Leaner Meaner Bible without the Poetry

[Adrian II]

What makes this little controversy among Christians exquisitely funny is that they refuse to acknowledge that their Bible has been compiled, reshuffled, censored and recomposed countless times, and always on dogmatic, non-historical grounds.

The first Christian version of the Scripture, composed in 140 a.D. in Rome by Marcion, consisted of no more then an abbreviated version of Luke plus ten Pauline letters.

You know what they say, in jest of course, about the way the Bible books were selected: all the available Gospels were dumped onto a table and only the ones that did not fall off made it into the final version. The story is rooted in historic fact though, because the 'Bahble' that is being thumped by Christians today was first composed by Eusebius in 330 a.D. on an assignment from the Emperor. It was the imperial version, Eusebius' particular selection from the hundreds of available books at the time. Jerome made a new compilation incorporating some of bishop Augustine's personal choices. Revision upon reviosion followed through the ages.

So why shouldn't Canterbury recompose it once more into a hiphop version? They could have been more creative though and added some Gospels of their own preference...

Countless myths, legends, bizarre tales and fantastic stories from the pagan religions of the time were incorporated in the hundreds of available Gospels, such as the virgin birth (myth of Tammuz), the miracles, the betrayal and the crucifixion. They were projected onto a man called 'Jezus' whose historicity must be discarded. The best reference we have to a historical figure, albeit it remote, was a second century b.C. Essene named Yeishu ha Notzri who is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are some first century Christian references to Yeishu ha Notzri's miracles, but these have been scrapped from Christian 'memory' for obvious reasons.

Ah, politics...

N.B. Seriously: in my eyes, none of these facts about the 'genesis' of the Bible detract from the fact that it is a brilliant testament to human genius, creativity and wisdom.

EDIT
As I have said before in this forum, I do not want to give the impression that I believe the Bible is 'just' a myth, i.e. a nonsensical text. In my view the Bible is, in both senses of the word, a fantastic compilation of myths and legends that contain more than a few seeds of wisdom that modern Atheists should take to heart.

[Ronin]

come on guys....you know this is only one stepping stone in the plan.....first a reduced version.....then the screenplay...

i´m telling you the soap opera version is comming

[Quietus]

So why shouldn't Canterbury recompose it once more into a hiphop version?

Da Nu Teztament

Aight, Aight...Yo, yo..
Back in the time when baby Jezuz wuz born in da crib (aight, aight).
Back in the dayz when baby Jezuz wuz born in da crib (uh-uh)
....

N.B. Seriously: in my eyes, none of these facts about the 'genesis' of the Bible detract from the fact that it is a brilliant testament to human genius, creativity and wisdom.

EDIT
As I have said before in this forum, I do not want to give the impression that I believe the Bible is 'just' a myth, i.e. a nonsensical text. In my view the Bible is, in both senses of the word, a fantastic compilation of myths and legends that contain more than a few seeds of wisdom that modern Atheists should take to heart.

They should replace the characters with animals IMO, instead of people.

[Adrian II]

They should replace the characters with animals IMO, instead of people.

Oh, but there are already animals in it..

[Don Corleone]

Well, I'm actually not all that upset about the bible as in the book itself. The Dead Sea Scrolls, uncovered in the 50's, showed people didn't play as footloose and fancy free with the wording as some would have you believe. Sadly, the only part of the New Testament that was found there was a small fragment of the gospel of Mark. In any case, the Old Testament and other non-biblical texts from that time that were found accompanying it seemed to have withered the translations through the centuries rather well. What's more, nobody's taking my NIV anytime soon.

That wasn't my point at all. I'm much more discouraged with the decision to do this. What's that you say? It's too tough to read a book? It's not fair that you have to actually spend some time reading it? Okay, we'll give you the dumbed-down version. A dumded-down bible for a dumbed-down people. I'm afraid it's things like this that really make me question my faith..... in my fellow man that is.

[Adrian II]

That wasn't my point at all. I'm much more discouraged with the decision to do this. What's that you say? It's too tough to read a book?

You will not be surprised that I totally agree with you. I have not seen the new Canterbury Lite Bible, but if it is a dumbed-down version as it appears to be, then most of the intellectual wealth of the Vulgate, which is in the details, will be lost. Indeed, what is the use? Might as well condense Beethoven's Fifth into three minutes of synthesizer .. oh wait, that's been done already...