[ 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: 109 KB, 985x1050, Bible[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6304126 No.6304126 [Reply] [Original]

Is there even any point to attempting biblical analysis without speaking the original languages? I'm not even two chapters into the Gospel of Matthew and I'm already discouraged by the ambiguous meaning of the moving star as well as the birthplace of Jesus being described as a "house" rather than an inn. All I want to do is approach these texts as a secular historian but there are just so many different translations and all of them are politicized to varying degrees.

>> No.6304131
File: 2.96 MB, 300x360, 1417234175415.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6304131

>>6304126
>Is there even any point to attempting biblical analysis without having the original texts?

>> No.6304138

>>6304126
I say, first time, read it for what it is, that's all you need to do it you're just interested or not Abraham. But if you really want to get down to it, you need a concordance, to cross reference the language of origin, and the context of what's being said along with some of the political history surrounding the writer at the time to fully get the parables. Each story can be read in at least three different ways and interpreted another million. It's going to be really fucking hard to get the original meaning out of the bible unless you become a theologian.

>> No.6304209

>>6304126
What translation are you reading?

>> No.6304226

>>6304126
You should understand that most authors inspired by the bible or referencing the bible didn't have miraculous understandings either, and considering the nature of translation likely had less tools at their disposal to understand the book than you do. An annotated or study bible will take you far, even a regular surface reading is good. It's the kind of book that you can study for a lifetime, but don't feel you have to unless you're a Christian of course.

>> No.6304268

>>6304138
>It's going to be really fucking hard to get the original meaning out of the bible unless you become a theologian.
I bet you're right. That's depressing.

>>6304209
This one:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Wiki_Bible

However for my example about the word "house", I checked the KJV as well and the same word is used.

>>6304226
>the nature of translation likely had less tools at their disposal to understand the book than you do
That's a good point. It would be very feasible to programatically search for every occurence of an ambiguous word in the original text. In fact with the help of computers, it a new translation started from scratch might be way better than anything based on earlier pre-modern translations like the Vulgate or the KJV.

>> No.6304287

>>6304126
We don't even have the original texts. Jesus spoke Aramaic but the oldest written gospels are Greek translations. The actual spoken words of Jesus (with a few exceptions) are gone forever.