Who Wrote the Bible and When?

My spirit guide Deanna calls herself and me "modern-day apostles." I can certainly see how that fits her, though in my case I think that's being quite generous. But to me, she IS "the living word" - and what she's doing is trying to transmit to me the Holy Spirit, as it has been transmitted from generation to generation through all the centuries.

Hell, she even talks like Jesus sometimes...I think she's saying one thing, and it eventually dawns on me that she's been saying something deeper and more symbolic all this time. One of her favorite things to say in my mind is, "You're finding me."

 

A couple years ago I was talking to my mom about my psychotic stepdaughter. My mom was having a problem with her behavior, seeing it as a character deficit of some sort. I said, "It's her brain chemistry - she just can't help it." Then I went on, "The older I get the more I'm convinced that really, none of us can help it."

 

You folks have been so busy I'm overwhelmed trying to keep up. Just a couple of miscellaneous responses:

1. Sacrifice:
"A holdover from Paul tying the crucifixion to the idea of the sacrificial lamb, which Jews of the time could relate to."

Exactly. Animal sacrifice was the center of traditional worship--a step up, I think, from the human sacrifice practiced by Canaanite worshipers of Baal and Moloch. To the Romans (who abhorred human sacrifice) Jesus' crucifixion was an execution, not a sacrifice. Paul used the powerful analogy to the Paschal Lamb to convey the idea that Jesus' death had broader significance. Instead of the execution of a deluded rabbi by the Romans, this was something intentionally done by God and Jesus for our benefit. To contemporary minds, especially Peta members, the whole idea of sacrifice might seem abhorrent, but historically it was one of the most powerful metaphors ever invented--especially when linked to the idea that this washes away original sin and gives us a new start, like filing for bankruptcy.

2. Q Gospel.

The missing Q is a mystery, but it seems that Matthew and Luke were working from a common source other than Mark because of the extensive similarities--unless God actually was giving dictation but stopped to let each writer go his own way. The Jesus Seminar thinks the Thomas Gospel was earlier than Mark--a conclusion that colors their whole controversial way of interpreting the New Testament, since they give primacy to the oldest sources. Some of Mark may be that old, but it also contains a lot of Gnostic-sounding material that is later, which is why it was rejected from the Christian canon. But the idea that Q may be something like it is plausible. None of the Gospels we have are original manuscripts. There was a lot of stuff floating around that was used by various Christian congregations but didn't make it into the canon: the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Acts of Thecla, the Letter to Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Judas, etc. After their rejection in the Canon, they weren't things people wanted around in their libraries anymore, and scribes would no longer copy them. Some were unearthed at Nag Hammadi . Others may remain undiscovered. So Q may turn up one day, although not labeled Q.

 

What is the Jesus Seminar Okiefreak?

 

The Jesus Seminar was a gathering of liberal Bible scholars who began meeting in 1985 to try to figure out who Jesus was and what he said and did on the basis of available documents. It received a lot of media attention, as well as praise from Progressive Christians and condemnation from conservative ones.
The Seminar presents Jesus as a wise rabbi who said and did about 20% of the things attributed to him.

 

JESUS SEMINAR,Cont'd. The Jesus Seminar has come under fire from conservative Christians for its historical-critical approach to the Bible, and I have my own reservations. It ignores the canon and treats the the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, etc., on a par with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It assigns an early date to Thomas. It gives weight to how many of the sources contain a given quotation or act, which I think is reasonable; but it also gives greater weight to sources it deems older and closer to the original, such as Thomas. And it includes subjective judgments about whether or not a quotation seems to have Jesus' style. The fact that the members vote on the various sayings and acts to establish degree of consensus has been criticized, and the scholarly stature of the participants has been questioned. Conservatives say the Seminar found the Jesus it was looking for: a liberal hippie rabbi sage who challenged social convention, cared for the outcasts and downtrodden of society, and said and did a lot of wise, compassionate things, which probably did not include any miracles. Yet in the relative scheme of things, they are moderates in challenging the views of more radical scholars. They agree that Jesus really existed about the time the Bible says he did, was baptized in the Jordan by John the Baptist, became an itinerant preacher in rural Galilee, had followers, healed sick people and was believed to be an exorcist, hung out with social outcasts, preached the "good news" of a coming Kingdom of God, and was flogged and crucified by the Romans during the reign of Pontius Pilate after angering members of the Jewish religious establishment. That's not chopped liver!

 

I see miracles every day - especially from my spirit guides - and I've seen even more dramatic ones in the past from time to time. It's hard to accept the findings of any "seminar" that gives no credence to miracles - this smacks of blind folks trying to tell sighted folks what they should be seeing...

 

These are your reservations?
I have to wonder how they came up with Jesus' "style". He didn't write any books of the bible. I can see where one might say that a certain passage is theoretically inconsistent.
I see they voted just like they voted at Nicea.
Your paraphrase says he preached the good news about a coming kingdom of God. I thought his message was how to "cultivate" the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

 

It's not a writing style I was referring to, but the Seminar members' idea that Jesus was a social maverick who said things that challenged conventional wisdom, so if a passage seemed to do that, they'd be likely to say: "Yep, that sounds like Jesus". This is probably the most questionable part of their methodology, in my opinion.

They aren't all my reservations. They're the reservations of conservative bible scholars, most of which I don't share but a few of which I agree with. Your point about how they voted at Nicaea is valid, and is how the Jesus Seminar responds to that criticism. The big difference from Nicaea is that the Seminar doesn't say "that's the way it happened, and you'd better believe it". They just say "that's the way we (100 liberal scholars) think it happened based on the available evidence and using the assumptions we stated." Good point about the kingdom of God, because the Jesus Seminar does indeed go along with the idea that Jesus said the Kingdom is already here. The "coming" part describes a coming awareness of it on the part of the people.

 

Rather than revealing an apocalyptic eschatology, which instructs his disciples to prepare for the end of the world, the fellows argue that the authentic words of Jesus indicate that he preached a sapiential eschatology, which encourages all of God's children to repair the world.

I have always felt that there is a disconnect between Jesus' simple teachings about how to end anxiety and restore peace to our lives and the complex and far fetched body of apocalyptic prophesy. Most pointedly, the end of the world has nothing to do with right now, and as such is wholly impractical information. Is this is what they mean by displaying "style"?

And then there is Paul. One of the most salient characteristics of Paul was not that he was an insta-Saint, but that he was a zealot who displayed a willingness to travel to exotic locals in order to pursue his religious agenda. He was already doing so when he had his conversion. Who better to recruit than someone who already does it for a living. That Paul was peculiarly zealous stands out clearly in his statements like it "being better not to marry."

 

What do you think of the idea that the "end of the world" is a metaphor for spiritual awakening - within the individual, the old world ends, and a new one begins in which Jesus "reigns as king?"

About Paul - yeah, the good news wouldn't have spread nearly as quickly if not for Paul's ambition. He was also good at drawing on people's cultural viewpoints and beliefs to frame his presentations.

 

You're right that the Jesus Seminar takes the sapiental eschatology approach and rejects the apocalyptic one. That's not officially what they mean by his style, but it's what comes out of their analysis and something that many conservative scholars object to. The Seminar concludes that Jesus took a "kingdom now" rather than a "kingdom soon" approach. It's not just conservatives who think there was more to the future kingdom in Jesus' message than the Seminar makes out. Bart Ehrman, a respected if controversial critic of traditional New Testament analysis, supported by convincing evidence from scripture, that Jesus "taught that the Son of Man was soon to arrive from heaven in judgment, and people needed to be ready for it by mending their ways and living as God wanted them to" ( Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, p. 160).

Paul was certainly a pivotal character in the development of Christianity. He had early contenders, especially the Jewish Nazarene-Ebionite church in Jerusalem, which Paul calls "the circumcision faction". But Paul's views won out. Paul, who had never met Jesus in Jesus' lifetime, seemed to be curiously unconcerned with much of what Jesus said and did, probably because there was so little to go on (his writings were our first New Testament). His emphasis was almost entirely on Jesus as sacrificial lamb and the Son of Man, who was soon to arrive in judgment. And he was a zealous, dogmatic, in some respects obnoxious, figure who considered himself on a par with those who had known Jesus for much of their lives because of his personal revelation from Jesus in a vision. For better or for worse, his take on Christianity gave us the Christianity we know today. And without him, I think it's safe to say, there might not be a Christianity, or it wouldn't have the worldwide following it has today. His mission to carry Christianity to the gentiles and to relax the dietary and circumcision requirements to facilitate their conversion, and his preaching of a doctrine of justification through faith rather then works, radically changed the character of Christianity.

 

I don't see Jesus as reigning as king, I see the wedding banquet, or a harvest of joy.
As far as the "end of the world", I think it speaks to the immediacy of now.

 

To me this appears as mindfulness training, promoting vigilance for God and his kingdom. Even though terms futuristic, the effect is immediate.

I agree on all points however I would add that Paul was also privy to ecstatic mystical states and he does at times provide some deep insight that comes through unclouded by his own precincts.

 

This is a surprise to me...you're talking about states that occurred elsewhere than on the road to Damascus? Where do you see evidence of this?

 

Just curious - what do you suppose happened after Paul took the offering from the gentile churches to the church in Jerusalem?

 

His references to the condition of "embodiment", every thing has a body, and everybody has a name. He talks about what is breadth and depth and how no one has seen the good things that God has prepared for those who love him. A state beyond perception, Transcendent. He considered himself chosen to preach the "unsearchable riches" of Christ and to make all men see the plan of the "mystery hidden for ages".

 

Interesting...looks like I might want to take another look at some of his writing...

 

Whatever was going on internally for Paul, the practical outcome of his teachings was, for the first time, to combine the monotheistic/legalistic religion of the Jews with elements of the mystery religions and savior gods that were the rage in the Roman empire at the time. That, and easing the dietary and circumcision requirements, made this new religion really attractive to the populace throughout the Roman Empire.