I was checking the New Stories listing and found the following statement:
It would help if you had already read books one and two, since this is a saga rather than a series.
Is there really a difference between a saga and a series? If so, what's the difference?
A saga is a single story broken into multiple parts, usually in the form of multiple books. The parts must be read in order because it all parts together are actually a single story/book. A very good example is the Lord of the Rings.
Series denotes multiple books/stories in the same genre or using the same characters/environment. It's often possible to read parts of a series out of order which would not work with a saga. Good examples are the James Bond and Sherlock Holmes series of books.
Another description:
WikiDiff series/saga
Is there really a difference between a saga and a series? If so, what's the difference?
The Bible is a saga, a single long story broken up into multiple books, but rarely ever read separated from each other.
The Tolkienverse is a series, where there are many individual parts, and may be read all together, but only as the reader chooses. Some do lead into the next, but many do not.
The Tolkienverse is a series, where there are many individual parts, and may be read all together, but only as the reader chooses. Some do lead into the next, but many do not.
As a universe it's a series which includes books like The Silmarillion and The Children Of Hurin but The Lord of the Rings on it's own is definitely not a series but a saga. It's just split into parts/books because of it's lenght. You will have a difficult time following the time lines if you read the parts out of order. It's arguable if The Hobbit should be included or not when talking about a saga.
The Bible is a saga, a single long story broken up into multiple books, but rarely ever read separated from each other.
Not according to the Wikipedia (spit) definition because Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can be read in any order.
AJ
Not according to the Wikipedia (spit) definition because Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can be read in any order.
I am talking the entire work, not only 4 books in the New Testament. In fact, other than Acts needs to follow at least one of those works it can be read in almost any order.
It would be rough if you try reading the Old Testament out of order, it is largely chronological.
dThe Bible is a saga, a single long story broken up into multiple books, but rarely ever read separated from each other.
While I've know a few people who tried to read the ntire Bible, even in sequence, this answer makes me suspect that you are unfamiliar with it.
The very name means "Library" in Greek.
The min division is New Testament and Old Testament.The Old Testament contains history, laws, wisdom literature, worship songs (= Psalms), and prophecy. one part of the history is repeated in two different versions.
The New Testament has 4 different "Gospels," reports on the life and teachings of Jesus, the history of the early church after Jesus, various letters, and the Apocalypse. Until Gutenberg, it was almost never published together, and the individual books are often published separately or with a few books together.
Until Gutenberg, it was almost never published together, and the individual books are often published separately or with a few books together.
There wasn't even an agreed standard list of what books were part of the Bible until the Council of Nicaea in the 4th Century.
agreed standard list of what books were part of the Bible
Different faiths have different books in their version of the Holy Bible. There is no standard list for ALL bibles.
Check the table about a third of the way through the article in the following reference. I breaks down the scriptures in different versions of the bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
Different faiths have different books in their version of the Holy Bible.
I was watching a TV show (I think Grey's Anatomy) where a rabbi was in the hospital and dying. His doctor used to be a very religious Christian who lost her faith for various reasons. He helped her find God again.
He told her that he didn't know much about the Sequel, but he used the Torah to help her understand God. Christians refer to the books in the Torah as the Old Testament. When the rabbi spoke about the Sequel, he was referring to the New Testament. I thought that was funny.
Actually, the Torah is far less than the Old Testament. The Old Testament contains the Torah, tho...
Yeah, I can see something like that happening and it is funny.
However, as indicated in the table I referenced, there are differences between the Torah (Hebrew bible) and the Old Testament portions of the Western bibles.
there are differences between the Torah (Hebrew bible) and the Old Testament portions of the Western bibles.
Googling the difference between the Torah and Old Testament, I found this:
When read closely, one can find some historical inaccuracies and duplications which imply the Torah was compiled over time,
I guess one could imply that. But as an author, another reason could be that Moses failed to hire a good editor.
I guess one could imply that.
or no editor :)
The scriptures from which the Torah and Bible were built were written over a period of about a thousand years.
https://www.history.com/topics/religion/bible#:~:text=The%20Bible%20is%20the%20holy%20scripture%20of%20the,publication%20of%20the%20King%20James%20Bible%20in%201611
Check the table about a third of the way through the article in the following reference. I breaks down the scriptures in different versions of the bible.
That table is largely irrelevant to my comment.
I referred to the council of Nicea in the 4th century.
Judaism isn't relevant to my comment at all.
The Council of Nicea predates all of the Protestants, Lutherans and Anglicans splitting off of the Roman Catholic Church by at least a millennia. The protestant reformation didn't start until the 16th century.
The schism that created the Greek Orthodox Church (from which all the other Orthodox churches split/spun off) and the western (Roman Catholic) church didn't happen until 1054, 7 centuries after the Council of Nicea.
That table is largely irrelevant to my comment.
There wasn't even an agreed standard list of what books were part of the Bible until the Council of Nicaea in the 4th Century.
That was then and what was agreed to back then has changed. The table is relevant to the evolution of the contents of today's bibles.
I will assume you spotted the humorous intent of my post but decided to enlighten everyone anyway.
AJ