Board index ‹ Bible

[Newbie]

I'm a Christian and have gone to church 3x a week my entire life. I have an important question about the purpose of the bible. Are we certain the individual letters were meant to be compiled together as a book? Does the bible reference this compiled book, as opposed to the individual letter?

I'm interested in people's thoughts on this. Verse references would be helpful

[jimwalton]

Well, the Bible does mention the Bible many times. Joshua mentions several times the law that Moses wrote (Josh. 8.31, 34). Several OT authors mention the Book of the Law or the "Book of the Covenant."

The NT writers also, made many references to the OT writings as a collection of communications from God. Mt. 5.17; 7.12; 22.40; Acts 13.15, and others. The word "Scripture" appears 34 times in the NT as a reference to the collection of Tanakh writings considered to be the word of God.

There are some things you should realize, though. First of all, the ancient world was a hearing-dominant rather than a tex-dominant one. Information was generally communicated orally. Literacy was not part of the basic education process, and it was not necessary to read or write to be a fully functioning member of society. Generally writing was difficult because of the lack of reliable materials (papyrus, pen, ink) and also their instability to endure. As such, documents were generally only written down if they were going to be archived as essential documents. With that in mind, it's reasonable to assume that all of the documents of the OT were put to papyrus with the idea that they were being saved as in archival document for perpetuity.

> Are we certain the individual letters were meant to be compiled together as a book?

This is an anachronism. There were no such things. Books—the assembling of multiple writings in one binding—weren't really invented until the 5th century AD, so the biblical writers could not have possible written with a book form in mind. This doesn't imply, however, that they didn't think they were writing Scripture.

The writers were very well aware that they were writing Scripture. Ex. 17.14; 34.27; Isa. 30.8; Jer. 30.2; Ezk. 43.11; Hab. 2.2; Lk. 1.3; 1 Jn. 5.13; Rev. 1.11, 19; 21.5 and others. Besides these references, there are many places where the prophets write, "And the Lord said..."

[Soccer Man]

> There were no such things. Books—the assembling of multiple writings in one binding—weren't really invented until the 5th century AD

This is wrong. Codicies have been used since the 1st Century CE to assemble multiple writings in one collection. But this is beside the point. Even before codicies, multiple texts were brought together into "collections". Synogogues, for instance, retained collections of scrolls that they believed to be most important.

> The writers were very well aware that they were writing Scripture.

Well, I guess that really depends on your definition of "scripture". If "And the Lord said..." indicates scripture, then there are many examples of scripture that weren't cannonized, and a lot of it would be deemed heretical by the church. The fact is that most of the writers had no idea that their letters would be cannonized into a single book. I dare say, most of these writers would have rejected the very idea—I can just see the authors of Mark and Luke arguing over the attitude of Jesus as he went to the cross, among other things.

[jimwalton]

> Codices

I'll grant your correction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex). Thanks. But as you say, it's a small point. I agree that multiple texts were brought together into collections. It's actually the point I made ("The NT writers also, made many references to the OT writings as a collection of communications from God").

> The fact is that most of the writers had no idea that their letters would be cannonized into a single book. ... I dare say, most of these writers would have rejected the very idea

I think you'd be hard-pressed to give evidence substantiating these opinions.

> I can just see the authors of Mark and Luke ...

Ironically, Mark and Luke both travelled with Paul, and there is every reason to think they were friends (2 Tim. 4.11; Philemon 1.24).

[jimwalton]

> The late 50's is an incredibly early guess for the authorship of Luke. The majority of scholars don't date Mark until at least the late 60's!

The dating of the gospels is a puzzle at best. Most of the means that are used are the internal sayings of the Gospels, which are not as enlightening as we would wish. Interestingly, there isn't a single NT book that mentions that destruction of Jerusalem, and so there are credible scholars who believe the whole of it (or most) was written before AD 70.

The dating of Mark is proposed as anywhere between 50 and 70, quite a wide spread. Most scholars put it between 60-70, but I think there's credible reason to put it in the 50s. - Mark preserved Aramaic expressions, where Matt & Luke didn't - The theology in Mark seems very early, even possibly pre-Pauline - Clement of Alexandria asserts that Mark wrote while Peter was still alive (assumed to have been martyred in 64) - Papias wrote that Mark was the interpreter of Peter. Justin Martyr and Eusebius, Clement, and Hippolytus all put Peter in Rome (where Mark was likely written) between 54-60. - Some Marcan material seems to stem from the controversy over the status of Gentiles, clearly an issue in Paul's writings in the 50s, and a completely dead issue later.

> The oldest manuscript of Luke that we have contains this shorter reading.

I believe that the oldest extant manuscript of Luke (though not complete) is the Bodmer Papyrus (papyrus 75), which I believe has the longer reading in it. And while there is some degree of doubt about Lk. 2.19b-20, those verses are included in all of the other major and early manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Paris Ephraemi Rescriptus, so that while there is slight doubt about it, they are probably genuine.

> Who exactly did he interview and what did he investigate?

It's not known. It is widely believed that he interviewed Mary, but beyond that he doesn't reveal or footnote his sources.

> Why would you need to copy 70% of his story from other sources?

There is great debate about the Gospels, their dates, and even their order. A substantial case can be made that Luke and Matthew are "parallel" accounts, and Mark was derived from them in combination with interviewing Peter. Others make a strong case that Mark preceded Luke/Matthew, and they were drawn from it. "Q" is speculative, and is coming under fire more and more.

> How many women discovered the empty tomb? What were their names?

Matthew mentions two (both named Mary), while his terminology (heteros, "the other") could leave the door open that there were more than two. Mark mentions 3: two Marys, and Salome. Luke mentions a plurality: two Marys, Joanna, and "others with them". John only mentions Mary Magdalene.

But is there a contradiction here? Not necessarily. We don't know exactly how it rolled, but that doesn't mean there's a contradiction. Possibly Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, and others came to the tomb that morning. When they arrived, they saw that the stone had been rolled away. Mary Magdalene concluded the body had been stolen, and without a moment’s notice ran away to tell Peter and John. While Mary was gone, the other women who had come with her approached the tomb and observed that the body was missing. They saw the angels and were told that Jesus had risen, and they were commanded to go and tell his disciples. They left the tomb going in different directions to find different disciples. After they left, Mary returned with Peter and John, who outran her and arrived first. They saw it was empty and went away, believing. Mary remained, crying. She then saw the angels. Immediately thereafter she saw Jesus, and they spoke to each other. In the meantime, while Mary, the wife of Cleopas and Salome were on their way, Jesus met them. The other women did not see Jesus.

> How many guards were there?

Matthew is the only one who mentions a guard composed of soldiers, not specifying how many. But this is no contradiction. None of the gospel writers feel compelled to tell every item of every story. They pick and choose as fits their theme.

> Was there an earthquake?

Matthew is the only one to mention an earthquake. Again, no matter. They didn't include every detail.

> Ehrman

While Bart Ehrman has done notable work, there is already quite a scholarly disagreement against some of his research, interpretations, and conclusions.

[Soccer Man]

sorry for taking so long to get back to you.

> The dating of the gospels is a puzzle at best. Most of the means that are used are the internal sayings of the Gospels, which are not as enlightening as we would wish.

I agree that it's a puzzle, but the majority of non-evangelical scholars agree that the puzzle has been solved: there is academic concensus that Mark was written sometime very near the Roman destruction of the Temple (65-70), and that the other two Synoptics were written after the Roman invasion. This is the view held by scholars like Bart Ehrman, Dale Martin, EP Sanders, Geza Vermes, Bruce Metzger, Fr. Raymond Brown, and many, many others. I cannot do justice to each of their arguments on a brief reply, but I encourage you to read their works.

> Interestingly, there isn't a single NT book that mentions that destruction of Jerusalem, and so there are credible scholars who believe the whole of it (or most) was written before AD 70.

The synoptics do mention the destruction of Jerusalem. All of the gospels prophesize the destruction of the temple. Mark 13:2, Matt 24:2, Luke 21:6. Scholars don't believe that the prophesies are actually predictions of the future - they were recorded by the gospel writers after the fact. If there are credible scholars who do not hold to this view, please let me know who they are so that I can read them - I've never heard of any.

> There is great debate about the Gospels, their dates, and even their order. A substantial case can be made that Luke and Matthew are "parallel" accounts, and Mark was derived from them in combination with interviewing Peter. Others make a strong case that Mark preceded Luke/Matthew, and they were drawn from it. "Q" is speculative, and is coming under fire more and more.

There is very little debate about whether Mark came before Luke and Matthew. Almost everyone teaches the 4 source hypothesis, including evangelical Christian scholars - I know, it's what I was taught at the evangelical school I attended.

> I believe that the oldest extant manuscript of Luke (though not complete) is the Bodmer Papyrus (papyrus 75), which I believe has the longer reading in it. And while there is some degree of doubt about Lk. 2.19b-20, those verses are included in all of the other major and early manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Paris Ephraemi Rescriptus, so that while there is slight doubt about it, they are probably genuine.

Touche - p75 does contain the longer version. However, I think the shorter version is more likely to be closer to the original reading. I think this can be shown by asking which version is more likely to be a manipulation of the text? What reason would proto-othodox christians have for shortening the text? You must also consider that the phrase 'for you' occurs twice in that verse , but nowhere else in Luke-Acts. The word for 'remembrance' occurs nowhere else in Luke-Acts and nowhere else does Luke use the term 'the new covenant'. More importantly, nowhere else does Luke say that Jesus died 'for your sins' or 'for you'. Lastly, if Luke came first, and Paul was quoting Luke 22 in 1Cor, then why doesn't Paul quote other passages besides Luke 22?

You're saying Paul in 1Cor 15:quotes Luke 22 - well then why didn't he quote Luke anywhere else in 1Cor? Paul wasn't there when Jesus appeared to his disciples... why wouldn't he quote Luke-Acts? In Luke, Jesus first appears to Cleopas, but not in 1Corinthians. Also, other areas of 1Cor and Luke contradict each other in terms of Christology... was Jesus raised in spiritual body (1Cor 15:44) or in a flesh and bone body (Luke 24:39-43)?

I'm really sorry, but the answers to my other questions about contradictions were absolute bollocks - there's absolutely no way to reconcile the accounts without admitting that one or more of the writers got the story wrong.

But I'll ask one more. Did the disciples leave Jerusalem after Jesus' death, or did they stay as in Luke-Acts?
They stayed in the Temple.

Luke 24:52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.

Ordered to stay in Jerusalem until pentacost:

Acts 1:4 And while staying[a] with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father...

[jimwalton]

> Mark was written sometime very near the Roman destruction of the Temple

You're right that this is the majority opinion right now, but it's increasingly coming under fire with alternative theories and dates being proposed, some in the early 50s. This is a burgeoning field and not a static one, and new evidence and theories are coming to light all the time to challenge the former understandings. It's a live science, not a stagnant pool.

> The synoptics do mention the destruction of Jerusalem.

Not one of them speaks of it in terms of having already happened, or in language or themes that would indicate that it has already happened. They speak of it as future.

> Scholars don't believe that the prophesies are actually predictions of the future

That's their skepticism, and possibly even their cynicism, but that doesn't mean they're right, especially as further and deeper research shows the possibility of the gospel writings as earlier and earlier all the time. New discoveries and new science are pushing the dates closer and closer to Jesus' lifetime.

> There is very little debate about whether Mark came before Luke and Matthew

Are you kidding? There is TREMENDOUS debate about the order, and quite a few who see Lk & Mt as preceding Mark, doubting the existence of Q, and showing evidentiary disdain for the Wellhausen 4-source theory of bible assembly.

> Lastly, if Luke came first, and Paul was quoting Luke 22 in 1Cor, then why doesn't Paul quote other passages besides Luke 22?

All it takes is one to verify that Luke was there before 1 Cor. was written. Why doesn't he quote Luke elsewhere? Because it didn't fit his theme and the problems of the church at Corinth.

> one or more of the writers got the story wrong.

You misunderstand the nature and allowances of the oral culture. The first century was a rhetorical culture, where oral and written speech interacted closely with each other. Oral composition was still the rule, and a premium was put on the spoken word. Written words were still, at the time, considered inferior and not as trustworthy. Memory skills were well-developed, but tended to be thematic rather than word for word.

The Gospels followed in form. They were oral renditions of the oral pronouncements of Jesus and the things he did. At the same time, however, we must understand that the Synoptics gospels fall into the category of what we would call "informal controlled oral tradition: villagers gathering for the narration of stories. Certain elements could be changed at will by the storyteller without reducing the authority of the story (casual news, parables, details of the story), but other ingredients were not allowed any flexibility (poems, proverbs, and particular portions of the parables, stories, and historical facets.

The Gospels have theological purposes and 4 separate and individual thematic approaches, and it was normative in their culture to alter certain of the particulars to serve the thematic focus. No one in their culture would have considered such alteration (as long as it fell within certain parameters) to be "untruth." The Gospels weren't meant to be biographies but treatments of the life of Jesus. While they were considered to be accurate, variation was a strength, not a detriment. A clear example of this is the book of Acts, written by one man: Luke. His renditions of Paul's conversion (chapters 9, 22, and 26). Now, either the man was a pure idiot, or variations in the telling were not understood as lying or contradictions, but acceptable ways to relate truth. The community of Jesus' followers were committed to preserve carefully what Jesus said, but not necessarily using exact wording or strict details, nor even using the same wording or strict details every time. We have reason to accept that methodology as faithful within the value system of an ancient oral culture.

Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but the Gospels were written in Greek, so already we don't have his "exact" words. The writers felt free to rearrange to the order of events to suit the point they were making. Summaries were acceptable. Transmitting the essential essence of Jesus' words and actions were the value.

D. Brent Sandy says, "Thus, ways in which the Gospel records differ is not a liability for [the biblical account]. Though the differences may appear to entail errors, that is a case of judging them by modern standards. They were not errors according to the standards of those who passed along the oral texts or authored the written texts. Differences in detail between the Gospels ought to take nothing away from the credibility of the accounts of Jesus's words and deeds. Further, it is not necessary to explain away the differences by some means of harmonization in order to fit modern standards of accuracy. The events were momentous irrespective of variants in the accounts."

> Did the disciples leave Jerusalem after Jesus' death, or did they stay as in Luke-Acts?

I don't get it. Where's the alleged contradiction? After Jesus rose from the dead, the disciples rendezvoused with him in Galilee. There he told them to return to Jerusalem and wait for him there, which they did. You'll have to explain it to me.