Bible written by different writers at different times for different people

Good morning folks. I came up with a new example that I think gives excellent evidence that different writers wrote different parts of the Bible. Tell me what you think. Like I could stop you! :)

Let's talk about just the first two chapters of Genesis, the creation story/myth. Gn 1:1-2:4a versus Gn 2:4b-25. Can you see two distinctly different stories here? Please go read them both. Here's one example:

Gn 1:1-2 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.

Gn 2:4b-5 At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, while as yet there was no field shurb on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth...

Was there water in the beginning as the first account says, or no water as the second account says? Was there land as the second account says or just a formeless wasteland covered by water as the first says? Which is it?

If you go and read Gn 1:1-2:4a and then compare it to Gn 2:4b-25, I think you can see they are two totally different creation myths.

---In the first, the human creation is the final act of God. God creates man on the "6th day."

---In the second, the LORD, God, begins his work with man. The garden, trees, rivers and animals follow.

---In the first, creation happens in an orderly fashion, over 7 days. Day 1: light. Day 2: sky. Day 3: earth and vegetation. Day 4: sun, moon and stars. Day 5: birds and fish. Day 6: animals and human. Day 7: God rests.

***Another minor discrepancy: Where did the light come from, created on the first day, if the sun, moon and stars were not created until the 4th day. If you read the Bible literally, how can this make sense?

---In the second, creation has no orderly fashion, but it's a vivid telling of creation, a good story. The LORD has already created the earth and the heavens, but there was no grass or fields, no rain, and his first act is to form man out of clay. Then he plants the garden of Eden, including the tree of knowledge. Then a river rises to water Eden and divides into 4 other rivers. Then the LORD decides it's not good for man to live alone and creates a succession of different creatures and parades them in front of man to name. But none of these animals were a suitable mate so the LORD put man into a deep sleep and built a woman out of one of his ribs.

The depiction of God is completely different in each section. In the first, God is orderly, transcendent, above the fray, able to bring order out of chaos. In the second, God is almost humanlike, forming man out of clay and breathing life into his nostrils, parading animals in front of man to name, reaching into the flesh of man and "building" a woman out of one of his ribs.

The literary style is completely different in each section. The first is an orderly, repetetive account. The second is a vivid story with great imagery.

Both creations myths are divinely inspired and neither can be ignored, nor is one more important than the other. But they were written by different writers.

The Priestly writer is responsible for the first creation myth. P was writing during the time of exile (550 BCE) and his main concern was keeping his people together during this difficult time of dispersion and making sense out their loss of power, land and their temple and ark in which they believed God dwelled. "And let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell in their midst" (Ex 25:8). The P writer is not a storyteller, he likes lists, order and repetition. Notice how many times you read "Then God said" and "evening came, morning followed" and "God saw how good it was". The Priestly God was one who stood above the people, who was able to bring order out of chaos. This is the God the people in exile needed, one who could bring order back to the chaos of their lives in exile. Additionally, the first mention of Sabbath is in the first creation myth. The Priestly writer was concerned with cultic and priestly matters, such as Sabbath. Sabbath is not mentioned at all in the second account.

The Yahwist writer is responsible for the second creation myth. The Yahwist writer wrote during the time of David and Solomon (950 BCE), the good times when the Israelites had a land, a King, a temple and were a powerful nation. The God that the J (Yahwist) writer knew was a more personal God. His God was called Yahweh and we read that as the LORD in our bibles. Notice how often we see the word LORD in the second account and the fact that the word LORD is not mentioned once in the first account. His idea of God, the LORD, was a very human God, one who got down and molded man out of clay and breathed life into him. God is often represented with human characteristics, such as being a potter (Gn 2:7 The LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground..)and a gardener (Gn 2:8 Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden..) The J writer is a vivid story teller and his writting is full of imagery.

Can anyone here see the two different literary styles? The two different theologies of God? The historical context in which the two different creation myths were written?

Of course, Jesus Christ was real. So was Krishna. And Mohammed. Confusing these historical people with the myths they claimed credence for, or the myths later ascribed to them, is still wrong-headed.
Does some minor similarities between the mystery religions and Christianity somehow invalidate Christianity? How does that logic work? Elaborate.
Well, it doesn't invalidate Christianity if you happen to believe Christianity. Equally (and this is the key), the minor similairites between this glorified Juadaic death-cult and some other religions don't invalidate any of those other religions. As I'm sure you'll agree.

No, it's their basic nature as religions that invalidates them. Their obvious place in global mythic traditions. There is precious little in the NT that can not be found elsewhere - mostly in the OT (itself cobbled together from various sources with certain peculiar additions) or in the cult that grew up around Alexander the Great (and Alexander was probably the most important single figure, outside of Christ, in the construction of this myth - the effect he had on Judaism, and on the nations that border the Med, was stagerring, and very clearly paved the way for the Christian myth - similarly, he had massive influence on the early Hinduistic cults, and Islam echoed his memory as well). So, either it's progressive revelation, alien visits, or utter fiction.

There are more differences than similarities. I can name several major ones.

So can I. So?

Mohammed is still dead.

And so is Christ. I see no more reason to believe Christ was the son of God than to believe Mohammed was the prophet of God.

There are no credible historical accounts that Krishna was the Son of God.

I didn't think he claimed he was. So?

The NT blows them all away in its credibility and accuracy.

Yes, and the books that Scientology is based on blow the NT away, in terms of their credibility and accuracy. Or, rather - and in both cases - in terms of how credible they seem.

Two points: (1) The NT was written very early (not enough time for legend to develop)- the gospel creed in 1st Cor. 15 was written in 51 AD, and accounting for Paul's travels, the gospel creed is easily traced back to the mid 30s AD;

Nonsense, it takes hardly any time at all for a legend to develop. The NT merely had to: a) show how Christ had fulfilled prophecy; b) show that he had performed deeds beyond human understanding; c) show that even the most unlikely individual could follow him. Besides which, the whole thing was conceived during his life time - he set out to fulfill prophecy, he set out to be the messiah (as did several other people who had rival accounts building up). Christ set out to stage a revolution, and he did.

(2) The eyewitness accounts are quite credibly written in a chronological eyewitness manner,

They'd have to be. There are dozens, even hundreds, of very credible eyewitness accounts of UFO encounters on the internet. Chronological, corrobative, extremely difficult to fault; so must we all accept that little grey men are real and here? Again, I don't doubt many events recounted in the Bible happened - not least because they are recorded by sources outside of the Bible.

(3) The disciples banked their lives on the fact of the bodily Resurrection and died for it believing it was true - the best explanation for this sudden change from coward to lion of faith is best explained by an encounter with the risen Christ - name a better one!

An encounter with someone they thought was a man risen from the dead is certainly a very good explanation. But people rise from the dead every day. My sons a Doctor, he's broguht a dozen people back from beyond the point of the death. I suspect he won't inspire a world religion. (4) Simon Greenleaf (co-founder of Harvard Law School studied the accounts and concluded that the evidence would stand up in a court of law.
I'd say that says more about the American legal system than the veracity of the Bible. I imagine the Gospels might stand up - but so what? Just because a testimony stands up in a court of law doesn't mean it is the truth. I find it very unlikely that Paul would stand up in a court of law.

But there's the rub: Assume the Gospels is an accurate account of the things the four men witnessed, the things they heard Christ say and saw him do. Fine. What does that prove? That he did extrordinary things - most of which seem perfectly explanable to us now (go to Haiti and tell me that it's a miracle for someone to rise from the dead after being buried for three days - it's a regular occurence there, thanks to the puffer fish and some ingenious chemists). That he thought (or, at least, claimed) he was the son of God - as others did at the time, as other do now (David Icke being the last prominent one I remember). That other people believed him. It does not, in any way, prove the existence of God, prove the OT, prove Christ's claims to be fully accurate, honest and true. And beyond the Bible, I see no reason to give credence to these things as anything but myth. The very nature of the world disproves the existence of a Christian God, and of most of the world's religions - only the ones which profess a lack of designer, an absence of Gods and Devils, and merely a universe that has certain mystical and universal laws, like Buddhism and Wicca, seem to hold any truth, and I don't believe them either.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. Unfortunately, it is full of misleading and inaccurate statements, which I will review for you:

Name one case where legend (myth) developed so quickly. It would have to develop while all the protagonists were still alive, and the legend goes to the very emotional core of judaism. Not likely friend. Your statement is unfounded. How did Christ set out to be born in Bethlehem as Micah 5:2 predicts? How did he plan to be "wounded for our transgressions" and die for the sins of many as Isaiah 53 predicts? Did he also plan to be crucified? There are many other prophecies that he simply could not control. Need more examples? Again, your assertion is unsupported.

Yes, and the books that Scientology is based on blow the NT away, in terms of their credibility and accuracy. Or, rather - and in both cases - in terms of how credible they seem.

Scientology is the invention of L. Ron Hubbard. It has no God and is simply about the power of positive thinking. How does this compare to the Resurrection? What exactly in these books blows the NT away? Besides, no one doubts that people started this so-called "religion." These facts aren't disputed at all. The Church of Scientology can keep its historicity - it's a known fact it exists and the Hubbard was its founder. Who cares? This example is non sequitir.

Nonsense, it takes hardly any time at all for a legend to develop. The NT merely had to: a) show how Christ had fulfilled prophecy; b) show that he had performed deeds beyond human understanding;

The prophecy part is hard to explain isn't it. Scores of OT prophecies written by over 20 different authors over 1000 years - all fulfilled in Christ. How do you plan this? Was it a 2000 year ongoing conspiracy by the judeo-christian secret society? Do you know anyone else who fits the bill? Carries alot of weight if you ask me.

Christ set out to stage a revolution, and he did.

What revolution would that be? He was crucified after refusing to throw off the Roman yoke. He came to atone for sin not sit on an earthly throne. Have you even read the NT?

Has anyone willingly died for a UFO movement KNOWING they were dying for A lie? (key words being "knowing it was a lie"). That's what the disciples did. You cannot find another example of this in history. So much for this argument. As you see, the NT has all sorts credibility from all different angles. The truth is like that.

An encounter with someone they thought was a man risen from the dead is certainly a very good explanation.

Thanks for admitting as much.

But people rise from the dead every day.

Do they now? Do you know anyone who was scourged, then crucified (most horrible torture death ever invented), then lay dead for 3 days, then rose again from the dead? I doubt it friend. Besides this Resurrection was not just a man coming back to life (mere re-animation) - He had a glorified but physical body. There is a difference.

I'd say that says more about the American legal system than the veracity of the Bible.

The legal system used to have integrity - before it was infused with moral relativism and corruption. Does truth exist friend?

I imagine the Gospels might stand up - but so what? Just because a testimony stands up in a court of law doesn't mean it is the truth. I find it very unlikely that Paul would stand up in a court of law.

Oh, I think Paul had more character and integrity in his little finger than you or I do in our entire bodies. Try reading what the man endured for his faith in Christ. One day he is a persecutor and murderer of Christians, and the very next he is the No. 1 apostle. How does that happen? Can you explain it?

The voodoo resurrections do not use a dead person as you know - they are comatose or something - but not dead. Bad example. I don't think you have come up with anything comparable to the Resurrection of Christ. May I suggest that you read the account of his crucifixion again?

Finally, I think you must admit after these vain attempts to discount the Resurrection account that the BEST EXPLANATION for behavior of the disciples, of Paul, of the success of Christianity, of the fact that no early source denies the resurrection, that no body was produced, that Christianity flourished based SOLELY on the historical fact of the Resurrection. It is simply the best explanation.

Peace to you.

The very nature of the world disproves the existence of a Christian God, and of most of the world's religions - only the ones which profess a lack of designer, an absence of Gods and Devils, and merely a universe that has certain mystical and universal laws, like Buddhism and Wicca, seem to hold any truth, and I don't believe them either.

Ahh, here is your worldview revealed. If there is no designer, how did you get here? Particle to a person perhaps? It takes much more faith to believe that fairy tale than a designer God. When you find an arrowhead in the desert, do you think, "Oh look what evolved from a pebble." NO, you know it was designed by a person don't you? So how can you look at the universe or life (much more complex than an arrowhead) and believe it just, POOF, appeared from nothing? Who is irrational here?

If the world disproves a Christian God, then give me your proof. Otherwise, simply admit that you presuppose on FAITH and belief that the Christian God is not true because YOU choose to believe in some mystical explanation which has absolutely no foundation at all and no historical evidence to back it up. Who is irrational here?

How you and I feel is irrelevant. That is the problem I have with you. You "feel" your way through this, and that is utterly worthless.

Well considering this is probably the first time I used the word "feel", I think you're looking for a reason, any reason, to "have a problem with me", other than I don't think like you do. I have repeatedly stated what I "believe" or what I "think", not what I "feel". But hang on to this if you want to. It's simply not true.

But then it's all semantics, semantics, isn't it? Substitute the word "think" for "feel". Now where is your argument? I'm not just "feeling" my way through this. I'm doing a lot of reading of many different theories. So far, the one that makes the most sense to me is the DH. Perhaps, further in my studies, I'll find reason to no longer subscribe to that theory.

Now, I am not trying to be insulting, but I remember the time when I thought the way you do, and I remember being taught that was a juvenile way to approach the world. I have nothing but contempt for my former way of thinking, even though that sort of thinking still feels good.

I don't think I'm approaching the Bible with a "juvenile" sense of the world. So having a healthy interest in who wrote the Bible, when, where and how is a juvenile way to approach the world? Isn't juvenile not questioning, not searching, not growing? Ignoring the Bible, or only listening with half an ear during mass, or taking everything your Sunday School teacher tells you as gospel truth, that's juvenile. I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm examining the Bible from a different prespective than what I'm being spoon fed by the church. I'm open to other people's ideas about the Bible. So much so that I've devoted almost 10 hours to this thread.

Maybe if you could clarify for me, exactly what it is that you feel, I mean think, I'm doing is juvenile, I could understand your point better. As it is, I'm not really sure what your talking about.

I do agree that parts of the Bible can be vinegar, but that's part of the journey. We all have our desert experiences and we all have our share of sour moments. Other parts of the Bible can be milk and honey. That's one of the beautiful things about the book. It mirrors life. Or maybe life mirrors the Word of the Lord. Or maybe you can't distinguish between the two.

"I found the Gospels to be as interesting. They were written by 4 different people, to 4 different groups.
Matthew was written by Matthew to all the Jewish people. He used over 65 references to the Old Testament. Only the Jewish people would have understood the references. This Gospel was about the man, Jesus.
Mark was written by Mark to the Romans. The Romans believed in might and power. Mark wrote to the new Christians telling of Jesus might and power.
Luke was written by Luke to the Greeks. The Greeks were into the body. Luke, as the physician, was the perfect one to tell the new Christians about the "body" of Christ.
John was written by John to the Jews and the new Christians. It was written to show the deity of Christ.
Yet, throughout the first 3 Gospels, the story of Christ's birth and ministry are similar in many respects. Each gave their view of what they saw Jesus do.

You pose an interesting point of view, but most Bible scholars (I am not one, but I have read a number of their books) would likely diagree with your thesis.

The first three Gospels in the New Testament are sometimes referred to as the "Synoptic Gospels." This is because because of their similarities, not only in content, but in some stylistic and linguistic details (analysis of unique words and phrases, common words and phrases, etc). Many, if not most, new Testament scholars believe that the Gospel according to Mark is the oldest of the Gospels (Gospel is from the greek word for "good news"). It is thought that Mark was a follower and scribe of Peter and that the book recalls Peter's teachings. Mark is the shortest of the first four Gospels, and except for the bit (Mark 16: 9-20), is probably in tact. (It is widely held that that part was "added" on by another writer - it is not present in th early Greek texts. Catholics are instructed that all of Mark is canon, but that the "longer ending" need not be considered the work of Mark himself.) The Book of mark probably had it origins around 60-80 AD

Almost all of Mark is contained in the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke. Matthew was probably first recorded in Hebrew or Aramaic, and was later translated into Greek and Latin. Early church leaders (c. 150-200 AD) were familiar with the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew may be a reiteration of Mark with additional detail. It may also have borrowed from a contemporaneous Gospel, that of Luke.

Luke was quite likely and early disciple of Paul. Luke is also thought to be the author of the Acts. It is quite likely that Luke was written in Greek. Like the Book of Matthew, The Book of Luke contains many passages from the earlier Mark, and shares some similarities (stylistic and linquistic) with Matthew.

There is additional detail is the Synoptic Gospels which suggest another source, sometime referred to as "Q." Q may be something like the apocryphal Book of Thomas (a list of purported sayings of Christ, may of which are found in the Gospels, but many that are not).

In short, the idea that the four Gospels were written by four authors may be truer than you think, but that each Gospel was the work of a single author is not supported by 1800 years of research.

Perhaps this would be of interest:

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

"In the two thousand years since the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, the world of Christendom has seen incredible changes, including a split with the Eastern Orthodox Church and a Protestant Reformation, accompanied by a rejection of much core ideology. Yet throughout it all, the collection of scripture called the New Testament has remained unchanged and largely unquestioned, even though it was assembled by the same church leaders whose beliefs many now refute.

"To challenge the veracity of the canonical New Testament is, at best, an uncomfortable position; such questions strike at the very heart of most Christians' faith. Nevertheless, these sacred writings have come to us only after decades of oral traditions and centuries of scribal rewrites, much according to the beliefs of select groups in the early days of Christianity. It is only by attempting to study the origins and evolution of the New Testament scriptures that one can hope to discover the true historical Jesus—a worthy goal of any Christian believer.

The source texts:

"Sifting through the scores of different English versions of the New Testament, one is poignantly reminded of how translation, particularly of archaic language, is subject to personal interpretation. It is therefore vitally important that we get as close to the original source as possible. The oldest surviving complete text of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus, dating back to the middle of the fourth century. The oldest fragments, the Bodmer and Beatty Papyri and Papyrus 52, date back to the second century but only contain bits of the Gospel of John. All of these texts are Greek. This presents a few disturbing problems.

"First, Jesus's native tongue was Aramaic, and even if he knew Greek, he certainly did not speak it to his apostles, many of whom were uneducated fishermen. Without any surviving Aramaic texts, the actual words of Christ are lost forever, mired in a sea of subjective translation by ancient scribes. Second, we are faced with a gap of as much as three hundred years between the composition of a text and our surviving copies. In a world without a printing press, texts would often undergo drastic evolution through centuries of handwritten duplication.

Origins of the canon:

"Our four canonical gospels did not begin their lives as the gospels of "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke" and "John." Different groups of early Christians maintained their own oral traditions of Jesus's wisdom, as writing was a specialized skill and not every fellowship enjoyed the services of a scribe. When written accounts of Jesus's teachings began to circulate (i.e., the theoretical "sayings" gospel Q and the Semeia or Signs source), the independent groups would supplement them with their own traditions about the savior, each believing their own versions to be "the Gospel." Eventually, as these expanded writings spread through other communities, some versions were viewed as having more authority than others. It was not until the pronouncement of Bishop Irenæus (185 C.E.) that Christians began to accept only the four familiar gospels as authoritative, and to refer to them by their modern titles.

"The rest of the canon was much slower to develop. For the next two centuries, the four gospels would be coupled with a myriad of different letters, epistles, stories and apocalypses, according to what a particular congregation judged as relevant to their understanding of Jesus Christ and his message. Catholicism was only one of the dozens of "denominations" within the early church—Gnosticism was prevalent throughout Egypt, Montanism in Asia Minor, Marcionism in Syria. Eventually, the Catholic church was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire, and all other systems of belief were branded as heresies. Following the Epistle of Athanasius in 367 C.E., the Church finally reached agreement upon which writings were truly authentic and representative of apostolic tradition, thus forming what we know today as the canonical New Testament. Although factions of the Church continued to debate the merits of various books for centuries, and many even used other writings in their liturgy, most uncanonical writings were ordered to be destroyed. In many cases, possession of heretical literature was punishable by death. We are extremely fortunate that many of these texts have survived the millennia, giving us insights into the development of various early Christian traditions."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.