The Production of the New Testament

[Seasanctuary]

For some reason or other, the New Testament writings exist and they didn't pop out of thin air. Someone took the trouble to write them, for whatever motivation, with however much reference to events that actually took place.

What I'd like to hear from the nonTheists in this thread is what you think the story behind the production of the New Testament really was.

Let's put the Christian traditional answer on one end and at the other extreme, let's say that one fellow simply made it all up for kicks. I imagine most of your answers will fall in between. I'm interested in specifics, why you think so, and a general measure of how confident you are about your answer being what really happened.

Thanks,
Sea

[Alchemist]

Jesus was a real historical person. He said some nice things and got a following. Then he ticked someone off and they had him killed, presumably Crucified.

Years later some of his followers, or some of his folllowers' followers wrote the New Testament and inserted many of their own exagerations.

Why do I believe this? Because there seems to be some historical precedent that charasmatic people who start movements usually get overly-embellished nice things written about them by their followers after the die. Like the stories about Buddha and even more recently the cherry tree story about George Washington.

How sure am I about this being the case? I'd give it a pretty good chance of being close to the truth, but I wouldn't say that I was certain.

[bandecoot]

Jesus was a real historical person. He said some nice things and got a following. Then he ticked someone off and they had him killed, presumably Crucified.

Yep you got it right so far. Except there is outside evidence for execution, which was usually Crucifixion. So we can go with that.

Years later some of his followers, or some of his folllowers' followers wrote the New Testament and inserted many of their own exagerations.


Ah but whom? and why? This is the question. most of what we know as canon turns up after Constantine.

Was it Constantine trying to tie the empire together with what he had, or did he make a melange that suited him? Dont forget that Constantine only passed laws Tolerating Christianity. It was Theodosius who passed the laws making it the state religion.

Why do I believe this? Because there seems to be some historical precedent that charasmatic people who start movements usually get overly-embellished nice things written about them by their followers after the die. Like the stories about Buddha and even more recently the cherry tree story about George Washington.

There are ancient stories that PREDATE Jesus. Appolonius of Tyana for example. Paul was a Hellenistic Hebrew. Stands to reason.

How sure am I about this being the case? I'd give it a pretty good chance of being close to the truth, but I wouldn't say that I was certain.
Yeah well. The thing is, if Christianty was a threat to Rome, there would be no Christians now.

In fact the decline of The western Roman Empire and its fall came AFTER the imposition of Christianity.

Ill comment more later

[mentored1]

For some reason or other, the New Testament writings exist and they didn't pop out of thin air. Someone took the trouble to write them, for whatever motivation, with however much reference to events that actually took place.

What I'd like to hear from the nonTheists in this thread is what you think the story behind the production of the New Testament really was.

Let's put the Christian traditional answer on one end and at the other extreme, let's say that one fellow simply made it all up for kicks. I imagine most of your answers will fall in between. I'm interested in specifics, why you think so, and a general measure of how confident you are about your answer being what really happened.


Well met Sea - intriguing post :demure:

I guess it depends on approach. I've read a lot of mythology and the common elements, the archetypes, that so engross the human psyche have a very telling and prominent role in the Bible. I think that's the key to grasping where the New Testament comes from. I don't see it as entirely unique. All the themes, images, and stories displayed there are rooted deep in man's ancient imagery.

They are retold and fitted into events surrounding the life a historical person. That gives them a relation to the physical plane that, methinks, associated the unexplainable mystique of these ancient stories to Christ. To the Christian these archetypes and mythical elements were incarnate in Christ - all those ancient tendencies and mystical systems were focused to some extent on Jesus's life and ministry.

To a culture absorbed in this atmosphere as the Hebrews and Greeks in particular were this sort of transference of what was part of their culture and deeply rooted in their way of being, to me, could easily have triggered the type of faith needed to die for what they saw to be all that deity and divinity in the form of flesh and blood. Ancient cultures did more than tell stories about the gods and goddesses - they lived as if those stories had immanent bearing on their lives.

It's not hard to see how a physical manifestation comprised of many elements of the more prolific and profound myths and archetypes could enrapture millions. In some sense, given human imagination and behavior, it's natural and predictable. Does that make it true or false? :shrug: Who can say for sure if it's something beyond their personal experience?

Take care

[BeHereNow]

Sea, your OP question needs to be a little more specific. The NT is largely instruction on proper living and words of encouragement to churches or brethren. There is really only vague mention of Jesus outside of the Gospels and the mind-numbing Revelations.

As for the Gospels, it seems to me that people aren't going to go out of their way to write something they know to be untrue. So I presume the honesty of the Gospel authors. However, I don't presume the veracity of their beliefs. Thought it's snobbish and perhaps naive to say this, people back then were simple minded and uneducated. Can you imagine if they'd seen David Blaine do a few tricks? Seriously.

As far as the miracles, those were probably either embellishments or misunderstandings. There were several other gospels written (click here if you want to read them (http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/gospels.htm)). The question we should ask is why were Matthew Mark Luke and John chosen as canonical. Of course, the church has its standard line, but I know how humans are, and I know how leaders with too much power are. It's all about maintaining congruity.

Perhaps Jesus was an enlightened guru with the ability to perform minor miracles by stepping outside of our limited hind-brain functionality and into the realm of transcendence. That's what I prefer to believe. The crazy stuff like turning water into wine and walking through walls... nah. I don't think a human can affect other things molecularly.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sea, your OP question needs to be a little more specific. The NT is largely instruction on proper living and words of encouragement to churches or brethren. There is really only vague mention of Jesus outside of the Gospels and the mind-numbing Revelations.Mind-numbing Revelations? Well maybe you just didn't read it right. I mean, what an ending! I never saw it coming. You'd think that God would love all those whom he created in a marvelous paradise for all... except people who speak in the theater, of course.

But that doesn't happen at all! In a twist, though possibly foreshadowed in Genesis when God killed all those he created, except a small family out in the country, God torments those who didn't believe in him, despite his greatest attempts at not being noticed for over 2000 years, and burns them all in a pit of fire. Worse yet, his followers will be able to watch and snicker! And to make things worse, God punishes even his own people... the Jewish. Who would have thought that?!

Great twist to such an old book. Turns out that the loving god spoken of in the New Testament is actually a heel just pretending, playing the role of a babyface.

As for the Gospels, it seems to me that people aren't going to go out of their way to write something they know to be untrue. So I presume the honesty of the Gospel authors. However, I don't presume the veracity of their beliefs. Thought it's snobbish and perhaps naive to say this, people back then were simple minded and uneducated. Back then? When'd it change?

As far as the miracles, those were probably either embellishments or misunderstandings...metaphors, or simply fables to illustrate how people were amazed by Jesus and his philosophy of Liberal Idealogy.

There were several other gospels written (click here if you want to read them (http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/gospels.htm)). The question we should ask is why were Matthew Mark Luke and John chosen as canonical. Of course, the church has its standard line, but I know how humans are, and I know how leaders with too much power are. It's all about maintaining congruity. Or power.

[Barry Desborough]

I think the story behind the production was not as the production itself has it. No doubt there are echoes of historical facts and people in it, but beyond that, sorry, I'm not really that interested. The same goes for other sacred texts too. I'm not being dismissive. I'm sure other people find them interesting, but they are not my 'cup of tea'.

[BeHereNow]

Back then? When'd it change?

Well, that's why I added the qualifier. I like to think modern people don't turn so quickly to supernatural explanations for every little thing in life quite as much as the ancients did. I could, of course, be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Or power.

Yes, that's part of the congruity. If you are in perceived internal disagreement, you lose power, yes?

What do you think about the NT, Higgins?

[Jimmy Higgins]

What do you think about the NT, Higgins?It's an absolute crock, where Paul sets up the Church on a For-Profit-Basis. Details on the simple things such as the tomb Jesus was in, do vary which leads to serious questions about the veracity of the claims made. I also find it hard to believe that big news of a virgin birth could then be followed by decades of nothing on Jesus.

As far as people being informed... they aren't as badly misinformed these days, compared to then, but that'd be like comparing an adult chemist with a child in the subject of knowledge on chemistry.

People today are still just as easily misled by people in power, however. Demons no longer cause disease, they just make us sin. :ahem:

[XaositectCrayon]

I am a non theist... very spiritual though

I think it's a spiritual awakening that took the form (in my opinion, through Yeshu ha Nozri hijacking the coattails of Jewish reform) from an ancient monotheistic religion. That explains Christianity not the new testiment...

the new testiment you need to know alittle about early Christianity. There was a different Christ cult for every streetcorner. All preaching different beliefs. Some radically different (the esoteric garbage that I love, and should have been the next abrahamic religion known as Gnosticism), and some similar (which probably was worked into the new testament in some form). Emperor Constantine takes on Catholic Christianity and desides to compile the scripts. Constantine does this to what the Catholic christ cult believes (and with alittle biasness from him and how he wants to steer the country). It's grinded on a political axe a bit but comes out as the catholic orthadox pretty similar to early catholic views.

That's not to say it's totally right, some accounts have him on a book burning spree rivaling hitler. But those were the times too. I dont agree (I think book burning of any sort is discusting) but I definately understand that that's how people at that time did things and things dont change.

You can tell something was wrong with Yahweh when his attitude changed drastically between the old and new testament. Maybe he had a cold? Dunno but something was either very wrong or very right.

[Seasanctuary]

I am a non theist... very spiritual though

What does spiritual mean?

[XaositectCrayon]

What does spiritual mean?
it's really impossible to explain... atleast for me.
But my mouth was never as smart as my brain so that's not saying much.

[Ishmael]

I think that, generally speaking, the Gospels go from less mystical (Mark) to very mytiscal (the mythological ramblings of John). Mark includes some of the miracle stories and sections that are clearly redactions, which fall into the category of supernatural events or stories of supernatural "signs" that should follow believers. On the other hand, John, written much later and probably by a community of believers who followed John, is full of mythology and strange teachings that attribute supernatural power to believers.

I just think that the further you get from the source, the wilder the stories about Jesus get.