History of the Holy Bible?

[Mestemia]

I was a wondering if anyone can help me with the history of the Holy Bible.
Seems that there are several differing version of how the Bible came to be; how the books included were selected, who selected them, when the gospels were actually written, etc.

I am hoping that I can get some links to reliable sources as to the origins of the Bible.

Or perhaps someone knows of a book or two that they can recommend.

[dianaholberg]

It's a big subject, and one you can approach from several different directions.

For example, if you're just interested in logistics... the Old Testament canon formed long before the New Testament, and the Torah (or Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Old Testament) formed long before the OT canon as a whole.

If, on the other hand, you're interested in the formation of the Bible from the perspective of its inspiration, that's another story.

I'm assuming you're most interested in the former, so here's a few links (some suitable for children; others more sophisticated). If you'd prefer a book, let me know which level you need and I'll track one down.

Elementary:

When was the Bible written?
(Contains error regarding the period between Malachi and the NT, but otherwise a good summary.)

Wikipedia: Bible
(I'm not a wiki fan, but this is a good overview, if vague on the details.)

College-level (Catholic sources):

Canon of the Old Testament

Canon of the New Testament

Advanced:

An Anthropologist Looks at the Judeo-Christian Scriptures
(A good objective source based in fact, though also with some error, e.g., Susanna, Bel and the Dragon are in the Catholic Bible as part of the book of Daniel.)

P.S. This is an excellent way to begin to understand the need for Magisterium. The origin of the Bible is, in truth, Sacred Tradition (oral tradition).

[Mestemia]

thanks for the links.
I am currently checking them out.

What I am mainly interested in is the current collection of books in the bible; when where they compiled and by who and how they decided what was to be included and what was not.

Oh, and when Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were written in regards to the crucifiction.
I have read any where from 10 years to 200 years after. That is to big a difference to be any use. At least to me.

[dianaholberg]

As I said, it's a big topic. There are no quick and easy answers.

Regarding the Gospels, they are dated primarily based on context -- meaning that if a significant event in Jewish or Christian history is not mentioned, it is considered safe to assume that they were written before the event.

The most significant event in Jewish history after Christ was the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in 70 A.D. This event was a specific example of fulfillment of one of Jesus' prophesies that was included in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), so it would only make sense for them to include it, had it already taken place. Since none of the Synoptic Gospels mention this event, they are generally considered to have been written before it took place.

(Note that since Christ was 33 at his death, this would be less than 40 years after the Crucifixion... and they were likely only written then because the Apostles knew their lives were in jeopardy, and thus they would not be able to orally communicate Christ's teachings much longer.)

As for archaelogical evidence, the oldest New Testament manuscript of the Gospel of John is the John Rylands papyrus (dated 125 A.D. based primarily on the style of the writing).

There are two fragments that may be older. The Magdalen papyrus contains part of Matthew and dates to the first century (again based on style). The second fragment is just referred to as 7Q5, and was found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. It contains part of Mark, and is believed to have been written before the site was destroyed in 68 A.D.

[Mestemia]

That makes sense. If the fall of Jerusalem is not mentioned it would be most likely that it was written before said mentioned fall.

Basing the date written on style doesn't seem to be all that accurate, but if you do not have anything else to go by...
So it makes sense.

Thank you, Diana
You have been a hugely appreciated help!

[dianaholberg]

You're welcome, as always. I don't know much about other methods of dating, but I think most of the earliest fragments we have are very small, and the other methods are just not reliable enough over such short timeframes (apparently 2000 years isn't a very long time in the world of carbon dating and such) to warrant their partial destruction. I read somewhere once that until you're dealing with periods over 5000 years, carbon dating generally isn't used (except maybe to identify the place where the item originated).

Style isn't as inaccurate as you would think. Those who study these ancient languages tell me that there are certain words or phrases (idioms) that can be localized to very specific time periods and locations.

Is this just an area of interest for you, or are you working on an assignment of some kind?

[Mestemia]

Just an area of interest.
I heard a group of people arguing over it and it got my curiosity up.

[Tara]

That's usually how I get interested too. #bounce# ;D

[teancum79]

I've heard a ton of rumor about the way the New Testament was put together. Some of the rumors are rather uncomplimentary of the catholic church and I don't put a whole lot of stock in them sense the source of them have also not been to kindly disposed to that church.

It has been my understanding that the OT was compiled around the time of Christ to prevent the teachings of his followers from being accepted as scripture. Though form one lecture I hear there where several competing sects that where trying to influence the choices.

[dianaholberg]

Josephus records the OT canon coming together during the reign of Artaxerxes Longiamanus in Persia, which would make it about 450 years before Christ.

But it wasn't authoritatively closed by the Jews until their so-called Council of Jamnia (90 A.D.), and it wasn't authoritatively closed by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (1546).

SOURCE