How much time did New Testament writers have to write, edit and revise their books?

[Nimrod]

How much can you write in one day? In one week? In one year?

How long did it take to write Virgil's Aeneid?
Dante's Divine Comedy?
Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire?
Proust's Remembrance of Things Past?
Georges Simenon's 450 novels and short stories?

Sometimes it seems that Christians are implying that each book of the Bible was written in the time that it takes to read it.

Each writer, redactor, editor, compiler had plenty of time to piece together a work that had some internal consistency.

It's just that many of them were a bit sloppy.

[Amazing Rando]

I seem to have missed your point Nimrod- can you restate your argument please?

[Nimrod]

Okay.

Some Christians say that the Biblical message is consistent, as if this is some kind of evidence for inspiration by God. (The usual stuff like "written over thousands of years, by whatever number of writers, all with one consistent message ...")

My argument is that whatever internal consistency there is in the Bible is a result of the time and effort involved in writing, editing and compiling a collection of writings with a particular message.

The writers of the various books of the Bible knew about the previous books and had plenty of time to write something that was consistent with an interpretation of those writings.

Those writings that were not consistent, did not become part of the Canon.
Those writings that were consistent were because of the time and effort that went into writing a consistent message.

No divine inspiration required. Just hard work, dedication and a limited perception of the world.

And a lot of time. There was no deadline for submitting a book.

[Amazing Rando]

Sure, I can agree to that. But who's to say that it rules out divine inspiration? I think you can't rule that out logically from your given premises. I believe that God had a very active hand in shaping the biblical documents and later, the canon, but it's a tenet of faith that I hold. You probably disagree, I can't help that.

[Nimrod]

But it's not evidence of divine inspiration.

BTW, is there anything would rule out divine inspiration?

[salvationfound]

Hey Nimrod,

Hopefully I'm a little less sarcastic in this thread than I was in the other.

Your question:

is there anything would rule out divine inspiration?

Yes if it could be proven that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't write
the Gospels then for me at least it would rule out divine inspiration. Proving
that they didn't write it requires another suspect who wrote it. And we
certainly can't even come up with a logical idea of who else could have
written it since the only names that have come up in the church is Matthew,
Mark, Luke, John. But somebody wrote it so who?

[technomage]

Yes if it could be proven that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't write
the Gospels then for me at least it would rule out divine inspiration. Proving
that they didn't write it requires another suspect who wrote it. And we
certainly can't even come up with a logical idea of who else could have
written it since the only names that have come up in the church is Matthew,
Mark, Luke, John. But somebody wrote it so who?

Salvationfound, even i as a non-Christian wouldn't go that far. While the books may (or may not) have been inspired, that's no comment on the traditional attributions.

Justin

[Amazing Rando]

But it's not evidence of divine inspiration.

Certainly not.

BTW, is there anything would rule out divine inspiration?

Yes- if God did not exist.

[mossrose]

How long does it take you to write a letter? A really long letter?

Paul wrote letters to churches. He certainly didn't take years and years to write them. Many of them were written while he was in prison in Rome over a 2 year period......not that each letter took that long, just that the sum of all the letters were written during that time.

Romans....
1 and 2 Corinthians, and a couple of other letters to Corinth that are not part of the canon.....
Galatians...
Ephesians...
Philippians...
Colossians...
1 and 2 Thessalonians...
1 and 2 Timothy...
Titus...
Philemon...
And possibly Hebrews.....but don't quote me on that one.

James wrote a letter. Peter wrote 2 letters, and John wrote 3 letters. Jude wrote a letter too.


All you have left are the gospels, which are recorded actions and words of Jesus, and Acts, which is recorded words and actions of the apostles, and Revelation, which is, well, future events written by John.

The NT was not put together over centuries or millenia, but written all within the first century AD.

So, the majority of the NT is letters. Personal letters, written with love and care toward the receivers. Inspired by God? Yes. Valuable and rich in knowledge and practical advice? Yes.

So, how long does it take you to write a long letter?

[Amazing Rando]

Sure- it likely took him a few weeks at the most to write even an enormous letter like 1 Corinthians.

I'd imagine it probably took Luke and the other gospel writers a good deal longer to craft their gospels to the incredible works they are.

[apologetics]

If I understand the Nimrod's question correctly, we would assume that the NT writers had an agenda. They....though they did not know each other.....nor had any idea what would become of their work....individually decided to create works that were internally consistent (here we must assume that they recognized the internal consistency within the OT and decided that this would be important when their books were included in a yet-to-be-decided canon). Here, we must assume that each author knew their work would be accepted canonically by the early church. We must, also assume, that they would have had some idea of the impact that their works, once accepted in the final canon, would have upon future generations.

....and all of this without having seen the risen Christ. The guy who declared his divinity was still dead (given this theory) and yet they willfully chose to continue to push a conspiracy that they knew to be false.....all the time at great cost of their freedom, safety, happiness and wealth.....and then all die (most as a direct result of having maintained this lie) with the lie still completely intact.

....uh, yeah, interesting theory.....

[Bobby Lewis]

How long does it take you to write a letter? A really long letter?

Paul wrote letters to churches. He certainly didn't take years and years to write them. Many of them were written while he was in prison in Rome over a 2 year period......not that each letter took that long, just that the sum of all the letters were written during that time.

Romans....
1 and 2 Corinthians, and a couple of other letters to Corinth that are not part of the canon.....
Galatians...
Ephesians...
Philippians...
Colossians...
1 and 2 Thessalonians...
1 and 2 Timothy...
Titus...
Philemon...
And possibly Hebrews.....but don't quote me on that one.

James wrote a letter. Peter wrote 2 letters, and John wrote 3 letters. Jude wrote a letter too.


All you have left are the gospels, which are recorded actions and words of Jesus, and Acts, which is recorded words and actions of the apostles, and Revelation, which is, well, future events written by John.

The NT was not put together over centuries or millenia, but written all within the first century AD.

So, the majority of the NT is letters. Personal letters, written with love and care toward the receivers. Inspired by God? Yes. Valuable and rich in knowledge and practical advice? Yes.

So, how long does it take you to write a long letter?

Good point, but there is a concept I wish you would have pursued further. Nimrod's original point concerned the internal consistancy of the Gospel material with the Old Testament and how that consistancy requires time to create. Paul's letters were penned with frequent allusions to Jewish holy books but over a much shorter time span than the years proposed by Nimrod. If consistancy with the Old Testament implies a long, drawn-out process of compilation in the Gospels, then Paul's letters ought to interpreted as the product of a similiar process.

[apologetics]

Good point, but there is a concept I wish you would have pursued further. Nimrod's original point concerned the internal consistancy of the Gospel material with the Old Testament and how that consistancy requires time to create. Paul's letters were penned with frequent allusions to Jewish holy books but over a much shorter time span than the years proposed by Nimrod. If consistancy with the Old Testament implies a long, drawn-out process of compilation in the Gospels, then Paul's letters ought to interpreted as the product of a similiar process.

Nimrod's entire premise supposes knowledge about the future that the NT writers simply could not have possessed. The Bible is written in 3 languages on 3 continents over 1600 years. How were these guys to know that just because they wrote a book that appeared to be internally consistent with the rest that their book was going to be used at all, was going to grouped with the OT books in some "Bible," and that others who came along later and wrote would not get books included that were not consisted.

[Nimrod]

Nimrod's entire premise supposes knowledge about the future that the NT writers simply could not have possessed.

Not at all. What knowledge about the future do I need to write something that is consistent with the past?

You seem to be suggesting that the only reason that a writer would have to be consistent with the past is to have his book included in the Bible. Obviously not.

My premises are: 1) people write with a specific purpose; and 2) the writers of the various books of the Bible were aware of previous writings.

The authors, redactors and editors of the books of the Bible knew that they were writing religious texts and it's reasonable to assume that they would want their books to have credibility. One way to enhance credibility is to place the writings within the context of current religious beliefs, eg. the idea of a Messiah.

If, instead, someone argues that the New Testament introduced new ideas, does that mean that the New Testament is inconsistent with the Old?

[Nimrod]

How long does it take you to write a letter? A really long letter?

Paul wrote letters to churches. He certainly didn't take years and years to write them. Many of them were written while he was in prison in Rome over a 2 year period......not that each letter took that long, just that the sum of all the letters were written during that time.
...
The NT was not put together over centuries or millenia, but written all within the first century AD.

So, the majority of the NT is letters. Personal letters, written with love and care toward the receivers. Inspired by God? Yes. Valuable and rich in knowledge and practical advice? Yes.

So, how long does it take you to write a long letter?

I don't know what your point is here.
1) I didn't say that the NT was put together over centuries. That's why I used the example of Georges Simenon who wrote 450 novels and short stories.
2) Do you know how long it took for Paul to write each of his epistles? What else did he have to do in prison?
3) His epistles were not "personal letters".

The Pauline Letters

In the New Testament canon of 27 books, 21 are called “letters,” and even the Revelation to John starts and ends in letter form. Of the 21, 13 belong to the Pauline corpus; the Letter to the Hebrews is included in the Pauline corpus in the East but not, however, in the West. Three letters of this corpus, the Pastoral Letters, are pseudonymous and thus are not considered here. Of the remaining 10, the Letters to the Colossians and Ephesians are from the hand of a later Pauline follower and II Thessalonians is spurious. How this Pauline corpus was collected and published remains obscure, but letters as part of Holy Scripture were an early established phenom¬enon of Christianity.

The church was poor and widespread, and, at least in the early stages, expected an imminent Parousia. A body of more formal sacred writings was thus superseded in importance by letters (e.g., those of bishop Ignatius of Antioch) that answered practical questions of the early churches.
The letters of Paul, written only about 20—30 years after the crucifixion, were preserved, collected, and eventually distributed. In general, they answered questions of churches that he had founded. When all the Pauline Letters as a corpus were first known is difficult to determine. Because Pauline theology and some quotations and allusions were certainly known at the end of the 1st century, the Pauline Letters probably were collected and circulated for general church use by the end of the 1st century or soon thereafter. A disciple of Paul, possibly Onesimus, may have used Ephesians as a covering letter for the whole collection.

The letters Galatians and Romans both contain an extensive discussion about the Law (Torah) and justification (in language not found in the other letters) to solve the problem of the relation of Christianity to Judaism and of the relationship of Jewish Christians with Gentile Christians. Galatians is older and differs from Romans in that it deals with Judaizers, i.e., Gentile Christians who were infatuated with Jewish ways and championed Jewish ceremonial law for Gentile Christians. On the other hand, Romans speaks to the question of the Jews and the Christian faith and church in God’s plan of salvation. In I and II Corinthians (which may include fragments of much Corinthian correspondence preserved in a somewhat haphazard order), there is no preoccupation with either Jews or Judaizing practices. They deal with a church of Gentile Christians and are therefore the best evidence of how Paul operated on Gentile territory.

The earliest book in the New Testament is I Thessalonians, which is concerned with the problem of eschatology. Though II Thessalonians is obvious in its imitation of the style of I Thessalonians, it reflects a later time, elaborates on I Thessalonians, and is thus not viewed as genuine.
Philippians may be a composite letter in which various themes of Pauline teaching are held together by a testament form. Thus, it is a compendium without too specific a focus on the Philippian situation. Philemon, although addressed to a house church, is uniquely concerned with the fate of a slave being returned to his master, with the hope that he will be forgiven and be sent back to help Paul in prison, an example of manumission in Paul’s name.
Ephesians appears to be dependent on Colossians, and both, although using the Pauline style, reflect a time and imagery sometimes different from and later than Paul’s genuine letters. Ephesians covers the content of Colossians in more compact form and may be a covering letter for the entire Pauline corpus by a disciple or other later Paulinist.

The style of Paul’s letters is an admixture of Greek and The Jewish form, combining Paul’s personal concern with his own official status as Apostle. After his own name, Paul names the addressees or congregation being addressed and adds lette “grace and peace.” This is often followed by thanksgivings and intercession that are significantly adapted to the content and purpose of the letter. Doctrinal material usually precedes advice or exhortation (parenesis), and the letters conclude with personal news or admonition and a blessing: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Paul’s letters were probably dictated to an amanuensis (who might be named, for example, Sosthenes, I Cor. 1:2), and some greetings were written at the end of the letters in his own hand. They were obviously meant to be read aloud in the church, however, and thus their style is different from that of purely personal letters.

© source where applicable

Biblical Literature, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, Macropaedia Volume 2, p. 958.