Hmm. Learn something everyday around here. Thanks, tracer.
I don’t know, dropzone- we’re already as high Anglican as you can get. We even have a Lady altar at the church we’re presently attending. Practically Catholic anyway.
And, wouldn’t’cha know it, what you “learned” from me wasn’t completely accurate.
Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition of Apocrypha with a capital A:
a : books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament – see BIBLE table b : early Christian writings not included in the New Testament
So, it looks like the Gospels of Thomas (both of them) are included in the capital-A Apocrypha, going by definition b.
:smack:
Without getting into the little hijack, I would second Ben’s comment about reading commentary along with the books, themselves. (If you’ve got the cash, picking up a Scofield Reference Bible or something similar might work.* )
The issue is not that the bible cannot be read on its own; the issue is that an understanding of the backgrounds of various books brings many of the books to life. It also helps one avoid drawing incorrect conclusions about some events or proclamations based on a faulty comprehension of the words used.
- (I disagree with dropzone’s observation regarding the Jerusalem Bible. Certainly, one must be careful to note that the theology expressed is clearly Catholic in origin (which may make it inappropriate for one’s use). However, the specific note to which dropzone alludes is quite clear in noting that the current Catholic theology is based on a rendering of a Latin translation of the bible. The historical notes are generally free of bias and the theological notes can be identified as such.)
Wow… I don’t turn the computer on for a day and look what happens!
Well, as Euty asked in his moderator-ness, I’d also kindly ask that the ‘debate’ be dropped. I’d really like this thread to informative and interesting for myself as well as other dopers, and too much mean-spirited arguing will muddy it up. Thanks.
I’m not too worried about getting bogged down with any of the books. I figure, having read the Silmarillion, I can probably forge through just about anything. 
As Priceguy and Freiheit ask, I will keep an eye out for inconsistancies and contradictions. Honestly, I think it’s the imperfections in anything that help us to learn and understand, so I think it’s a worthwhile endeavour to spot them and to think about them.
Hoping to stay away from further argument, I will say heygeno, that I think there are other options besides God and madman. Rabbi he was, whether God, madman, or just man.
And also heygeno, I do have a short attention span at times, so I look forward to reading Proverbs as a nice break from the long narrative bits.
tracer, I recently read Gilgamesh, and though I haven’t read the Bible yet (obviously), the many similarities were quite apparent. As a bit of a mythology buff, I’ll definitely be reading this with an eye for similar themes and stories to other cultures and religions.
Eric_Balrog, you’re not the first person who’s suggested that I read the New Testament first. I think, though, that the Old Testament will lend a necessary background and perspective to the New Testament. I think (and please understand, absolutely no offense meant here) that it’s a suggestion most often put forth by Christians, since, after all, Jesus doesn’t show up until the New Testament, and he and his story are kind of the crux of Christianity. There are a few other religions, though, that share Old Testament stories with Christianity without sharing the New Testament, and they also hold some clame on the OT. So, in fairness to everyone, I think I’ll go Old to New.
Howard Juneau, great tips all of them. I’ll keep them in mind.
Ben and tomndebb, your point is well taken as far as some conpanion literature. I am relatively familiar with Roman history during the life and times of Jesus, though I’m sure I could stand to know more as it relates to Jesus, the Jews, and Christianity (mini-hijack: I read Constantine’s Sword last year, which I thought was very helpful in understanding Jewish/Christian relations).
The only reason why I hesitate to do that is because one of my purposes is to really focus on how what I’m reading relates to the ‘general’ (if there is such a thing) Christian perspective and attitudes. To understand where it is that Christians I know and see are coming from, and I think it’s safe to say that most Christians have their Bible information without that intense historical perspective beyond what their pastor/minister/priest/etc gives in his or her sermon. That said, much of that info is important in understanding what is going on (otherwise, why bother having a minister in the first place). I’m curious tomndebb, what’s the story with a Scofield Reference Bible? I’d definitely be interested in picking up something that might give me a little context for what I’m reading.
CadburyAngel, thanks for ruining it for me! 
What’s Cosby’s Portraits of Jesus? I’ve got a tape of Bill Cosby’s Noah bit, but I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about.
Guin et al, would someone like to explain a little to me about different Bibles? I understand generally how it was pieced together, but I wasn’t really aware that one of the things to come out of the Reformation was a revised Bible.
Well, I think I’ve addressed everyone’s questions and comments. Thank you all for being interested, I’m really looking forward to this, and think it’s going to be a lot of fun; not only to be reading, but to be discussing with you all.
The Scofield Reference Bible is a standard reference work for many people. It is presented from the perspective of conservative (not necessarily Fundamentalist) Protestant Christian theology. As such, it has some built in biases, but it also does a decent job of addressing the language and context of certain passages.
Looking over the 1917 Scofield notes on-line, it seems to me that either the later versions have expanded their outside commentary quite a bit or that I confused the Scofield with some other book(!), perhaps the Oxford Annotated. (If I was thinking of the Anchor Bible, I apologize–the Anchor commentary for each book is about as long as the whole bible.) As the granddaddy of most “reference bibles,” the Scofied is the name I grab and throw out in conversation the most. The Jerusalem Bible is similar (although with a Catholic bias) and there are several other similar works. In each case, you do need to be aware of the theological bias, but the historical and linguistic notes are usually OK. The Oxford Annotated RSV with Apocrypha (or various “Oxford Annotated” versions) is an excellent reference with limited (not non-existent) theological bias. (None of these are cheap.)
For a quick overview of the compilation of the bible, one can certainly do much worse than the series put together by Dex and Euty:
Who wrote the Bible? (Part 1)
Who wrote the Bible? (Part 2)
Who wrote the Bible? (Part 3)
Who wrote the Bible? (Part 4)
Who wrote the Bible? (Part 5)
There were several vigorous discussions regarding the reports in Comments on Staff Reports–all of which were lost in the Winter Of Our Missed Content.
In terms of the “other books” that did not make it into the various canons, we have discussed those on several occasions:
Who uses the Apocrypha? (This thread links to the Northwest Nazarene University Wesley Center for Applied Theology’s Noncanonical Literature page.
Settling argument re: Old Testament
Christian Bible - KJV and apocrypha
Versions/History of the Bible
In terms of “how was it written? (or translated?)” we have:
Why is the New Testement written in Old English?
King James Bible - Accuracy?
about the different versions of the bible
These links are not exhaustive, of course–exhausting, perhaps.
Lutherans are also known as “Catholic Lite.” All the ceremony with only 2/7 of the Sacraments!
SpazCat, recovering Lutheran
Priceguy:
What a shame, then, that he was such a virulent anti-semite (not that this was unusual for medieval European Christians). He would have found the Talmud very enlightening about such “reiterations.”
And Eonwe, a major bit of advice from me - unsurprisingly - is, when you’re reading the Old Testament, and you’ve got questions or confusions, try consulting a Jewish resource in addition to whatever Christian resources you normally would consider consulting.
Good luck.
Having my curiosity piqued about the Scofield, I went out and did some poking around at it. I had used it as an example of the most popular of reference bibles, but I think I’m going to withdraw any support for it and get in the habit of mentioning the Oxford Annotated, instead. Apparently, the Scofield has been quite popular explicitly because of its particular view of the bible, with a very strong theological tilt that does get in the way of the historical, linguistic, and literary commentary.
Note : Fixed coding - Euty
Gee, sounds like it! Sorry for my misunderstanding but I’ve come to equate “I’m Christian” with “I’m Non-Conformist” because that’s how it is used in the States. The transition from High Anglican to Roman rite should be plenty smooth. Were this Great Debates I might even ask what the point of converting would be, since the Anglican, Lutheran, and Roman churches have agreed to disagree in recent years.
No shit! I looked around and said, “Just Baptism and Confirmation? Where the hell did Extreme Unction go?”
You still got it, man. Cracked me up pretty good with this one. . .
ATTENTION - NON-PARTISAN BIBLE RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the Harper Collins Study Bible. It isn’t affiliated to any branch of christian religion but tries to be as neutral as possible and has good notes on differences between various versions. It also includes all the books (included in Protestant, catholic, Judaism etc…)
I second that recommendation. Another good study bible for lay study is the Oxford Annotated. Both are NRSV, which many, including myself, see as being a great translation. The errors are few and far between.
Dang Tomndebb! Nice bunch of links 
One great thing about the New Oxford Annotated Bible is that it frequently provides footnotes relating to the translation of the text (e.g., it will give you a synonym for an ambiguous word, or it will explain the etymology). For me, this helps me feel like I’m getting a good understanding of the spirit of the text and don’t have to worry about translator bias as much.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible also prefaces each book with a page or so of historical and literary background, so that you can place each work in its appropriate context. Here is an example of one of these explanations (introducing the book of Genesis), taken from Amazon.com, so you can see for yourself.
(I used this version of the Bible in my college religion classes – it’s great for students, whether classroom- or self-taught.)
There is a translation by a guy named Fox (IIRC) of the Pentateuch which is outstanding.
He tries to give the flavor and structure of the Hebrew in the translation - where most versions say “altar”, he says “slaughter-site”, for instance, and his phrasing of the Ten Commandments elminates the stiff formality we all got used to in Sunday School (at least we Lutherans did). I understand he is working on the whole Old Testament. Outstanding stuff.
Regards,
Shodan
I remember reading a while back about an attempt to translate the Bible into Klingon. There was a division among the ranks, however, as some Klingon translwators wanted to remain true to the original and others wanted to translate the Bible in such a way that it would fit in with Klingon culture. (The Klingon language has no word for “mercy”, for example.)
Did either of thee attempts succeed?
That would be Fox’s commentary on the Buber-Rosenzweig translation of the Torah, The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Looks very similar to Friedman’s translation of and Commentary on the Torah, which I became engrossed with one night at Barnes and Noble. Anyone have any familiarity with the two? I’m wondering how they compare to one another. I see Fox uses the original Hebrew names, but don’t remember if Friedman uses the original or translated names. Maybe I should start another thread.
I’m looking forward to commentaries on Nevi’im and Ketuvim by either one of them.
I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned Asimov’s Guide to the Bible in this thread yet.
It’s a HUGE pair of volumes, but it goes into excruciating detail about each and every one of those 66 books. The upshot of most of Asimov’s commentary on Genesis is that the various names of the characters in Genesis correspond to names of tribes and nations that lived nearby the ancient Israelites at the time Genesis was written (9th-6th century B.C.).