Authors of the Bible

[ATHEIST]

do we know who they are?

did any of the deciples write any of the books?

[Butterbean]

Hi ATHEIST...  Good to see you!


Matthew, John and Peter were apostles, and James and Jude are said to have been Jesus' brothers.   Also, Paul had "met" and spoke w/Jesus on the road to Damascus.



Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Joshua = Joshua - 1350 B.C.
Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel = Samuel/Nathan/Gad - 1000 - 900 B.C.
1 Kings, 2 Kings = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah = Ezra - 450 B.C.
Esther = Mordecai - 400 B.C.
Job = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Psalms = several different authors, mostly David - 1000 - 400 B.C.
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon = Solomon - 900 B.C.
Isaiah = Isaiah - 700 B.C.
Jeremiah, Lamentations = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
Ezekiel = Ezekiel - 550 B.C.
Daniel = Daniel - 550 B.C.
Hosea = Hosea - 750 B.C.
Joel = Joel - 850 B.C.
Amos = Amos - 750 B.C.
Obadiah = Obadiah - 600 B.C.
Jonah = Jonah - 700 B.C.
Micah = Micah - 700 B.C.
Nahum = Nahum - 650 B.C.
Habakkuk = Habakkuk - 600 B.C.
Zephaniah = Zephaniah - 650 B.C.
Haggai = Haggai - 520 B.C.
Zechariah = Zechariah - 500 B.C.
Malachi = Malachi - 430 B.C.
Matthew = Matthew - A.D. 55
Mark = John Mark - A.D. 50
Luke = Luke - A.D. 60
John = John - A.D. 90
Acts = Luke - A.D. 65
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - A.D. 50-70
Hebrews = unknown, mostly likely Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - A.D. 65
James = James - A.D. 45
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - A.D. 60
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - A.D. 90
Jude = Jude - A.D. 60
Revelation = John - A.D. 90

[ATHEIST]

Hello STELLA and thank you!

[newmom]

wow Stella you know your stuff for sure

[Butterbean]

Hello STELLA and thank you!

wow Stella you know your stuff for sure

The list of authors I copied and pasted from some site!

[newmom]

The list of authors I copied and pasted from some site!

well lets see what happens tonight..hope the roof dont cave in

[Migs]

then it was rewritten, censored and bastardized by the peeps after them

[Butterbean]

well lets see what happens tonight..hope the roof dont cave in

How'd it go?

then it was rewritten, censored and bastardized by the peeps after them

what choo talkin' bout Migs

[newmom]

How'd it go?

amazing and put alot of things into perspective

[Butterbean]

amazing and put alot of things into perspective

 

[ATHEIST]

if youre a Christian, do you need to believe homosexuality is a choice?

Im not gay, I just have liberal views when it comes to gender issues and find it funny some Christians can be so selfrighteous regarding this subject.

[Migs]

How'd it go?


what choo talkin' bout Migs

i think lots of the bible is missing or changed to fit the needs of the times.  satories created to give hope or to explain what they couldn't explain previously

[Agnostic007]

The authors of the manuscripts contained in the bible are anonymous. Names have been assigned. On a side note, it is believed that Genesis, Exodus and possibly a few others had more than one author. Scholars have named some for example "J" and "E" as one author refers to God as Jehovah and the other Elohim. It kind of clears up the inconsistancies in the creation story and flood when you realize it is two different writers combined to tell the story. Moses, the alleged author of Exodus, apparently wrote about his own death after the fact, which would cause a reasonable person some doubt as to if he really wrote it... that is if the parting of the seas, burning bush, the killing of all the cattle several times over during the plagues and 50 other outrageous claims didn't derail you first..

[MCWAY]

The authors of the manuscripts contained in the bible are anonymous. Names have been assigned. On a side note, it is believed that Genesis, Exodus and possibly a few others had more than one author. Scholars have named some for example "J" and "E" as one author refers to God as Jehovah and the other Elohim. It kind of clears up the inconsistancies in the creation story and flood when you realize it is two different writers combined to tell the story. Moses, the alleged author of Exodus, apparently wrote about his own death after the fact, which would cause a reasonable person some doubt as to if he really wrote it... that is if the parting of the seas, burning bush, the killing of all the cattle several times over during the plagues and 50 other outrageous claims didn't derail you first..

The authors are hardly anonymous. STella's list is prett much on the money. As for the Moses, that's no big issue, either. The only part that talks about his death is the tail end of Deuteronomy. Since Moses passed the books down to his successors, the short answer is that one of them completed the Pentateuch after Moses' death. Plus, several other Biblical authors cite MOSES as the author of those first books of Scripture.

The JEDP stuff is litte more than skeptic fodder, as is the claim of the alleged inconsistencies of the Gen. 1 and 2, with regards to the Creation account.

[Agnostic007]

The authors are hardly anonymous. STella's list is prett much on the money. As for the Moses, that's no big issue, either. The only part that talks about his death is the tail end of Deuteronomy. Since Moses passed the books down to his successors, the short answer is that one of them completed the Pentateuch after Moses' death. Plus, several other Biblical authors cite MOSES as the author of those first books of Scripture.

The JEDP stuff is litte more than skeptic fodder, as is the claim of the alleged inconsistencies of the Gen. 1 and 2, with regards to the Creation account.

Well thank you, that explains it... except... that when I read Genesis, it was pretty obvious it was at least 2 different authors. And when I read Mathew, Mark, Luke and John it seemed apparent to me that "Matthew" had access to "Mark" because some passages were verbatim, unlike 2 individuals who were allegedly telling a an eyewitness account from their own perspectives. I'm curious as to what you think might be the reason?

[MCWAY]

Well thank you, that explains it... except... that when I read Genesis, it was pretty obvious it was at least 2 different authors. And when I read Mathew, Mark, Luke and John it seemed apparent to me that "Matthew" had access to "Mark" because some passages were verbatim, unlike 2 individuals who were allegedly telling a an eyewitness account from their own perspectives. I'm curious as to what you think might be the reason?

Mark isn't an eyewitness account, as STella mentioned earlier. Per traditional Biblical scholars, the two eyewitness accounts are Matthew and John.

[Agnostic007]

But why does Matthew and Mark match up verbatim in many passages, yet Matthew seems to embelish on Marks original writings..

[MCWAY]

But why does Matthew and Mark match up verbatim in many passages, yet Matthew seems to embelish on Marks original writings..

One, if you're quoting someone, you tend to so vertabim.

Two, there's no embellishing involved. Each Gospel gives unique details that the others don't. Now, if ALL FOUR GOSPELS matched up vertabim (outside of the quotes), that'd be a different story altogether.

[MCWAY]

But why does Matthew and Mark match up verbatim in many passages, yet Matthew seems to embelish on Marks original writings..

And this alleged embellishment would be.......

[Agnostic007]

"Matthew" isnt qouting anyone, he is telling it as if it were his own.. I'll get some examples of verbatim and embellishments for you..

[Agnostic007]

"The Synoptic Problem, simply put, is the close interrelations and dissimilarities of the first three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (or Luke-Acts). As soon as early scholars began to harmonize these three gospels (place them side-by-side in three rows in order to compare what each says about the same event in the narrative) they realized that there seems to be close literary agreement between them. This has led to the natural question of who came first and who relied upon whom when composing his own gospel. Did Mark really abbreviate Matthew as Saint Augustine suggested? Or did Matthew come later and have a copy of Mark at his elbow while composing his own gospel? These are the questions which scholars ask when attempting to reach a solution to the Synoptic Problem. There is one other aspect to the Synoptic problem which I have hinted at already, that being the mysterious Q gospel. There are about fifty instances in Matthew and Luke where each parallel the other very closely, word-for-word in some places and yet these parallels are absent from Mark. Form critics of the nineteenth-century suggested that both Matthew and Luke must have used a similar source and incorporated this source's material into their own gospel. This source is called Q. The theory that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q is called the Two-Source Hypothesis (pictured below). One should keep in mind that Q is a hypothesis, not an extant text. However, it is a very sound hypothesis and should be taken seriously; the evidence seems to support it very well as I shall argue. Before addressing Q however, I'd like to support the argument for the priority of Mark, since Glenn and I disagree on this point. For those interested in Glenn's viewpoint, the best source to turn to is William Farmer's The Synoptic Problem. "

The above paragraph was written by James Still. It is a very small extrapolation from a large amount of literature that addresses the Gospels. There is a lot that is written about who wrote them, when they wrote them, who wrote theirs first, etc etc. It's been about 5 yrs since I have seriously studied the information, having come to my personal opinion on it based on what I read at the time.  To adjust my original comment, after reviewing quickly some material, it appears Luke and Matthew share more of the identical verbiage than does Matthew and Mark.  

[Butterbean]

if youre a Christian, do you need to believe homosexuality is a choice?

Im not gay, I just have liberal views when it comes to gender issues and find it funny some Christians can be so selfrighteous regarding this subject.

I don't think a Christian "needs to believe homosexuality is a choice."  

No one should be "self-righteous" regarding any subject, including this one.  

Don't listen to those Westboro Baptist jack legs...God loves everyone   He may not love what we do (and each and every one of us sins), but He loves us.

[newmom]

God loves everyone

thank goodness for that

[Butterbean]

thank goodness for that

I know!....I am very grateful

[Hustle Man]

I don't think a Christian "needs to believe homosexuality is a choice."   I agree!

No one should be "self-righteous" regarding any subject, including this one.   I agree!

 Stella I don't know if I agree with this statement,

...God loves everyone

.  See Romans 9:13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." He may not love what we do (and each and every one of us sins), but He loves us.

Can you or anyone else answer what God meant in Romans 9:13?