What was the first Bible like?

[Still Waters]

In the years after Jesus was crucified at Calvary, the story of his life, death and resurrection was not immediately written down. The experiences of disciples like Matthew and John would have been told and retold at many dinner tables and firesides, perhaps for decades, before anyone recorded them for posterity. St Paul, whose writings are equally central to the New Testament, was not even present among the early believers until a few years after Jesus’ execution.

But if many people will have an idea of this gap between the events of the New Testament and the book that emerged, few probably appreciate how little we know about the first Christian Bible. The oldest complete New Testament that survives today is from the fourth century, but it had predecessors which have long since turned to dust.

So what did the original Christian Bible look like? How and where did it emerge? And why are we scholars still arguing about this some 1,800 years after the event?

https://theconversation.com/what-was-the-first-bible-like-102005

[+and-then]

I found it to be quite reassuring that the dead sea scrolls produced evidence of the accuracy of the scribes that copied the modern versions of Torah.  There were no errors that changed accepted interpretations and very few errors at all.  Once the "church" started deciding which texts were canonical, lots of room for arguing came into the picture.  Fortunately, a person doesn't have to be a scholar of religious works to be one with Christ.  All it takes is a belief in His very simple message and a sincere desire to be like Him.  Time takes care of the rest  

[Mr Walker]

Very interesting and balanced article.

Thanks for posting it here  

[Podo]

It would be fascinating to find a much older bible, from closer to Jesus' supposed existence. To see how the world's most popular religion molded and changed granularly over the centuries is an endeavour well worth studying, no matter what your opinion of the subject matter itself is. Even so, the old Greek one is a marvel to behold.

But then again, I'm fascinated by almost all ancient writings I once had the privilege of holding/reading a page from a Koran written sometime in the year 900, in a university manuscripts class. Now that was an experience!

[odas]

People who have at least some basic knowledge of the OT, NT and the Quran will see how simmilar they are. Every book has much of it of the previous book and ads something new. Even the first book, the OT, has much of it's writings and messages based on previous cultures, events. The differencess are in names, areas...to acomodate the "new and true" story.

How those stories can be easily adjusted, misinterpreted down the years one can find proof in present times just by watching the various news channels and their own narrative of one and the same happening.

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, odas said:

People who have at least some basic knowledge of the OT, NT and the Quran will see how simmilar they are. Every book has much of it of the previous book and ads something new. Even the first book, the OT, has much of it's writings and messages based on previous cultures, events. The differencess are in names, areas...to acomodate the "new and true" story.

How those stories can be easily adjusted, misinterpreted down the years one can find proof in present times just by watching the various news channels and their own narrative of one and the same happening.

I agree that they can be misinterpreted but we have factual proof of the accuracy of the Torah/OT.  Qumran settled the accusation that the texts had been changed over the years.  There were almost no changes and the few that did occur were a transposition of letters, nothing that affected the meaning.

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

On 8/30/2018 at 2:24 PM, and then said:

Fortunately, a person doesn't have to be a scholar of religious works to be one with Christ.  All it takes is a belief in His very simple message and a sincere desire to be like Him.  Time takes care of the rest  

One of the problems lies in the fact that people have assumed that "Christ" said those "very simple message." Apologists keep yammering about Q, but Richard Carrier, an important scholar, simply laughs it off.

There is a "Christ" (and I have met Him in the afterlife...), but is He the Judaized Jesus of the "Poor"? My "Christ" has the elements of Erythean Sybil's prophesy and Marcion's Christ...with the power to resurrect and emanate "love" (as a power, not some kind romantacized notion and action).

I agree with you: "...a person doesn't have to be a scholar of religious works to be one with Christ."

[Podo]

On 9/3/2018 at 8:04 AM, odas said:

People who have at least some basic knowledge of the OT, NT and the Quran will see how simmilar they are. Every book has much of it of the previous book and ads something new. Even the first book, the OT, has much of it's writings and messages based on previous cultures, events. The differencess are in names, areas...to acomodate the "new and true" story.

How those stories can be easily adjusted, misinterpreted down the years one can find proof in present times just by watching the various news channels and their own narrative of one and the same happening.

OT is the beta version, NT was an update patch, and the Quran is the more action-oriented series reboot.

[odas]

23 hours ago, Podo said:

OT is the beta version, NT was an update patch, and the Quran is the more action-oriented series reboot.

And all main characters are played by Liam Neeson. That would work.