The Bible: Alternate Takes

[MrRING]

I was reading an article in Archeology magazine about this papyrus and was intrigued about this quote:

The writing makes several references to God as “the one who presides over the Mountain of the Murderer”—a nod towards the story of Abraham in the Book of Genesis, in which Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son Isaac. In Genesis, God prevented Abraham from carrying out the act. However, the papyrus text tells the story differently, suggesting that Isaac was indeed killed. This echoes the way the story is told in a number of other ancient texts, Zellmann-Rohrer said.

Thinking as a film fans, this got me to thinking about various alternate takes in famous films, from Han Shot First from the remixed Star Wars, to if Dekkard is a replicant or not in the various Blade Runners, and the like. And it made me wonder, has anybody done a "Director's Cut" of the Bible trying to put in alternate takes of famous passages or storylines? I know that the Apocrypha exists, and various other things, but I'm thinking of just variations of the stories presented in the books commonly known as the King James Bible. It would be interesting if putting the different story elements in would change the flow of the overall narrative or the message for believers.

 

[Jim]

The Bible is what the Bible is. Believe it or reject it.

 

[escargot]

The Bible is what the Bible is. Believe it or reject it.

That's not the whole story though. There are 'other' texts, especially about Jesus, which existed at the same time as the ones that made it into the Bible. Who chose them, and why? What features made them more likely to be accepedt or rejected?

 

[GingerTabby]

I was reading an article in Archeology magazine about this papyrus and was intrigued about this quote:

Thinking as a film fans, this got me to thinking about various alternate takes in famous films, from Han Shot First from the remixed Star Wars, to if Dekkard is a replicant or not in the various Blade Runners, and the like. And it made me wonder, has anybody done a "Director's Cut" of the Bible trying to put in alternate takes of famous passages or storylines? I know that the Apocrypha exists, and various other things, but I'm thinking of just variations of the stories presented in the books commonly known as the King James Bible. It would be interesting if putting the different story elements in would change the flow of the overall narrative or the message for believers.

Some insight may be gleaned from the following texts:

For an examination of how the King James Bible came to be, I would recommend Adam Nicholson's God Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001).

For a concise account of the broader history of the Christian Bible, you may wish to consider John Riches's The Bible: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Off topic: The Very Short Introduction series covers a wide range of topics and can be quite helpful, imo.

 

[maximus otter]

There are 'other' texts, especially about Jesus, which existed at the same time as the ones that made it into the Bible. Who chose them, and why?

The generally-accepted Bible was formed over a couple of centuries, mainly by acclamation. The process was finished by the 5th century AD.

If insomnia troubles you, try reading about the process on Wikipedia.

maximus otter

 

[escargot]

We have a thread somewhere on the subject of the 'other' accounts of the early life of Jesus, which doesn't come up much in the Bible. Like the occasion when he made someone drop dead with a nasty look or summat.

 

[Jim]

That's not the whole story though. There are 'other' texts, especially about Jesus, which existed at the same time as the ones that made it into the Bible. Who chose them, and why? What features made them more likely to be accepedt or rejected?

Hi, prefer not to get into apologetics on the forum. Simply stated the Bible was compiled using the Hebrew Old Testament (compiled by 600 B.C.) and the books of the New Testament consolidated by the early church in the 5th century AD. These writing were verified in part by the Dead Sea Scrolls (compiled much earlier). There’s some contention on why – which books were chosen to be in the Bible. The Christian belief is that this process was directed spiritually to prevent non-inspired writings from getting into the Bible. Which brings us back to the fact that if one accepts the Bible, attempts to add – alter it are non-spiritual? This is based on ones faith, not science.

 

[Mythopoeika]

The Bible is an anthology. They didn't do full length novels back then.

 

[Timble2]

The Book Of Enoch, which didn't make the final cut of western Bibles (only the Ethiopian Church regards it as canon) is interesting stuff, The story of the fall of the angels is a lot more detailed, and some of of their misdeeds are things like teaching humans about fire, and metals (and mating with them). Another section is a bronze age astronomical text. There's quite a few reasons the Ancient Astronauts crowd like this book.

 

[Jim]

One can believe the Bible’s an anthology. One can add or subtract books from it. The point I’m making is the Bible that’s accepted by many mainstream Christians is none of these. I’m not telling you what to believe. Choose to be a Christian, Atheist, Jewish or just make it up as you go. The forum (as of late) has had in incursion of religious – political BS for me. I’m done.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I'm getting the impression there's a conflict / impasse here, but I'm not sure about its focus or basis.

I originally read MrRING's opening post to pose the issue of how the biblical narratives might shift (if only piecemeal) if all the variations among those texts accepted by one or more religious institutions / churches were somehow merged or blended.

I didn't read MrRING's opening post as suggesting such speculative analysis / synthesis could or would involve any text(s) outside the range of those which had been accepted into at least one version of a particular sect's / church's bible.

My impression is that Jim is reacting on the basis of an impression that MrRING was proposing the inclusion / consideration of texts above and beyond the set of any / all texts already accepted by at least one established sect / church.

Or have I misinterpreted one or both positions? ...

 

[Analogue Boy]

We have a thread somewhere on the subject of the 'other' accounts of the early life of Jesus, which doesn't come up much in the Bible. Like the occasion when he made someone drop dead with a nasty look or summat.

The Paddington Hard Stare.

 

[escargot]

I'm getting the impression there's a conflict / impasse here, but I'm not sure about its focus or basis.

I originally read MrRING's opening post to pose the issue of how the biblical narratives might shift (if only piecemeal) if all the variations among those texts accepted by one or more religious institutions / churches were somehow merged or blended.

I didn't read MrRING's opening post as suggesting such speculative analysis / synthesis could or would involve any text(s) outside the range of those which had been accepted into at least one version of a particular sect's / church's bible.

My impression is that Jim is reacting on the basis of an impression that MrRING was proposing the inclusion / consideration of texts above and beyond the set of any / all texts already accepted by at least one established sect / church.

Or have I misinterpreted one or both positions? ...

Dunno. I enjoy reading about the 'alternative' contemporary rejected biblical texts though. It'd be nice to hear from an expert on the subject.

 

[MrRING]

The new direct quote function I haven't quite figured out, but I was meaning this thread as the Notorious En.G. suggested:

I originally read MrRING's opening post to pose the issue of how the biblical narratives might shift (if only piecemeal) if all the variations among those texts accepted by one or more religious institutions / churches were somehow merged or blended.

... I had never heard any idea that the Abraham/Isaac story might have had a different outcome in some portion of these old tales, so it made me wonder what other variations of just the normal Bible stories existed, as opposed to the more extravagant Apocrypha or banned bible books that got shoved out the window when "Da Bible" was structured in it's current form. Plus, since the location in this case was known as the Mountain of the Murderer, it would imply to me that locals considered the "Isaac Bites It" story was believed enough to make that the local name of the mountain, kind of like the Kroger grocery store in downtown Atlanta that was know as "Murder Kroger" due to crimes committed there.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Dunno. I enjoy reading about the 'alternative' contemporary rejected biblical texts though. It'd be nice to hear from an expert on the subject.

For the record ... After communicating privately with Jim, I've ascertained he was not responding on the basis of considering the Bible 'out of bounds' for such discussion or 'inviolate' by definition.

... I was meaning this thread as the Notorious En.G. suggested:

Thanks for the clarification / confirmation ...

 

[escargot]

Personally I'm not bothered about the truth or otherwise of the religious/miraculous aspects of the Bible. What does interest me is the fact that 'new' ancient texts sometimes turn up which might back up or contradict the established biblical narrative.

 

[Cochise]

Hi, prefer not to get into apologetics on the forum. Simply stated the Bible was compiled using the Hebrew Old Testament (compiled by 600 B.C.) and the books of the New Testament consolidated by the early church in the 5th century AD. These writing were verified in part by the Dead Sea Scrolls (compiled much earlier). There’s some contention on why – which books were chosen to be in the Bible. The Christian belief is that this process was directed spiritually to prevent non-inspired writings from getting into the Bible. Which brings us back to the fact that if one accepts the Bible, attempts to add – alter it are non-spiritual? This is based on ones faith, not science.

Ah - but which Bible?

 

[AgProv]

Ah - but which Bible?

And whose? The accepted Protestant version (66 books) the Roman Catholic (78?) or the Orthodox? (over 80?) There's a lot of variance there.

 

[Jim]

And whose? The accepted Protestant version (66 books) the Roman Catholic (78?) or the Orthodox? (over 80?) There's a lot of variance there.

The Protestant and the Catholic Bibles are essentially the same - equal. Only difference is the Catholics include a few extra historical, i.e.: Maccabee's.

 

[Paul_Exeter]

*bump*

Probably the best place for this:

"Join us for a fascinating discussion with Paul Wallis, best selling author of the acclaimed 'Eden Series'. He explores humanity's ancestral stories and the true nature of the Bible before its association with an omnipotent God. The new book 'The Eden Conspiracy' uncovers evidence of ancient extraterrestrial contact, forgotten knowledge about human potential, and hidden layers of covert government. We visit archaeological sites around the world, uncover the true origins of Biblical history, and raise important questions about the motives behind editing the Bible and its connection to extraterrestrial beings"

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2023/05/29.18-MU-Podcast-Paul-Wallis/

It is well worth a listen, and he makes some valid points, although I have to say Paul has a talent for making some rather extravagant claims sound matter-of-fact...

 

[Jim]

*bump*

Probably the best place for this:

"Join us for a fascinating discussion with Paul Wallis, best selling author of the acclaimed 'Eden Series'. He explores humanity's ancestral stories and the true nature of the Bible before its association with an omnipotent God. The new book 'The Eden Conspiracy' uncovers evidence of ancient extraterrestrial contact, forgotten knowledge about human potential, and hidden layers of covert government. We visit archaeological sites around the world, uncover the true origins of Biblical history, and raise important questions about the motives behind editing the Bible and its connection to extraterrestrial beings"

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2023/05/29.18-MU-Podcast-Paul-Wallis/

It is well worth a listen, and he makes some valid points, although I have to say Paul has a talent for making some rather extravagant claims sound matter-of-fact...

Oh no it was the martians again, it was all due to graphed alien cells into an apes body, wam civilized man. I got lots of swamp land in Florida for sale to.