Who wrote the Bible?

[The Archregimancy]

I've never met any Christian who claimed that God sat down and wrote the bible....take from this what you will.

I've met plenty, admittedly evangelicals, who basically believe that the Bible is the word of God, unchanging, infallible.

Completely ignoring the fact that it was actually written by humans, years after Jesus' death no less.

Presumably at this point you're conflating "Bible" with "New Testament" given the Old Testament was written before Jesus' death, and had already been translated into Greek over 100 years before Jesus' birth.

It might help to get the little details right; it's the sort of thing that gets picked up in NSG.

[Dalmacie]

I've met plenty, admittedly evangelicals, who basically believe that the Bible is the word of God, unchanging, infallible.

Completely ignoring the fact that it was actually written by humans, years after Jesus' death no less.

Presumably at this point you're conflating "Bible" with "New Testament" given the Old Testament was written before Jesus' death, and had already been translated into Greek over 100 years before Jesus' birth.

It might help to get the little details right; it's the sort of thing that gets picked up in NSG.

Yes. Yes I did.

[The Archregimancy]

Incidentally, Knox, can we have a "It was written and compiled from numerous sources, but still reflects the key messages from God, though inevitably often in some way reflecting the political and cultural context of the time in which the sources were writing" option in the poll, please?

[The Realm of God]

I've never met any Christian who claimed that God sat down and wrote the bible....take from this what you will.

I've met plenty, admittedly evangelicals, who basically believe that the Bible is the word of God, unchanging, infallible.

Completely ignoring the fact that it was actually written by humans, years after Jesus' death no less.

Depends on the book your discussing, the Hebrew Bible I.e the Old Testament was organised into a canon by the time Jesus lived and he was definitely familiar with it. If your talking about the New Testament especially the canonical gospels then yes they were written after Jesus had died. The most popular academic hypothesis (Two-Source Hypothesis) posits that there was an earlier manuscript containing his sayings, named Q, that was used (along with personal experience) to write the Gospel of Mark which was then used as a source to write Matthew and Luke with John being written by a separate author.

[Farnhamia]

Presumably at this point you're conflating "Bible" with "New Testament" given the Old Testament was written before Jesus' death, and had already been translated into Greek over 100 years before Jesus' birth.

It might help to get the little details right; it's the sort of thing that gets picked up in NSG.

Yes. Yes I did.

A conflator! *summons Guards, whose Captain whispers in her ear* Really? Not even a little? Well ... poop.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Arch, do you happen to have a poll that shows what percentage of Christians/Jews believe in Mosaic authorship?

That's not a wholly straightforward question.

There's two facets to that question - do we try and undertake a reasonably representative poll of each individual Christian, or do we accept the teachings of individual Christian denominations as representative of the views of their members.

I usually go with the latter route, since it's easier for me to quantify, though I understand why some people might object.

In any case, for Catholics we have paragraph 289 of the Catholic Catechism, compiled by no less a figure than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, subsequently Pope Benedict XVI, subsequently Pope Emeritus Benedict. This offers a summary of Catholic beliefs and principles.

This reads:

Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation.

Note the underlined.

The Catholic Church - c. 50% of Christians - therefore openly teaches that the Mosaic books had multiple authors.

There is no standard Orthodox Catechism or single authority we can use to represent the Orthodox Church in the same manner. And here things get messy; because this isn't an issue of Orthodox dogma, you can likely find the full panoply of opinions in Orthodoxy (in fact, I know you can - but my evidence here is personal and anecdotal rather than something easily citable), from full acceptance of Mosaic authorship (on the basis that the Pentateuch says as much), to full and easy acceptance that the Pentateuch had multiple authors.

Anglicans have been applying the principles of historical criticism to the Old Testament since at least the 1860s, so I doubt they're too bothered.

While the above is an incomplete survey, we see that the largest church - representing half of the total of Christians - openly teaches multiple authorship; that the second-largest church encompasses a broad body of not easily quantifiable opinion, but certainly includes a not insignificant number of people who accept multiple authorship; and that the Anglican Church led the charge to apply academic historical criticism to the relevant books of the Bible in the first place.

While I can't offer specific figures, and while this doesn't encompass the totality of Christianity, even if only a purely hypothetical minority of Protestants were to accept multiple authorship, we'd still arrive at a majority of Christians accepting multiple authorship, if only because it forms an open part of the catechism of the group that forms 50% of Christians to begin with.

Interesting. It's probably relevant to point out the Talmud's view, namely that the individual books were actual revealed to Moses through divine revelation, and therefore rejects the numerous hypotheses offered on the issue by scholars.

But, as you have stated earlier, the question of Biblical authorship doesn't really matter to most Christians, which is a shame really. A part of understanding the Bible is understanding the social and historical background underlying the words of each book.

Incidentally, Knox, can we have a "It was written and compiled from numerous sources, but still reflects the key messages from God, though inevitably often in some way reflecting the political and cultural context of the time in which the sources were writing" option in the poll, please?

As an edit to option 2 or an entirely new option? Mind you, this will reset the poll.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Presumably at this point you're conflating "Bible" with "New Testament" given the Old Testament was written before Jesus' death, and had already been translated into Greek over 100 years before Jesus' birth.

It might help to get the little details right; it's the sort of thing that gets picked up in NSG.

Yes. Yes I did.

Do not quibble with the likes of Archi, for he is subtle and quick to cite reputable sources.

[Northwest Slobovia]

It's probably relevant to point out the Talmud's view, namely that the individual books were actual revealed to Moses through divine revelation, and therefore rejects the numerous hypotheses offered on the issue by scholars.

Though how many Jews accept that as literal truth is another matter.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

It's probably relevant to point out the Talmud's view, namely that the individual books were actual revealed to Moses through divine revelation, and therefore rejects the numerous hypotheses offered on the issue by scholars.

Though how many Jews accept that as literal truth is another matter.

Sounds like a good question for Menassa.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Now hold on, if the Bible was written by men and has pagan elements, what possible proof is there that it's Divinely inspired?

[Dalmacie]

Yes. Yes I did.

Do not quibble with the likes of Archi, for he is subtle and quick to cite reputable sources.

Oh no, I was admitting that I did confuse the Bible with New Testament.

He is right.

[Myrensis]

Now hold on if, the Bible was written by man and has pagan elements, what possible proof is there that it is Divinely inspired?

[The Realm of God]

Now hold on if, the Bible was written by man and has pagan elements, what possible proof is there that it is Divinely inspired?

I already quoted Michael Ramsey, former Archbishop of Canterbury on the issue.



'Whenever exponents of the Christian faith treat it (the Bible-parentheses mine) as something which we have to defend like a beleaguered fortress or a fragile structure they are making God to be smaller than he is. There is an idea that the greatness of the God of the Bible is protected by a kind of defensive literalism which insists on the historicity of the narratives and supposes that to waver on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or the sojourn of Jonah in the whale is to make grievous concessions to modern secularism. But the God of the Bible is majestic enough not to require such protection, as he is able to use in his scriptures not only literal history but poetry, drama, myth and symbol also in conveying his truth to mankind."
-The Christian Priest Today-Michael Ramsey, Chapter 4, 25-26.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Now hold on if, the Bible was written by man and has pagan elements, what possible proof is there that it is Divinely inspired?

I already quoted Michael Ramsey, former Archbishop of Canterbury on the issue.



'Whenever exponents of the Christian faith treat it (the Bible-parentheses mine) as something which we have to defend like a beleaguered fortress or a fragile structure they are making God to be smaller than he is. There is an idea that the greatness of the God of the Bible is protected by a kind of defensive literalism which insists on the historicity of the narratives and supposes that to waver on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or the sojourn of Jonah in the whale is to make grievous concessions to modern secularism. But the God of the Bible is majestic enough not to require such protection, as he is able to use in his scriptures not only literal history but poetry, drama, myth and symbol also in conveying his truth to mankind."
-The Christian Priest Today-Michael Ramsey, Chapter 4, 25-26.

How does that make it anymore true than other mythology or religion? Other religion have those things too. Your quote doesn't seem to prove anything.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Now hold on, if the Bible was written by men and has pagan elements, what possible proof is there that it's Divinely inspired?

There was never any "proof", the issues you stated merely provide counterevidence to the belief of divine inspiration.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Now hold on, if the Bible was written by men and has pagan elements, what possible proof is there that it's Divinely inspired?

There was never any "proof", the issues you stated merely provide counterevidence to the belief of divine inspiration.

Yes but, the Christian excuse is always that God, works in retardedly mysterious ways.
Christians despite this counter evidence somehow, find some sort of mental ''gymnastics'' to keep believing.
I'm probably as puzzled as you, as to why they still believe.

[The 54th Squadron]

I don't really bother for something like that since it's a fictional deity that's read from a man-made object, and they usually aren't credible unless it's like ancient-times skeletons or anything else that doesn't show up fictional, like dragons and fairies and sober Russians.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Though how many Jews accept that as literal truth is another matter.

Sounds like a good question for Menassa.

I'd be surprised if anybody knows, since in my anecdotal experience, acceptance of literal authorship ranges from "yes, it's d'var hashem 'b'yad Moshe -- the word of God, by the hand of Moses -- except for various typos which have crept in over the years" to "well, parts of it are d'var hashem, but I'm not sure which parts"... and that was just among the Orthodox. So, I think poll results may simply reflect the choices offered.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

There was never any "proof", the issues you stated merely provide counterevidence to the belief of divine inspiration.

Yes but, the Christian excuse is always that God, works in retardedly mysterious ways.
Christians despite this counter evidence somehow, find some sort of mental ''gymnastics'' to keep believing.
I'm probably as puzzled as you to why they still believe.

Christians have their reasons, and I'm not in the position as an atheist ex-Catholic to suggest how they deal with seemingly substantial evidence arguing to the contrary of their beliefs.

As I've stated, this wasn't an issue I ever faced as a Christian.

[The Realm of God]

I already quoted Michael Ramsey, former Archbishop of Canterbury on the issue.



'Whenever exponents of the Christian faith treat it (the Bible-parentheses mine) as something which we have to defend like a beleaguered fortress or a fragile structure they are making God to be smaller than he is. There is an idea that the greatness of the God of the Bible is protected by a kind of defensive literalism which insists on the historicity of the narratives and supposes that to waver on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or the sojourn of Jonah in the whale is to make grievous concessions to modern secularism. But the God of the Bible is majestic enough not to require such protection, as he is able to use in his scriptures not only literal history but poetry, drama, myth and symbol also in conveying his truth to mankind."
-The Christian Priest Today-Michael Ramsey, Chapter 4, 25-26.

How does that make it anymore true than other mythology or religion? Other religion have those things too. Your quote doesn't seem to prove anything.

Go and read it again, keep in mind all of the evangelical preachers who say that everything in the Bible has to be 100% literal because its the WORD ODA LAWD!!! If we believe in traditional theological arguements we can make the case that the Bible is actually more compelling than just a literal account as God knows the best method to transmit truth to humanity.

[Neo Rome Republic]

How does that make it anymore true than other mythology or religion? Other religion have those things too. Your quote doesn't seem to prove anything.

Go and read it again, keep in mind all of the evangelical preachers who say that everything in the Bible has to be 100% literal because its the WORD ODA LAWD!!! If we believe in traditional theological arguements we can make the case that the Bible is actually more compelling than just a literal account as God knows the best method to transmit truth to humanity.

Again, how do those arguments for a God prove it's your God not just a God? I'm not saying you take it 100% literally however, all Christians still take the Divinity of Jesus literally.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Yes but, the Christian excuse is always that God, works in retardedly mysterious ways.
Christians despite this counter evidence somehow, find some sort of mental ''gymnastics'' to keep believing.
I'm probably as puzzled as you to why they still believe.

Christians have their reasons, and I'm not in the position as an atheist ex-Catholic to suggest how they deal with seemingly substantial evidence arguing to the contrary of their beliefs.

As I've stated, this wasn't an issue I ever faced as a Christian.

I've given up as well. The answers that I have gotten, amount to special pleading (it's God so he can do it however he wants, ignore the evidence), magical thinking(ignore logic) and, God works in mysterious ways. And I'm thinking WTF.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Go and read it again, keep in mind all of the evangelical preachers who say that everything in the Bible has to be 100% literal because its the WORD ODA LAWD!!! If we believe in traditional theological arguements we can make the case that the Bible is actually more compelling than just a literal account as God knows the best method to transmit truth to humanity.

Again, how does this prove it's your God not just a God? I'm not saying you take it 100% literally however, all Christians still take the Divinity of Jesus literally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

[Neo Rome Republic]

Again, how does this prove it's your God not just a God? I'm not saying you take it 100% literally however, all Christians still take the Divinity of Jesus literally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

Okay I was wrong however, besides that one exception all other Christians, believe in the Divinity of Jesus.

[The Realm of God]

Go and read it again, keep in mind all of the evangelical preachers who say that everything in the Bible has to be 100% literal because its the WORD ODA LAWD!!! If we believe in traditional theological arguements we can make the case that the Bible is actually more compelling than just a literal account as God knows the best method to transmit truth to humanity.

Again, how does this prove it's your God not just a God? I'm not saying you take it 100% literally however, all Christians still take the Divinity of Jesus literally.

Your logic.

There is a hare and a tortoise in the famous fable attributed to Aesop. Hares and Tortoises exist therefore the entire fable must be literally true.

We take Jesus's words seriously due to the historical dogmas of the church as well as faith in the overarching gospel narrative but it doesn't mean we have to believe that Moses literally wrote the Pentarch.