Bible versions, The Apocrypha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls

[Zuca]

I've been researching Great Books for the last few days, getting an idea of how to put my own list together.

I plan on studying the Bible, but have a few initial questions on how to approach it. Firstly, the issue of what version to read. In TWEM, SWB warns against "contemporary revisions." I know little about the issues surrounding different versions, but know that ideally, I would like whatever is considered the most accurate and faithful translation (which I would not presume everyone agrees on). I was hoping that you all could advice me on choosing a translation. Currently I own a New Living Translation and a New International Version.

Secondly, in my research I came across The Apocrypha, which I understand to be "lost" or "cut" sections of the Bible. I was wondering if this would be a worthwhile pursuit as part of my study of the Bible, and was curious as to a scholarly perspective and a believer's perspective on it. How is this viewed in relation to the Bible? Censorship? Irrelevant? etc.

Thirdly, and I apologize if this question is as ignorant as I fear it to be, but how to the Dead Sea Scrolls fit in to all of this? Would a translation of them also make a good addition to my study?


Any advice and information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

[Michelle in MO]

First of all, I think the NIV is a good translation; the New American Standard is also very good. I've only read some passages of Scripture in the NLT and enjoyed them; I'm not certain about how "scholarly" it is or isn't. I know that both versions have some very good study Bibles, which have some excellent notes and details on subjects like the Dead Sea Scrolls. I like the Amplified Bible for that reason: it amplifies different verses with notes from different translations or Bible scholars, such as Vine's, Thayer's, etc. If you really get into Bible study, there is some excellent Bible study software available, but it can be pricey. PC Study Bible is the one that I use, but I'm hardly a Bible scholar!

I have a Teaching Company series called "From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity." The professor is Bart Ehrman from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There is some good information there about the Apocrypha and how the early Church decided on which Scriptures would be part of the canon and which were not. I believe you could also find some decent information available on this topic through the Internet. Here's a website I found a while ago that lists the Ante-Nicene (i.e., before the Nicene Creed) church fathers and some of their writings. Also, this year for Omnibus we read Eusebius: The Church History and I really enjoyed some of this background information on the church from the time of the apostles until the time of Constantine.

The website I mentioned is: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html

The Dead Sea Scrolls are some of the earliest extant scrolls which corroborate certain portions of Scripture from the Old Testament, as well as some other books, I believe. We saw a wonderful exhibit last year in Kansas City: the DSS came to the United States, and we were able to view them there at Union Station! It was wonderful to actually have your nose within inches of these ancient documents! I wish I could refer you to a specific book on them, but unfortunately, I haven't read any. However, you might try again an internet search on the subject.

HTH! It sounds like you have some excellent questions and have thought of a good place to start in studying the Great Books!

[Zuca]

Thank you for your reply, Michelle. I didn't even think about qualities beyond translation, like notes and commentary. I think I should probably go to a book store and spend some time looking through the different versions with different options. If nothing else, I can read both versions I have and compare them.

My library has "From Jesus to Constantine," so I'll pick that up tonight. Hopefully it'll answer some of my questions, or help me better understand what exactly I need to know. I may also have to check out Eusebius's Church History. Thanks for referring both.

The Dead Sea Scrolls came through my city, too, but I was completely unaware of it at the time. I'm sad to have missed the opportunity =( Ah well.

Also, just a side note, my mention of "scholarly" wasn't about Bible versions, but about attitudes towards the Apocrypha. I was wondering how believers and others view it in relation to the Bible. But it sounds like the Teaching Company video should shed some light there. Thanks again for your help!

[strider]

This book might just be able to answer some of your questions. It's thorough but also very readable (not overly scholarly). I found it quite helpful, though it has been a long time since I read it.

The Making of the New Testament--Patzia

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=18596&netp_id=134686&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=details

[Eliana]

Since you will be studying it in translation, I would highly recommend getting (perhaps from your library?) at least 3 or 4 translations.

If you're interested in having one of those be a Jewish translation, here are a few possibilities:

Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah (http://westminster.novusedu.com/Teachers/English/briggs/SyllabusRules.html) and Living Nach 1 (http://www.amazon.com/Living-Nach-Early-Prophets-Joshua/dp/0940118297/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206433724&sr=1-1) and 2 (http://www.amazon.com/Living-Nach-Latter-Prophets/dp/1885220073/ref=pd_sim_b_title_2) and 3 (http://www.amazon.com/Living-Nach-Vol-Sacred-Writings/dp/1885220227/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b) have a reasonable English translation with at least some notes and commentary (and some *fabulous* illustrations/diagrams!) Probably the best choice for someone who is looking for a straight forward English translation without missing out on all of the subtexts.

The Artscroll Tanakh (http://www.amazon.com/Tanach-Twenty-Four-Translated-Annotated-ArtScroll/dp/0899062695/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206433849&sr=8-2) deal s with the challenges of properly translating things with multiple meanings/interpretations by relying very heavily on the interpretations of Rashi. You'd get a better sense of how my people might read things, but you'd lose literal accuracy.

The Jerusalem Bible (http://levinejudaica.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=0_35_50_725&products_id=6493&osCsid=58798838e72ffc109f83c3483c375131) (of the Koren Tanakh, depending on how a seller chooses to list it!) is quite literal, but this often means sacrificing the underlying meaning (unless you know Hebrew well enough and are using the English to look things up faster or for a student to practice translating). It has very thin pages, but nice enough type face.

The Apocrypha are certainly supposed to be fascinating - I've read Yehudis (Judith) and The Story of Shoshana (Susanna) Maccabes I and II, but none of the others. Whether it would be useful to study them would probably depend both on your purposes in studying the Bible as literature and how much time you are allotting for it. If this is just going to be part of one year's study, I think you might do better to choose some representative sections and study those more in depth than to try to cover everything and the Apocrypha as well.

I don't think the Dead Sea Scrolls would add to a Bible as Lit study. If you are planning to delve into Biblical criticism and other scholarly analysis of the texts, and especially if you were doing a broad historical context, then they would be most useful.

Setting aside for a moment the weight my Scriptures have for me, I still tend to prefer to read things for themselves before I read what other people have to say about them... so that is, I am sure, coloring my response.

What are your goals and your planned time frame?

[Chris in VA]

Just a few quick comments--
If you want a believer's perspective, be aware Bart Erhman is not a Christian. Just fyi, no comment.
The Apocrypha is in the Catholic bible, but not Protestant, and it's iffy for Anglicans (we say it's profitable, but not scripture).
If you want to ask him questions, my dh would be willing to correspond with you and give you ideas. dbinder@pohickdotorg. Tell him I sent you. He's a New Testament scholar.

[Eliana]

Wikipedia has a basic summary of the Apocrypha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha), with links to more detailed pages.

Chris, are all these things really in the Catholic bible? There seem to be multiple possible meanings of "apocrypha" - does the standard usage then refer to things which are int he Catholic bible, but not the Protestant?

[Laura K (NC)]

I've been researching Great Books for the last few days, getting an idea of how to put my own list together.

I plan on studying the Bible, but have a few initial questions on how to approach it. Firstly, the issue of what version to read. In TWEM, SWB warns against "contemporary revisions." I know little about the issues surrounding different versions, but know that ideally, I would like whatever is considered the most accurate and faithful translation (which I would not presume everyone agrees on). I was hoping that you all could advice me on choosing a translation. Currently I own a New Living Translation and a New International Version.

There are two kinds of translations. One is the "dynamic equivalence," the other is "formal correspondence." Dynamic equivalence translations try to make scriptural ideas clear using the best modern language. An example is the New Living Bible. Formal correspondence translations are more of a literal, word-for-word interpretation. The KJV, ASV, RSV, and NIV are in this category. The former is good for reading aloud, the latter is good for exegesis. Both should be used for greatest understanding. You have one of each, so that is a good start.

The warning against modern translations is for when extreme forms of dynamic equivalence twist the intent of the authors to suit modern sensibilities, especially in response to special interest groups. The God of the Bible was always referred to with the masculine pronoun, for example, and to change the wording is to do damage to the history of God's people.

Secondly, in my research I came across The Apocrypha, which I understand to be "lost" or "cut" sections of the Bible. I was wondering if this would be a worthwhile pursuit as part of my study of the Bible, and was curious as to a scholarly perspective and a believer's perspective on it. How is this viewed in relation to the Bible? Censorship? Irrelevant? etc.

Some traditions call these 7 books of the Bible "Apocrypha," some call them "Deutero-Canonicals." Catholics call them Deuterocanonicals because they believe them to be scripture, and reserve the word "apocrypha" for extra-biblical writings of the ancient church... those books which were considered and then rejected when the Church formed the canon. The deuterocanonicals are all in the O.T. They came from the Septuagint, that collection of OT scripture translated into Greek in Alexandria, Egypt before Christ was born. There was some disagreement in the early Church about whether these books should be included in the canon. The Church agreed (informally) fairly early on to include them. These books would have been familiar to the Jews of the Diaspora. -- those Jews whose synagogues Paul would have visited in his journey through the Roman Empire to spread the gospel. Even if your tradition doesn't recognize them as canonical, you might still find them interesting. The books of Maccabees are part of this canon and give interesting insight into the few hundred years right before Christ was born, and relate the story behind Hanukkah. When I took a "Bible as Literature" class in the secular Ohio State University, we covered some sections of the deuterocanonicals.

Thirdly, and I apologize if this question is as ignorant as I fear it to be, but how to the Dead Sea Scrolls fit in to all of this? Would a translation of them also make a good addition to my study?

It's not an ignorant question at all. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments of Biblical books, extra-biblical religious writings, and some secular writings on community life. I think it's important to know the impact of finding these scrolls had on history and scripture scholarship, but you would have to be studying OT scripture pretty deeply for the study of the Dead Sea scroll fragments to have much of an impact. There is just so much to study about the OT, I think the Dead Sea Scrolls are largely peripheral for most purposes. I took our kids to a traveling Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit and while it was interesting to see such ancient fragments, the exhibit didn't do anything for my understanding of the scriptures.

[Eliana]

Some traditions call these 7 books of the Bible "Apocrypha," some call them "Deutero-Canonicals."


By seven do you mean: Judith, Maccabees 1 & 2, Susannah, Tobit... hmmm... Ecclesiastius (sp? I remember it as being so similar in spelling to Ecclesiastes (what I would call Kohelet)... that doesn't add up to seven, does it?

What are the seven, then? (As you can tell, this is not something I've studied in recent memory!)


Catholics call them Deuterocanonicals because they believe them to be scripture, and reserve the word "apocrypha" for extra-biblical writings of the ancient church... those books which were considered and then rejected when the Church formed the canon. The deuterocanonicals are all in the O.T. They came from the Septuagint, that collection of OT scripture translated into Greek in Alexandria, Egypt before Christ was born.


To be clear: aiui the Apocrypha are works which were in the Vulgate and Septugiant, but not in the Hebrew Bible. They are definitely Jewish texts in their origin(sometimes, aiui, with Xtian additions), but they are not part of Tanakh.

The Pseudepigrapha are texts which weren't accepted as Canon by anyone, but were (falsely) attributed to ancient authors or Biblical figures. [though, technically, I think all these texts would be more properly names Pseudepigrapha from my faith's perspective.]








It's not an ignorant question at all. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments of Biblical books, extra-biblical religious writings, and some secular writings on community life. I think it's important to know the impact of finding these scrolls had on history and scripture scholarship, but you would have to be studying OT scripture pretty deeply for the study of the Dead Sea scroll fragments to have much of an impact. There is just so much to study about the OT, I think the Dead Sea Scrolls are largely peripheral for most purposes. I took our kids to a traveling Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit and while it was interesting to see such ancient fragments, the exhibit didn't do anything for my understanding of the scriptures.


You said that so well, thank you!

[Laura K (NC)]

Eliana,

The seven books are:
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
1 & 2 Maccabees

There are also some parts of Esther and Daniel. There are parts of some canons (Orthodox, and 1611 King James Bible) that were never recognized by the Catholic Church as canonical: 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses.

There's more about the deuterocanonical books at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books).

[Michelle in MO]

Just a few quick comments--
If you want a believer's perspective, be aware Bart Erhman is not a Christian. Just fyi, no comment.
The Apocrypha is in the Catholic bible, but not Protestant, and it's iffy for Anglicans (we say it's profitable, but not scripture).
If you want to ask him questions, my dh would be willing to correspond with you and give you ideas. dbinder@pohickdotorg. Tell him I sent you. He's a New Testament scholar.

very good historical information on those Teaching Company DVD's, but I noted also a book by Professor Ehrman that seemed to challenge an essential belief in the goodness of God. I think this is the book:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Gods-Problem/Bart-D-Ehrman/e/9780061173974/?itm=3

entitled God's Problem. Originally I had thought that Professor Ehrman had come out with some information which challenged some of the faulty premises of The DaVinci Code, which led me to believe he held to a more orthodox view of Christianity, although I could be wrong about that.

[Carrie in NC]

Bart Ehrman was an evangelical Christian who now describes himself a "happy agnostic." He has a masters degree from Wheaton College, and went on to get MDiv and PhD degrees at Princeton Theological Seminary. His study of "textual variants" led him to believe the Bible contained errors, and eventually led him to believe the Bible is a completely human book. Along the way Ehrman lost his faith and considers himself agnostic.

Knowing someone's worldview is helpful when interacting with their books and materials. Ehrman has some great information in his books, but I don't agree with how he interprets that information.

[Zuca]

Thank you everyone for the great responses!

Strider - I put the book on hold at my library. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Eliana - Thank you for all the information. Having a Jewish translation is a great idea; I'll look into it. As for my goals and timeframe, for the Bible, I just want a basic survey, and will spend as much time on it as I feel necessary and as my interest dictates as I work through it. I imagine both factors will change as I read.

Chris - Thank you for the clarification. I imagine if I research more myself I won't need to bother your dh, but I'll keep him in mind if I get stuck - thank you!

Laura - Thank you for the very thorough response. My concern was about what translations -do- twist the wording, but it sounds like the translations I have are alright.

[sarahli]

I am Sarah's Husband. I have a BS in religion, and nearly an MA in theology. I am willing to give you whatever guidance you want.

The best way to answer your question is to say that there is no perfect translation. There are better translations and worse translations. But before we get into that, you ought to know that there are different styles of translation, 1) Dynamic and 2) Literal. A dynamic translation (The NLT; and the Message) translates the idea of the original text into our culture, whereas a literal translation (NRSV or NASB) translates word for word. By the way, every translation is some mix of both. The NIV is translated for smooth reading, it is usually less accurate than other translations; on the other hand, a middle schooler can read it, which is not a bad thing.

Concerning the Apocrypha. These books, it is true, were left out of Luther and Calvin's translation, and subsequently almost all Protestant translations. The English churches are an exception to this rule as their history is different. That being said, the early church gave them a different rating than other scripture. Here's what you need to know:
1. These books were written in Greek, and usually circulated in synagogues outside of Palestine.
2. They are all Old Testament books.
3. The early church did not think they were historically accurate, but thought they taught good lessons about God.
4. That being said, Paul and probably Jesus quote from the book of Sirach, and some things said in the Wisdom of Solomon seem to be on Paul's mind when he writes.
5. In any case they are good reads.

Finally, a good book to read about all this is called "How to read the Bible for all it's worth. You might also do a study on how the New Testament was canonized.

I think the NLT you have is fine for a first time read through. The first time you are reading through the Bible, the most important thing is to read through it--get a feel for scripture.


For more info
jonsaddress@gmail.com

[Beth in SW WA]

Finally, a good book to read about all this is called "How to read the Bible for all it's worth.

I love this book! I've heard Dr. Gordon Fee speak in person. He is awesome. I recommended this book a few weeks ago here when someone was asking about a book to get them familiar w/ the Bible.

[sarahli]

This is Sarah's husband again. I missed question 3 at first. I have not read them much, but I do know some other things that will help you, but they will also challenge your faith if you are a Christian.

Study Church History. There are lots of great books on the subject. I recommend "A Story of Christianity" by Justo Gonzales.

Additionally, I would visit www.earlychristianwritings.com
There you will find many early Christian writings, duh, right? They are dated, and categorized as to whether they are written by orthodox (right thinking) or unorthodox/ heretical (wrong thinking) groups. I recommend reading the Didache, since its fairly early and reflects both moral teaching and liturgy of the early church.

[Zuca]

I was rather surprised to see my old topic pop back up again. :001_smile:

Sarah's husband - thank you for all the information and advice. I'll definitely be referring to it once I'm ready to start my study.