/lit/ - Literature

>>11387488
If you’re reading the Bible to learn something about it, I recommend you definitely leave the KJV aside except as an occasional reference. The language is (obviously) dated and, more seriously, it’s a flawed translation of an inaccurate text. It’s historically very important in English, and has a prominent place in the history of Anglo-American literature, but there’s no good reason to use it for actual biblical study.

For understanding the Hebrew scriptures, a Jewish publication would be good. For the Christian scriptures the NRSV is most commonly used in mainline Protestant churches, as well as for academic purposes. It’s a solid and widely accepted version and you’ll not go wrong to start there.

Personally, for both personal study and for reference in my PhD studies I like the New American Standard. It has a bad reputation for its association with fundamentalist assholery, but it’s the most word-for-word literal version widely available in English. The syntax is sometimes pretty tortured, and it doesn’t explain idiom as much as the NRSV would, but I prefer this knowing that the translation is closer.

Best of luck, anon. I hope it goes well and you enjoy it.

>>11387488
Depends on what you're reading for.
If you're only reading the bible to get acquainted with its literary heritage, then the KJV is the only one you need.

I on the other hand am equally interested in theological accuracy, so I picked up the Jewish Study bible,I feel it's important to pick a translation that treats the TaNaKh as an isolated work without later Christian interpolation (especially in the commentary)

That's my 2¢ on the matter. No need to rush to the KJV, you'll have a whole lifetime to savor it.

>>11387488
If you're serious about studying the bible. Many theologian students where I go to school use the Douay–Rheims. It's a translation of the Latin Vulgate that was put forward by st.jerome in the 3rd or 4th century.

A forewarning. It doesn't read perfectly or flow very well. But it is a great translation of the Vulgate.

>>11387532
thanks, very useful information

>>11387553
>If you're only reading the bible to get acquainted with its literary heritage
not only, but it's one of the reasons
do I miss some of this by reading the other versions or it should be fine?

>I feel it's important to pick a translation that treats the TaNaKh as an isolated work without later Christian interpolation (especially in the commentary)
same, it's one of the reasons I've enjoyed this Jewish Study Bible edition so far

>>11387576
I think I'm serious about it, but not serious enough to endure the "It doesn't read perfectly or flow very well." part
I'll take a look at it though, thanks

>>11387597
The Douay–Rheims is mainly for hardcore theologian students. If you really want to study the bible. You wont find a more accurate and faithful translation to the Greek gospels.

the study bible is more recommended in college because they are trying to teach, but the KJV is more literary focused

>>11387597
>do i miss some of this by reading the other versions or should it be fine

It depends. By just reading and understanding the structure and content of the Scriptures, you’ll get more from Anglo-American literature, at least that written up to around the mid-20th century. You’ll better understand the allusions and references made by others, and when a character is called, for instance, a “Christ figure” or some such, you’ll have a more specific and nuanced understanding of why.

What the KJV offers to literary study is the influence of its language... so the form rather than the content. This is not insignificant, but it is of lesser importance until you have an understanding of the content. When you look to, say the stories of the patriarchs in Genesis, or the language of the prophets or the book of Revelation or the Psalms or Ecclesiastes, you’ll have a better sense of, say, the style of Melville. Or you may have better insight into Blake or Shelley. McCarthy’s prose is compared to the Old Testament because of its resemblance to the style of the KJV, but I hardly know what to do with that insight once it’s been expressed.

Stick to the JSB and the NRSV and enjoy learning the Scriptures for themselves, then appreciate the grand style of the KJV later.

>>11387597
You'll only miss out on the familiarity of the phrases from the KJV that have become commonplace in the English language. Some examples from Exodus:

>KJV
>And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.
>JPS
>She bore a son whom he named Gershom, for he said, "I have been a stranger in a foreign
land."

>KJV
>Thou shalt not kill
>JPS
>You shall not murder.

In both cases the JPS is more accurate, but the KJV rings a bell.

>>11387532
This is pleb stuff based on amateur assumptions about the original tects. The KJV is the only work of dozens of learned divines and the best collection of English prose

>>11387680
And much of it (about 60%) is almost identical to earlier translations, such as the Bishop’s Bible and the Geneva Bible, which was the translation used by Shakespeare, Bunyan and Donne.

Look, I’m not denying the immense influence of the KJV upon the english language or literature, but for the well-meaning anon who wants to understand the contents of the Bible, I maintain that he’d do well to stick to better, more modern translations. Once he has a grasp of it, he can turn to the KJV to appreciate the language.

>>11387680
lmao don't listen to this psued

Try the NAB
usccb.org/bible/

KJV is verbose to the point of being a poor translation. Read ESV to get a better idea of what the biblical authors actually meant

>>11387738
"Le literary only KJV" is a platitude. The translation was the product of painstaking collaboration between some of the greatest theological minds of the day.
See: Minutes of John Bois

>>11387944
>KJV is verbose

>>11387968
NRSV is the product of painstaking collaboration between some of the greatest biblical scholars of the day plus they have more and better manuscripts

>>11387994
>of the day
And there's your problem

Don't listen to the NRSV shills. It's a major downgrade from the RSV, which is the one you should get if you're not willing to read the Douay-Rheims.

>>11389336
The Know Bible is also acceptable, but you'll have a hard time finding a copy. Baronius Press sells it but it's a bit expensive, you certainly get what you pay for though.

>>11389346
Knox, sorry.

>>11389336
The ESV is similar, the Douay-Rheims is pretty similar to all the other translations of the era, it's a bit difficult to determine which is the best out of all of them.

>>11389346
You can't be serious, this is one of the most liberally interpretive translations I've seen, why anyone use such a thing?

>>11389420
There are reasons, I'm sure you can think of one. Try hard.

>Jewish Study Bible
Sounds like rotten fruit from a shitty tree
I wouldn't trust a Judaized version of the Old Testament
t. Christian

>>11389429
For a movie adaptation?

>>11389433
But the old testament is the official Jew one if you are reading any protestant bible.

>>11387994
This.
If you want to understand the content, there is no comparison to the NRSV.
The Harper Collins Study Bible is the one I have. It's the NRSV + notes by scholars.