/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1632413]

Okay /lit/. I decided to study this. I have strong reasons to do it, and I'm not affiliated to any religion (and wish to not be).

- Where do I start? What book should I begin from?
- What versions of the bible should I consider studying? I need varied points of view, so that's a point to take into account.
- Any special considerations to take while reading?

Thanks beforehand!

[Anonymous No.1632415]

>>1632413
genesis, ecclesiastes and job are the best books in that thing. just saying.

[Anonymous No.1632414]

>I decided to study this. I have strong reasons to do it
What are these reasons?

[Anonymous No.1632422]

>>1632414
Last night I made a couple of tl;dr threads stating those in other boards. I was seeking for help, because... Well, my dad is a JW (so I also have to study their bible, the NWT, to find inconsistencies) and I found out it's a lie of a religion. I don't want him to keep living a lie, so I gotta study the very source of his beliefs.

>>1632415
But, are those okay for a sort-of beginner reading it?

[Anonymous No.1632425]

>>1632422
Hmm, well I was talking from a literature perspective, I thought you wanted to appreciate the bible as literature so suggested those three books. If your aim is to find fault in it just go to things like numbers and deuteronomy and all of the ones with laws.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.1632430]

Douay-rheims version is effectively required if you wish to study the bible as a scholar, although the Jerusalem Bible translation is also good. If you have access to a university library or a good public library see if you can get access tot he Anchor Bible Dictionary, a series of books that discuss each book of the bible in great depth from a scholarly viewpoint.

If this is for a course, I suggest the first 10 chapters of genesis, the Gospel of Luke, the Acts, then Sirach and James to get a broad overview of the many types of literary style in the bible. As someone else pointed out, Job is also very good, although dense.

[Anonymous No.1632432]

>>1632425
Faults in a certain bible are just one of the reasons, I also need to study to have the knowledge to actually know what the bible says, instead, and I know it's not just to pick some verse and see how it's badly written, but to also check the whole context and analyze it deeply, and get my own conclussions.

[Anonymous No.1632433]

>>1632413

King James Bible (NOT "NKJV") for historical influence; plus "Geneva Bible" if you want to go further back.

Revised Standard Version / New Revised Standard Version / Revised English Bible for a modern version with wide sectarian acceptance (Catholic and most mainstream Protestant), scholarly respectability, use of up-to-date texts, and inclusion of most of the books accepted by major churches - including the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals used in the Anglican, Catholic, and other lectionaries.

NIV for the major modern Protestant version (but lacking any of the apocryphal books). If you want to follow English Catholic tradition, there's the Douay-Rheims from the 16th century, the New American Bible, and the New Jerusalem Bible (which some prefer for its literary qualities).

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.1632434]

>>1632425
not to argue, but since he is coming from a Christian paradigm, try the books of Romans and Colossians

[Anonymous No.1632438]

>>1632432

Then you need to study Hebrew, ancient Greek, and Aramaic: these are the languages of the major source texts. Latin (via the Vulgate and other translations) is also very important to the history of the Bible, its translation, and its interpretation.

[Anonymous No.1632443]

>>1632430
>>1632433
Lemme list.

- Douay-rheims, New American Bible or Jerusalem bible for English Catholic points of view
- Anchor Bible Dictionary for in-depth discussion
- King James Bible and maybe Geneva Bible
- Revised Standard Version / New Revised Standard Version / Revised English Bible for Catholic and Protestant points of view
- NIV for Protestant points of view, without apocryphal books

[Anonymous No.1632445]

>>1632438
Since I know english better than those, I believe I'm better off comparing the bibles, although I can always try google translator.

[Anonymous No.1632451]

"unto the pure, all things are pure...but unto them that are defiled is nothing pure, but even their mind and conscience is defiled."
-Titus 1:15, The Holy Bible.
OP is the cancer that is killing /lit/.

[Anonymous No.1632459]

>>1632451
Explain yourself...?

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.1632464]

>>1632443
pretty much, yes

[Anonymous No.1632465]

>>1632445

Google Translate has no ancient Greek, and is crap at even mildly complex Latin. If you're unable to read or learn the languages - and four ancient languages IS a tough ask - you're at the mercy of translators. Look at the ones mentioned in >>1632433 and >>1632443 and get hold of scholarly work on the history of the Bible and translation (in order to understand the origins and biases of the various versions).

For the NT, I'd also recommend a different kind of translation: Richmond Lattimore, best known as a translator of Homer and other ancient Greek literature, did a single-handed version, whose aim was partly to reflect the varied styles of the Greek texts (whereas most of the major translations tend to elide and even out linguistic differences). Lattimore was a great Hellenist and translator, and so offers another valuable perspective for the Greekless.

If you're really serious, also look at sources like the Gospel of Thomas (a set of sayings of Jesus, sharing a common source with the four canonical Gospels), the Dead Sea Scrolls (available in Penguin translation) and Nag Hammadi Library / Scriptures (available in a compendium of translations from Harper Perennial), the Book of Jubilees and other aprocrypha accepted by some churches, and so on, for non-canonical works related to the canonical Bible, and other religious texts influenced by the same sources that either fell by the wayside or were explicitly suppressed as heretical.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.1632472]

>>1632465
I recommended the Achor Bible Dictionary because it includes fairly in-depth reviews of translations, word choices, controversies, etc.

[Anonymous No.1632473]

>>1632465
>get hold of scholarly work on the history of the Bible and translation (in order to understand the origins and biases of the various versions).
Like which?

>For the NT, I'd also recommend a different kind of translation: Richmond Lattimore
Adding it to the list.

>If you're really serious, also look at sources like the Gospel of Thomas (a set of sayings of Jesus, sharing a common source with the four canonical Gospels), the Dead Sea Scrolls (available in Penguin translation) and Nag Hammadi Library / Scriptures (available in a compendium of translations from Harper Perennial), the Book of Jubilees and other aprocrypha accepted by some churches, and so on, for non-canonical works related to the canonical Bible, and other religious texts influenced by the same sources that either fell by the wayside or were explicitly suppressed as heretical.
Why would that help? Why would I need other non-canon books?

[Anonymous No.1632476]

>>1632473

"how would reading closely related contemporary texts help me understand this piece of literature??"

this is you right now

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.1632481]

>>1632473
The dead Sea Scrolls are mainly useful because they deomstrate that the Old Testament was very, very stable over time with little drift. Reading some of the apocrypha helps understand what some of the arguments in canon were against. persoanlly, though, i find the Nag Hammadi works just more gnostic writing i could find anywhere

[Anonymous No.1632489]

>>1632476
Eh, yeah? I'm not exactly an avid reader and came here for a piece of advice. Heck, I'm trying to make an effort, and I have more of a practical mind set.

>>1632481
>Reading some of the apocrypha helps understand what some of the arguments in canon were against
So the apocrypha analyzes the arguments of the canon in further depth, right?

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.1632500]

>>1632489
No, they are usually apocrypha because the are *what* canon was arguing against. For example, the catholic Credo specifically mentions that Christ died and was buried because some of the apocrypha state that he faked his death (being God, he was just acting, they argue).

[Anonymous No.1632504]

>>1632500
Ah, I got it. Good point.

So... I have to begin from Genesis? I read somewhere else I should try the shortest books first, is this right?

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.1632513]

>>1632504
Order doesn't really matter. I usually suggest people start witht he Gospels, though

[Anonymous No.1632516]

>>1632513
That's good. So I'm looking for these bibles and starting with the shortest books first, so I can get introduced to my method in a short and fast way. Then I can try the Gospels, then Genesis.

Any other word of advice is welcome, and thank you all!!

[Anonymous No.1632522]

>>1632500

This is not quite accurate, or at least it is *part* of the fact: some apocrypha are books that are accepted by major churches (e. g., Catholic, Anglican / Episcopal) but as having a lesser status than the books of the OT and NT; some apocrypha are books that are non-canonical but represent the same traditions or sources as canonical books (e. g., the Gospel of Thomas sayings include ones found in the canonical Gospels, but also ones that aren't there); and some apocrypha are alternative versions or interpretations of the same materials and traditions as in the canonical Bible, but which were rejected or faded away at various points.

>>1632473

For scholarly work, I'd recommend starting with general reference books, such as Browning's Oxford Dictionary of the Bible (the Anchor Bible Dictionary is a much larger, multi-volume work), and following up their bibliographies on points that interest you.

Because it's the 400th anniversary of the KJB, there are a lot of recent books out on its history, etc. See, for example, the review of five of these at http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article7171739.ece

[Anonymous No.1632525]

>>1632522
>This is not quite accurate, or at least it is *part* of the fact: some apocrypha are books that are accepted by major churches (e. g., Catholic, Anglican / Episcopal) but as having a lesser status than the books of the OT and NT; some apocrypha are books that are non-canonical but represent the same traditions or sources as canonical books (e. g., the Gospel of Thomas sayings include ones found in the canonical Gospels, but also ones that aren't there); and some apocrypha are alternative versions or interpretations of the same materials and traditions as in the canonical Bible, but which were rejected or faded away at various points.
Wat do?

>For scholarly work, I'd recommend starting with general reference books, such as Browning's Oxford Dictionary of the Bible (the Anchor Bible Dictionary is a much larger, multi-volume work), and following up their bibliographies on points that interest you.
>Because it's the 400th anniversary of the KJB, there are a lot of recent books out on its history, etc. See, for example, the review of five of these at http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article7171739.ece
Thank you. I'll check these.

[Anonymous No.1632538]

>>1632525

I'd recommend looking into the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals included in the KJB / (N)RSV / REB - these books are accepted by major churches, and are read as part of their formal calendars, but may be regarded as less authoritative than the OT and NT books (e. g., in Anglican / Episcopalian churches, who recognize slightly more apocryphal books than Catholics do, they are regarded and read as sources of examples and guidance, but not as determining doctrine).

Some of the others (e. g., Gospel of Thomas) will be interesting if you want to explore more about the sources of the canonical NT, for instance. The set of books in modern Bibles was only established after several centuries of Christianity (Revelation being the last book to be included), and the closely related apocrypha will show you what didn't make the canon, and cast light on it and its sources. Which books these were, and their history, should be convered by good reference works like the Bible dictionaries from the major UPs.

The other stuff (e. g., the "Gnostic" works in and related to the Nag Hammadi texts) is more peripheral: it represents alternative religious ideas that died out and / or were suppressed. Only read these if you're really interested in the alternative versions and religions that existed alongside what later became canonical and orthodox Christianity.

[Anonymous No.1632584]

>>1632538
Sorry about the delay, I had to lunch.

Am I just limited to catholic bibles? How about an unbiased translation?

[Anonymous No.1632596]

>Am I just limited to catholic bibles? How about an unbiased translation?

No such thing. And what makes you think catholic bibles are more "biased" than protestant ones?

[Anonymous No.1632601]

>>1632596
I'm trying to make sure I go with the least bias possible. I want to avoid having false references like the NWT.

[Anonymous No.1632602]

Lrn2science, OP

[Anonymous No.1632616]

>>1632602
all those were created by man, and therefore are equally false or true

[Anonymous No.1632627]

>>1632413
I'm an atheist as well, (more specifically an absurdist) but I've contemplated reading all three testaments recently. I too, will benefit from this thread.

>Implying The Koran is the third testament

[Anonymous No.1632631]

>>1632616
>implying science was created by man
>implying science is not just what we call things that already exist
>implying that 2 plus 2 wouldn't equal 4 unless we said it did
>implying you're retarded Oh, wait. That's what I'm implying

[Anonymous No.1632640]

>>1632631

>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying

[Anonymous No.1632645]

>>1632631
yeah empirical observations based on our perceptions which are the result of nothing more than survival mechanisms. science is great and all, but not the only thing

[Anonymous No.1632647]

>>1632631

get the fuck out, and never come back

[Anonymous No.1632651]

>>1632584

Um, only the Douay-Rheims, New American Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible are Catholic, among translations mentioned in this thread.

The King James Bible (Anglican), Geneva Bible (English Protestant), Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible (interdenominational), and New International Version (and Good News Bible / Today's English Version, which however is more a paraphrase aimed at readability than a translation) are *NOT* Catholic versions; though the RSV, NRSV, REB, and GNB/TEV are accepted and used by Catholics (the NRSV is used in seminaries, as being the most up-to-date and scholarly translation, and I know a priest who uses the GNB / TEV for personal reading). This is because they contain all the books used by Catholics (all four versions have OT, Aprocrypha, NT), because of their scholarly credentials (particularly RSV and the newer NRSV, also REB), and / or because Catholic representatives were involved in their writing alongside those of other churches and groups (REB, which was compiled by a committee representing most major Christian churches and groups in the UK and Ireland, including the Bible Society and Quakers).

There is no such thing as a Bible version free of bias: translation always involves choices of sense and interpretation. For neutrality, the best you can do is to use the versions that are most widely accepted by different groups, religious and otherwise. That would be RSV, NRSV, and REB.

[Anonymous No.1632666]

PS. to >>1632651

Another option for widening your field and countering inevitable biases would be to get hold of a Jewish edition of the Hebrew Bible (= Christian "Old Testament") in English. Here you will find a different ordering of the books (which early Christians reordered to support the identification of Jesus with the prophesied Messiah), and also different editorial headings, and sometimes different versions from Christian Bibles (though not always: one widely used Jewish version of the Hebrew Bible in English was created early in the 20th century, based on the then-dominant King James Bible text).

[Anonymous No.1632678]

>>1632666

Here's an etext of the 1917 English version from the Jewish Publication Society of America: http://www.archive.org/details/holyscripturesac028077mbp

[Anonymous No.1632879]

>>1632651
>>1632666
>>1632678
Thank you. I'll give it a check!

I'm back and I don't plan on leaving for a good while. I was wondering, what kinds of questions should I try to answer myself? I need to have some kind of guide so I can select properly my first book. I can try with Genesis, Marcus or Philemon (the last one is because it's the shortest book in the bible)...

[Anonymous No.1632881]

>>1632879
This, btw, given the fact I need to face a JW...

[Anonymous No.1634484]

>>1632879

That's a hard question to answer. What are your interests? The Bible is, as you know, a collection of different types of works, including (partly mythic / legendary) history (e. g., parts of Genesis and Exodus, books of Kings, Acts) and biography (the Gospels), law codes (esp. Leviticus and Deuteronomy), religious or religious-interpreted poetry (Psalms, Canticles / Song of Songs), stories of prophets and prophecies, and advice to early Christian communities (the letters in the NT). The Jewish ordering of the Hebrew Bible books is more according to type than the Christian.

BTW, since you call the Gospel of Mark "Marcus", I guess your first language isn't English. Which languages you read might also affect your choice of Bible and materials: in the German-speaking world, for instance, Luther's translation of the Bible has been extremely influential.

[Anonymous No.1634635]

>>1632879

I'd recommend starting with the Gospels (life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth) and Acts (narratives of early Christians after Jesus), then going back and reading Genesis, Exodus, and so on. I say this, because it's clear you're talking in a Christian or post-Christian context, and aside from being the key books for Christians of all varieties, the first five NT books are shortish, narrative, and written in a relatively simple style (and were meant to be easy reads: they were originally composed in Koine, a Hellenistic dialect of Greek that served as a lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean region, and that is much less complex linguistically than, for instance, Attic or Homeric Greek), with little that is obscure or repetitive. They also contain the core narratives on which other Christian writings (including the NT letters) depend. OT books generally are more challenging, and the early books also contain material that is not an easy read: genealogies, law codes (including repetitions even within the same book, due do being derived from disparate oral and written traditions), and such, partly in formulaic style derived from oral literature, and containing a bewildering array of often obscure people and places.

[Anonymous No.1634638]

Basic
Instructions
Before
Leaving
Earth

[Anonymous No.1634767]

>>1634638

Thank you for posting the most inane and nonsensical thing I've read today.

[Anonymous No.1634779]

>>1634638
Sure thing, buddy.