Wednesday, June 27, 2007

What makes up the Christian Bible?

Are we just talking about the books in today's New Testament? What about the The Book of Splendor or The Gospel of Judas? Someone wrote all that stuff down a long time ago, but someone since decided it was heretical. Why?

It seems that early Christianity was a very segmented and heterogeneous collection of interpretations of Christ's teachings - many of which didn't agree with each other. The oldest original surviving manuscripts are translated copies of texts originally written down and copied by hand over and over many years after Christ and His disciples left this planet. We're so used to the Bible as it stands today that it's easy to understand why books previously expurgated seem odd, fanciful, or even downright bizarre.

But what if the Book of Revelations was a new find? Wouldn't it seem completely odd when compared to other books of the New Testament? To me, it seems more comparable to some of the removed texts than much of the rest of what was deemed acceptable. It almost seems, dare I say, more like a gnostic tract than comparable to Matthew or Mark.

So what makes up the real Christian Bible? That's a question to which I don't have an answer, but I have lots of incomplete opinions. I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

St Jerome put the existing Greek and Hebrew texts together in a Latin version of the Bible called the Vulgate in 382. Heresy seems to be a term used whenever Dogma is challenged. I doubt that many people could read in Jesus' time? I could be wrong? Much of the Old Testament could have existed as an oral tradition. This is a bit related to the parables discussion.

Twisted Christian said...

You're right. Most people couldn't read. In fact, it has been strongly suggested that some of the people responsible for duplicating texts by hand (remember this is pre-Gutenburg) couldn't read either. They recognized characters, but weren't completely literate by today's standards. As a result, although most were pretty insignificant, errors during duplication were pretty common. Pretty amazing history of ancient texts, eh?

Also, since most people couldn't read, these texts were regularly read aloud to other people which allows for all kinds of personalized embellishments. Mix that with the struggle to demonize and elevate texts based on personal interpretation, it's easy to see how the early Christian experience was very different than that of today.

I've often thought of the concept of heresy and wondered exactly how bad that idea really is. Maybe "the Church" needs judicious review and ridicule to keep it in line. Lord knows it has been the source of much pain and misery over the centuries. Much of what it has done in the name of God is exactly what turns people off from faith.

Anonymous said...

William Tyndale translated the bible into English and published in 1525. His free verse gave us many of the phrases we commonly use. Christendom was still Roman Catholic, and he met a particularly unmerciful end for his "heresy".