I found a great post that attempts to answer this question....
Who Wrote the Bible? Is it the Literal Word of God?
What do you all think?
Who Wrote the Bible? Is it the Literal Word of God?
What do you all think?
I found a great post that attempts to answer this question....
Who Wrote the Bible? Is it the Literal Word of God?
What do you all think?
The first time we even have the ability to call the bible a book is around 330, during the reign of Constantine. He ordered what he believed to be inspired to be written in a collected form.
Endless mistakes were made in copying, both intentional and unintentional, which makes it very confusing for scholars today to even guess what the original writer wrote.
I found a great post that attempts to answer this question....
Who Wrote the Bible? Is it the Literal Word of God?
What do you all think?
Nonsense!
The concept of a New Testament canon goes back to the 2nd century, and most of it was agreed on from very early (4 Gospels, Acts, Pauline epistles). Some of the other epistles were debated off and on till 367 AD.
From: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Muratorian CanonThe beginning is missing; the preserved text begins with the last line concerning the second Gospel and the notices, preserved entire, concerning the third and fourth Gospels. Then there are mentioned: The Acts, St. Paul's Epistles (including those to Philemon, Titus and Timothy; the spurious ones to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians are rejected); furthermore, the Epistle of St. Jude and two Epistles of St. John; among the Scriptures which "in catholica habentur", are cited the "Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta", as well as the Apocalypses of St. John and St. Peter, but with the remark that some will not allow the latter to be read in the church. Then mention is made of the Pastor of Hermas, which may be read anywhere but not in the divine service
Many might find the Muratorian Canon a bit disappointing if they're wanting complete early validation of the 27 books we have now:
From: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Muratorian Canon
And this might find be an interesting read for some:
The Emergence of the New Testament Canon
Very in depth history of the development of the N.T. It is a history of the hand of man and the hand of God working together, in my opinion.
I personally believe the Bible is far too human to consider it "divinely inspired." Rather, I like to say it was "inspired by the divine." Frankly, if God was telling people what to write, they wouldn't have such conflicting ideas. Galatians wouldn't be a polemic against Peter, James, and John. Revelation wouldn't be a polemic against Paul. We wouldn't have multiple letters written in Paul's name when they weren't written by Paul. We wouldn't have Paul believing the world was going to end in his own time. We wouldn't have the concept of Jesus be totally separate in Mark from what it is in John. We wouldn't have Paul saying only to get married if you have to, only for the author of the Pastorals to establish home rules, necessitating marriage.
The Bible is what happens when you get people trying to write down how they've experienced the divine. Even the Gospels teach us at least as much about their authors as they do about Jesus. As a Christian, I see the Bible as the greatest collection of literature ever written, but I don't think it's a good idea to see it as "divinely inspired." After all, as Jesus said, He cannot testify to Himself. The Bible is a testimony.
Except tht Galatians isn't a polemic against anything but the law, Revelation is not a polemic against Paul, it's apocalyptic writing, and there's nothing to prove that Paul didn't write the Pauline epistles. I think your understanding of the corpus of Paul's work leaves a lot to be desired. Paul also says he's not saying that people shouldn't get married, just that celebacy is the nobler state.I personally believe the Bible is far too human to consider it "divinely inspired." Rather, I like to say it was "inspired by the divine." Frankly, if God was telling people what to write, they wouldn't have such conflicting ideas. Galatians wouldn't be a polemic against Peter, James, and John. Revelation wouldn't be a polemic against Paul. We wouldn't have multiple letters written in Paul's name when they weren't written by Paul. We wouldn't have Paul believing the world was going to end in his own time. We wouldn't have the concept of Jesus be totally separate in Mark from what it is in John. We wouldn't have Paul saying only to get married if you have to, only for the author of the Pastorals to establish home rules, necessitating marriage.
The Bible is what happens when you get people trying to write down how they've experienced the divine. Even the Gospels teach us at least as much about their authors as they do about Jesus. As a Christian, I see the Bible as the greatest collection of literature ever written, but I don't think it's a good idea to see it as "divinely inspired." After all, as Jesus said, He cannot testify to Himself. The Bible is a testimony.
Except tht Galatians isn't a polemic against anything but the law, Revelation is not a polemic against Paul, it's apocalyptic writing, and there's nothing to prove that Paul didn't write the Pauline epistles. I think your understanding of the corpus of Paul's work leaves a lot to be desired. Paul also says he's not saying that people shouldn't get married, just that celebacy is the nobler state.
The Bible is just what God wanted it to be. The Gospels were written to different audiences by different men-three of them from the same viewpoint, one from a theological viewpoint.
All of which is really a nice rationalization. And since you mention Elaine Pagels, now I know where you're coming from.The Pastoral Epistles point to a different time and place than Paul's writing, and doesn't read very much like Paul's work. The theological differences are immense. On top of that, certain letters copy from other letters. Ephesians copies nearly verbatim several parts of Colossians, which in itself is a later writing. While Paul was an apocalyptic who saw Christ's coming as imminent, later writings focused on what to do now that it seemed like Christians would have to wait, establishing home rules in order to make the Christian life sustainable. 1 Timothy shows Paul granting apostolic succession to Timothy in a bid to explain how the church would continue. Thus, it was established that through apostolic succession, the church would have new leaders elected, something that Paul wasn't worried about, considering he believed that Jesus was due to arrive at any given moment. That's why Paul advocated celibacy. If he saw Christianity as something that was going to need to be long term, he wouldn't have told people to do something that would kill off the religion. Instead, he told his followers only to marry if they had to.
Similarly, while Paul's canonical letters all address specific (or marginally specific) problems experienced by congregations, the deuterocanonical works all address problems within the larger Christian community as a whole. Things like apostolic succession and home rules, that needed to be established to continue the religion. It's likely that these teachings were based on oral traditions passed down by apostles other than Paul, but who knows.
However, yes, Galatians is in reference to the other apostles, including Peter. Initially, they were eating with the Gentiles, but when the Jews came, the other apostles bent to the pressure and began observing Jewish kosher law again, which Paul said set a bad example and a lack of faith. It was an argument between the groups, leading Paul to warn that nobody should listen to anyone who says differently than he says.
And you should read Revelations by Elaine Pagels. It puts into perspective the relation of Paul to Revelation. Remember that Revelation is essentially a coded message about the situation between the Christians and the Roman empire. Since the concept of the devil is so intrinsically linked to the notion that evil comes from within, early Christians who hated Paul's teachings saw Paul as the devil, and that he was opening the gates for the Romans and so on.
Let's face it, hundreds if not thousands of gnostic writings were available.
The church picked out those that fit their beliefs and mashed them into the NT.