Stupid Question

[bigdgp]

So this may sound like a stupid question for an aspiring English PhD student to be asking, but c'mon, we all have those embarrassing gaps in our knowledge. I know that at least a few of you out there rely on spell check to remind you that "committee" actually does have two "m's," two "t's" and two "e's." Please answer and try not to make too much fun of me.

When listing The Holy Bible in a works cited, is one supposed to use alphabetize using "the" or "holy?" I know that normally "the" is supposed to be skipped when alphabetizing. However, there are certain cases where it is more than just a demonstrative article, and it seems like this is one of those cases. If it is conventional to go by "holy," is it at least a gray area? Thanks!

[Bukharan]

... Could you reference under 'B' - The Bible?

[murkyama]

So this may sound like a stupid question for an aspiring English PhD student to be asking, but c'mon, we all have those embarrassing gaps in our knowledge. I know that at least a few of you out there rely on spell check to remind you that "committee" actually does have two "m's," two "t's" and two "e's." Please answer and try not to make too much fun of me.

When listing The Holy Bible in a works cited, is one supposed to use alphabetize using "the" or "holy?" I know that normally "the" is supposed to be skipped when alphabetizing. However, there are certain cases where it is more than just a demonstrative article, and it seems like this is one of those cases. If it is conventional to go by "holy," is it at least a gray area? Thanks!

I cannot believe I am responding to this post.

I was snacking on wasabi peas when I read your post and one pea fell out of my fingers and my mouth remained open as I felt the shock of this question run through my thoughts. While I am not going to respond with the actual answer to your question, I will respond with two questions and ask what conventions are you using in your research and why are not going to the convention's rules to look up the answer instead of posting the question on here?

[bigdgp]

... Could you reference under 'B' - The Bible?

The full title of the translation I'm using is The Holy Bible: Douay-Rheims Version. This version was and has always since been published under the title of The Holy Bible. Thus, I'm pretty sure I shouldn't use "Bible" as the alphabetized word.

[bigdgp]

I cannot believe I am responding to this post.

I was snacking on wasabi peas when I read your post and one pea fell out of my fingers and my mouth remained open as I felt the shock of this question run through my thoughts. While I am not going to respond with the actual answer to your question, I will respond with two questions and ask what conventions are you using in your research and why are not going to the convention's rules to look up the answer instead of posting the question on here?

I'm using MLA, and I did check and there was nothing articulated on this matter in the handbook.

[Capo]

I'm pretty sure you would alphabetize it under "H", but I would check with someone from your English department just to be absolutely positive.

[anonacademic]

If you don't have an author when using MLA (as you don't with the Bible), then wouldn't that go first in your listings? In other words, it would look something like: "____. The Holy Bible. New York: Holy P, 2007. Print," and would go before your authored, alphabetized listings. If you have more than one item without an author, then you would alphabetize by taking "Holy," not "the."

However, I work in very secular topics, so I could stand corrected.

Edited for clarity.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Chumlee

[Sparky]

(tl;dr -

1. Cite the NRSV, not the D-R, unless you are writing about people who used the D-R.

2. If your paper is medieval, cite the Latin instead.

3. You don't put the Bible in "works cited" unless you are using a funky translation, i.e. not NRSV, KJV, Vulgate, or for the Old Testament Apocrypha, the Oxford Annotated edition. Then it goes alphabetically under whatever it says on the title page; no author. If the title is something like "The Holy Bible," you put the name of the translation after that. Then the editor/translator/translating group, publisher, etc, like a regular book.

4. In in-text citation, the first time you cite the Bible, you use the name of the translation, then book, chapter verse. If you are using the same translation, after that you just cite book, chapter, verse.

5. For book titles, you use the standard four-letter abbreviation.

Expanded:

The standard English translation for scholarly work is the NRSV, unless you are writing about a historical context (early America, late nineteenth century Holiness, etc) that used a different translation. Then you use what those people used. This is to say: unless you are studying post-Tridentine Catholic liturgy, or need an almost-literal translation of the Vulgate, you probably shouldn't be citing Douay-Rheims. (You're a medievalist--you know something about the accuracy of the Vulgate--and thus D-R. )

If your paper is medieval, there is a totally awesome D-R/Vulgate side-by-side comparison here. (It's a pretty vulgar Vulgate, not the critical edition, but I haven't had any protests from profs when quoting it b/c I am too lazy to walk to my bookshelf! And anyway, the Vulgate itself was pretty corrupt in the Middle Ages, so the lack of critical edition really doesn't matter that much). Use the Latin; unless, again, you are writing about a specific reading community that had access to a vernacular Bible.

The Unbound Bible has the NRSV as one of the translations available for side-by-side comparison by verse (as well as the KJV and the Douay-Rheims, FWIW).

ETA:

Dude, Google "mla format bible." Purdue's site is pretty good, though incomplete.

ETAA:

This may be the only time in my life I ever make use of my theology degrees.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Sparky