A writing idea...that I have no time to execute.
Like most writers or "creators" I often have brainstorms that result in ideas for yet another "project." Sometimes they're just passing thoughts, and sometimes they grab hold like a police K9 determined to hold the bad guy. This morning I had one of the latter, and although I KNOW I don't have time to write it, I still find the idea stimulating. Here's the deal.
The Bible is considered by many to be both authentic history and The Word of God. I don't believe the former, simply because there are far too many other native stories about the beginning of the world. Some of them feature similar events...i.e. the Great Flood, which makes me think that "something" probably did happen, but I'm not sure I believe Noah had a ship with two of everything on board. He may well have built a ship and floated his family. He might well have taken some livestock with him too. Like most "myths" there is often some degree of truth in the foundation for the story, but later re-tellings likely have included details that weren't quite accurate. I'm not finding fault with that, it's simply true that legends tend to pick up new details over time.
Couple that with the idea that many of these "stories" were never written down at the time they happened. Adam and Eve, whoever they were, didn't have a written language, so whoever actually "wrote" those books wasn't there. Add to that the issues with translation from ancient texts, poor penmanship, and multiple source copies that don't agree with each other and you've got a recipe for problems.
But, even more that than, the New Testament has some other issues. There are, by general acceptance, something like 30 "Gospels." The word Gospel simply means Good News, and within the Bible that's generally taken to mean the life of Jesus. However, like all the other books, there are issues. Why, if there are actually 30 books that describe his life, are only four included in "the Bible?"
The answer is simple: The Bible was created by a bunch of men...sorry, ladies, but only men were invited to this meeting, and they debated which books, and which version of which books, to include. So...by simple observation, we can easily see that a bunch of men chose which authors were actually telling the story using "The Word of God." They...apparently...decided that the other books, the other versions, weren't really God talking. They basically tossed out any contrary views, making Jesus into the guy they wanted him to be, regardless of what he really might have been.
Recently an ancient copy of the Gospel according to Judas has been found and translated. It tells a much different story about some things. Now, I'm not saying it's right...or "righter" or that the others are wrong, just that like so many things, multiple observers see different versions of the same events. Authors and historians inevitably put some personal spin into what they write. We learned from Dan Brown that there really is a Gospel of Mary Magdeline, and in it she is supposedly Jesus' wife. Of course, that didn't make it into the Bible...for pretty obvious reasons. That doesn't mean it's not true.
So...with all of that background, here is what came to me in the twilight of sleep this morning.
I'm going to write a book that is "Stories about Bob." Bob is a fictional character. Each story would be explaining the life of Bob from the viewpoint of a specific author. They would include different timeframes, different events, and certainly different perspectives. One might know about how Bob, when somewhere around the age of ten, saved his buddy who had fallen in a river. Another one might include the same event, but explain about how Bob was responsible for him falling in the first place.
My thought is this: The first few stories...the first Books about Bob would be reasonably consistent, painting a picture of Bob in reasonably positive terms. Bob wouldn't be remotely religious in the sense that Jesus was. So...you read the first few and you think you have a pretty strong picture of what Bob was and what he did. Now, you get to read the other stories...the ones that the editor didn't choose to include, and a much different picture of Bob emerges. He's got warts. He wasn't always perfect. He was, at times, a real scoundrel.
The final "chapter" would simply challenge you to look at all the stories about Bob and then decide if your original image was accurate. Now, not many will do that with the Bible, but if you bother to read the stories that were left out, you'll discover that Jesus wasn't the guy you think you know about from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That doesn't mean he's a bad person, nor does it deny that he had some great ideas. However, you might just find yourself wondering exactly how that committee decided what was and what wasn't the "Word of God."
The Bible is considered by many to be both authentic history and The Word of God. I don't believe the former, simply because there are far too many other native stories about the beginning of the world. Some of them feature similar events...i.e. the Great Flood, which makes me think that "something" probably did happen, but I'm not sure I believe Noah had a ship with two of everything on board. He may well have built a ship and floated his family. He might well have taken some livestock with him too. Like most "myths" there is often some degree of truth in the foundation for the story, but later re-tellings likely have included details that weren't quite accurate. I'm not finding fault with that, it's simply true that legends tend to pick up new details over time.
Couple that with the idea that many of these "stories" were never written down at the time they happened. Adam and Eve, whoever they were, didn't have a written language, so whoever actually "wrote" those books wasn't there. Add to that the issues with translation from ancient texts, poor penmanship, and multiple source copies that don't agree with each other and you've got a recipe for problems.
But, even more that than, the New Testament has some other issues. There are, by general acceptance, something like 30 "Gospels." The word Gospel simply means Good News, and within the Bible that's generally taken to mean the life of Jesus. However, like all the other books, there are issues. Why, if there are actually 30 books that describe his life, are only four included in "the Bible?"
The answer is simple: The Bible was created by a bunch of men...sorry, ladies, but only men were invited to this meeting, and they debated which books, and which version of which books, to include. So...by simple observation, we can easily see that a bunch of men chose which authors were actually telling the story using "The Word of God." They...apparently...decided that the other books, the other versions, weren't really God talking. They basically tossed out any contrary views, making Jesus into the guy they wanted him to be, regardless of what he really might have been.
Recently an ancient copy of the Gospel according to Judas has been found and translated. It tells a much different story about some things. Now, I'm not saying it's right...or "righter" or that the others are wrong, just that like so many things, multiple observers see different versions of the same events. Authors and historians inevitably put some personal spin into what they write. We learned from Dan Brown that there really is a Gospel of Mary Magdeline, and in it she is supposedly Jesus' wife. Of course, that didn't make it into the Bible...for pretty obvious reasons. That doesn't mean it's not true.
So...with all of that background, here is what came to me in the twilight of sleep this morning.
I'm going to write a book that is "Stories about Bob." Bob is a fictional character. Each story would be explaining the life of Bob from the viewpoint of a specific author. They would include different timeframes, different events, and certainly different perspectives. One might know about how Bob, when somewhere around the age of ten, saved his buddy who had fallen in a river. Another one might include the same event, but explain about how Bob was responsible for him falling in the first place.
My thought is this: The first few stories...the first Books about Bob would be reasonably consistent, painting a picture of Bob in reasonably positive terms. Bob wouldn't be remotely religious in the sense that Jesus was. So...you read the first few and you think you have a pretty strong picture of what Bob was and what he did. Now, you get to read the other stories...the ones that the editor didn't choose to include, and a much different picture of Bob emerges. He's got warts. He wasn't always perfect. He was, at times, a real scoundrel.
The final "chapter" would simply challenge you to look at all the stories about Bob and then decide if your original image was accurate. Now, not many will do that with the Bible, but if you bother to read the stories that were left out, you'll discover that Jesus wasn't the guy you think you know about from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That doesn't mean he's a bad person, nor does it deny that he had some great ideas. However, you might just find yourself wondering exactly how that committee decided what was and what wasn't the "Word of God."