What order were the books of the Bible written in?

What order were the books of the Bible written in?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mESYkLD0kIQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Jesus wrote all of them at the same time in AD 325 :^)

[screams internally]

Here's the chronological order that the majority of Bible scholars agree on

Old Testament

Job--2000 B.C.
Genesis--1445-1405 B.C.
Exodus --1445-1405 B.C.
Leviticus --1445-1405 B.C.
Numbers--1445-1405 B.C.
Deuteronomy--1445-1405 B.C.
Psalms--1410-450 B.C.
Joshua--1405-1385 B.C.
Judges--ca. 1043 B.C.
Ruth--ca. 1030-1010 B.C.
Song of Solomon--971-965 B.C.
Proverbs--ca. 971-686 B.C.
Ecclesiastes--940-931 B.C.
1 Samuel--931-722 B.C.
2 Samuel--931-722 B.C.
Obadiah--850-840 B.C.
Joel--835-796 B.C.
Jonah--ca. 775 B.C.
Amos--ca. 750 B.C.
Hosea--750-710 B.C.
Micah--735-710 B.C.
Isaiah--700-681 B.C.
Nahum--ca. 650 B.C.
Zephaniah--635-625 B.C.
Habakkuk--615-605 B.C.
Ezekiel--590-570 B.C.
Lamentations--586 B.C.
Jeremiah--586-570 B.C.
1 Kings--561-538 B.C.
2 Kings--561-538 B.C.
Daniel 536-530 B.C.
Haggai--ca. 520 B.C.
Zechariah--480-470 B.C.
Ezra--457-444 B.C.
1 Chronicles--450-430 B.C.
2 Chronicles--450-430 B.C.
Esther--450-331 B.C.
Malachi--433-424 B.C.
Nehemiah--424-400 B.C.

New Testament

James--A.D. 44-49
Galatians--A.D. 49-50
Matthew--A.D. 50-60
Mark--A.D. 50-60
1 Thessalonians--A.D. 51
2 Thessalonians--A.D. 51-52
1 Corinthians--A.D. 55
2 Corinthians--A.D. 55-56
Romans-- A.D. 56
Luke--A.D. 60-61
Ephesians--A.D. 60-62
Philippians--A.D. 60-62
Philemon--A.D. 60-62
Colossians--A.D. 60-62
Acts--A.D. 62
1 Timothy--A.D. 62-64
Titus--A.D. 62-64
1 Peter--A.D. 64-65
2 Timothy--A.D. 66-67
2 Peter--A.D. 67-68
Hebrews--A.D. 67-69
Jude--A.D. 68-70
John--A.D. 80-90
1 John--A.D. 90-95
2 John--A.D. 90-95
3 John--A.D. 90-95
Revelation--A.D. 94-96

I just discovered that guy on youtube. Is he good? Reliable? Or is it shit?

Most of his videos are good, but some are really stupid.

There's one where he tried to play the Nazis off as "not fascists, but socialists", one where he tried to claim that one must believe in God first in order to do righteous deeds (or one can't be a righteous person without correct faith), one where he tries to depict the Roman Empire as basically proto-fascists who acted through unilateral domination of their neighbors; and one where he tries the standard Catholic updating of hell to be merely a place of "self-imposed isolation from God" as essentially being the same as Jesus' "place of pain and suffering where the fires never cease, and the flesh-eating worms never die".

But although he can often be wrong in the details, he's worth watching for the general Catholic theology and ethics.

>2000BC
fucking preposterous. No fucking way there was anything like that sort of text when the fucking Sargonic Empire was around.

>everything else prior to the 8/7th century BC
Fucking absurd, fuck off.

Scratch that, I mean during the Isin-Larsa period.

Wow, what Bible College did you get your doctorate at?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Also the one video where he tried to play off childrape in the church only beginning in the 1980s.

Essentially he's usually right; but when he's wrong, he's REALLY wrong.

I have a degree in Assyriology from one of the top universities in the UK. I didn't go to some fucking jesus blowing echo chamber of horseshit.

Fun fact - abraham was from Ur.
Fun fact - the jews use Dumuzi, the name as one of the sumerian gods, as a month
Fun Fact - there is no evidence whatsoever to support your preposterous fucking dating and literally everyone who doesn't have jesus or yahweh's cock lodged firmly in their rectum thinks it's ridiculous.

>Fun fact - the jews use Dumuzi, the name as one of the sumerian gods, as a month

Not him, but which one? The names of the months in the Hebrew Calendar, transliterated, are

Nisan,
Iyar,
Sivan,
Tammuz,
Av,
Elul,
Tishrei,
Cheshvan,
Kislev,
Tevet,
Shevat,
and Adar.

Is Tammuz related to Dumuzi? That's the onyl one I can think of as being etymologically related.

hahahahhahahhjajhHhaahhahahhahaaahahaha

Yep, Tammuz. Towards the Image of Tammuz by Thorkild Jacobsen is the authoritive work on the subject.

Will use my trip I use only for this stuff if anyone wants to ask me Sumerian/mesopotamia/assyria related shit, by the way.

Also if you literally just guessed Tammuz, well fucking done, seriously. I should have explained that.

Yo, what are some most notable deeds that Ur-Nammu and his son did?

Seconding this. I have a pretty decent background in Second Temple period literature and early Christianity. Most of the dates given in that original post are off, even a lot of the New Testament stuff. Those seem like the accepted dates during the mid-twentieth century, but scholarship has come a long way since then, and most of that has been updated a great deal. That list, as was written, is not accurate at all, nor does it reflect the opinion of the majority of Bible scholars nowadays (actual scholars, at least; conservative apologists probably still use those dates).

>Ur-Nammu
Code of Ur-Nammu, which predates Hammurabi by centuries and is surprisingly more sophisticated - fines are used more than just LOL KILL HIM/MUTILATE HIM.
Founded UrIII, which is the final great flowering of sumerian culture and the dynasty which codified all their religious works, reordered pantheon, etc. Also commited legends to writing for the first time.

>Shulgi
First dude to take on the role of a god on earth, added divine determinative (digir) to name after crushing rebellion of cities, finished construction of Ziggurat of Ur after father and carried on reforms.

is the Ur-Nammu code available to read online? Or has it not survived to our times?

youtube.com/watch?v=mESYkLD0kIQ Here's a nice video of it being read.

Note also how it talks of kingship being 'turned over' by the gods. Identical to the chinese concept of the mandate of heaven, which is fascinating.

>degree in Assyriology
Would you like fries with that?

It was an educated guess; I don't study biblical scholarship, or ancient near eastern history or anything, but I do study the biblical languages, and it's really the only one that would even come close.

thanks
also, wasn't Hammurab's code just a register/record of court judgements from the time? A guideline for other judges, if you will.

Bravo nonetheless, though yeah, I suppose the classic d/t change makes it obvious.

Heh, for a while you'd be correct. Though I managed to land an ok academic postgrad teaching thing for the moment.

No, I think it more builds on the old tradition of the king the font of all justice, via the gods (or, in the case of Hammurabi, as a god) - though, certainly, I imagine there was significant leeway for judges on individual cases. I fully expect we'll find something older than Ur-Nammu;s, also - I believe there's some indication Sargon had something like it, but it's highly fragmented/contentious.

Actually, I do have a question. Why is there so little written materials from the Assyrians? Or really the near east in general. I've always had an (amateurish) impression that the reason we know so much more about the Achmaenids (sp?) is because of how much the classical Greeks wrote about them. You don't seem to get the same kind of historical writing out of the Near East. I was wondering if you had any idea as to why.


Also, do you know anything about how or why the Assyrians made the transition from chariotry to "real" cavalry? And was there any period of crossover, where they would field both chariots and directly mounted men?

This guy's voice reminds me too much of Sargon of Akkad (the faggot youtuber).

Mm, it's odd from a western/modern perspective - you automatically expect writing=literature.

Essentially, writing is something utilitarian - it starts to record transactions then moves to monumental inscriptions, etc. The culture, outside of the scribal class, is still largely oral - and even the scribes are only concerned with writing things down for the state or the gods. Old Kingdom egypt was the same - they only started branching out into general literature, etc I believe in the Middle Kingdom. With UrIII you get more legends etc due to the effort of the state to stadardise the religion/administration/culture, but the bulk is still rather more utilitarian, although later (maybe 1700bcish) you get personal letters and things.

In Athens, writing was directly linked to the state due to ostracisation, which meant that any wealthy person who pissed off the people could be exiled. This meant that the rich had to fund spectacles (plays) to keep the people happy, which led to reperfomances of popular pieces, which led to their dissemination by writing. And also, in a "democracy" (comparatively), there is never going to be as much centralisation and, indeed, with the route to power being partly based on knowledge of the law, it;s in the interest of the rich and aspiring to become literate and spread their ideas.

The assyrians were always primarily chariot users, but later incursions by cliched horse archer nomads meant they needed to counter these by cavalry, which were more maneuvorable, faster and cheaper to equip - though, ironically they used 2 riders (one to shoot, one to steer). Later they did use a form of shock cavalry, and I think the process is linked as a whole to horse-breeding, where breeds became bigger and stronger.

>Also, do you know anything about how or why the Assyrians made the transition from chariotry to "real" cavalry?

Might have something to do with the bloody nomads from Cimmeria and shit harassing them all the time.

>where he tries to depict the Roman Empire as basically proto-fascists

he's technically not wrong considering fascism originated as roman cosplay

Oh also I should point out that chariots were an elite status thing - the kings were always portrayed in them - and it took a while for the army to adjust from this view. It's very telling that the king who was formerly a general and took power (Tigath-Pileser III) was also the guy to fully reform and introduce shock cavalry - he was a pragmatist without scruples apart from military effectiveness. I suspect it;s a lot like when you have Froissart talking about 'Then Lord Faggot rode his horse and looked pretty in his armour' when the english army was actually 4/5s longbowmen. It's a status thing blowing the record a bit.

Oh dear God.

The scripture of the Hebrew Bible started popping up just before the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BCE, with much being written during and after this period.

He technically is wrong because empires (including the Romans) had to cooperate with previously disenfranchised minorities of newly occupied lands in order to establish provisional governments.

Saying all the Jews hated the Romans and wanted them out is a caricature worthy of pseuds like Rodney stark. Especially when Jews who were part of ethnic minorities in the region (like the family of Herod the Great, and much of the Jerusalem priesthood established in the herodian era) became powerful beyond their wildest dreams with the arrival of the foreigners; and were no longer being pushed around by the ethnic majorities (as again, Herod's people were).

Saying Rome was fascist because 20th century fascists tried to LARP as them, is like saying Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas were communists because 20th century communists tried to imitate their supposed stance against racism. Very absurd!

>inb4 actually Lincoln was a racist because he wanted to send the slaves back to Africa, and I have no idea what the word "supposed" means

>empires (including the Romans) had to cooperate with previously disenfranchised minorities of newly occupied lands in order to establish provisional governments

This.

Proto-fascism belongs to the Greeks, in relation to political philosophy and the political experiments of relatively isolated nation states.

first to last

cause probably he's the one reading it