[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 9 KB, 300x300, 41xBWHW9jDL._SL500_AA300_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3282423 No.3282423 [Reply] [Original]

Dear /lit/,

Does anyone among you know which edition of the Bible is the best for scholarly interests? I'd want one with a translation that focuses on the meaning of the words rather than on the literal translation of the words, and with a shitload of footnotes and such. I want an edition that explains the stuff we need to know to understand in context (such as: "Jews, back then, didn't speak to women" when Jesus talks to a woman and that surprises His disciples).

I heard of the Jerusalem Bible but then I also heard severe criticism of it. I already have the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, which priests use, but it's not a Bible per se.

What do you recommend?

>> No.3282441
File: 1.74 MB, 3327x4418, 1356265610633.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3282441

Bumping with contradictions in the bible

>> No.3282443

as far as I know Oxford and Harpin Collins published bible for academic use and they were both NRSV.

>> No.3282446
File: 23 KB, 313x475, nrsv.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3282446

This is what I used in college for every Abrahamic literature course.

>> No.3282447

>>3282441

I already had that, but upon verifying the first few ones, you realise how meaningless that list is, sadly.

>a poem "contradicts" a chronicle
>another poem "contradicts" another poem's metaphor
>a witness account contradicts another witness account of another thing

Etc. Nothing very serious.

>> No.3282448

>>3282443

Harper Collins? I like that edition. Thanks.

>>3282446

Good to know! Thank you.

>> No.3282459

>>3282447
The problem is when the laws contradict one another though.
Should you shave? For example.

>> No.3282475

>>3282459
> The problem is when the laws contradict one another though.

As they should. That's how laws work in real life.

>> No.3282476
File: 101 KB, 560x451, 1355878317265.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3282476

>>3282475
I don't even know if you're kidding.

>> No.3282482

>>3282459

How is that a problem? It depends who you are and why. The New Testament often contradicts the Old One for obvious reasons.

The New Testament made these contradictions easy to solve though: if you've never been Jewish, you're not expected to follow Leviticus and the other Old Testament laws such as not eating pork and the likes.

Contradictions of the more interesting king (Christ's last words) happen also, but the people who compiled the Bible knew of them. Nobody thought of the New Testament as the literal word of God. That's a rather recent development in Christianity.

>> No.3282485

>>3282476

He isn't kidding. Laws constantly contradict each other: state law, federal law, etc, and they change over time. You can't expect a book that goes over 4 millennia to reflect the same society.

>> No.3282520

The Bible makes NO sense. The scholar edition won't fix that

>> No.3282533

>>3282482
Except the new testament says the old one is still valid.
The rules still apply, even when they directly contradict one another

>>3282485
That is not only not an equivalent example, but also wrong.
The different books aren't different levels of law with different keepers, they're all the laws of god.
Nor can I think of one example where federal law mandates an activity be performed and state law says its strictly illegal.
its value as a literal rulebook is severely compromised by that.

>>3282520
That doesn't change its value as a historical document.
Not necessarily an objective document of truth, but its still a collection of several thousand year old texts.

>> No.3282536

get Asimov's guide, get the Anchor Bible (download it--it's a monster thing in paper editions) and get a good King James

>> No.3282538

>>3282536
heck, why not just tell him to read the god delusion you pathetic neckbeard?

>> No.3282541

>>3282533
>Except the new testament says the old one is still valid.

I think you missed the entire point of Jesus' being crucified.

>> No.3282544

>>3282541
I didn't actually.

>> No.3282546

>>3282538


Now, you confuse me: Asimov makes no comment on the truth or falsehood of what her reports, restricting himself to explaining words, customs and historical references.

The Anchor Bible provides exegeses for every phrase, word and reference, book by book, and provides several interpretations.

Do you think the King James Bible is some sort of atheist manifesto?

I'd really like to hear this.

>> No.3282549

>>3282544
It forged a new covenant. I think you did. Paul talks at length about the differences between what's required now for salvation, versus what was required before Christ was crucified.

>> No.3282551

>>3282546
Reading the KJV will make you atheist?
Maybe?
I guess the unicorns were a bit unbelievable.

>> No.3282560

>>3282549
The new covenant doesn't free people from the old laws.
Paul at no point states otherwise.

>> No.3282563

>>3282549

At least there's one person who knows what he's talking about.

Look, people of /lit/, if I wanted teenage atheism and the sheepish words they share, I'd go and ask /b/. I never asked anyone their opinion about religion, Christianity, faith, or even the validity of the Bible as a document, so you can keep your opinions to yourselves: I do not care.

There's nothing you could tell me that a thousand scholars haven't said already, so relax, minimise your egos, and stop assuming you know all that much about anything.

>> No.3282566

>>3282560

Except when he explicitly says you don't have to do this and that law from the Old Testament...

>> No.3282568

>>3282560
It doesn't invalidate the OT, but it creates a NEW COVENANT. The laws for salvation are different. Things like eating shellfish are no longer hell-worthy trespasses, because now the key to salvation is in and through Christ as the savior and not Abrahamic Law.

>> No.3282572

>>3282566
That's not a complete sentence, nor correct.

>> No.3282577

>>3282572
Ah, yes, the correction of grammar on an imageboard. The last resort of someone who can't admit they were wrong.

>> No.3282578

>>3282563

Theological arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, you're not going to find a better bible than the Anchor Bible for getting at what's actually said in the bible's books. I don't know why someone on this thread seems to think it has atheistic connotations. I don't know a single seminary student that hasn't referred to it at one point or another.

>> No.3282580

>>3282578

Anchor Bible, noted. Thank you.

>> No.3282586

>Does anyone among you know which edition of the Bible is the best for scholarly interests? I'd want one with a translation that focuses on the meaning of the words rather than on the literal translation of the words, and with a shitload of footnotes and such.
The Oxford Annotated Bible
/thread

>> No.3282585

>>3282577
But you haven't provided any evidence, you can't cite anything, and you're just crying "New Covenant".
Which doesn't mean what you think it does.

>> No.3282595

>>3282572

Not him but dude... His sentence continues yours, implicitly.

>2012
>no understanding of fragmentary sentences

I bet you rage hard whenever you come across a sentence without a main verb.

>syntaxic impressionism
>unknown to you

>> No.3282597

>>3282585
Lol, hold on, let me go grab my bible and cite all those things, just like you di-

Oh. Wait. You didn't, either.

Look, man, you and I both know you're grasping at straws here. Christ as the redemptive savior created a new means to salvation, basically taking the place of the Law. Like I said, it doesn't invalidate all aspects of it, but it does some.

>> No.3282598

>>3282586

Thank you.

>> No.3282601

>>3282560
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
The word Christ uses for destroy is λυω, which has a dual meaning of destroy and loosen. What this addresses is that the new covenant is not a loosening away from the law for believers but a completion of it in Christ. I think that's the Lutheran interpretation of it, anyway.

>> No.3282603

>>3282597
You're making the positive claim, you go find a source for your claim.
You didn't, and you can't.
The laws not mattering is an invention outside the bible.

>> No.3282606

>>3282601

I didn't know that, very interesting.

I'd want a version that explains this sort of thing. I'm so annoyed at not having such things explained in my Bibles.

>> No.3282608

>>3282603

If Christ changed nothing, why did He come?

>answer me this you cocksucker

>> No.3282615

>>3282603
You're right, I can't, because my bible is on the other side of the room and I'm not obliged to go collect it and sift through it to find passages to support my argument on an imageboard.

But, who in the fuck said the laws don't matter? I know I didn't. You're being deliberately obtuse.

>> No.3282620

The entire point of Christ's arrival was
>to save humans from sin
>to establish a relationship between humans and God
>to explain what was truly important (ex. What you eat doesn't defile you.)

Using semantics and technical jargon as an argument doesn't really mar that, especially when you're working off of a translated work.

>> No.3282618

>>3282608
He's the Messiah, the savior.
Come to show the way etc. etc.

He.changed quite a bit, just not the laws.

>> No.3282622
File: 36 KB, 330x379, 1355791828042.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3282622

>>3282603

Anyone making a claim has to support it.

>> No.3282625

>>3282615
>I am not obliged to provide evidence for my claims because this conversation is so beneath me.
>Yet I'll continue posting.

You made an argument, if you're unwilling to support it that is fine. But then you cannot then also declare me to be "Wrong".

>> No.3282629

>>3282622
No, they don't.

>> No.3282634

>>3282625
I mean, I totally can. I did, in fact, do just that. I can do all of these things, because we live in a post-modern world. U mad?

>> No.3282637

>>3282622
Yes.
But, because the way the entire concept of logic works, you start out with a positive claim and support that.
Then the person with the negative claim must counter your evidence.

>> No.3282643

>>3282629

If that what that claim to be taken seriously than uh, yeah, they do.

>> No.3282644

>>3282629

Which is not to say that you're immediately wrong because of that, it's to say that if the person making the positive claim doesn't come up with evidence, it doesn't immediately prove your negative claim "right".

>> No.3282652

>>3282644
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

As much as I disagree with the man on issues, I still think we need to make that there a basic part of discourse.

>> No.3282685

>>3282652

Dismissed? Sure, without evidence logically it may not deserve your attention. To be proven wrong is another thing entirely. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. That's all I'm trying to say, not that one party is right but simply combating the belief that you can "prove" something without actually proving it, in this case a negative claim.

>> No.3282702

http://www.amazon.com/New-Oxford-Annotated-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289609

loadsa footnotes

>> No.3282747

Boy, you guys just love to argue, don't you?

guy asked for a good reference bible and now it's all about Jesus dying to fulfill/negate the law?

There's a thread also on here where a person proposed a simple logic problem and made the mistake of using abortion as the basis, and now that thread is full of shit.

I honestly think I could ask which was better, the red checkers or the black checkers and I'd get three hundred responses about slavery versus native American genocide.

can we maybe grow up a little?

I see the words "Patrician" and Plebeian" around here a lot, but none of the politeness, courtesy, condescension (in the good sense) and noblesse oblige I'd expect form the former. I assume the aspiration here is to try to emulate the peasantry, proletariat and groundling element. Could explain why there seem to be so amny threads about Marxism, I reckon.

>> No.3282761

>>3282747
Patricians had people killed for sports.
There's no politeness to be found there.

>> No.3282771

>>3282747
>/lit/
>expecting a thread not to be derailed
welcome to /lit/, enjoy your stay

>> No.3282834

>>3282761

When a person describes someone as "patrician", it's not usually the "kind of person that would have someone killed for sport" that they're trying to invoke, any more than describing someone as "n oble", or "gentlemanly" or "aristocratic" is supposed to conjure up images of feudal outrages and materialistic excess in the service of jaded vice.

I grant that when Akilleus is described as a hero by homer "the kind of guy who would kill you, rape your wife and carry off your children slaves" was pretty much exactly what he meant, but it's not the modern connotation of the word.

If someone wants to be considered patrician, or gentlemanly, or aristocratic, I think we'd all be allowed to demand courtesy, forbearance, even temper and, again, the good kind of condescension.

otherwise, what do the words mean? and who would apply them to himself?

>> No.3282846

>>3282834
"Patrician" doesn't just mean noble though.
It specifically refers to the Roman upper class, descended from founding families, or to people with explicit legal rights beyond the common man.
The word "Patrician" doesn't actually arry any connotations of refinement outside of 4chan, where some moron figured out its sorta the opposite of pleb.

>> No.3282885

>>3282846

I got the impression that "plebeian" was one of those code words for "working class" or workers in the Marxian sense, and therefore not noble or ignoble, simply deserving of power and control over means and goals of their own productivity.

I got the impression that "patrician" was a word used thus to invoke refinement of taste, manners and discernment, without the bourgeois connotations of "aristocrat" or "gentleman".

Where did I go wrong there?

>> No.3282895

>>3282475
Most of these are as OP said, metaphor's and generalizations, are compared to previously stated "facts"

These aren't so mu;ch contradictions as someone going through and nitpicking all possible inconsistencies in a text written of the course of a thousand years., with stories supposed to have originated 5-6 thousand years ago.

I'm an ignostic/nihilist, and my dad was a pastor, even he didn't believe everything in the bible

yes, i get that the point is to show it's no perfect, but anybody would be able to look these up and understand the fallacy of calling these concrete contradictions. Hell, I didn't bother referencing them, I just read the supposed contradiction and had a fair guess of what the verses would say, how they'd "contradict" one another, and why that wouldn't be a big deal to ANY christian,

>> No.3282900

>>3282846
OED says:
>patrician |pəˈtrJʃən|
>noun
>an aristocrat or nobleman.
>• a member of a long-established wealthy family.
>• a member of a noble family or class in ancient Rome.
>adjective
>belonging to or characteristic of the aristocracy: a proud, patrician face.
>• belonging to or characteristic of a long-established and wealthy family.
>• belonging to the nobility of ancient Rome.

Nice try.

>> No.3282920

>>3282885
Plebeian or "Pleb" means any free man who isn't patrician but owns property.
Simple as that.
Plebs could be senators, own land, and do anything that wasn't holding a title.
Workers are Plebs (But he'd have to be a well paid workers), but so are merchants, bankers, soldiers, doctors, and academicians.
"Pleb" is the middle class, as so comes with it the stigma of lack of sophistication.

"Patrician" was never used to mean refinement outside of the internet. That's a new thing.

Your definitions serve for 4chan use however.

>> No.3282922

>>3282900
I'm sorry how does that disprove my statement.

>> No.3282925

>>3282922
Forgot a ? there, I apologize.

>> No.3282931

>>3282922
So you're saying "aristocrat" or "nobleman" don't carry any connotations of breeding or cultivation?

Okay, how about this definition:
pa·tri·cian noun \pə-ˈtri-shən\
Definition of PATRICIAN

1
: a member of one of the original citizen families of ancient Rome
2
a : a person of high birth : aristocrat
b : a person of breeding and cultivation

Does this definition carry any connotations of breeding or cultivation?

Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patrician

>> No.3282955

>>3282920


So to a Marxist, "plebeian" would contain both the worker and the petit-bourgeois. (the nepman and the kulak, say.) and doesn't discriminate between the upper level aristocrats and the general owners or employers.

Plebeian would be a value neutral term in that sense. A plebeian worker would be as likely to fit the NEP definition as the classic proletariat.

But Patrician would always imply aristocracy, and so to a marxist/socialist extreme left person would always carry some negative connotations, though a level of sophistication in judgment, manners and refinement might also be implied, these things would be connoted as decadent because of the source or association? I think I'm starting to get it now.

>> No.3283020

This thread is nuts. But I like it.

OK, so, there are three versions of your Oxford annotated Bible: I want the hardcover one with tabs. Not sure amazon Germany has it.

>> No.3283257

Not the OP, but the three main suggests seem to be The Oxford Annotated Bible, Anchor Bible and New Revised Standard Version. What are the strengths and drawbacks of each? Is it possible to directly compare them?

>> No.3283442

>>3283257

What he said. I want to buy the best scholarly Bible avaibable, and I am confused. Shit's expensive too.

>> No.3283464

>>3283257
>>3283442
The Oxford Annotated IS the New Revised Standard Version translation

>> No.3283484

>>3282423
Learn Greek and Hebrew.

>> No.3283505

>>3283257
Oxford Annotated is a New Revised Standard Version with commentary and notes from a variety of perspectives, leaning secular/contemporary Biblical criticism. University's use this for courses.

For Anchor, one or two people translate and comment on one book each. It's a series. You will be buying a lot of books if you choose to invest in it.

>> No.3283507

>>3283484

Not enough time, I die in 4 months so I need to know if Christianity is true before that. I must examine other religions as well before this fateful date.

>> No.3283510

>>3283507

>I die in 4 months

I feel enormously sad for you. I wish we could make love once.

>> No.3283515

>>3283505
*Universities

>> No.3283525

>>3283510

I was lying. Don't feel bad for me. I'll die in much longer, like all of us, and I still think I'd rather know what the fucking truth is before I die still.

>> No.3283546

>>3283525

That's a tragic lie to pull. I recently thought I might be dying soon as well.

I was raised a Christian but I don't believe any more. I have a strong aversion to faith, for whatever reason. It seems like a sort of intellectual suicide.

>> No.3283574

>>3283546
>intellectual suicide.

Ever been in a situation where you followed instinct rather than reason and it worked out better? Sometimes I wonder if life isn't such a situation.

>> No.3283585

>>3283574

Claiming instinct or reason as enough of a lens through which to view reality is silly.

I find the questions much more complicated than the answers given with regard to most theology.

>> No.3283602

>>3283585

Of course. I haven't read 10,000 pages of theology to come to that idea, bromide, but I doubt any book will show me the way anymore.

>> No.3283612

>>3283602

Just read a lot of philosophy - it can be as depressing as it is cathartic. Go through the Greeks, Descartes, Kant, Foucault. Maybe try some Heidegger or some Kierkegaard or even the Tao Te Ching or other Eastern thinking - just never stop searching. Never pretend you've got it all figured out. That's when you run into problems.

>> No.3283629

>>3283612

That's exactly what I'm doing. I did theology for a while, now back to philosophy, starting with Plato and moving my way up.

>> No.3283635

>>3283629

You're on the right track.

Just never listen to anyone (I realize the paradox here) who tells you how to think or why - make sure you do it for yourself. Avoid lazy thinking like the plague.

>> No.3283642

>>3283635

Don't worry, I'm 30, I've been around, and I've been on either side of the proverbial fence. I left atheism through being critical.

>> No.3283643

Read the Old testament or whichever contains the most original writing.

>> No.3283676

>>3283642

I'm a pretty hardline agnostic on the theological question - I can't see the question as being answerable or even all that worthy of thought. I kind of miss my edgy atheist days - I was so certain of so many things back then

>> No.3283696

>>3283676

I'm mired in agnosticism too, trying to have faith. I've never had hardcore faith, so this is something I can almost never relate to. I envy people of faith.

>> No.3283728

>>3283696

It certainly makes things easier.

I've thought about going back to Christianity for the placebo effect - it's difficult to convince yourself that something's real when something in the back of your mind can't buy it.

I've noticed many of us need some kind of crutch to make it through the daytoday - I smoke weed, others praise Jesus or believe in an eight-fold path.

What works and what is real aren't always the same.

>> No.3283745

>>3283728

I only want what's real, I don't watch crutches, I want healthy legs.

>> No.3283765

>>3283745

I'm of the opinion that the real is unknowable - we've only got a matrix of referential points through which to look at reality - pure sensation, the here and now. This is what's important.

>> No.3283780

>>3283765

I'd agree, but is all philosophical research a dead end then?

Where do we go from here?

I once thought I saw light in the Gospel of John. For some reason, it sounds like the truth even though I have zero rational reason to think so, and never was raised Christian or anything.

Leap of faith, or nothing, are the only options left to me, it seems.

>> No.3283793

>>3283780

>where do we go from here?

Wherever you want. That the answer can't be arrived at doesn't make the questions less interesting. It's the journey.

>> No.3283806

>>3283793

So I here. But if life is 75 years and then ETERNITY, I'd rather be concerned with where I end up than with the journey.

>> No.3283824

>>3283806

You can't know where you'll end up. Why waste time trying to figure it out? All that time spent thinking of a nonexistent future is ruining your ever-present present.

All we know that we've got is the present moment

>> No.3283835

>>3283824

Very Buddhistic of you, but I know I have a future: it'll be my present present soon enough.

>> No.3283840

>>3283835

That future is just a future present. You won't have access to it until it's immediate

>> No.3283841

>>3283840

I know, but what difference does it make? It'll be there, and I'd rather go the right place.

>> No.3283846

>>3283841

How can we be sure of any end but our own death?

>> No.3283858

>>3283846

I can't. I can't be sure of much. But good luck with not trying to find out.

>> No.3283869

>>3283858

I'm always searching. I still recognize the importance of all I can be sure of.

>> No.3283905

So where should I look to get all the stories that were cut out? Lilith & Adam, Enoch, that sort of stuff.

>> No.3283957

>>3283905

Apocrypha. Apparently, this Bible has them too.

You're in for a disappointment though; many of these stories SUCK so hard I almost fainted from the shock.