Literalist

"Every jot and tittle." The famous bit of Scripture near the end refers to the sanctity and wholeness of the Bible. No one dare change, misinterpret, or misrepresent any single detail from Genesis to Revelations. The belief among Scripture literalists is that it's all-ordained, complete and errorless, God's Word sacrosanct for all eternity, no question of divine authority. 

If only I could accept that direct caution, life would be simpler. But, I cannot because I've also read about the history of the Bible's organization and final collection. This apocryphal legacy- what gospels and works were included and excluded- is an intriguing and controversial chronicle of politics, power, and struggle for influence. 

Included among the four well known Gospels are at least twenty other gospels authored by early Christians in the First, Second, and Third Centuries. The main ten that were ultimately excluded: Gospel of the Infancy, Gospel of Bartholomew, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Nicodemus, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, and the Secret Gospel of Mark. The non-narrative Gospel of Judas, really a group of sayings, is particularly interesting to me, claimed to be those of Jesus.

How the King James specific group of sixty-six (Roman Catholics include more) books became the final version was a process of committee and council, with many folks involved, debating and deciding. 

Some of these writings are amazingly compelling, and worthy of study for those historically or philosophically curious. The literalist, "jot and tittle" perspective, intentionally exclusive, but also excluding further inquiry, is difficult for me to reconcile with the Bible's well-documented history of long-established consensus. There is too much potential context, information, details, and nuance to ignore written works from that period and era. 

It's likely that what comprises today's Bible was the result of powerful religious figures' often stark perspective differences, personal egos, and competing ideologies, especially regarding the concepts of the Holy Trinity.

In fact, all of only one individual— Richard Bancroft, the 16th century archbishop of Canterbury— was notable for having the role of overseer of the project, something like a modern editor of a collection of short stories. The Bible's compiling is itself a true novel with twisted plots and surprises, an array of characters, and all the drama of religious quarrel.

My Literalist friends may claim any other gospels are irrelevant since they're not part of the final Canonical version. These writings are simply considered non-canonical in most major branches of Christianity. 

But, that is a circular argument that only begs the many interesting questions: in each case, exactly why were the inclusions and exclusions made? Did God, who inspired the ancient prophets of Scripture, also inspire all the Bible's editorial influencers?