Authorship and production of the Bible story or stories

Longfellow

Well-Known Member
Messages
532
Reaction score
176
Points
43
Location
here and there around the world
I started a thread about what the story is in the Bible. In that thread, I will only be discussing what the story is, not who the author or authors are, or how it was produced, or how much of it really happened. Of course there will be discussions about all of that in that thread, but my own responses to those will be here.
 
In the Bible story thread, two links were posted, one about the editing process through the Old Testament, and the other about the development of theology by St Paul. I'll be posting my thoughts about those here.
- I don't think that the books of Moses were written by Moses, but they could mostly be stories told by him. I don't have any ideas about where the stories first came from and how and when they were first written and later revised.
- I'll need some time to study the articles about the development of theology by Paul. For now I'll just say that I think that some misunderstandings have been created by his writings, but I don't think that he corrupted the message of Jesus in the ways that people sometimes think he did. His attitude towards the twelve looks scornful and contemptuous to me, but he needs to have Peter's approval for his story to be credible with the servants. On Peter's side, Peter might not think that Paul has any authority over him from God, but he might believe that Paul has really been called by God to take the message to the gentiles and minister to them. Peter doesn't warn against Paul's teachings, only against some ways that people are using them.
 
I’m studying the articles about the development of theology by Paul. Something in one article undermines its credibility for me. It questions the authenticity of Paul’s encounter with Jesus by saying that no witnesses were named, then soon after, it mentions Moses’s encounter with God, at which there were no witnesses at all, named or unnamed. If Peter did not doubt Paul’s story, I don’t see any reason to doubt it. Believing Moses’s story doesn’t require witnesses, and even if witnesses are required, just because they aren’t named doesn’t mean that they didn’t report to Peter what happened.
 
The article is not only questioning Paul’s story, it’s questioning the credibility of the entire book of Acts.

((later) The difference between the story in Acts 9 and the one in Acts 22 might have happened this way: Nothing says that the witnesses did not see the light. It says that they didn’t see any man. The men could have heard a voice without hearing what it was saying, and finding that they didn’t hear what it said, Paul could have thought that they didn’t hear it at all, or he could have simply remembered wrong.
 
Last edited:
Now it looks to me like the articles about the development of theology by Paul are nothing but a hit piece, character assassination, cherry picking only for that purpose, so I've stopped reading them. If anyone else wants to read them and discuss them, I'll be interested in what you say.
 
I'll say here what I'm currently thinking about how the Christian Bible was produced. Not everything about it, there are huge gaps in my information about, just what little glimpses that I think I'm seeing. There was a person who in English is called "Jesus," traveling in and between Galilee and Judea near the end of the Second Temple period, giving public talks and private lessons about God's kingdom, which in my understanding is people seeing God in Him and moved by that to want to learn together to live the way He says to live. I'm imagining that some of what He said and did was written down, but stories about Him and His teachings were mostly passed around by word of mouth. He chose twelve companions to travel with Him, and they memorized the stories that He told them and other people about Himself, them and His kingdom. Besides them, there were other people who believed in His teachings and promoted them. All along, there were people writing some of it down.

When communities started forming around Him and His teachings, there were gatherings where the stories were told and retold in the presence of some of the twelve and/or people who had been taught by them. It was nothing at all whatsoever like the telephone game, but it was also not everything that people sometimes think of as oral tradition. Those stories, including some in writing, continued to circulate that way until the gospels were written. Each of the authors, however many and whoever they were, took parts of those stories that were circulating and arranged them, to tell whatever story they were trying to tell. Also, the author or authors of the gospel of Luke wrote about what happened after the ascension of Jesus, from stories that were circulating, oral and written, and also possibly from their own experiences.

After the deaths of Paul and the twelve, the system of elder overseers appointed or approved by Paul or one of twelve evolved into an alliance of bishops and their subordinates, claiming authority by those appointments, and unwritten knowledge passed down from the twelve. There were decisions made, I'm not sure how, about what stories about Jesus and the apostles and what letters to use in their work and how. Different bishops or subordinates might have decided differently. Eventually those works were compiled and arranged to tell a story about Christianity. There were some variations until a decision of a council finalized them in the form or forms currently used by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

During the reformation, some books were rejected or marginalized. I don't know if any were added or not. Again there were some variations, until 66 books were listed by the Westminster Confession of Faith, and most or all mainstream Protestant churches eventually agreed to use those same books.
 
It looks to me like in public discussions, what people are calling "the Bible" is mostly not any Bible published in book form. It's an imaginary book that contains whatever verses have been selected for them by people telling them what it says and means, completely disconnected from what comes before and after, and from the whole story that the Bible is telling and the story that the Bible is part of. Sometimes they do look in a published Bible, but only to search for the verses that others have selected for them and not at all to see the Bible context, as a story and part of a story.
 
Now it looks to me like the articles about the development of theology by Paul are nothing but a hit piece, character assassination, cherry picking only for that purpose, so I've stopped reading them. If anyone else wants to read them and discuss them, I'll be interested in what you say.
I think it outright calls itself "Pauline Conspiracy" - I'm pretty sure I'm looking at the same link, the one @iBrian posted for your consideration in the other thread. So, it(the article, its author) definitely has a point of view.
 
Here is a resource


I think the Assyrian Churches of the East have more books than even the Eastern Orthodox, and the Eritrean and Ethiopian Tawahedo churches that have the most books in their canon - over 80
 
It looks to me like in public discussions, what people are calling "the Bible" is mostly not any Bible published in book form. It's an imaginary book that contains whatever verses have been selected for them by people telling them what it says and means, completely disconnected from what comes before and after, and from the whole story that the Bible is telling and the story that the Bible is part of. Sometimes they do look in a published Bible, but only to search for the verses that others have selected for them and not at all to see the Bible context, as a story and part of a story.
Correct, most people, whether they profess to believe in the Bible or not, do not really know the bible thoroughly or front to back. Some people do.
I do not claim to. I have read it, and have read about the history of the bible and the scholarly study of the bible.
 
Back
Top