The 'bible' as we know it today is the result of extensive editing, sometimes dubious translation and numerous ecumenical committee meetings spread across centuries. Men with a political agenda decided what was to be included and what was to be excluded, which is why different religious traditions have different canonical versions of 'the word'. Look at the serious scholarship done over the years and you'll find there are oddities which were excluded or revised because of their (in)convenience where church authority is concerened. For instance, there are remnant documents pointing to early Hebrew polytheism which show Yahweh as a son of the Canaanite god El, who was assigned as the primary god of the Israelite people. He became a creator deity later in history. And if you look at the 1611 edition of the King James Bible, you'll find the book of Mark is missing everything in chapter 16 after verse 8. The earliest versions of the oldest gospel have no resurrection narrative.
Of course, if the bible were one book in the proper sense, the New Testament would be in proper chronological order, starting with the oldest books which are the authentic letters of Paul (some which are attributed to him are forgeries) then Mark, followed by the rest. If taken in proper historical order, one can easily see a narrative which was inflated and exaggerated over time to sell better, much in the same way the legend of King Arthur evolved over time from a simple post-Roman war leader to a great King over the Britons.
Start with Richard Carrier's work if you want to know more.
