The contents [of The Bible] were held by the church and disseminated [to the public] by the church through the clergy.
Just elaborating on how The Bible wasn't promoted when it was compiled and became The Bible, or for a good while after. You'd raised the issue of how a given book is promoted (fiction vs. non-fiction mainly), and I was explaining why that's irrelevant to my question and my point.
I would agree that it didn't become the Bible until later and, as a Bible, it was disseminated by the clergy. It certainly would be a natural progression as the churches expanded throughout the known world to bring consistency and eliminate controversy
It was intimated even before all that happened: Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightiest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Here, as we can see, he had personal understanding from those who were eyewitnesses and desire to put things "in order". As I read it, the "in order" speaks of differences that were beginning to appear that required a "perfect understanding". (Interpretation mine)
That isn't to say that what was written wasn't disseminated or promoted, IMV.
Gal. 1:
1 Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christand God the Father, who raised him from the dead--
2 and all the brothers with me, To the churches in Galatia:
1 Peter 1:
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,
2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
My personal view is that letters, such as these, were widely circulated. Time, and the need for continuity, required the joining these foundational letters into one for future generations.
I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was mostly pointing out that novels contain a number of facts, and modern novels are far more detail oriented than early writings like The Bible, so the fact count really doesn't say anything at all about the veracity of the underlying/overall material.
We'd accept it as a good model of reality, and we'd accept it tentatively, and we'd also accept the unknowns within the model.
But no, if someone came up with some facts and extrapolated beyond them, we shouldn't accept those extrapolations as if it's a package deal.
See immediately above ... it's not a package deal. The facts about Bronze Age fashion and culture and such don't validate Bronze Age notions of spirits and witches and magic and saviors and such.
Agreed. I am not suggesting that people MUST accept it as a package deal. That decision must be weighed by each individual with what information at hand. In the case of your Bronze Age example, at the least we would have to say that there were (by evidence) people who believed in spirits, witches and magic. One would never say that they didn't believe that there were spirits etc. At this point, some people have taken the stance of "There was no Jesus" regardless of what has been found.
At the same time, one could not say that there wasn't any spirits.
