Authors of later books absolutely had access to the works of earlier authors. It wasn’t “the Bible” as we know it today, but there is a direct lineage where new material has been added and existing material has been edited, to result in the book we have now. That’s why the character of Jesus was able to fulfill prophecies.
So I’d tend to define “the bible” as a collection of literary works and interpretations (I don’t think you can separate the two without losing significant meaning) that evolves over time. Evolutionary pressures can include how well a particular “species” serves the rulers at that time, and how well it fits with the general zeitgeist (eg apocalyptic or euphoric).
So, like Trump, they didn’t have “the bible” but they had “a bible.”
Yes, various groups had various texts which the literate rabbis/preisthood kept around. After making them up.
A problem comes in with quoting things not very elegantly (Matthew seems to take the two donkeys thing literally instead of realizing the quoted text was nearly certainly doing parallelism, essentially a form of poetically reinforcing an idea), or citing texts that … are now considered apocryphal, or non canon.
Then youve got all the different sects that just have different canon (Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Bibles have or do not have different books in them) and/or use substantially different translations. Or something like the end of Mark which is slowly beginning to be noted as a forgery in many modern Bibles, though this is still divisive amongst many.
Try to get a Christian to explain why, exactly, something like the Gospel of Thomas or Judas is apocryphal, and they’ll basically have to admit that at some point, it just comes down to you or some past person or group’s personal interpretation.
But at the same time for many, the Bible is the unerring, non contradicting perfect word of God, written by the inspired.
And thus either an apologist is born, or maybe a proto atheist/agnostic.
Close. Only Paul has access to the first five books, a bunch of books that went into the Hebrew Bible, and at least one that didn’t make the cut (Book of Enoch). The writers after him were using a Greek language subset of the Hebrew Bible (septuagint) and their own Greek/Roman traditions. Which is why for example Jesus never references parts of the Hebrew Bible that weren’t in Greek already. Check for yourself, Jesus never says anything from the Book of Esther for example but quotes Micah…
An imperfect analogy: you hire me, a very much not Japanese person, to write a fictional story about someone who lived in Japan a 100 years ago and the only resources I have are a few travel guides written 300 years ago, all of them badly translated.
The Book of Esther was in the Septuagint. It was not a direct translation but a retelling, but it was available in Greek and still not referenced by the new testament authors.
It wasn’t in the older versions of the Septuagint it got added to it later. You are correct I should have been more precise. Point is Jesus, a supposedly real life Aramaic speaking jew, for some strange reason only knows Judaism through Greek. According to his Greek biographers.
Be like if you read a book in Japanese, written in the 1870s, about George Washington that has George Washington only aware of books that were translated into Japanese, and widely available, in the 1870s. I say a bit because unlike Jesus we have direct evidence that George Washington existed.
It’s amazing that scholarship is coming along on this.
They were eyewitnesses!
Ok they were compliers and historians
Ok they copied off each other a little but most of it was from eyewitnesses
Fine the bulk of it is derivative or topical but there was still some oral tradition
Yes fine they were slaves trying not to get whipped but there is still some tradition of some real facts
I wonder how many decades until the scholarship just admits it was 1st century BuzzFeed/Disney making content for a fandom while using problematic labor practices. Imagine Spiderman comics in a world without copyright law and you know everything you need to know about the biblical authors.
Yes, but at the same time no imho.
Authors of later books absolutely had access to the works of earlier authors. It wasn’t “the Bible” as we know it today, but there is a direct lineage where new material has been added and existing material has been edited, to result in the book we have now. That’s why the character of Jesus was able to fulfill prophecies.
So I’d tend to define “the bible” as a collection of literary works and interpretations (I don’t think you can separate the two without losing significant meaning) that evolves over time. Evolutionary pressures can include how well a particular “species” serves the rulers at that time, and how well it fits with the general zeitgeist (eg apocalyptic or euphoric).
So, like Trump, they didn’t have “the bible” but they had “a bible.”
This is sort of true.
Yes, various groups had various texts which the literate rabbis/preisthood kept around. After making them up.
A problem comes in with quoting things not very elegantly (Matthew seems to take the two donkeys thing literally instead of realizing the quoted text was nearly certainly doing parallelism, essentially a form of poetically reinforcing an idea), or citing texts that … are now considered apocryphal, or non canon.
Then youve got all the different sects that just have different canon (Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Bibles have or do not have different books in them) and/or use substantially different translations. Or something like the end of Mark which is slowly beginning to be noted as a forgery in many modern Bibles, though this is still divisive amongst many.
Try to get a Christian to explain why, exactly, something like the Gospel of Thomas or Judas is apocryphal, and they’ll basically have to admit that at some point, it just comes down to you or some past person or group’s personal interpretation.
But at the same time for many, the Bible is the unerring, non contradicting perfect word of God, written by the inspired.
And thus either an apologist is born, or maybe a proto atheist/agnostic.
I am starting to come along to the viewpoint that Gospel of Thomas predates at least John maybe even Matthew.
Yeah my first reaction to this meme was “well they had the Torah though”.
Close. Only Paul has access to the first five books, a bunch of books that went into the Hebrew Bible, and at least one that didn’t make the cut (Book of Enoch). The writers after him were using a Greek language subset of the Hebrew Bible (septuagint) and their own Greek/Roman traditions. Which is why for example Jesus never references parts of the Hebrew Bible that weren’t in Greek already. Check for yourself, Jesus never says anything from the Book of Esther for example but quotes Micah…
An imperfect analogy: you hire me, a very much not Japanese person, to write a fictional story about someone who lived in Japan a 100 years ago and the only resources I have are a few travel guides written 300 years ago, all of them badly translated.
The Book of Esther was in the Septuagint. It was not a direct translation but a retelling, but it was available in Greek and still not referenced by the new testament authors.
It wasn’t in the older versions of the Septuagint it got added to it later. You are correct I should have been more precise. Point is Jesus, a supposedly real life Aramaic speaking jew, for some strange reason only knows Judaism through Greek. According to his Greek biographers.
Be like if you read a book in Japanese, written in the 1870s, about George Washington that has George Washington only aware of books that were translated into Japanese, and widely available, in the 1870s. I say a bit because unlike Jesus we have direct evidence that George Washington existed.
It’s amazing that scholarship is coming along on this.
I wonder how many decades until the scholarship just admits it was 1st century BuzzFeed/Disney making content for a fandom while using problematic labor practices. Imagine Spiderman comics in a world without copyright law and you know everything you need to know about the biblical authors.