How did the writings of the NT come to be?

[Minimalist]

As John V points out the Jews were traveling back to Jerusalem from far off places

Probably an idealistic vision. The largest Jewish communities in the region were Alexandria and Babylon but most people would not have had the resources to make the trip and in fact there is no indication that they did so.

Far too much of what Archaeologist William Dever calls "state religion" is based on ideal behavior which never was attained in reality. Any priest can write a lot of shit in a book. Does not mean that people acted on it.

[pocaracas]

Anyway, who's to say that the original witnesses would prevent the spread of some extra features on their favorite boy? I mean, how many could have been the original witnesses? 100? 200? How many of these would have been traveling to keep an eye on what other people were saying about the real events?

I suppose that's why the gospels were written.

yes, but who made sure they were themselves accurate?
No peer review in that process, as far as I see it.

As it says on the OP, texts had to be sent to particular places so they could read them in their assemblies. Who made sure these texts were accurate? No one, or, at most, one person at each location for a small time... and how could he tell people things didn't happen exactly like they were written?

If the texts were being embellished in various locations, we would expect to see divergences in manuscripts across time and across locations. We don't. The changes we see are normal changes resulting from translation and evolution of language and have no effect on any significant doctrine.

According to what I read, the texts seem to have been embellished at one point (Paul?) and sent out to the world, hence the (somewhat) consistency among them.... all inspired (I can't say this with a straight face, sorry!) by some ghost to the same man.

[Brian37]

Do you know why Paul (being the Apstole who) wrote to those far away churches? Because He actually seeded or started the church their. He spent the rest of His life (+/- 30 years) starting new churches. The letters he wrote were in respnse to issues that croped up while he was away at another city.

Who cares. Still convienantly way after the fact, not to mention babies are not born from one set of DNA but TWO. Not to mention the fact once you are dead you are dead. So even if the writing were written during the time of the alleged Jesus character IT STILL does not make magic babies real, much less any disimbodied magical super god by any name.

It is still a book of myth regardless if it is peppered with real places or real people.

And it is completely looney to make the claim that a god is all powerful, but choses to take 1,000 years from the early hebrew writings to the first cannanized bible to take 40 authors with books left out and depend on people VOTING on what goes in and out.

Really? By your stupid standard I could write a book about me, and since I am real, I could include claims about meeting Donnald Trump and claim he made me a billionaire and you should blindly blieve it. Somehow I don't think if I did that you would.

Was there a movement that started Christianity? DUH, but it was not started by a god or anyone with magical super powers. It became successful because of marketing, nothing more. Same reason Islam is popular, not because Allah is real, but because people sell it and people buy it.

The same stupidity that would lead an Eskimo to buy ice when they don't need to.

When you go to the movies you can see Superman flying arround real cities like New York, since New York is real, then Super Man is real, going by your logic.

Muslims claim that Mohammed is real so why are you not a Muslim? They have tradition too, they quote their book too, and they have more numbers than Christians. So go join up right now if you are going to be consistant.

[Minimalist]

Muslims claim that Mohammed is real so why are you not a Muslim?

Hey, muslims claim that mohammed flew up to heaven, too. And he went jesus one better by taking his fucking horse with him.

[John V]

yes, but who made sure they were themselves accurate?
No peer review in that process, as far as I see it.

If you hold to Marcan priority:
Mark, a follower of Peter, writes the first and shortest account. Matthew, a witness, uses much of Mark verbatim and adds to it. Luke then carefully investigates the issues and writes his own account, borrowing much from Mark and/or Matthew. So, we have review by a witness and by a historian. What were you looking for in the way of peer review? This seems pretty good to me.

According to what I read, the texts seem to have been embellished at one point (Paul?) and sent out to the world, hence the (somewhat) consistency among them.... all inspired (I can't say this with a straight face, sorry!) by some ghost to the same man.

So show us what you read so we can consider that argument.

[Minimalist]

Start here.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-...0061173932

I even have an electronic version I could send you if you have the balls to read it.

[pocaracas]

yes, but who made sure they were themselves accurate?
No peer review in that process, as far as I see it.

If you hold to Marcan priority:
Mark, a follower of Peter, writes the first and shortest account. Matthew, a witness, uses much of Mark verbatim and adds to it. Luke then carefully investigates the issues and writes his own account, borrowing much from Mark and/or Matthew. So, we have review by a witness and by a historian. What were you looking for in the way of peer review? This seems pretty good to me.

Strange...
A follower of a witness writes the first thing.
Then another witness writes another, heavily based on the first account... why didn't he write something new? Why did he base it on the other guy?
Then, years later, comes a scholar putting down hearsay and building further on top of what was already written.

This is not peer review: this is copy and add some bits.

He who tells a tale... adds a tail

So show us what you read so we can consider that argument.

It's right up there on the OP. Link and quote for the lazy!

[John V]

Strange...
A follower of a witness writes the first thing.
Then another witness writes another, heavily based on the first account... why didn't he write something new? Why did he base it on the other guy?
Then, years later, comes a scholar putting down hearsay and building further on top of what was already written.

What's strange about it?

This is not peer review: this is copy and add some bits.

Again, what are your expectations for peer review for historoical accounts for this time period?

It's right up there on the OP. Link and quote for the lazy!

Where does that link indicate that "the texts seem to have been embellished at one point (Paul?) and sent out to the world, hence the (somewhat) consistency among them...."?

[pocaracas]

Strange...
A follower of a witness writes the first thing.
Then another witness writes another, heavily based on the first account... why didn't he write something new? Why did he base it on the other guy?
Then, years later, comes a scholar putting down hearsay and building further on top of what was already written.

What's strange about it?

You have one (alleged) second-hand account and the (alleged) first-hand one uses the other as its basis?
Then the third account incorporates some "research", which envolves much hearsay and (considering the extra-ordinary nature of the account, likely) made up stuff.

This is not peer review: this is copy and add some bits.

Again, what are your expectations for peer review for historoical accounts for this time period?

Oh, just something different from what already existed. Extraordinary tales were everywhere "on this time period"... on this "place period".
Middle East/Greece... Mesopotamia... India...
Look at it, there were some ~500~1000 years of amazing claims from every corner of that general area [way precise mapping required]. Why would these people have a problem with some new super-natural claim?

It's right up there on the OP. Link and quote for the lazy!

Where does that link indicate that "the texts seem to have been embellished at one point (Paul?) and sent out to the world, hence the (somewhat) consistency among them...."?

Oh, sorry, that was from what someone wrote on this thread... Drich, page 1.

[Minimalist]

On its way Poca.

290+ pages. Make sure you get the whole thing.