True Authorship of The Old Testament?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

I never said that.

You said this:

If the biblical account starts with the creation, then how could there be any alternate accounts that pre-date it?

The Vedas and the Egyptian Mythology both predate biblical stories, even if they do portend to explain creation. There were others that predate them.

Point one, the Egyptian account of creation and the Vedic account are significantly different (if one could describe the Vedic account as 'creation'), so if one is right, the other is wrong (or both are wrong). Discussion of the time frame of these is also not really contributing much to the topic of who wrote the Old Testament.

Point two, are you are implying that these other accounts (Egyptian and Vedic) existed before the creation of the Earth? As you appear to be a reasonable person, I would guess not.

What I said and what you quoted still holds absolutely true. If the Biblical account is a true representation of creation then nothing could pre-date it.

a reply to: chr0naut

No. First you insinuated that the biblical creation stories start at the beginning of the world, so how could any creation pre-date them, you asked.

Clearly, there are creation stories that pre-date the biblical stories that weren't written until way after the advent of Abraham.

Who knows from whence this great creation sprang?
He from whom all this great creation came.
Whether his will created or was mute,
The Most High seer that is in highest heaven,
He knows it - or perchance even He knows not.

Vedic Creation
www.creationmyths.org...

Point two, are you are implying that these other accounts (Egyptian and Vedic) existed before the creation of the Earth? As you appear to be a reasonable person, I would guess not.

What I said and what you quoted still holds absolutely true. If the Biblical account is a true representation of creation then nothing could pre-date it.

Why would anyone think that the biblical creation story is any truer than any other creation story? The fact is, by the time Abraham, the supposed father of the Hebrews, entered Egypt, Egypt had an established religion and creation story that pre-dated anything Abraham did or didn't introduce.

Also, Abraham came from an area that had well established religions and creations myths of their own, many of which described the existence of gods before the creation of the Earth, that pre-dated any new religion or mythology that Abraham may have fathered.

a reply to: chr0naut

I will, however point out that the Hebrew scribal traditions were established very early on (and in fact procedures are codified in the Torah itself). The writing of the scrolls, the preparation of the vellum and the inks are all described in the Torah which gave the master scrolls a significant lifetime of about 800 years in use. This meant that a single scroll could exist for a significant historical period without the need for constant copying. An example of this documentary historicity is that from the time of Moses to the current day, less than 5 master copies are required.

Thank you chrOnaut,
I had never realized that and it is amazing that one can never stop learning. Thanks again for posts that are chucked full of scholarly information. Next to my teacher Warminlndy you are one of the best that I have read.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: chr0naut

I will, however point out that the Hebrew scribal traditions were established very early on (and in fact procedures are codified in the Torah itself). The writing of the scrolls, the preparation of the vellum and the inks are all described in the Torah which gave the master scrolls a significant lifetime of about 800 years in use. This meant that a single scroll could exist for a significant historical period without the need for constant copying. An example of this documentary historicity is that from the time of Moses to the current day, less than 5 master copies are required.

Thank you chrOnaut,
I had never realized that and it is amazing that one can never stop learning. Thanks again for posts that are chucked full of scholarly information. Next to my teacher Warminlndy you are one of the best that I have read.

Yes. Remember that in the time of King Josiah, the Torah scrolls had been hidden away 400 years. When they were refurbishing the temple, the priests found it and took it to Josiah who read it, then rent his clothes and then had the Torah read to all of Israel.

There had been many times they neglected Torah while following other religions and the Bible only mentions a few references about prophets and priests being killed. That is what Paul was talking about when he said "and some were sawn usunder", because the Talmud and Targum both mention Isaiah hidden in a tree so they sawed it down, along with Isaiah.

As Paul referred then to Talmud and Targum, then it must be that he read it and they knew about it, so it was written down as well, long before Paul. It is very highly unlikely then that the account mentioned by Paul could have been inserted later by Christians who did not have the Talmud and Targum. Paul must have read it in Yeshiva under Gamaliel.

That means Torah was available long before Gamaliel and his father Hillel. Talmud and Targum are both commentaries and opinions from rabbis based on written Torah.

And the information about the Rig Vedas, they are very ancient, during the Vedic Age. At that time there was a monotheistic religion in India, however, we must also remember that the geographical boundaries of India were far different than today, Pakistan was part of India at one time.

The problem is that people associate India with the deepest part of the subcontinent, thinking only in terms of lower India. The most southern parts of Iran were also considered India at one time. The civilizations of Mohenjo Daro and Dwarka are very old. But here is the Rig Veda account of creation...

Rig Veda Creation Hymn

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water? 2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever. 3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit. 4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent. 5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder 6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? 7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not

Compare that with Genesis...In the beginning God (Elohim)...and the spirit of God moved upon the waters...and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

The second hymn also mentions the ONE God...

3 What were the rule, the order and the model? What were the wooden fender and the butter? What were the hymn, the chant, the recitation, when to the God all Deities paid worship?

In the beginning, there was ONE God over all.

Then the Rig Vedas mention several gods, however, these should not necessarily be viewed as gods, but more like spiritual entities.

Gāyatrī became a goddess much later, when the early Hindus personified aspects into deities. She was first connected to Agni, which is Sanksrit...but cognate in Latin as ignite, to set on fire because Agni was the personification of fire. How did the Latin language pick up a Sanskrit word?

Sanskrit moved west because someone took it with them. I think the earliest civilization and where Abraham probably most likely was from was Harappa. That sits on the west coast of India, near Pakistan.

I know the Bible says Ur of the Chaldes but even then the Chaldean kingdom abutted Harappa and since Harappa was long gone before Moses and replaced by the Chaldeans, those writers would have referenced Chaldea instead.

By the time of Esther, they used to the name India

Esther 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces

I have no problem thinking that Abraham came from Harappa, because it was next to what was later Chaldea. Political boundaries changed a lot back then and some kingdoms were very large. The Saraswati and Ghaggar Rivers both go through Harappa, and what we know of Abraham was that his name in Hebrew, not Chaldean, was Av-ram. The word Av means Father, and later the V and B became interchangeable.

Avram - Father ram...Ram in Hebrew and Sanskrit Ram in both languages mean Exalted. So Avram meant Father Exalted. Brahma is the God of Creation in the Rig Vedas and he is married to Saraswati. Interesting connection.

The oral Torah moved west from Harappa. The written Torah was based on oral Torah.

a reply to: bartholomeo

We still need to find out the when, how, by whom so we can tie the loose ends.

Josiah book of the law
The biblical text states that the priest Hilkiah found a "Book of the Law" in the temple during the early stages of Josiah's temple renovation. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries it was agreed among scholars that this was an early version of the Book of Deuteronomy, but recent biblical scholarship sees it as largely legendary narrative about one of the earliest stages of creation of Deuteronomistic work.[15] According to the Bible Hilkiah gave the scroll to his secretary Shaphan who took it to king Josiah. Historical-critical biblical scholarship generally accepts that this scroll — an early predecessor of the Torah — was written by the priests driven by ideological interest to centralize power under Josiah in the Temple in Jerusalem, and that the core narrative from Joshua to 2 Kings up to Josiah's reign comprises a "Deuteronomistic History" (DtrH) written during Josiah's reign. On the other hand, recent European theologians posit that most of the Torah and Deuteronomistic History was composed and its form finalized during the Persian period, several centuries later.[17]

c. 649–609 BC

Okay thanks everyone for you contributions to this thread, it seems that the world that existed when the OT was compiled was very different from now, and unfortunately all that we can gather is that the changes that the OT has undergone to this day from the original manuscripts are irreconciliable.

Anyone with reasonable knowledge of the history of the book can make a theory and it may just be as good as the scholar's; hence the title of the thread. The fact is that we know that we don't know about that book. So first time readers: beware!

The only reason it has survived is because Rome adopted it, to incorporate it into the new born religion "Christianity". Otherwise it would have been burnt within 100 years during the papal dictatorship throughout the dark ages.

Nevertheless thanks for all the great info that was put into the discussion.

All of you religious scholars look for my next thread in which I'll challenge the three major religions in the world, titled: Christians, Jews and Muslims, Why Do You Worship An Egyptian God?

a reply to: pthena

Thx, i bookmarked it for future reference, although its only for deutoronomy.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I wasn't talking about the timelines listed in the Bible, but I was referencing that the Jewish Pentateuch comes relatively late in the timeline of ME religions and mythologies--point being that it borrows from previous ones and not the source text, as was claimed by chr0naut.

originally posted by: chr0naut
For instance, the earliest archeological evidence of the Sumerian flood myth is preserved in a clay tablet called the Eridu Genesis found at Nippur. It has been dated to approximately 1600 BC, which is makes it contemporaneous with the time of Moses (within 150 -300 years).

Both accounts are contemporaneous and have enough similarity that they are obviously describing some earlier common event/s or account/s.

Moses background and education was Egyptian and therefore he would be unlikely to be modifying a Sumerian account.

In the light of the facts, with the separation of the sources and with the Biblical account being the most rational, most complete and least fantastic of the two, I would assume that the Sumerian one was an oral myth that changed in the multiplicity of retellings and that the Biblical account had documentary support (names, genealogies, places and historically verifiable events).

I would argue that (a) you must assume that Moses was a real person, and if so, that he was who he is described as being in the Bible, and (b) you must assume that just because the Eridu Genesis is dated to the 17th C. BCE that this is absolutely the earliest version of the Sumerian myth. There is no accepted proof of either of those being true, archaeologically speaking (no proof of Moses, and just because we haven't found an earlier version of the Ziusudra flood myth doesn't mean it doesn't exist).

So, since it is also commonly accepted amongst biblical scholars that Moses did NOT write the Pentateuch, when Moses might have lived is irrelevant. While we have tangible proof that the Eridu Gensis existed in the 1600s BCE, but intangible proof that the Torah was written by Moses in the late 1300s or early 1200s BCE (dates stated by most Rabbis). What is generally accepted, though, is that the Torah is written by multiple authors and then compiled by yet another, and that his happened most likely hundreds of years after Moses existed.

While I do agree that both the Noah flood story and the Ziusudra flood stories are very good parallels and probably come from even earlier versions of oral tradition, it's impossible for me to come to the same conclusions as you--timelines and archaeology just don't support your conclusion...but there's always a chance, I guess, that the discovery that will support your conclusion could happen tomorrow.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Thanks, we can agree to disagree without becoming emotional about it.

I will add that the structure of the Genesis account implies that it was taken from earlier eyewitness accounts recorded in an Akkadian documentary format, where the Eridu Genesis is too brief to draw such conclusions (implying it may be a recording of an oral tradition).

The Sumerians wrote on clay tablets impressed with characters. These tablets were mostly sun dried but could also be fired in a furnace to "set the record" if the writing was important enough. The Sumerians used cuneiform writing but there is also evidence that there was earlier use of proto-alphabetic writing and these tablets were more usually fired in a kiln (eg: the Tărtăria tablets).

Because of the nature of clay tablets, they had a limited capacity for text. If you made a clay tablet too large, it became brittle and would fall apart or be broken easily. So the scribes invented a way to carry a narrative from one tablet to the next. They would attribute the tablet to a writer (scribe) and sometimes add a title. The next thing was to use the phrase at the end of one tablet as the first phrase on the next tablet, giving an indication of the order of reading.

It is this format that we see in the Genesis account. Firstly there is a phrase, then an attribution, then the phrase is repeated and the account continues. This happens eight times in Genesis and so is hardly a chance occurrence.

In Genesis, the places that are translated as "the generations of" are the Hebrew word "toledot". I would argue that a more accurate translation would be "the account of", i.e: an attribution. A confirmation of this is the repetition of the bracketing phrases, which occurs in every case of attribution in the account. Further proof that this is a modern mistranslation of the word "toledot" is that there is nowhere a "generations of" Abraham, who could reasonable be assumed to be the most important geaneologically.

Specific references to this toledot structure are:

Reference Catch Line
1:1 "God created the heavens and the earth"
2:4 "Lord God made the heavens and the earth"
2:4 "When they were created"
5:2 "When they were created"
6:10 "Shem, Ham and Japheth"
10:1 "Shem, Ham and Japheth"
10:32 "After the Flood"
11:10 "After the Flood"
11:26 "Abram, Nahor and Haran"
11:27 "Abram, Nahor and Haran"
25:12 "Abraham's son"
25:19 "Abraham's son"
36:1 "Who is Edom"
36:8 "Who is Edom"
36:9 "Father of the Edomites"
36:43 "Father of the Edomites"

Of course, this then makes Genesis a compilation by Moses of actual earlier written eyewitness accounts rather than an oral tradition.

But hey! You don't have to believe me. Here is a scholar. A true Harry Potter.

originally posted by: bartholomeo

But hey! You don't have to believe me. Here is a scholar. A true Harry Potter.

I am aware of Mr Biglino and have come across this video before. I would disagree with the conclusions he draws, though.

Rather than Harry Potter, I would describe him more as the Zecharia Sitchin of the the Bible.

I recently discovered Yale uploads entire courses on YouTube! Many topics and interesting lectures. I just started watching one about the Old Testament and thought I'd share it here for those who may be interested.

Introduction to the Old Testament With Christine Hayes

This course examines the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as an expression of the religious life and thought of ancient Israel, and a foundational document of Western civilization. A wide range of methodologies, including source criticism and the historical-critical school, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, and literary and canonical approaches are applied to the study and interpretation of the Bible. Special emphasis is placed on the Bible against the backdrop of its historical and cultural setting in the Ancient Near East.

There is one on the New Testament as well:

New Testament History and Literature with Dale B. Martin

This course provides a historical study of the origins of Christianity by analyzing the literature of the earliest Christian movements in historical context, concentrating on the New Testament. Although theological themes will occupy much of our attention, the course does not attempt a theological appropriation of the New Testament as scripture. Rather, the importance of the New Testament and other early Christian documents as ancient literature and as sources for historical study will be emphasized. A central organizing theme of the course will focus on the differences within early Christianity (-ies).

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bartholomeo

But hey! You don't have to believe me. Here is a scholar. A true Harry Potter.

I am aware of Mr Biglino and have come across this video before. I would disagree with the conclusions he draws, though.

Rather than Harry Potter, I would describe him more as the Zecharia Sitchin of the the Bible.

The book of wisdom is not going to have anything from Jesus in it because the Piso's started writing it until the end of the 1st century A.C.

And yes it would be more appropriate to call him a Sitchin of the bible.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I recently discovered Yale uploads entire courses on YouTube! Many topics and interesting lectures. I just started watching one about the Old Testament and thought I'd share it here for those who may be interested.

Introduction to the Old Testament With Christine Hayes

This course examines the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as an expression of the religious life and thought of ancient Israel, and a foundational document of Western civilization. A wide range of methodologies, including source criticism and the historical-critical school, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, and literary and canonical approaches are applied to the study and interpretation of the Bible. Special emphasis is placed on the Bible against the backdrop of its historical and cultural setting in the Ancient Near East.

There is one on the New Testament as well:

New Testament History and Literature with Dale B. Martin

This course provides a historical study of the origins of Christianity by analyzing the literature of the earliest Christian movements in historical context, concentrating on the New Testament. Although theological themes will occupy much of our attention, the course does not attempt a theological appropriation of the New Testament as scripture. Rather, the importance of the New Testament and other early Christian documents as ancient literature and as sources for historical study will be emphasized. A central organizing theme of the course will focus on the differences within early Christianity (-ies).

Good find! This should keep me busy for the next couple of weeks.

originally posted by: bartholomeo

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bartholomeo

But hey! You don't have to believe me. Here is a scholar. A true Harry Potter.

I am aware of Mr Biglino and have come across this video before. I would disagree with the conclusions he draws, though.

Rather than Harry Potter, I would describe him more as the Zecharia Sitchin of the the Bible.

The book of wisdom is not going to have anything from Jesus in it because the Piso's started writing it until the end of the 1st century A.C.

And yes it would be more appropriate to call him a Sitchin of the bible.

Got to admit, that I have not found anything evidential that connects the Piso family to the New Testament writings.

If it was written by the Piso's, they screwed up majorly because Christianity suffered fairly major persecution for 200 years from the time they supposedly wrote until it became the state religion of the Roman Empire. Saying "this is an acceptable (to the Roman authorities) alternate belief" and then throwing people to the Lions because they believe it, sends very mixed messages to me.

If they wrote the new testament at that late date, why didn't they mention the fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, the rout and diaspora of the Jewish people? As a metaphor, I'm sure if aliens vaporized Washington and took over that people would mention it in all their stories and histories for hundreds of years afterwards.

Not to mention that the earliest document fragments we have are not written in Latin, nor do they appear to be translations from Latin.

Also, the fact that Arrius Calpurnias Piso, the purported originator of the first of the "Piso" writings, was not a historical figure informs that the subsequent conclusions and statements of the "Piso" theory are fiction.

originally posted by: bartholomeo

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bartholomeo

But hey! You don't have to believe me. Here is a scholar. A true Harry Potter.

I am aware of Mr Biglino and have come across this video before. I would disagree with the conclusions he draws, though.

Rather than Harry Potter, I would describe him more as the Zecharia Sitchin of the the Bible.

The book of wisdom is not going to have anything from Jesus in it because the Piso's started writing it until the end of the 1st century A.C.

And yes it would be more appropriate to call him a Sitchin of the bible.

Here's a more thorough analysis of the Piso authorship theory.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bartholomeo

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bartholomeo

But hey! You don't have to believe me. Here is a scholar. A true Harry Potter.

I am aware of Mr Biglino and have come across this video before. I would disagree with the conclusions he draws, though.

Rather than Harry Potter, I would describe him more as the Zecharia Sitchin of the the Bible.

The book of wisdom is not going to have anything from Jesus in it because the Piso's started writing it until the end of the 1st century A.C.

And yes it would be more appropriate to call him a Sitchin of the bible.

Got to admit, that I have not found anything evidential that connects the Piso family to the New Testament writings.

It is not official, it's just a theory until the vatican officially admits it, which will never happen.

If it was written by the Piso's, they screwed up majorly because Christianity suffered fairly major persecution for 200 years from the time they supposedly wrote until it became the state religion of the Roman Empire. Saying "this is an acceptable (to the Roman authorities) alternate belief" and then throwing people to the Lions because they believe it, sends very mixed messages to me.

It didn't become an official religion until Constantine came in the picture. The piso's only wrote it to get back at the many revolts in which the jews called each leader their messiah. Remember this was a time when people didn't read and write, the ones that did, were either scribes, or aristocracy.

If they wrote the new testament at that late date, why didn't they mention the fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, the rout and diaspora of the Jewish people? As a metaphor, I'm sure if aliens vaporized Washington and took over that people would mention it in all their stories and histories for hundreds of years afterwards.

They probably did, however the book underwent some major fixing when Constantine came along, and whatever they decided wasn't appropriate for the new religion they left it out. Main thing here is that you will never find any book that undermines the history of the church be either from the Piso's or from the genealogy of Jesus. The vatican archives were always closed to the public, however after Dan Brown's book the vatican decided to open them to the public eye, do you think they left important documents that would undermine the church's history? I don't think so.



Not to mention that the earliest document fragments we have are not written in Latin, nor do they appear to be translations from Latin.

Roman aristocrats spoke greek at that time. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

Also, the fact that Arrius Calpurnias Piso, the purported originator of the first of the "Piso" writings, was not a historical figure informs that the subsequent conclusions and statements of the "Piso" theory are fiction.

The Piso's were aristocrats living at the time. Do you think that the Vatican is just going to leave that out in the open for all to see? Ofcourse not. Besides the most conspiracy theorists on the matter believe the Piso's went to great length's to get their name out of the books of history; I don't share that view though, my take is that the vatican went to great length's to erase their name from history. But if you follow the trail you will find out the answer.

Flavious Josephus was an alias of many used by this guy Arrius.

Historical evidence showing that the Piso family existed is here: www.anythinganywhere.com...

There is a coin in there that belonged to Arrius Piso's father L. Calpurnius Piso. They existed, they were rich, they were aristocrats, and they knew how to read and write, something that most people back then could not do.

originally posted by: bartholomeo

The coins you linked to were of the family "Frugi" (FRVGI). Piso was not the surname but a first name.

The Calpurnis Piso Frugi coin was minted in 90 BC (probably at the primacy of his wealth & political power, so he would already be an adult, lets say 30 years old, even though that may be a bit young), the fictional Arrius was supposed to have written his works about 100 AD. That would mean that either the grandfather or Arrius (or both) lived exceptionally long lives for their day (90 + 30 + 100 = 220 years).

Not historical. Fictional.

Jewish Eastern Mediterranean society at the time was such that they knew how to read and write and speak in Greek (imposed by Alexander the Great), Aramaic (the common local tongue) and Hebrew (the religious historical tongue). If you were a Roman citizen living in the Eastern Mediterranean, you also probably knew Latin but may not have known Aramaic. At 12 years old, Hebrew boys completed school and began their trade. At the completion of their schooling, they were expected to be able to recite from memory one of the books of the Tanach (usually the book of Isaiah, "Sefer Yeshayahu" in Hebrew - which has 66 chapters). They were a very literate society, especially compared to the modern society that thinks that you can type a search term into Google and it will "prove" the existence of their pet theory.

In regard to the speaking of Greek, please read this Wikipedia link on Languages of the Roman Empire. If Arrius Piso was actually of an aristocratic Roman family, and a Roman citizen, he would have read and written Classical Latin.

Also, the Vatican does not and did not hold sway over all of Christendom. There are Coptic, Alexandrian, Iranian and Ethiopic traditions (among others) which do not share their artifacts or founding documents with the Roman Catholic church. They also have no records supporting the idea of anything but the traditional attribution of sources. It is simply not possible for the Vatican to suppress documentary evidence because it was widespread well before the existence of the Roman Catholic Church and there are other custodians of the documents and relics.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bartholomeo

The coins you linked to were of the family "Frugi" (FRVGI). Piso was not the surname but a first name.

The Calpurnis Piso Frugi coin was minted in 90 BC (probably at the primacy of his wealth & political power, so he would already be an adult, lets say 30 years old, even though that may be a bit young), the fictional Arrius was supposed to have written his works about 100 AD. That would mean that either the grandfather or Arrius (or both) lived exceptionally long lives for their day (90 + 30 + 100 = 220 years).

Not historical. Fictional.

Jewish Eastern Mediterranean society at the time was such that they knew how to read and write and speak in Greek (imposed by Alexander the Great), Aramaic (the common local tongue) and Hebrew (the religious historical tongue). If you were a Roman citizen living in the Eastern Mediterranean, you also probably knew Latin but may not have known Aramaic. At 12 years old, Hebrew boys completed school and began their trade. At the completion of their schooling, they were expected to be able to recite from memory one of the books of the Tanach (usually the book of Isaiah, "Sefer Yeshayahu" in Hebrew - which has 66 chapters). They were a very literate society, especially compared to the modern society that thinks that you can type a search term into Google and it will "prove" the existence of their pet theory.

In regard to the speaking of Greek, please read this Wikipedia link on Languages of the Roman Empire. If Arrius Piso was actually of an aristocratic Roman family, and a Roman citizen, he would have read and written Classical Latin.

Also, the Vatican does not and did not hold sway over all of Christendom. There are Coptic, Alexandrian, Iranian and Ethiopic traditions (among others) which do not share their artifacts or founding documents with the Roman Catholic church. They also have no records supporting the idea of anything but the traditional attribution of sources. It is simply not possible for the Vatican to suppress documentary evidence because it was widespread well before the existence of the Roman Catholic Church and there are other custodians of the documents and relics.

Hey man! I'm not trying to convince you to believe the NT was written by Piso's. I was merely showing you. But hey! If believing in an eternal life after death in some sort of paradise with a fictional character called (god the father) sounds good to you, be my guest. Besides this was all created to give men purpose since the egyptians, which wasn't something they had at the time, to most men back then, it was only this life and it's over. Go ahead believing fantasies, I got no beef with that, besides the NT is so much faker than the OT is not even worth it.

But hey! Don't take my advice: Take this guys'

"For, we do not follow cunningly devised fables."
2nd Peter 1:16

I sure don't.