christian texts were rejected from Holy Scripture, while some not- so- popular texts made the cut.

But for the most part the image is correct. They just took what most churches seemed to be using and trashed the rest.

Anonymous primarily.

>>340633
Luther, inspired by G--, I mean, Hermeneutics.

>>366785
*Sauropsoids

>>367531
Kind of odd, isn't it? You'd think someone reporting on their god would be very proud of the event and include their name, information, sources, and credentials.

File: 81QsrgRNOuL._SL1500_.jpg (207KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1500x1000px

>>340633
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

File: 6mPnQIk.png (950KB, 1000x669px) Image search: [Google]

950KB, 1000x669px

>>368126
Damn, I never knew