Of course it (a debate) matters but we must keep in mind that the Bible in all it's translations has been done by man and man is flawed. The Bible is clearly lopsided in presentation, even with several females that have strong roles in Biblical tales, we are given just 1 book with a female name (Esther). Wiith that in mind it can be seen that what we've been handed is a piece of history but not everything. We have an anthology, a collection of selected tales, selected by men. It's not much different in that sense from the Best Sellers List of current books or the top movies.
The Bible isn't a historical record of anything really, it's "events" and "characters" happen in some parts to very loosely coincide with some verifiable history , but in the main it is as you say an anthology, though an anthology of religious texts the purpose of which has very little to do with recording real events and everything to do with explaining, justifying and expounding the tenets of the religions which use it either in its entirety or parts of it for this purpose.
Now since the tales were 1st handed down orally, there are manyy whch weren't saved. Stories which weren't as captiivatiing. Even today certain stories dominate the news while others get brief attention. This can be seen in missing person stories as an example. Mr.A and his family are given the spotlight for days, even weeks when his wife goes missing but Mr.B. and his family get just a 2 line mention in the daily paper.
I'm not sure how that relates, besides the Bible itself isn't the only text from which we may derive knowledge of the historical Jesus and his followers.
There are numerous other sources from which we can build a picture of the first Christians even if the real historical person of Jesus remains somewhat shrouded in mystery. In fact its entirely possible that the NT records the sayings and happenings from the life of several individuals named Jesus or whose teachings were similar enough to each other's that they became confused by compilers in succeeding generations.
We know that a number of other messianic preachers in the same mould as Jesus who are considered to be his contemporaries or near contemporaries had the sayings and doings recorded either during the ministries, or soon after their deaths, indeed a number of the sayings and teachings of Jesus recorded in the NT are thought to be lifted from these other documents regarding these other individuals with similar messages to the one taught by whomever the real Jesus was.
It's not even absurd to think that some original source documents once existed which helped the compilers of the Canonical Gospels to include the teachings and doings of this real Jesus into their versions of his life. The extent to which the NT is a record of oral history is therefore highly contestable, though it must contain some oral history how much is very much in debate.
The Bible is an anthology and therefore only a small picture. In the case of the disciples, there's not much talk about their partners or children and sexuality wasn't as important in the Biblical context as was their mission. Jesus had said as much to Simon (Peter) & Andrew "I will make you fishers of men" (Mark1; vs.17, Matthew4; vs.19) their aim being to bring more people to God it really didn't matter if they were gay.
Considering that to some extent the compilers of the Canonical Gospels were relying on materials passed down to them either in oral or documentary fashion from the disciples of Jesus or indeed disciples of other Jewish preachers contemporary to Jesus it is hardly a surprise that unless the actions of those authorities were congruent with the religious message which these compilers intended to convey they were left out of the record.
We have little information regarding the private lives of the disciples of Jesus not because such historical information did not exist, but rather because it did not fit with the religious message the early church wished to send its followers and potential converts.
That the early church regarded homosexuality as a sin is beyond question, and it would seem counterintuitive to think that within only a couple of centuries of Jesus's death that if any of the disciples had been homosexual that Jesus's own view on that would have simply disappeared. Indeed since Jesus did in fact make plenty of specific references to other forms of sin and other kinds of sinner it seems extraordinary that he would not have talked about the sin of homosexuality if in some way it were a matter of direct interest to those who were among his closest followers.
On the other hand, there were plenty of detractors of the first Christians, Jweish, Roman, Hellenistic writers mention them and frequently go to some lengths to blacken their name and rubbish their teachings. Once again it seems inexplicable that not one of them, not even the Roman and Jewish ones who would undoubtedly taken the opportunity to associate Jesus with what they saw as a disgusting sin of one kind or another, did so by passing down any rumours that any of Jesus's disciples was homosexual.
In fact if Jesus had ever mentioned Homosexuality it seems fair to presume that his detractors would have mentioned it.
Last edited: