One other thing I have noticed: Many stores have Bibles for sale at very low prices. I’ve picked up several Bibles for under 2 dollars. By keeping your eyes open, you can buy multiple translations for far less than an university textbook.
Each week, in synagogue, a particular passage from Torah is read (or, as you point, more chanted than read). This is a parshah. Also read is a particular selection from the prophets - the haftarah, as discussed above.
The Torah is read in order, start to finish. I don’t know how much you may remember from synagogue, but there’s a minor holiday called Simchat Torah that may ring a bell. On this holiday, the last of Torah - Deut. chapter 34 - is read, immediately followed by Genesis 1. This symbolizes the eternal, unchanging, and complete circle that is Torah.
For convenience, the Torah can be published divided by parshiyot, with the weekly haftarah inserted. This makes it easy to follow along week to week. This type of collection of Torah is called a chumash.
The idea that the reading from a book of the prophets came about at a time when Jews were forbidden to read from the Torah is probably not historically accurate.
See the standard history on Jewish liturgy: Ismar Elbogen, “Jewish Liturgy” p. 143. I know that the theory just mentioned is widely accepted, but there is no historical evidence for it whatsoever that I know of (I have some expertise in Bible and Jewish liturgy).
The word “haftarah” is from the Hebrew word verb root “p.t.r.” which means “to conclude”. When ones read from the prophetic portion for the day (Sabbath and Festivals, and certain other days), one is concluding the Torah reading.
I would agree on much of what has been posted here regarding versions of the Bible. Certainly, the KJV is unmatched in the beauty of the English, but that English is outdated, the translation does not enjoy subsequent centuries of research.
I have assigned to my students the Jewish Study Bible, edited by Michael Fishbane. It uses the JPS translation of the Tanakh, which rests on the Massoretic text, but in notes reference is made to the Septuagint and other textual versions. The study Bible provides several important essays, most notably one on canonization.
And since the OP seems to be searching a way to rehabiliate a meaningful read of the Bible, I would recommend the two books of Aviva Zornberg. She is reading the Bible through the lens of rabbinic and chasidic Judaism, the psychoanalytic tradition and literary criticism, but in my opinion, is one of the best teachers of the Bible’s depth out there today.
Here’s a thread in which the issue of Bible versions came up, rather older than any that tomndebb dug up. I was reminded of it when I started reading this one.
I like eSword, a site that offers free download of a fairly large variety of different Bible translations. I have most of the English versions, plus the Vulgate, on my computer.
One fairly new version that is available online, but not for download that I really like is NETBible. It is a very recent translation, eminently readable, and there are some helps available … And I just discovered something of interest to me: they’re offering a module of NETBible for eSword. I think I’ll put it on my Xmas list and tell one or two of Santa’s elves. 
For my personal study, I use (as I said in the 2001 thread) my NIV, along with other versions from eSword (Analytical-Literal, Contemporary English Version, etc.). I also like to check the Moffatt translation (an astounding one-man tour de force parts of which are now nearly 100 years old), but it’s hard to find. I only replaced my first copy a couple of years ago. Copies of the Moffatt translation aren’t cheap, but they read beautifully.
I know there is no specific proof for the historical explanation I offered, or, indeed, any historical explanation for the practice – that’s why I clarified it with “I was taught…” instead of leaving it as a blanket statement. But it’s worth pointing out (as you did) that the idea is accepted by traditional authorities.
I have The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV with the Apocrypha . It has everything, including some books and chapters that you won’t find in many Bibles, such as 3 & 4 Maccabees. It seems to me that if any Christian group considered something a part of its canon, it’s in there. I highly recommend it, but I’m not much of a scholar.
Also it’s pretty expensive.
I agree with Rucksinator. If you are studying beyond the OT, I believe the NEB with Apocrypha is the way to go.
I would also recommend, for anyone interested in Bible study, to at least peruse the works of the Pseudepigrapha – that collection of works that did not even make it into the Apocrypha.
That Bible only includes the canon of the Catholic and the main Orthodox churches. The larger Ethiopian canon mentioned by Polycarp is not included, and obviously neither are the Mormon books. A number of the books from the Ethiopian canon (e.g. Enoch and Jubilees) can be found in most collections of pseudepigrapha that Lynwood Slim mentioned.
Professor Felix Just of Loyola Marymount has one of the best sites comparing various biblical canons and translations.
I’ll just stop in to add my voice to those who have said, if you pick one English translation to study, use the Oxford Annotated New Revised Standard Version. Excelleent study materials are included with the basic text.
The King James version can be heartbreakingly beautiful, but the meaning of words in English has changed in the last almost 400 years, and there can be misunderstandings. And more recent translations have had more comparative textual material to work with.
To be honest, I wasn’t really counting the LDS books.
Thanks for the correction.
Baker, can you or Larry Borgia point to some verses in the KJV that you find to be “heartbreakingly beautiful”? Just curious.
Just off the top of my head, I’ll list the psalms, particularly the 23rd, and God’s speech in Job.
I’ll see if I can’t find something more specific.
I disagree with that: I have read the Bible through five times. And not exclusively the New World Translation, whose 1970 edition I acquired. I even had three Bibles side by side at times; the KJV and the New English Bible–checked out of a library. And I also have a Bible in Esperanto. I found little difference between the three; the NWT does a better job of using modern English (20th-Century, that is).
If you want to see a translation slanted to a church’s doctrine, look at the Douay or most other Catholic versions; or even the Living Bible–which is at least honest enough to include the word “Paraphrased” on its front cover. The Douay is a stiff, awkward rendering–compare it yourselves to the KJV. And I certainly do not condone the verse-juggling inflicted by Dr. James Moffatt, in his version; he rearranges chapters and verses to suit himself throughout. He also accepts the documentary theory about the Pentateuch, and a similar notion about the Christian scrptures, making me wonder why, with thyat attitude, he bothered translating the Bible in the first place–unless he was the fox hired to guard the chickens!
Sorry for the delayed response.
Dr. Moffatt was an expert at linguistics (as well as having the requisite deep knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek), and used his expertise to analyze the texts. He used a technique known as “textual emendation” (which some branches of Judaism at least acknowledge) for the purpose of determining what was originally where, and also the origins of various parts of the OT historical books.
If it offends you religiously, no one is making you read it. I won’t go any farther with this, as I have neither the time nor the interest to engage in a debate, much less a flame war. I was responding to the OP’s question and interests - if you look back, you will see that she is not a Christian, nor even a believer of any kind.
I am a believer, but I worship the person, not the book. I have the deepest respect for the book (nay, honor it above all other books), but I understand that - no matter how hard ancient scribes tried, or how nearly they succeeded, given the size, the age and the diverse sources - textual errors are bound to accumulate. And most of the passages he rearranged (not changing the content) read much more easily.
YMMV :shrug:
I am not interested in a “flame war” or a religious debate here either. I did find out, however, that Dr. Moffatt died about 1936, and did not know about the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I read his foreword, and he placed the writing of the book of Daniel around 200 B.C. I disagree with this strongly, and if you wish I will start a separate thread in which to take this matter up.
Daniel is most definitely 2nd Century BCE. That’s a completely uncontroversial position. It was written during the Maccabean revolt. It’s one of the most datable books in the Bible. C. 167 BCE. This is not something that’s disputed by anyone but religious conservatives. I’d be happy to explain why in another thread.
You’re on.
While you’re waiting for Diogenes’s reply, you could read the Straight Dope staff report (Who wrote the Bible, part 3). (The part about Daniel is fairly near the bottom.)
There seem to be a lot of helpful replies here, but I’ll throw in a few questions that people haven’t asked yet.
(1) Do you intend to read this Bible, study it, and/or present it to the class? While a “beautiful” version such as King James may be more inspiring, in a literary sense, when read aloud, it may annoy you greatly when you have 100 pages to read the night before an exam and you have to keep looking up vocabulary. If you intend to study it deeply, you may want to favor literal (word-for-word) translations, as opposed to dynamic equivalent (phrase-for-phrase) translations. If you’re planning to be reading it and then putting the ideas into your own phrases, then the choice of modern language may be most important.
Presumably, in a philosophy class, you’re not going to be doing much exegesis, but you should also know there are various Bibles (online and paper) which offer a Greek manuscript along with its translations (interlinear) which allow you to compare different/same words in the Greek as opposed to English.
(2) How important is orthodoxy to you? Is it more important that you read about all views on the Bible, even if some minority views are disparaged by the majority? Or are you primarily concerned with what traditional/orthodox Christians have to say about the Bible, and are willing to ignore a minority opinion?
Many Christian bookstores will carry various “study” Bibles which include short blurbs on confusing passages and other pointers. The catch is that these pointers will have a definite slant.
Good luck!