On the way out,
I think what you are doing is great on both a intellectual and spiritual level. You must examine things before you can fully believe them and if in examination they prove to be false then you can move on or you can strengthen your resolve in what you already held to be true. Sometimes, as you well know, finding descent information when searching for the truth is hard to do, and makes your search endlessly hard. This is point in case with the Society. We all tried to examine beliefs from inside, which proved inadequate because they provide all the info and edited what you had access to. When we found good info, then we learned the truth and found what had been evident by their actions been all along. This is a similar situation with looking at apocryphal text.
Often times the information is slanted heavily in one direction; either it’s not in the canonical bible so it is garbage because ‘it is not God’s word’ or they take the ‘intellectual’ stand that Bible is noting but a collection of books and these apocryphal text just prove that fact. So, I hope that I may be able to give you a few things that may help in your journey and give a litte bit of balanced thought.
I am sure that you know this but St. Jerome is the one that edited out the books of Daniel and many of the books of the OT. He is the one that is responsible for the Catholics bible being different than the Protestant version. Not being a Catholic I do not know which translation they like the best, but as for me the New Jerusalem Bible is a good and fair translation that contains all the books and chapters edited out by Jerome.
On the Nag Hammadi Library findings. They have been translated and collected in one book that I really enjoyed,
Lost Scriptures. It has a companion book,
Lost Christianities, which explains many of the alternate views of Christ and why they were not, or did not, become the dominant form of Christianity. There is one more book,
Canon of the Scripture: It's Origin, Development, and Significance, which does a marvelous job of hitting the main issues of the canon. These three books will give a great basis for understanding early Christianity, though none really hit the Dead Sea scrolls. Again, I am sure that you know this but
gnosis.org is also a good resource for reading the Nag writings.
Don’t overlook the early Juedo-Christian movement that looked strictly to the Old Mosaic Law. They abhorred Paul and what he stood for. They took Matthew (or variants of it) to be the most important writing. They also looked to James and Peter to be influential characters and had various writings that had their names attributed to it (though like many books of the time, authorship is challenged). Still, some groups had produced some of their own works, though unfortunately they have been lost.
On the other end of the spectrum there was Marcion who thought that Yahweh was a lesser God than Jesus, and that the OT books should be thrown out. He went even further to say that many of the NT books should also be thrown out. Because of his standings he is widely considered to be the first major heretic. With all the various forms of Christianity and the lack of material from the other forms, I find it hard to totally believe that the was the worst heretic or the first. It is obvious in Paul’s writings that he argues against the Gnostics, specifically in the letters to the Corinthians. So, it would seem that if Paul argued against someone before Marcion came to be that it is not possible for him to be the first. That my 2cents.
It seems that you do not think that the bible is really an inspired book, rather just a collection edited out through history. You interest in it seems to be purely intellectually and historical curiosity with a hint of spiritual searching. (Please correct me if I am wrong) I cannot totally agree that the bible is just a collection of books that was edited out by men, and let me explain why...
First let me say this; To believe the Bible is the word of God as apposed to any apocryphal writings takes faith, which is a choice. This choice is based not on making a rash decision, rather it is something that takes a lot of consideration. I do think that there are some truths in the apocryphal text, though I cannot take them as an adequate comparison to the gospel presented in the canonical bible.
Several years ago after leaving the Witnesses I was shocked to learn that there was early writing that lie outside the Bible. I had no idea that anyone ever opposed the teachings of the NT by saying that they still believed in Jesus, they just viewed him to be a different person than what was presented to them by the bible writers. I thought that the only group that opposed Christians were pagan in origin. So, after learning that there was much that I was quite ignorant about I began to find out about these other early followers of Christ. While I was going though this I considered myself to be agnostic, and I was more or less just curious about these early groups. When I got done reading the apocryphal texts I thought that the only viable option for Christianity was infact the message presented in the canonized NT. Still afterwards I remained agnostic, I just felt that if I were to believe in a Christian God the only choice would be to follow the canonized bible.
With regards to the early Juedo-Christian groups. The gospel of Matthew was edited in places to fit their interpretation that the Law of Moses was still to be followed to the letter. This is obvious when reading the canonized version of Matthew. The canonized version has it where Jesus fulfills the Law by fulfilling it perfectly, which shows its original purpose. For example Jesus explains that "An Eye for an Eye" is not a law that requires a person to return harm, rather it is a law of love. It shows that we should not punish the person in the wrong worse than what was done to us. It is a law that shows mercy and love toward the person that committed a wrong, yet it seeks fairness and justice. This does not mean that this law is no longer in existence, it just shows us a better way to follow it Matt 5:18 "
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.". Furthering those same sentiments about the law being loving in nature Jesus summed up the Law by saying, "
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments " –Matt. 22:36-40. Jesus took the Law down to something that could be lived; a principle that would fulfill what the Law was intended to do.
Believing that the Gospel presented in Matthew as opposed to the version held by they early Juedo-Christians takes the faith that I was talking about.
The reason that I believe that it is an accurate account is that it does not make sense for their to be a version in which there is still legalistic adherence to the Law. Jesus came to set up a new covenant that would change everything between God and his people. What would it change if the Mosaic Law was still to be followed in the same way, how would things be any different than the Old Mosaic Law Covenant?
Many were opposed to Paul strongly as I mentioned and disregarded his teachings. I want to be very clear that Paul did not oppose the Law he opposed the way people followed it. He said and I paraphrase, Sin enter man through the law, not because of the Law itself, but because the way people thought that through legal adherence they would be justified in God’s eyes and missed the point and purpose of the Law, the Law of and in itself is perfect- based on Rom. 5. All that the law needed was someone to actually follow it for its perfection to shine though, with Jesus that happened. Paul opposed that the law should be used as something that could gain justification and salvation. He believed that came solely though Christ and His teachings, which included the new way to follow the Law. To me this much better follows that way that the new covenant is talked about in Jeremiah 31:31 than the way early Jeudo-Christians viewed the Law.
Onto the Gnostics. The problem with them is I do not understand how the cross was supposed to work, in other words how is it possible that we gained salvation through Christ. When Adam sinned God required a propitiatory sacrifice, which would require another perfect man. Well…..the Gnostics do not believe that Jesus was flesh and blood, that he was a spirit, and that if you were to have walked behind him you would not see any footprints. So, in all their writings I never found anything that explained how this would work. They thought that Jesus did not suffer and obviously did not die on the cross. So, my question is, how is that a sacrifice at all? God required a sacrifice for Adams sins and in the Gnostic belief set there is no real sacrifice. That is my problem with the Gnostics….fairly straight to the point.
They do raise some interesting thoughts. What if Jesus was involved with Magdalene? One says that Jesus kissed her. How deep was the relationship supposed to be, could they have been married? Is it possible that Mary was the most beloved apostle who wrote the fourth gospel? What happened in the time that Jesus was growing up? Why was he in his late twenties before he ‘hit the scene’?
To me it does not matter. These things don’t change anything. It does not matter if Jesus was married. He was supposed to be fully man and he set up the institution of marriage. So, why would it be so horrible if he partook in an arrangement that he set up? So what if Mary wrote the fourth gospel. Does that change any of its teachings? Simple face is nobody can be sure the author of many of the bible books. To the Christian it should not matter who God used as long as God was actually using them. I know one thing for sure, the author of the Gospel of Mary and the fourth canonical gospel cannot be the same person, the entire messages of the two conflict. The same person, whoever it may be, would not have written both.
I feel like I am starting to ramble, so I will end things.
Please look at those books I mentioned at the beginning of my post. Two are by a non Christian and one is by a Christian. I feel like looking at the polar opposites is sadly the only way to gain a fair and balanced view. All-in-all I hope that you find what you are seeking…truth.
