Bible Libel
I recently heard Jeff Foxworthy on a radio ad promoting the return of his quiz show The American Bible Challenge. He said something like "the Bible doesn't have a sequel, but my show does."
The Bible has no sequel? I'd think the host of a Bible trivia show would know better.
First, of course, is the New Testament, which is the Christian sequel to the Old Testament--and I assume Foxworthy asks questions about both.
But if you want to go on, there are more sequels. One obvious example is the Koran, which follows in the tradition of the Old and New Testament, and even mentions its relationship to the Torah and the Gospels.
Then there's the Book of Mormon, which is an explicit continuation of and addition to the Bible.
On top of which, you've got countless revelations, many of which have been bestsellers in their time, where someone allegedly adds to the knowledge set down in the Bible.
In other words, I don't know if anything has ever had so many sequels as the Bible. Not even Star Wars and Star Trek combined. So it's odd that Foxworthy, or whoever wrote the ad, would start with such an ignorant statement.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:10 AM
8 Comments:
Very good point.
But like Star Trek, it's best to treat some of its sequels as if they are not really "canon".
*grin*
And there are a whole bunch of sequels that got got kicked out of the Bible by a bunch musty old joykillers in 363 (or around then). Moast of Christianity as followed today is based on those dudes and yet most know little of them. Sort of like the draftsmen of the original D&D manuals
Actually, that's a myth. The "Gnostic Gospels" and other such documents were never part of anyone's Bible, any more than the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man" were part of the U.S. Constitution. The Gnostic books were the holy books of the Gnostic movement (which began as an offshoot of Platonism), and the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian New Testament books were the holy books of the Christian church.
There were certainly Christian debates about which books were to be included; they debated such works as Jude, Revelation, Hebrews (which "made the cut") along with Shepherd of Hermas and the Letter of Clement (which didn't). Meanwhile, the four Gospels and most of Paul's letters were universally accepted by the early second century. But search as you might like, you won't find anyone saying "let's not include the Gospel of Philip", because that book wasn't even being circulated among the same people as those who read the books now in the New Testament.
And for what it's worth, the Gnostics rejected all sex and all physicality, claiming that the evil Demiurge created the physical world. They saw our bodies as evil and our souls as good. If you think the canonical texts are "joykillers" you ought to actually read the other ones....
For what its worth, I think the Book of Mormon is viewed by Mormons as more a "lost chapter" than a sequel.
I wasn't commenting on the Gnostics except for the fact that they were among many that were ultimately chosen- by some unknown algorithm- by self-appointed experts centuries after the fact. There is a lot showing the early church being more free and easy and less hierarchical. I guess its only human nature though that years of persecution would lead to rigidity and power structures as a security measure
When is the fake vagina comment going to show up? I've grown accustomed to them
That's why I won't use one. Fear of accustomedness.
Post a Comment
<< Home