XKV8R

most jews refer to their scriptures as the hebrew bible, or as the tanak. t=torah, n=nevi'im (prophets), k=ketuvim (writings). the hebrew bible is organized differently than the christian ot (even though the books are the same).

toto is correct, there is great discussion as to what the 'official' scriptures were in the second temple period (the time between the return from babylonian exile in the late 6th c. bce, and the destruction of the temple in 70 ce). while books like genesis and deuteronomy were almost universally considered holy/sacred, other books like qohelet (ecclesiastes) and the song of songs were debated. daniel was written very late, as was esther (esther in fact is the only book unattested in the dead sea scrolls). some books like jubilees and enoch seemed to be far more widely accepted than books like daniel and esther, even though then ended up not being canonized.

as for dates:
-fundamentalists will say the earliest portion of the bible were written when the bible says they were (~1400-1200 bce), but there is no evidence for this and tons against it.
-conservatives say the early portions of the hebrew bible date to the 10th c. bce (david and solomon), but while there is evidence of the beginnings of a hebrew language at this time, the evidence does not support this early of a date (i.e. 10th c. for 'j', 9th c. for 'e', etc.)
-some scholars argue for the beginnings of biblical texts under hezekiah (late 8th c. bce) and still more point to the beginnings of a 'deuteronomy' under josiah (late 7th c. bce). (under josiah, 'discovering' the book of the law = 'composing')
-most of the redaction/editing (and several scholars say composition, especially of the prietly texts) comes during and after the babylonian exile (after 586 bce.)
-minimalist scholars push the dating of the hebrew bible down into the late persian period, and some into the hellenisitic (greek) period (3rd c. bce). indeed, there are some books of the hebrew bible that are composed this late (daniel, esther, qohelet?), but imho, this seems to be much too late for some of the history books and the tanak (remember, it was edited all the way down through canonization. see the discrepancies in the mss of the dead sea scrolls for differences in the texts of the books of the hebrew bible).

as for the nt, earliest writings seem to be some of paul's early letters (say 40-50's ce). standard dating for the gospels is late 60's for mark, 70-80's for matt and luke, and around 100 for john. the pastorals come late. of course, the contents were redacted heavily early on, and continued to be altered until canonization in the 4th c. ce. some books that were a part of the early nt canon (like the didache and barnabus) were tossed out, while others like hebrews and revelation were voted in.

hope that helps.

ok, fire away ;-)

Solitary Man

The bolded part is clearly false given what we know from the cuneiform texts.

XKV8R

well... no. there is a marked difference between late biblical hebrew and standard biblical hebrew. we know what lbh looks like: it looks like chronicles. aramaisms, corrections, the complete elimination of the northern kingdom, etc. i am hoping you are referring to a 'first write' for maybe just a few of the latter books. because to argue for a post-exilic date for every book of the tanak creates more problems than it solves. for starters, one does not need three versions of the ten commandments if one is making it up in the exile. one would think that a small group of scribes in exile would be smarter than to include then refute child sacrifice, idol worship, a couple of creation stories, up down up down up up down sinai, etc. a first redaction, maybe. but not a first write.