h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There may well have been a book of Jesus' sayings. No one has found it, but in some religions it is a common practice to pull together sayings by the religions' founders.

Thomas Jefferson published a book of just Jesus' words. I think he was into something. A word of caution: it's possible that some of the sayings attributed to Jesus were put in by someone else because because they sounded like something Jesus might have said. But the people who decided what should go in the Bible went over everything with a fine-toothed comb.

The church I went to awarded me a copy of the King James Bible with the red passages when I graduated from 8th grade. I regret to say that mice ruined it, so I had to get a new one (in large print, as my eyes are not what they used to be).

The name for the probably legendary source for all Jesus quotes is Q - for Quelle (German for 'source'). It's a subject hotly debated by the Jesus Seminar. It's a great way to get tenure, I imagine. 'Of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.' Ecclesiastes 12:12.

The thing about sacred texts, though - and this is as true of the gospels as it is of the Gita or any other text - is that there are many different ways to study them.

You can try to prove this or that about the historical provenance of the text itself.

You can argue logic around or even with the text.

You can try to place the text within the context of its own time and place. Or you can situate it within the practices of modern groups that claim to be following the text.

Or you can cast your pseudo-scholarship and desire to be a know-it-all to the four winds and let the text show you the way to enlightenment.

My old Bible is black print only. (never knew about the red letter quotes, so thanks for sharing)
Although I have a Protestant Christian upbringing, I am in favour of any framework of guidelines that promotes to improve yourself at no cost to others and help wherever possible and that is based on tolerance towards others without judgement.

The tolerance bit usually is the hardest bit, because it only really works if the others also (eventually) decide to be tolerant back at you.
One of the takeaways that probably should be in red letters that I remember is to not expect tolerance back but give it anyway.

My father is a (retired) pastor who always tries to link the world we live in now to the (positive) ideas behind the scriptures, to give people hope.

Good for your father!

I'm beginning to think we need a remake of 'Nathan der Weise', that great classical play whose message is that the true religion is the one that teaches brotherly love. (Which is also what the Bible says if people didn't misuse it.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eklZsyMQ_4M

People in the US seem to be waking up to the commercially and politically dodgy religious fakes lately - there are a couple of documentaries showing on the streaming channels about the abuses of these people and their 'prosperity gospel', so hopefully we'll get a respite soon.

Looking across the pond at how religious opinions are being politicised, it seems to me that a state of tolerance is far off. That being said, I would definitely not vote Republican. (I would probably end up somewhere on the Bernie Sanders end of the spectrum. So far I haven't found a single issue where I disagree with that guy.)

I love Bernie Sanders - the most Christlike person in Washington, DC.

Religious ideas influencing politics is not a new phenomenon here, though yes, it's a dangerous one. In 1844 a man with the unlikely name of Joseph Smith was running for president. He'd started out as a 'scryer' and psychic treasure-finder but graduated to 'prophet' and founder of a religious community. The religious community was so disruptive - they started a bank that turned out to be a scam, bullied the neighbours, broke up families, etc - that they were hounded from one state to another. Finally, Smith was murdered in a riot. The new leader dragged them all out into the desert and created a polygamous society that almost went to war with the US.

Not only does nobody remember any of that, but the church is still functioning. There are generally members of that church in Congress: one ran for president.

What's going to happen is that either enough people wake up and this goes away for a while - or it really is the end. Similar to the periodic outbreaks of fascism in Europe. We appear to be in the middle of one of those, too.

We had another vote of no confidence for our Prime Minister last week, but the ruling parties are afraid new elections will wipe them out, so they didn't support it (again). He is now into his thirteenth year as PM, but only his cabinet ministers leave to take blame so far. He will never leave by himself. That seems to be popular in world politics nowadays, so you may be right about that.

These things seem to run in cycles. I get the feeling most people are ready for the nonsense to be over, but like you said, there's inertia built into the system.

Yesterday, the UK's troublemaker-in-chief resigned from his party, and the one in the US got a rude awakening when he was indicted for multiple felonies. The best part of that one is that he will have been brought down by archivists.

In the 1980s and 1980s I read a lot of books by Harold Bloom. He wrote about the Book of Q and also retranslated some of the early books f the Bible. He hasn't written anything recently, largely because he died.

That sounds like a valid reason to me.

By the way, I've just purchased a new translation of Genesis from a project called 'the transparent Bible'. It's produced by James Tabor. I'm not very interested in Dr Tabor's theories about the historical Jesus - if you are, they are easily found on Youtube.

Be prepared to sit through some longish podcasts. Why are podcast never short and to the point? Oh, yes: 'They think they shall be heard for their much speaking' - Jesus of Nazareth.

Aside from the axes being ground, though, the idea of finally attempted to translate the original text 'literally' - that is, to make the nuances of the original available to non-scholars - is an admirable one. It's six dollars well-spent, if you're interested.