Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMyths
That's where one of the problems lies, Chief. The Torah/Old Testament was published as a single work before any version of the Bible containing both it and the New Testament was published. It is still followed separately in the Jewish tradition, and thus doesn't merely form a series of chapters in one single text. Another issue is that the chapters have specific, identifiable authors in many cases (or at least attributed ones). To say that God "inspired" these writers doesn't attribute authorship so much as inspiration. It's a thorny issue.
My sense is that we are and should be required to point to a specific text, rather than lumping all versions of a text into a generalized name embracing all of them. As such, using the King James Bible is a decent bet. Arguments for other versions of the Bible would also be compelling.
I'm going to side with the argument for specificity, and so it would probably be a good idea to edit your pick to reflect the King James version.
|
Well, as to your first issue, is the Torah, word for word, the Old Testament? Or are there any key differences? I knew one is written in Hebrew. Given the different languages, the different religious perspectives from which they come from, and the fact that the Bible has wholely new material not present in the Torah, I feel at least that it can be considered a distinct and separate work.
As for choosing a version, lordscarlet addresses this, mentioning later versions of a story (he specifically mentions anthologies, but I think this situation is analagous) not being separately available to different drafters. The fact is, there is only one original source material for this work, and it is as a whole known as The Holy Bible. Whichever version one chooses, it is merely an arbitrary version which chooses some parts of the original and rejects others, and which uses different word choices, as a result of both meaning, interpretation and translation issues.
It would be like choosing the English verson of Crime & Punishment. Is it not likely that the translation from Russian to English has lost some of the beauty in Dostoyevsky's word choice, which was perfected through his being raised in Russia and using that language his whole life? You could argue that the English and Russian versions are similar, but not exact. Would it then be fair for someone to select the Russian version and then another the English version? IMO, that would be a distinct violation of the intent of lordscarlet's rule prohibiting repeat choices.
The King James, the New Age, whatever--it was all parsed from the same original source material. I don't intend to claim a version of the Bible. I intend to claim the entire original work, from which all subsequent versions have been derived. And that was my original intent when I announced my choice (as I stated therein).
And there is no limitation on number of authors for a work, so far as I can tell. As long as the work is distinct and disparate, a stand alone, it should be eligible regardless of the number of authors. The Old Testament is largely written as first hand historical accounts. So while authors can't always be specifically named, I think it rises above "anonymity". And, throwing aside historical issues of proving authorship, it is reasonably stated in all New Testament books (the ones widely accepted, that is) who the author is.
And there are categories here where whole series are allowed to be selected. If this qualifies as a series, it could certainly be allowed under the precedent that series can be chosen in some cases. And it also qualifies as a single work (just written over a significant amount of time), as it has come to be contained in one bound book for centuries now (really, 1600 years as one book!)