The Bible its contents and authorship

[cacian]

Is the Bible the only book that does not claim authorship?

I have just been thinking whether the ownership of the its content is somehow indicated in order to avoid plagiarism.

Thanks for participating!

[Aurbierre]

I think it merely depends on how you look at it. Religious texts such as the Bible and Koran are classified as either anonymous or various authors as their authorship follow no particular standards. Such as with the Bible where there are various translations which either omit various books, such as apocryphal texts by various authors and so forth.

I think the reason these 'sacred texts' don't carry any particular authorship is from the stand-point that these books are not to be considered the works of some prophet or writer but inspired by a higher being/deity

[cacian]

I think it merely depends on how you look at it. Religious texts such as the Bible and Koran are classified as either anonymous or various authors as their authorship follow no particular standards.

It is rather baffling to imagine that those spend hours on end shapping up religions into a form of a book to be read and taken seriously by thousands and thousands of believers do not in the end accredit themselves with acknowledgment. One way or another someone would question the validities sourced in a such scrileged book. A book without a title or accrediations is never published because of laws requirement and yet these 'sacred books' do not follow suit.
Is there a publication date for the firt Bible to ever formalise? It would be interesting to know because then one is able to research it back to where it was first written and eventually of who came out with the idea.
I am surprised about the abscence of authorship because of the intellectual property status.

Such as with the Bible where there are various translations which either omit various books, such as apocryphal texts by various authors and so forth.

I guess its authorship is lost in translation then. How is one suppose to read and get to grip and confirm that various transcripts one is about to believe are the true words of God and not some kind of farce translated buy non intellectuals if it does not have a primary source of origin to rely on?

I think the reason these 'sacred texts' don't carry any particular authorship is from the stand-point that these books are not to be considered the works of some prophet or writer but inspired by a higher being/deity

[/QUOTE]
I see what you are saying but surely the the whole point of the Bible is that accredit the work that is first handed down from 'God' to its authors to write and nothing to do with being a prophet.

[togre]

I know I'm going to be repeating much of with Aurbierre already said, but here it goes...

It is rather baffling to imagine that those spend hours on end shapping up religions into a form of a book to be read and taken seriously by thousands and thousands of believers do not in the end accredit themselves with acknowledgment. One way or another someone would question the validities sourced in a such scrileged book. A book without a title or accrediations is never published because of laws requirement and yet these 'sacred books' do not follow suit.
Is there a publication date for the firt Bible to ever formalise? It would be interesting to know because then one is able to research it back to where it was first written and eventually of who came out with the idea.
I am surprised about the abscence of authorship because of the intellectual property status.

First, (and I do not mean to be disrespectful) you are projecting tons of modern concepts and expectations backward in time as well as ...sideways--ideas that flow from a non-supernatural worldview being projected onto a book that embraces the supernatural.

The need for a publication date and accreditation were unheard of in the ancient world. The Bible is a collection of 66 individual books by many human authors. The Bible is unified by the true author, the Lord. Until recent times these books weren't bound in one volume, but that's because bound books didn't exist. The writings were always and (nearly) universally identified as being part of a whole.

In human terms the composition stretched across 1000 years and two languages. Some human authors make their identity very clear. Some don't make a big deal of it, but leave sufficient evidence for certainty. Some leave less or no evidence and at least one intentionally obscures his identity. You ask, "Why?" I think you ask, "Wouldn't the identity of the author be necessary to establish the authority of the message?" That does make sense. But that's not how the Bible operates. The human authors are (relatively speaking) inconsequential. "For prophecy never had its origins in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).

The Scriptures are self-authenticating. They don't need to be proved to be God's Word. They alone have the power and authority to prove that. And yes, that is circular. But at the same time we can't think in only terms of intellect or emotion. The purpose of the Bible isn't to convince through logic (although logic is used) or to sway the emotions (although the emotions are engaged). The message of the Bible affects the spirit/soul through the direct working of the Holy Spirit through the words.

[stlukesguild]

It is rather baffling to imagine that those spend hours on end shapping up religions into a form of a book to be read and taken seriously by thousands and thousands of believers do not in the end accredit themselves with acknowledgment.

As togre has already suggested, you are imposing a great many modern ideas in a rather flawed manner upon a work that far pre-dates such concepts. First and foremost, the Bible was a collection of books... and these do not even, necessarily, follow the current divisions. Some authors' voices can be heard across multiple books, and then there is the issue of interpolation... insertion of edited or alternative material within the larger work of a given writer.

The Bible is a collection of books by various authors (and then you have the issue of the Apocryphal texts... or those rejected as non-canonical by the various Church fathers, especially at the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. As such, it is unlikely that the intention of many of the writers was in anyway to be taken as a religious guide or the word of God. Some books are merely narratives conveying the history (real of fictive) of the Hebrew people. Others are poetic meditations upon the fall of ancient Israel. The Song of Solomon is simply a marvelous love poem clearly inspired by Greek/Hellenic examples.

One way or another someone would question the validities sourced in a such scrileged book. A book without a title or accrediations is never published because of laws requirement and yet these 'sacred books' do not follow suit.

There are plenty of books that have been published with out a clear title or proof of authorship. There are many books published under false authorship or pseudonyms. Again, your concept of legal issues is largely irrelevant to anything pre-dating the last century and falling within the realm of the public domain.

Is there a publication date for the firt Bible to ever formalise?

There are plenty of books that explore the development, translation, and publication of the Bible. Christopher de Hamel's The Book: A History of the Bible is quite clearly written and well illustrated:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-History-B...+Bible+Phaidon

It would be interesting to know because then one is able to research it back to where it was first written and eventually of who came out with the idea.

It's been done. Check out the above book... or any number of others.

I am surprised about the abscence of authorship because of the intellectual property status.

Again, the whole concept of intellectual property rights is a rather recent development and in no way applies to the Bible. Heck... not even Shakespeare or Dickens fall under such laws anymore as they are both within the public domain.

[cacian]

I see what you are saying and I am not disagreeing but there are still some unanswered points I must clear in my mind anyway.

Speaking of Shakespeare or Dickens these books speak for themselves because of their authors is their public domain
The Bible concept shows many sign of modern printing it has everything from title, pages ,drawings,dates, names of prophets stories and so on but no direct name to who might be the bearer of it all.
The reason I brought this up is because one would imagine that if one is bestowed upon them the presence of God and thus for to go on and pass on the message of God in a form of a book then one would naturally assume that this person would make themselves known.
It is in human nature to want to be shown as the chosen ones ie the ones who are to compose the book of God.
What about the concepts of Saints because these very people are fact know with names places and titles and they are supposed to have had visions of God too.
The question I am simply asking is this
If we know of saints dating back of thousands of years then what about the Bible messengers they are after all just the bearer of news.?

[cafolini]

The Bible, in whatever version, is declared a-priori The Word of God. It is impossible to attribute authorship to any of the writers, including Jesus, who is the human vehicle- God on earth but never the Father in Heaven until He joins. It's that simple.

[togre]

cafolini, you give no references, evidence or arugments. Should I write off the most studied, read and dissected book ever based solely on your authority?

[JCamilo]

I see what you are saying and I am not disagreeing but there are still some unanswered points I must clear in my mind anyway.

Speaking of Shakespeare or Dickens these books speak for themselves because of their authors is their public domain.

Public domain didnt exist as concept during Shakespeare life. It is modern and if there is something to say, Dickens and Shakespeare publishing history are completely different.

The Bible concept shows many sign of modern printing it has everything from title, pages ,drawings,dates, names of prophets stories and so on but no direct name to who might be the bearer of it all.

The bible with titles as you know is a modern printing. Real old blbile are parched pappers, scattered stuff ,etc. Now: which ancient text does not have tittles? Pages? Drawings (Which drawings the bible actually have)?

In other hand, there is a huge ammount of annoymous works.

The reason I brought this up is because one would imagine that if one is bestowed upon them the presence of God and thus for to go on and pass on the message of God in a form of a book then one would naturally assume that this person would make themselves known.

Why? They are but vessels of God. You are just not considering how the Bible has traits of traditional ancient writings, where authorship was not as relevant.

It is in human nature to want to be shown as the chosen ones ie the ones who are to compose the book of God.

No, It is not. The majority of religious book do not adhere to such notion.

What about the concepts of Saints because these very people are fact know with names places and titles and they are supposed to have had visions of God too.

The authorship of gospels is controversial in the sense they are traditional atributions and not because they have an original signed with "From Luke, with love."

The question I am simply asking is this
If we know of saints dating back of thousands of years then what about the Bible messengers they are after all just the bearer of news.?

The "saints" are actually identified as authors (John, Luke, Mark, Mathew). Autorship is only relevant from last centuries onwards, so, why would people do like Dan Brown?

[stlukesguild]

Speaking of Shakespeare or Dickens these books speak for themselves because of their authors is their public domain...
The Bible concept shows many sign of modern printing it has everything from title, pages ,drawings,dates, names of prophets stories and so on but no direct name to who might be the bearer of it all.

Again, you are looking at a book that predates such thoughts of "authorship". The Iliad and the Odyssey are ascribed to the poet named Homer... but we have no good proof who this Homer was, when he lived, or whether he even truly existed. There are strong arguments suggesting that the two volumes are actually by individual poets. There is also the fact that the entire work was passed on for generations orally and so we cannot discern how much was written by Homer and how much was added to or embellished by later individuals.

This is true of a majority of literature that predates the Greeks... and it is again true of a good portion of literature of the medieval period. It is no different than the fact that we have few definite names to whom we might credit with the creation of the great sculpture, and stained glass, and architecture of the Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals.

The reason I brought this up is because one would imagine that if one is bestowed upon them the presence of God and thus for to go on and pass on the message of God in a form of a book then one would naturally assume that this person would make themselves known.

And this is true of the Qur'an. The book is clearly proclaimed as having been dictated to Muhammad by Allah. There are several books in the Bible that make similar claims. One might think of the Book of Revelations "dictated" by God to St. John of Patmos. But again, you are assuming that the intention of the individual authors who composed the various books the Bible was to create this text known as The Bible and to establish it as a divine revelation. What you have, instead, is a collection of highly diverse texts collected over a period of centuries that were eventually brought together and edited by Hebrew and later Christian scholars as representative of Hebrew (and later Christian) culture.

Imagine a future world in which all that remains of the last several millennia of Western civilization are parts of War and Peace, one of Shakespeare's plays, some of Blake's and Baudelaire's poetry, a few tales from Borges, Poe and Kafka, some of Keats poetry, the US Declaration of Independence and parts of the Constitution, a bit of the Magna Carta, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech, and several dozen pages of legal and religious codes. Scribes and scholars at this later time make an attempt to collate this highly disparate material into a form that has some degree of logical continuity. Undoubtedly they will need to fill in missing parts and they will end up interpolating the texts of one writer within the texts of another. Much of this editing will be done with an eye toward promoting their nascent religion... as was done by both Hebrew and Christian scholars far removed from the original authors.

It is in human nature to want to be shown as the chosen ones ie the ones who are to compose the book of God.

Again... you are making an assumption based upon modern thinking. The artists who illuminated the magnificent illustrated Bibles and other religious texts of the middle ages, the sculptors and architects and masons, and glass artists of the great Gothic and Romanesque cathedrals created what amounted to the dwelling place of God on earth. But they rarely ever claimed authorship for the simple reason that they never would have even thought of themselves as the "authors" or "artists" in the modern sense with which we are familiar. God was the only true author/artist. To even dare think of oneself as a "creator" was almost blasphemous. Only God can "create". The "artist" was but the conduit... the tool through which God spoke.

What about the concepts of Saints because these very people are fact know with names places and titles and they are supposed to have had visions of God too.

Again... the attribution of a good many of the books of the Bible to this or that prophet or saint is often debatable. The Gospels, for example, traditionally attributed to individuals who knew Jesus first hand were almost certainly written a great many years after the fact as is illustrated by references to events (such as the Roman destruction of the Temple in Israel) which occurred well after the life of Christ. There are entire volumes devoted to the exploration of the authorship of the various books of the Bible.

[ZTay]

I have the vulgate bible on my kindle and it lists the author as "God" and I list that as "awesome".

[cafolini]

cafolini, you give no references, evidence or arugments. Should I write off the most studied, read and dissected book ever based solely on your authority?

Yes, obviously. I give you permission.

[cacian]

Yes, obviously. I give you permission.

LOL would you really?

[togre]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
Again... the attribution of a good many of the books of the Bible to this or that prophet or saint is often debatable. The Gospels, for example, traditionally attributed to individuals who knew Jesus first hand were almost certainly written a great many years after the fact as is illustrated by references to events (such as the Roman destruction of the Temple in Israel) which occurred well after the life of Christ. There are entire volumes devoted to the exploration of the authorship of the various books of the Bible.

I would dispute this point most vigorously. The earliest manuscript evidence for the New Testament test is slightly over a hundred years after its writing. Far better than we have for the vast majority of classical literature.

Secondly, are you referring to prophecies of the destruction of the Temple? The Gospels contain Jesus' words saying the Temple will be destroyed--not that it has been destroyed. A person can deny the possibility of predictive prophecy, and use that as evidence of a post-destruction composition, but the denial of predictive prophecy is contrary to a major theme of all Scripture. Also, I have found denials of predictive prophecy leads to a certain amount of circular reasoning (Verses xyz predict this would happen. No they don't. They were written after the events. How do you know that? Because they mention this event, which hadn't happened when it claims to have been written. Couldn't this be a prophecy of the events? Can't be, it was written after them.)

[Aurbierre]

I see what you are saying but surely the the whole point of the Bible is that accredit the work that is first handed down from 'God' to its authors to write and nothing to do with being a prophet.

Actually the supposed authors of the books of the bible are known and credited with each of the 66 books of the bible.. All you have to do is read it and you'll see for this for yourself

The first 6 books were credited to Moses, the book of Joshua is self explanatory and is supposedly partly written by him. Samuel wrote the the latter half, together with Judges, Ruth and Samuel 1. Isaiah was credited for Kings I, II Chronicles, Ezra credited for Ezra and Esther.. And the list goes on. Some being letters by one author (Paul in the New Testament), while others are written by the persons whom the book titles originate, such as the four gospels, etc.

You have to also understand that religious texts when read by followers of a faith don't particularly care who wrote the books, if it isproclaimed to be "ordained" by god then it is believed that he is the true author rather than he one who wrote those books. To understand some aspects of the bible you need to see it in the eyes of someone who believes in it.