The New Testament was written after his death too, some parts of it earlier than others. I think it’s also a pretty safe bet that there was a lot of editorializing over the centuries, since AFAIK the earliest surviving copies of anything are from the 2nd or 3rd centuries CE.
There’s probably less editorializing than you’d think. At least less that was successful in being hidden. There are verses that we know we’re added in later that seem like they fit in perfectly. Example: “for yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, now and forever” at the end of the Lord’s prayer. That verse feels right at home there, but based on early copies and differences between copies as Christianity spread, we know that wasn’t original.
Well, the gospels themselves are an example of editorializing. None of the gospels are written by the disciples themselves, most if not all of them were written after all the apostles would have been dead, and it is widely agreed that two of them (Matthew and Luke) are basically fanfiction spin-offs of Mark and a second, long lost source.
To clarify, I think by the time the stories were canonized, the narrative was likely more or less established. But in the 2-3 centuries before that I expect it to have been quite varied. We have no real way of knowing either way because there are very few surviving scraps of manuscripts from that early on.
The original post says that “the Bible” was written “hundreds of years after [Jesus’s] death.” I consider this to be an incorrect statement. When someone says “the Bible,” I wouldn’t think of only the most recently composed passages, but as a whole, from Genesis to Revelation.
This doesn’t mean that those recent passages weren’t written hundreds of years after Jesus died, only that I wouldn’t identify that point in history as “when the Bible was written.”
Except english language discussions on writing would generally be fine with how the post you replied to is written.
If an author writes a book for several decades then publishes it we would generally say “it was written” up to the publishing date even if sections of the book had not changed significantly for decades before publishing it. So I think its completely correct english to say “The Bible was written hundreds of years after christ lived” even if parts of it were written when he lived.
I agree that its misleading but I disagree that it’s incorrect because its correct linguistically and its correct in the broader point that essentially “Christ would likely not quote documents written after his existence” with the caveat being that he may quote documents that eventually found their way into the old testament unchanged.
I don’t disagree that one can generally talk about books in that way, but given what I know about how biblical authorship, I think it’s an incorrect (or as you say, misleading) way of describing the Bible specifically.
Of all the books that became canon in the Christian Bible, the most recent ones were written in the late 1st/early 2nd century CE. The later edits were additions, deletions, or alterations to these existing works rather than entirely new books on their own, and by the time those edits were made the books were already being used as scripture in Christian communities.
I’d liken it to The Hobbit. The first edition was published in 1937. In order to align more with The Lord of the Rings, a 2nd edition was published in 1951, and it contained significant changes to the the characterization of Gollum and the function of the One Ring. However, despite those changes, I would never say that, “The Hobbit was written in 1951.”
My final note: you can see in my first post that I agreed with the sentiment of the post I was responding to: that, “Christ would likely not quote documents written after his existence,” as you said. Many words have been put into the mouth of Jesus of Nazareth, because everything written about him came after he was too dead to make corrections.
Let’s be correct here: the Christian Bible was canonized centuries after Jesus’s death. That’s not the same thing as being written.
I still appreciate the point you’re making, though.
The New Testament was written after his death too, some parts of it earlier than others. I think it’s also a pretty safe bet that there was a lot of editorializing over the centuries, since AFAIK the earliest surviving copies of anything are from the 2nd or 3rd centuries CE.
There’s probably less editorializing than you’d think. At least less that was successful in being hidden. There are verses that we know we’re added in later that seem like they fit in perfectly. Example: “for yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, now and forever” at the end of the Lord’s prayer. That verse feels right at home there, but based on early copies and differences between copies as Christianity spread, we know that wasn’t original.
Well, the gospels themselves are an example of editorializing. None of the gospels are written by the disciples themselves, most if not all of them were written after all the apostles would have been dead, and it is widely agreed that two of them (Matthew and Luke) are basically fanfiction spin-offs of Mark and a second, long lost source.
To clarify, I think by the time the stories were canonized, the narrative was likely more or less established. But in the 2-3 centuries before that I expect it to have been quite varied. We have no real way of knowing either way because there are very few surviving scraps of manuscripts from that early on.
Some parts of the bible are shown to have been written about 400 years later
I don’t see where I said otherwise.
The implication is incorrect.
What is it that you think I was implying with my post?
This is the post you replied to
The implication was that it was not correct because of a reply that starts with:
The original post says that “the Bible” was written “hundreds of years after [Jesus’s] death.” I consider this to be an incorrect statement. When someone says “the Bible,” I wouldn’t think of only the most recently composed passages, but as a whole, from Genesis to Revelation.
This doesn’t mean that those recent passages weren’t written hundreds of years after Jesus died, only that I wouldn’t identify that point in history as “when the Bible was written.”
Except english language discussions on writing would generally be fine with how the post you replied to is written.
If an author writes a book for several decades then publishes it we would generally say “it was written” up to the publishing date even if sections of the book had not changed significantly for decades before publishing it. So I think its completely correct english to say “The Bible was written hundreds of years after christ lived” even if parts of it were written when he lived.
I agree that its misleading but I disagree that it’s incorrect because its correct linguistically and its correct in the broader point that essentially “Christ would likely not quote documents written after his existence” with the caveat being that he may quote documents that eventually found their way into the old testament unchanged.
I don’t disagree that one can generally talk about books in that way, but given what I know about how biblical authorship, I think it’s an incorrect (or as you say, misleading) way of describing the Bible specifically.
Of all the books that became canon in the Christian Bible, the most recent ones were written in the late 1st/early 2nd century CE. The later edits were additions, deletions, or alterations to these existing works rather than entirely new books on their own, and by the time those edits were made the books were already being used as scripture in Christian communities.
I’d liken it to The Hobbit. The first edition was published in 1937. In order to align more with The Lord of the Rings, a 2nd edition was published in 1951, and it contained significant changes to the the characterization of Gollum and the function of the One Ring. However, despite those changes, I would never say that, “The Hobbit was written in 1951.”
My final note: you can see in my first post that I agreed with the sentiment of the post I was responding to: that, “Christ would likely not quote documents written after his existence,” as you said. Many words have been put into the mouth of Jesus of Nazareth, because everything written about him came after he was too dead to make corrections.
‘this fan fiction is now mainstream’.