Too Many Cooks, Part 3: There's a NEW Testament?

[vovat]

To finish this series on Biblical authorship, I turn to the New Testament, which usually consists of twenty-seven books. These are primarily letters to various churches and individuals, plus five books of stories and one of prophecy. The first four are the Gospels, of which there are many more than four. So why only four in the Bible? Well, that was the decision of Irenaeus of Lyons, second century Bishop of Lugdunum. He argued that there should be four Gospels because there are four winds and four corners of the Earth. Even though it would have been pretty well-known by this time that the world was round, and hence didn't HAVE corners. Maybe he just liked the number four. Anyway, the Gospels are all anonymously written, but tradition developed linking them to important figures in early Christianity, based largely on the style of each one. Matthew was attributed to one of Jesus' twelve disciples, the former tax collector Matthew or Levi. Its content is largely Jewish in nature, showing how Jesus was the fulfillment of various Old Testament prophecies (as well as some things that really WEREN'T prophecies). Working against this attribution are the likelihood that the book was originally written in Greek instead of Aramaic, as well as the fact that our supposed Matthew seems to have relied on secondary sources. In fact, while early tradition had Matthew as the first Gospel written, scholars now seem to be quite largely in agreement that Mark was the first, and Matthew used Mark as a source. Its credited writer was John Mark the Evangelist, a cousin of Barnabas and companion of Paul, suggesting that even the early church didn't regard it as an eyewitness account. From what I've seen, Mark tends to be the least popular of the Gospels, with preachers preferring the more stylized accounts in the other three. The author of Luke claims to be a physician, writing to someone in Rome named Theophilus, and trying to provide more of a historical context for the deeds of Jesus. In doing so, however, it appears that he was often too eager to link Jesus' life to events that would have happened around the same time, resulting in such gaffes as his overly complicated tale of everyone having to travel to the homes of their ancestors during the census. The same author wrote the Book of Acts, some parts of which are delivered in first person, hence implying that he was Paul's companion. John, the final Gospel and the one with the most mystical, metaphysical conception of Jesus, was attributed to another one of Jesus' apostles, John son of Zebedee. It was a popular idea that John was "the disciple Jesus loved" who's mentioned several times in the book, but it seems rather bizarre that John would have said, in essence, "Yeah, Jesus liked ME the best, suckers!" This same apostle was credited with the three letters of John and the Revelation to John, but stylistic differences make it unlikely that the same guy composed all of them. The author of Revelation makes it clear that his name is John, but he never claims to have been a disciple, or to have written a Gospel. And while the Gospel of John is heavy on Greek mysticism, Revelation is more Jewish in flavor, making constant Old Testament allusions. Not to mention that, with the dates generally given for these books, John would have had to have been really old when he wrote them.


Unlike the Gospels, the authorship of many of the letters that made it into the New Testament is quite clear. The most represented letter-writer is, of course, Paul. That said, Paul was so well-known for his epistles that it's pretty likely some were also forged in his name. In fact, even when the canon was first being determined, doubt was cast on the letter to the Hebrews being the work of Paul. It seems that the church fathers threw this one in just because it was popular, and they liked its theology. Do you get the idea by now that these church fathers weren't all that consistent in their decision-making? The non-Pauline epistles are even more difficult to place. The two letters of Peter were most likely not the work of the apostle. James was commonly said to have been written by Jesus' brother, head of the church in Jerusalem, but he makes no indication of this and a lot of people were named James. Jude is often attributed to a less famous brother of Jesus, called Judas in the Gospels, but again this isn't so much based on actual evidence.


Really, what I've read in and about the various books of the Bible suggests that the whole thing is basically a hodgepodge, with a lot of things being included or excluded simply due to their relative popularity or the preferred theology of the people making the decisions. And in some ways, this is a good thing, because it resulted in different opinions being presented. Can Moabites enter into the Jewish congregation? Is God the author of evil? Was Jesus human or divine? In all of these cases, there are passages to support both sides. The fact that the book was largely cobbled together makes it, in many ways, a much more valuable source than it would have been if it had been entirely written by one person. But when people claim that the entire Bible is the holy word of God and nothing else is, I have to wonder how much they actually know about how it was written and compiled. Why would the Holy Spirit have been more likely to have worked in the particular authors represented and the particular councils making the decisions than with anyone else? Mind you, I'm writing this as someone who isn't religious at all, but I have to say I have more respect for a believer who does their own research than one who just accepts wholesale what other people tell them. People who think the Bible has a simple message and that they know exactly what God is telling them seem to be missing that the deeds and sayings of a non-human intelligence presumably WOULDN'T be easily interpreted by mere mortals. Yeah, sure, your deity is unknowable but you know for a fact that He hates gays and opposes the teaching of evolution, and that YOU'RE going to end up in Heaven. You really don't see the problems with that line of thinking?

Comments

[arfies.livejournal.com]

Paul is Cthulu?

And that last picture amuses me to no end. And makes me cry a little.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Paul is Cthulu?

That would explain quite a bit, wouldn't it? {g}

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

I thought the same thing. Mildly worrisome, isn't it?

[suegypt.livejournal.com]

The fact that the book was largely cobbled together makes it, in many ways, a much more valuable source than it would have been if it had been entirely written by one person. But when people claim that the entire Bible is the holy word of God and nothing else is, I have to wonder how much they actually know about how it was written and compiled.

Heehee. On the money.