The History of the Bible - Section I

1.      Introduction

An understanding of the stories of the Bible is almost presupposed in many modern societies, including the United States and Europe.  The influence it has had on the development of Western thought is undeniable.  The shear volume of references to the Bible has led me to wonder: How did it come into being?  Who wrote it?  Why was it written?  When was it written?  Why do different people – even those with the same religious affiliation – read different messages from the Bible?  How can so important a book be ambiguous?

Few of my friends and acquaintances seem to have any idea of the sources of the written Bible.  Whether they are Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant, most simply believe that the Bible represents the word of God as delivered to man.  Their underlying assumptions are that the Bible is immutable, infallible and its message not to be questioned.  The Bible has always been and always will be.  Its inspiration is divine; its wisdom is timeless.  Perhaps it is not meant to be fully understood by man.

Yet, there is a fascinating history here that goes so much deeper.  As I studied the creation of the collection of writings we know as the Bible, I uncovered many interesting stories and unexpected twists.  And I learned that the Bible, as we know it, is very definitely the word of man.

The Bible as the word of man?  Is this not heresy incarnate?  Far from it!  In fact, Biblical scholars of all religions acknowledge the story I am about to tell you.  While there is some disagreement on the particulars, everything you are about to read is mainstream analysis.  Many Bibles include much of what you will read here either as preface or introduction (try looking, you’ll be surprised).

Because of the religious nature of the material included in the Bible, most people tend to focus on the message rather that how that message came into being.  Religious authorities may debate the meaning of the words of the Bible, and find different ways to read identical passages.  Yet their common underlying assumption is that those words are a direct reflection of God’s instructions to mankind.  Further, the assumption is that these words have reached us through a pristine, immaculate journey across thousands of years.   But it is the journey which is documented here; the meaning of the passages themselves – whether literal or symbolic –is left to the reader of the Bible. 

In fact, the Bible has been affected by decisions of many different individuals throughout the past 3000 years.  These individuals were perhaps influenced by the hand of God: this is certainly an opinion held by many.  Still, the significance of man’s role in the development of the Bible cannot be understated.  This will become clear as we cover the many influences that are present.  These influences affect the actual words we read today, and go a long way towards explaining the ambiguous nature of Biblical passages.

When I refer to the Bible, I should clarify that I am referring to several different collections of works that are referred to as the Bible.  The Bible is not so much a single book as it is a collection of short books.  For my purposes here, I will frequently refer to the following Bibles generally:

·        The Jewish Bible: This is the Old Testament.  Also called the Tanakh (pronounced ‘ta-nock’).

·        The Catholic Bible: This is the Old Testament and the New Testament.  However the Jewish Bible and the Catholic Bible have differences between the number and order of the Old Testament books.  The Catholic Bible includes books not considered canon by Jews.

·        The Protestant Bible: This consists of the Jewish Old Testament and the Catholic New Testament, although the order of the books of the Old Testament is somewhat different from the Jewish Bible.

And there are more, specific translated derivations...

·        The Septuagint: The ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew.

·        The Vulgate (pronounced ‘vul-ga-tay’): The Latin translation of the Old and New Testament from ancient Hebrew and Greek sources.

·        The Kings James Version: The English translation of the Vulgate.

·        The Revised Standard Version: Revised English translation, based on the King James Version.

·        The New American Bible: English translation of the Bible commissioned by Pope Pius XII and completed in 1970, based on the Catholic books of the Bible (translated from the original languages or the oldest extent form of the text).

How many different Bibles are there?  Which ones are wrong?  Can’t we just go back to the original, and skip the others?

As we will see, there is no such thing as the original of the Bible in existence.  There is not even a single original of any portion of the Bible!  All that exist are copies, and frequently the copies are not in the original tongue of the original author.  (When you read a Bible in English, you are reading a book that has been translated from language to language, and there is substantial disagreement about important points in the process amongst scholars.)

In this article, I will cover the derivation of the key pieces of the Old Testament and the New Testament.  I will also discuss very briefly the creation of the Talmudic writings essential to modern Judaism.  The essential elements of the evolution of religious thought will be touched upon, as will the greater historical elements relevant to authors of the books of the Bible.  Generally, it should become clear that the Bible is not a static document; rather it is one that has changed over time – albeit slowly – and that such change continues through the present time.

This article is not intended to convert you from one viewpoint to another.  Rather, it is hoped that it will help you better understand a book that has had a great influence on our society.  During each section of this article, I will try to augment your knowledge of the evolution of the Bible with basic background historical information, as well as highlights in the evolution of religious thought during the period.  In some places, references will be made to book/chapter/verse rather than quoting from the Bible verbatim.  We will now move through time in sequential order.  The result should be a thorough overview of the subject matter.

Figure 1.1: The Books of the Bible

*First date is when text originally written, second date is when the original was edited into current form.

**Estimated date is subject to debate; could have been written many years earlier or later.  Author’s date should be useful for providing perspective on the writings.

***No date given as historical information is insufficient for any useful estimate.  Was written after 560 BCE and prior to 168 BCE. 

^Included in Protestant Bible, but not part of canon. 

Notes regarding dates:

·        BCE is the same as B.C.  CE is the same as A.D.  Use of BCE and CE has become standard in presenting dates, and will be used here.

·        The above dates are not exact, they are consensus estimates based on dating schemes employed by different scholars.  They are based on the best information currently available.  However, few scholars agree with each other regarding the precise dates.  This is one of the areas where there is great debate.  However, whether Genesis was written in 850 BCE or 800 BCE does not really affect our conclusions.  Generally, all of the dates included are in the correct temporal sequence, and this is of greater importance.

·        In addition, it should be noted that dates after the death of Jesus (33 CE) are significantly more reliable than earlier dates.  Dates older than the destruction of the first Temple (587 BCE) are significantly “fuzzier” than the more recent dates.  The accuracy of dates is correlated to the number of cross-references to events, which is in turn correlated to the total number of writings of the period.  There are many more surviving documents as we move close and closer to the present.  This accounts for the ability to date accurately (or inaccurately) many events.

·        Elsewhere throughout this article, dates given will follow this same scheme.  Dates will be presented with [+/-] where the range is more than a few years.

2.      Overview: the Words of Men

There were hundreds of individuals directly involved in bringing the Bible to us.  Many, but not all, of the books of the Bible were originally passed down orally.  At some point, these were written on scrolls.  These scrolls were copied as needed for distribution.  Sometimes they were edited and assembled into a cohesive text, a process called redaction.  They were translated from language to language.  New books were written and included, sometimes only to be excluded later.  The order of the books was changed.   Some books were lobbied for, voted on and fought over.  Then they were translated again.

And yet, out of all this, the Bible did emerge.  The acts of the many individuals who touched the Bible did make it a powerful document, probably much more powerful for the process it had to endure.

The Bible is one of the oldest documents in existence.  Its oldest written form dates from about 560 BCE, although these are in turn based on predecessor documents dating from about 850 BCE.  (BCE stands for Before the Common Era, usually the birth of Jesus, and is also the same as B.C.)  These include the first 5 books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

It is also the longest running document in existence.  The last portions of the New Testament were written in about 150 CE.  (CE stands for the Common Era, and is also the same as A.D.)  So the Bible was written over a period of about 1000 years.

Translation of the Bible

The authors of the Bible wrote in three different languages.  Most of the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, the language of Moses.  A small portion of the Old Testament was written in Aramaic, which was the language of Jesus.  The New Testament was written entirely in Greek, which was the language of the apostle Paul.

The Old Testament portion of the King James Version (KJV) Bible has been translated twice to get it from the original Hebrew to English: first, to Latin (the Vulgate version, created by Jerome in 405 CE); and then to Middle English (the form it is in today).   This process was completed in 1611.

The New Testament portion of the King James Version has also been translated twice to get it from Greek to English: first, to Latin (the Vulgate); then to Middle English.  But there is a catch: the New Testament tells the stories of Jesus and his disciples and includes direct quotes.  Yet Jesus did not speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic.  Therefore the original author of the New Testament quotes attributed to Jesus must have himself performed an additional translation.  In all, the words of Jesus are translated three times to get them into English.  That’s a lot of translation, which must be done correctly to maintain the meaning of the original quotes.

Most recent translations of the Bible attempt to go back to the original source language.  For instance, the New American Bible is the most recent translation for Catholics.  The Old Testament was translated into English from the Masoretic text, the traditional Hebrew text from about 600 CE.  The Testament is translated into English directly from the Greek.  This avoids the translation problem incumbent with multiple translations.  Fewer translations are better.

The Jewish Publication Society (JPS) version of the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible) was similarly newly translated from the Masoretic text.  Yet this translation of the Old Testament differs from the New American Bible described above in virtually every verse in some fashion.  Does it really matter?  Has the sense of the original words changed?  In most cases, no.  Is there a cumulative effect of many differences from version to version? 

Considering that each version of the Bible is translated by a group of scholars chosen by a particular religious body with a specific doctrine, it is hard to believe that no bias creeps into the resulting work.  However, it is my impression that in comparing the newer Biblical translations in English, the feel is quite similar between them.  Consider these examples:

What difference does it make?

In the above example, note that the King James edition alone refers to the “Spirit of God”, while the other two versions translate a phrase involving the “wind.”  The Jewish version does not begin with the words “In the beginning”, as do the other two versions.  “In the beginning” was a traditional phrase added, which was not actually present in the original. 

What difference does it make?

In the above example, we have a more significant issue in which the translation is clearly critical.  We are no longer debating semantics.  In English, there is a significant difference between the verbs “kill” and “murder”, as it is clearly possible to kill someone without murdering them.  It is not possible, on the other hand, to murder someone without killing them.  The moral implication of murder is different than of killing, and this is the point we are addressing.  The intervention of man is necessary to solve the dilemma.  The dilemma is, of course: which is the correct translation?

Evolution of the Bible

The King James Version consists of 80 books covering about 1500 pages of text.  These books competed with several dozen more for inclusion as accepted canon (canon means the books are accepted as scripture, i.e. divinely inspired).  Books that did not make it into the modern Bible include the Books of Jubilees (Old Testament) and the Gospel of Thomas (New Testament).  Yet at one time, these books were commonly accepted by many as true canon.  The Bible, as we know it, was affected by an ebb and flow of sentiment over hundreds of years, and this ebb and flow determined the final line-up of the books of the Bible. 

The order of the books of the Bible changed as well.  Clearly, the ordering of the books affects our understanding of the significance of what we read.  What different message would be given if Paul’s letters had been the first books of the New Testament?

Generally, the books of the Bible are included in the order they were written.  There are exceptions: Mark, Mark, and Luke (collectively called the Synoptics) are included before the letters of Paul, although the letters of Paul were written first.

How do we know this?  Generally, the past hundred years has resulted in considerable advances in Biblical study.  Biblical scholars use the following methods when performing analysis:

·        Events mentioned in the Bible are calibrated in time relative to events mentioned in non-Biblical sources.  This can only be accomplished for a small portion of the Bible.

·        Events mentioned in the Bible are calibrated in time relative to other events mentioned within the Bible.

·        The knowledge of the author and his viewpoints are frequently critical to dating the books.  For instance, an author who knows about an event, or has foreknowledge of an event, is presumed to have written after that event.  For example, this was evident in the dating of the Gospels after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, as the destruction of the Second Temple was “foretold” in these books.

·        The level of detail provided; events further in the past are described in slight detail, contemporaneous events are described in greater detail.

·        Words or phrases migrated from other languages creep into usage, providing clues as to the date of authorship.

Biblical History

The Bible contains a substantial amount of historical information, combined with religious information.  The historical information sometimes overlaps, and often this overlapping can be used to fill in gaps present in books when read individually.

To what extent is the Bible a valid historical document?  This has been debated vigorously through the years.  Certainly, the Bible is a bona fide historical document by most standards.  It would be manifestly unreasonable to exclude the Bible as a historical document simply because one does not agree with its religious views. 

Of course, the Bible also includes stories that contain narratives which, if true, would be classified as miracles or otherwise violate the laws of nature as we currently understand them.  But there are plenty of other ancient texts that likewise contain stories which defy common sense, so again it would be unreasonable to apply a different standard to the Bible.  The reader must ultimately make their own decision as to whether a particular Biblical story is intended as literal history, or is allegorical in nature.  Scholars routinely make assumptions about this as well.  In this manner, care is taken not to throw the baby out with the bath water.  We want to accept as much as history that is consistent and believable.

Much of the Bible – especially the Old Testament – was intended as documentation of historical events.  This can easily be seen by examining the subject matter of books such as Kings.  However, these historians did not operate using the historical documentation standards accepted today.  We wouldn’t expect these standards to be followed, since they didn’t exist then!

Biblical Authorship

The Bible is essentially anonymous.  With the exception of the letters of Paul, believed to have been actually written by Paul, the true authors of the remainder of the Bible are unknown.

Most of the books of the Bible are pseudopygraphical.  This mean “as if written by” (in other words attributed to someone other than the stated or implied author).  Matthew was not written by Matthew, Mark was not written by Mark, Luke was not written by Luke, etc.  It was common practice in the past for works to take on a name to differentiate it or otherwise add weight to its value by virtue of the attribution.  Today, this practice is rarely adopted – who would want to lose their copyright royalties? 

So it comes as a surprise to many that the author of John (the fourth book of the New Testament) did not know Jesus, and wrote at least 2 generations after Jesus died.  It is generally accepted that the John was written after 70 CE (Jesus died in 33 CE).  The apostle John did not write John.

Copies of the Bible

The oldest complete copy of the Catholic Bible dates back to about 450 CE.  The oldest complete copy of the Jewish Bible dates back to about 950 CE.  Between the time the books of the Bible were written and the times above, the books were copied and recopied many times. 

Naturally, the copyists sometimes made errors and sometimes made intentional changes.  There do exist some partial copies of the Bible which are older than the dates given above.  Of particular help was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, written near the time of Jesus.  Comparisons indicate that overall, the copyists did a good job.

The Old Testament suffers from an additional problem.  It was originally written in a form in which all vowels were eliminated (the ancient Hebrew alphabet included 22 consonants and no vowels).  This led to problems when a later translation to Greek (which had vowels) was undertaken, as the correct vowels were not always obvious.  In other words, imagine that the vowels are removed from the English verbs “stare”, “stir”, and “store”.  The result would be “str” for all three words, and it would be difficult at a later date to reassemble the original meaning of “str” without error.  This was just as great a problem in Hebrew as our example implies.

There was no punctuation, either.  Chapter and verse numbering?  Not a chance.  These were added much later, in the last thousand years.  There was no capitalization, either.  In fact, the original books did not even have titles for the most part.  These too were added later, and vary from version to version of the Bible.  Generally, the Christian Bibles use Greek names for the books of the Old Testament, while the Jewish Bibles often use the first word of the book as the title.

Figure 2.1: Calendar of dates:

3.      In the Beginning...

We can only speculate about religious life before recorded history, as remaining clues are few. 

In Egypt, circa 3000 BCE, there are hieroglyphics to tell us the story of the Egyptians and their religion.  The Egyptians believed in an array of Gods that ruled their land and were responsible for happenings in the natural world.  This belief was common to many civilizations of the general time period.  Later, the Greeks and the Romans would also come to believe in multiple Gods, also known as polytheism.  Such gods typically ruled one or more of the forces of nature as perceived by ancient peoples: wind, fire, water, sun, moon, fertility, animals, etc.

Soon we see a major advance with the advent of cuneiform writing on tablets.  The new style features a prototype of an alphabet.  This includes Hammurabi’s famous code of laws, which dates from about 1800 CE.  Many of these laws resemble Mosaic law.

There is really nothing so predictable about the history of the next few thousand years as the rise and fall of civilization after civilization, of king after king.  As goes the power within the region, so goes religious practice.  To the victor go the spoils, and to the God of the victor as well.  Thus, there is also an ebb and flow of worship of different deities over the lands of changing boundaries.

Typically, each city, region or civilization boasted its own god or gods, with accompanying rituals of worship.  In some of the areas, only a single god was worshipped – i.e. monotheism.  Yet even monotheistic societies were respectful of the gods of other areas.  Travelers to foreign lands would often pay tribute to the god of that land.

The area of modern Israel is the stage for most of the events of the Old Testament, and of the New Testament as well.  This area is about 50 miles wide, and about 150 miles from north to south.  It is on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea.  The land is rough, arid, somewhat mountainous and relatively fertile compared to the Arabian desert nearby.  Because of its location, a point of land separating Greece from Egypt, and Egypt from Persia, it is the site of ever-changing control and a middle point between major civilizations.  It is too small to ever become a major power in the developing ancient world, but it is occasionally a minor player.  Because of its location, it is influenced by trade with other nations throughout the Mediterranean and the near east.