FAQ: Basics of the Bible<\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Is the Bible one book, two books, or more?<\/b><\/p>\n The Bible is a collection of books written over centuries.\u00a0 The total list and order of books is called a canon; Jews, Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Christians do not share a common canon.\u00a0 Bibles used by Episcopalians are divided into three sections.\u00a0 The first is the Old Testament. \u00a0The second is called the Apocrypha.\u00a0 The third section is the New Testament.\u00a0 Each section includes multiple books.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n How many books are in the Old Testament?<\/b><\/p>\n In the Bibles Episcopalians use there are 39 books in the Old Testament.\u00a0 Those 39 books match up with the Jewish scriptures, and sometimes you might encounter a Bible that refers to the Old Testament as the Hebrew Scriptures.\u00a0 It is worth noting that Jews divide up and organize their scriptures differently than Christians do (Chronicles is one book, the Twelve are lumped together, etc.), and though the contents are the same, Jews organize their Scriptures into 24 books.\u00a0 However it is organized, Jews and all Christians agree that these books are part of the Scriptures and every Bible includes them.\u00a0 Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles have 46 and 51 books in the Old Testament, respectively, and those extra books are explained in the section below entitled \u201cHow many books are in the Apocrypha\u201d.<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n How many books are in the Apocrypha?<\/b><\/p>\n The second section in Bibles used by Episcopalians is called the Apocrypha, and this is where things get complicated.\u00a0 The Apocrypha includes additions to books in the Old Testament as well as several distinct books.\u00a0 Most Orthodox Christians include the majority of these additions and extra books for a total of 51 books in the Old Testament (even among the Orthodox Churches there is not universal agreement on this number).\u00a0 Roman Catholics include some of these additions and extra books for a total of 46 books in the Old Testament.\u00a0 Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics usually refer to these extra books and additions as deutero-canonical, and recognize that they are not universally viewed as part of the Scripture.\u00a0 Protestants do not include any of these books or additions in the Old Testament.\u00a0 However, the majority of Protestant churches do recognize the importance of these extra books in Christian history and tradition, and for that reason they are included in Protestant Bibles under the section \u201cApocrypha\u201d.\u00a0 The Episcopal Church includes selections from some of these books in our lectionary.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n How many books are in the New Testament?<\/b><\/p>\n There are 27 books in the New Testament.\u00a0 This is agreed upon by all Christians of every denomination.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n What language was the Bible written in?<\/b><\/p>\n The short answer is Hebrew and Greek.\u00a0 The long answer is a bit more complicated.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n What language was the Old Testament written in?<\/b><\/p>\n The books of the Old Testament were written over many centuries and come to us in Hebrew and Greek.\u00a0 The books that are agreed upon by Christians and Jews were probably written in Hebrew (with bits of Aramaic).\u00a0 Most scholars believe that the forms of the books that we have today were finalized between the 8th<\/sup> Century BC and the 1st<\/sup> Century BC.\u00a0 Earlier versions of the books or sources used for a given book might date back centuries earlier.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n What language was the Apocrypha written in?<\/b><\/p>\n Most scholars think that the books included in the Apocrypha were written at the time or even after the last the books of the Old Testament was written.\u00a0 These books were written in Greek, Hebrew, and\/or Aramaic, though they come to us primarily in Greek.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n What language was the New Testament written in?<\/b><\/p>\n The New Testament was written in Greek, though the language that Jesus and his disciples spoke was almost certainly Aramaic, a language that is related to Hebrew, and there are bits of Aramaic in the Gospels which indicate that some of the sources used by the New Testament writers may have been in Aramaic.\u00a0 Most scholars believe that the earliest New Testament books and letters date from about 50 AD (about twenty years after Jesus died and rose).\u00a0 There is disagreement on when the last books were written, the absolute latest cutoff date is about 150 AD, but most scholars agree that a date closer to 100 AD is more likely.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n How do these ancient texts come to us?<\/b><\/p>\n We don\u2019t have any of the original manuscripts for any book in the Bible.\u00a0 There were no printing presses or photo copiers, and everything was copied by hand onto parchment, stone, wood, or metal.\u00a0 The ancient Scriptures were often written on scrolls and copied, by hand, when a new copy was needed.\u00a0 Scribal errors and sometimes even additions or subtractions were incorporated into these scrolls over time.\u00a0 We have later generation copies and fragments that have been preserved for centuries.\u00a0 Some of the earliest copies are not even in the original language because the Scriptures were translated into the vernacular language, so they could be spread to new places and read by more people. \u00a0Because of this these copies and fragments come to us in myriad languages, including Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc.\u00a0 The result is a massive amount of copies that are nearly identical but none are exactly identical.\u00a0 Translators (modern and ancient) had to find the most trustworthy sources to translate from.\u00a0 There isn\u2019t a single Hebrew or Greek Bible out there that is the one source that all Bibles are translated from.\u00a0 For that reason scholars compile and compare every ancient fragment in every language and piece together what they think the original text probably was.\u00a0 Over 5000 ancient sources (including books and fragments) were used to put together the most recent scholarly Greek text of the New Testament.\u00a0 Having many different sources actually makes it far easier to determine what was original and what was added or excluded by an overzealous or overworked scribe.\u00a0 Still, the most ancient sources, regardless of the language, are generally of the most importance.\u00a0 An error might be carried forward through hundreds of copies, and because of that it might be more accurate to go back to a Latin translation of Genesis from 400 AD that to translate directly from a Hebrew text dating from 1000 AD.\u00a0 New manuscript sources are discovered from time to time which continue to help scholars.\u00a0 Each new translation of the Bible takes into account the most recent scholarship done with manuscripts.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So which English translation is the most accurate to the original Hebrew & Greek Bibles?<\/b><\/p>\n It\u2019s not so simple.\u00a0 Even after the bulk of the manuscript work has been done, decisions still have to be made.\u00a0 Some words have multiple meanings (for example, the Greek word for \u201cspirit\u201d also means \u201cwind\u201d).\u00a0 Sometimes a literal translation of a certain turn of phrase or expression renders the translation meaningless to an English speaker.\u00a0 A publication of the Bible requires many decisions, and usually involves a large team of scholars who spend years translating verses and making group decisions about thousands of words and phrases.\u00a0 Each translation committee also has a particular point of view and hopes to offer a translation that serves a purpose.\u00a0 One translation might be literal, but wooden.\u00a0 Another might be less literal but do a great job helping an English reader understand the meaning of the text.\u00a0 Newer translations take into account more recent scholarship and changes in the English language.\u00a0 Older translations are often more familiar to people who grew up hearing them.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n OK, so which English translation is the best?<\/b><\/p>\n That also is not simple.\u00a0 There are many excellent English translations, but none are perfect.\u00a0 Every English speaking Christian eventually has his or her favorites.\u00a0 Below is a list of some of the best and most well known.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The King James or Authorized Version (KJV)<\/b> \u2013 This is the classic English language Bible known throughout the world.\u00a0 It sounds great but sometimes the words used are lost on those listening.\u00a0 All in all, it is an excellent translation, though it reflects scholastic decisions that are now several centuries old.\u00a0 However, unless you are familiar with the style and the vocabulary, it can be tough to read.\u00a0 This Bible is the primary Biblical source for the Rite 1 services in the BCP.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Revised Standard Version (RSV)<\/b> \u2013 This is the 1960s update of the KJV to more modern English.\u00a0 It is meant to be a revised version of the KJV so wherever possible the decisions made for the KJV were kept \u2013 in other words unless there was strong scholarly reasons for changing the meaning of a word or translating a sentence differently the editors followed the KJV.\u00a0 This Bible is the primary Biblical source for the Rite 2 services in the BCP.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)<\/b> \u2013 This is the late 1980s \u201cupdate\u201d of the RSV.\u00a0 It was done by many of the same people who did the RSV, but it is not meant to be a revised version of either the KJV or the RSV.\u00a0 It was a new translation from start to finish in the spirit of the RSV.\u00a0 It, like the RSV and KJV, sounds great when used publicly.\u00a0 A major flaw in the translation is the overuse (in my view) of gender neutral terms and a habit by the editors to replace exact translations with implied meanings.\u00a0 For example Son of Man in the OT is never translated directly as Son of Man, but rather \u201cmortal\u201d or \u201cone like a human being\u201d.\u00a0 This removes the OT context of the term when it is used by Jesus in the NT.\u00a0 The NRSV does place the literal translation in the notes.\u00a0 If the notes are used, the NRSV is an excellent Bible.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n New International Version (NIV)<\/b> \u2013 The NIV is a very colloquial English translation.\u00a0 It\u2019s a very good translation and easy to understand, but it doesn\u2019t sound great when read publicly.\u00a0 It is used almost exclusively by Evangelicals.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n New Jerusalem<\/b> \u2013 A Roman Catholic translation that is excellent and sounds great when read publicly.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n New American Standard Bible (NASB)<\/b> \u2013 A wooden but very literal translation.\u00a0 It sounds awful, but it\u2019s very literal.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n New American Bible (NAB)<\/b> \u2013 An official English Bible for Roman Catholics.\u00a0 It\u2019s the Roman Catholic equivalent of the NIV.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Which translation should I buy?<\/b><\/p>\n Pick a passage that you know and find a Bible that translates it to your liking (some familiar selections are the second chapter of Luke, the first chapter of Genesis, or the first chapter of John).\u00a0 All of the above are great Bibles.\u00a0 Make sure you buy a Study Bible that includes the Apocrypha and has notes and an introduction to each book.\u00a0 There are also versions of the New Testament that contain several different translations side by side.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Do you have any suggestions on which Study Bible to but?<\/b><\/p>\n Click the links for these bibles available at Amazon.\u00a0 I usually use the New Oxford Annotated Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha<\/a>.\u00a0 I also use the New Oxford Annotated New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha<\/a>.\u00a0 Keep in mind, we use the New Revised Standard Version at Good Shepherd.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Good Online resource to view a bible: <\/b>www.crosswalk.com<\/a><\/p>\n