/lit/ - Literature

>>16157066
I'm gonna guess since I'm only on Luke now, it would be John.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSv7SkXmhFI

>>16157066
All four are necessary

>>16157066
Biblet here. aren't the gospels suposed to tell about the life of jesus? isn't that kinda what the new testament already does? if so, which of the gospels are used in the new testament? sorry again I'm a biblet, parents are atheists but I want to learn religion-

Mark is my favorite too :)
Then John
Then Matthew
Then Luke

>>16157066
John > Luke > Matthew > Mark.

Judas.
Really ties it all together.

>>16157153
The “testaments” are collections of books, the gospels are books (specifically, books about the life of Jesus)
The first four books of the twenty seven New Testament are gospels:
>The Gospel of Matthew
>The Gospel of Mark
>The Gospel of Luke
>The Gospel of John
Following the four gospels, the fifth book is the book of Acts, which was also written by Luke. The book of Acts is about the early church and how it developed, what the followers of Jesus did after he ascended into Heaven, and largely focuses on the life of the apostle Paul. Paul was a Roman Jew and persecutor of Christians, but then received a vision of Jesus and converted. He spent the rest of his life evangelizing Christianity before being killed by the Romans
After Acts, the next 14 books are letters (typically called epistles) addresses to various churches and people traditionally understood to be written by Paul (it should be noted that a lot of books of the Bible are ascribed to certain authors either in text or by tradition, but many scholars dispute the claimed authorship. I’m using the traditional authorship for all these cause the disputes are too complex and numerous to get into)
>Romans
>I Corinthians
>II Corinthians
>Galatians
>Ephesians
>Philippians
>Colossians
>I Thessalonians
>II Thessalonians
>I Timothy
>II Timothy
>Titus
>Philemon
>Hebrews
After this you get letters written to the Church at large (rather than addressed to certain churches or people). These epistles are named for their authors, rather than their audience like the epistles by Paul
>James
>I Peter
>II Peter
>I John
>II John
>III John
>Jude
The last book is the Apocalypse (or Revelation) of John, where the apostle receives a vision of the end of the world
So that’s your overview of the New Testament and which gospels are used

>>16157241
>The first four books of the twenty seven New Testament
That should be “twenty seven book New Testament.”
There are 27 books in the New Testament

>>16157107
Only Mark is neccessary, the rest are progressively bloated with fanfiction. John ought to be ignored.
>>16157224
You got that ass backwards, hellenizer

>>16157225
>not a legitimate gospel
>not even written by "judas"
every time you post you just gain more renown as a brainlet huh? thank god you have that dumb trip so I can straight up ignore your posts.

>>16157241
Thanks anon! so If I buy a good bible I shouldn't need to buy the individual gospel books, correct? Also which is the best translation? I know a bit of latin if that helps, but a good english translation would be good too. What I'm working with rn is my friend's NRSV but I heard there's better, like oxford I think...

>>16157363
NASB is the most literal, but because it is the most literal, it can sound kinda autistic in English.

>>16157325
>Only Mark is neccessary
It seems as though God thought otherwise, giving us three others.

>>16157066
John's gospel is by far the most based.

>>16157208
that is how you see clowns. they have preferred, favorite truth. truth must good for them. Nietzsche saw this perfectly.

>>16157241
Not him, but thank you for this answer.

The Gospel of the Lord.
https://1lib.eu/book/5301746/a7047b

Unironically the Gospel of Thomas

>>16157363
NRSV is perfectly fine. Although I'm sure someone is doing it, I've never seen any book of the Bible sold outside of the whole, with the exception of Psalms and Proverbs

>>16157363
RSV2CE or douay rheims. Always buy catholic Bible's. Prot Bible's omits books in old testament.

>>16157153
>learning religion
>not learning paganism

>>16158855
>be pagan
>going about your day
>gods are feeling tricky
>wife is sexually assaulted by a local demigod on a bender, gets turned into a barnyard animal by demigod's wife for helping him cheat
>demigod appeals to his father for help, who decides to trick you into eating this animal for a snack while you wait for your wife to return
>the gods wipe their hands clean of the whole mess and go back to fucking their siblings
>your stomach hurts
>a day in the life of a pagan

>>16157066
The secret book of John

Thomas

>>16157363
Lattimore is a good NT translation, as is Hart. Alter is a good OT. NASB and KJV are great traditional complete Bibles.

>>16159343
I think you're talking about the life under the Jewish king David

>>16159951
If you're trying to conflate David, a corrupt human, and his lust for Bathsheba, with the activities of virtually every God, Goddess, and Demigod in the ancient Pagan pantheons, you're even more retarded than I thought. "A corrupt ruler did something corrupt, I guess this is a checkmate against the religion that constantly talks about the danger of vanity, lust, and corrupt rulers."

Mark is my favorite but John is clearly the most based

Lattimore's new testament is god-tier

If your favorite gospel is Matthew, it means you read the Old Testament. John means you're a Calvinist, Mark you're a pleb, and nobody prefers that prequel to Acts, Luke.

>>16157066
Marcion > Mark > John > Luke-Acts > Luke > Matthew
DB Hart > KJV > RSVCE > NRSV >>>>>>> NIV

John probably had Jesus' words and intent the most right, Mark has the best events, Matthew and Luke are what the church want you to hear.

>>16160078
Matthew is by far the worst. Other than the Sermon on the Mount, it has nothing interesting to offer that isn't in any of the other Gospels.

>>16160123
>John probably had Jesus' words and intent the most right
?? Have you read the Greek? [The author of the Gospel of] John uses the same voice for Jesus as his prose, it's blatant that it's not based on any early source, it's just what John wanted Jesus to say. And it was written a hundred years after Jesus died lmao

>>16158604
Redpill me on the Gospel of Thomas

>>16160078
How is John related to Calvinism?

>In the preface to the NRSV Bruce Metzger wrote for the committee that “many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text”.[2] The RSV observed the older convention of using masculine nouns in a gender-neutral sense (e.g. "man" instead of "person"), and in some cases used a masculine word where the source language used a neuter word. This move has been widely criticised by some, including within the Catholic Church, and continues to be a point of contention today. The NRSV by contrast adopted a policy of inclusiveness in gender language.[2] According to Metzger, “The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.”[2]

Huh? Is there just a regular Bible I can get? Like one that hasn't been meddled with.

Isaiah.

>>16160278
That's the only version I know that uses gender neutral language. I have the Ignatius Bible which is the RSV-2CE, no gender neutral language.

>>16159997
>implying YHWH is not more depraved in Genesis/Exodus and Book of Job etc than anything you can find in pagan mythology
Also Jesus is pretty sick. I don't remember the gods spitting in peoples faces or forcing the goyim to grovel like dogs at his feet for crumbs.

>>16157066
Barnabas

>>16160148
What does it matter when it was written? It's still divinely inspired.

>>16160278
Every translation is an interpretation. The tools are out there for you to learn Greek, it really isn't as hard as you might think. You don't have to be very proficient to get a lot of use something like this.

For me, its the ERV (Easy-to-Read Version).

>>16157225
not even the real butterfag and you still managed to make a post worse than her

>>16160206
It's the one they constantly reference to support their doctrines.

>>16160347
That is exactly what I'm saying. Even a cursory glance at Greek mythology makes Jehovah look like a boy scout.

You are edgy as all hell and I don't think you even know what you're advocating or what the source of your beliefs is.

>>16157241
based biblebro

>>16160531
Guide to learning Biblical Greek?

>For me, it's Douay-Rheims

>>16160922
I started with David Alan Black's book and John Moore's lectures which use that book and you can get them free from the WVBS course.

>>16160922
NT is written in koine which is essentially greek ebonics. u can learn it all by following one of the many guides available to you on amazon . since u already speak english it should be even easier since english has many words that have greek origin

>>16157327
None of them were written by apostles, you braindead dumbfuck.

>>16160922
Absolute waste of time if you're doing it for biblical purposes. Learn biblical hebrew if you want source material or Latin for the vulgate version which is the more accurate. Greek is a waste of time unless you're going to use it for philosophy and poetry.

>>16161001

>>16161008
How is Latin more accurate than the original language it was written in?

>>16161021
We just gotta trust that the heads of the Catholic church know what they're doing.

>>16161008
Except for the fact that the Gospels and almost al of the NT were written in Koine Greek. Get lost, Schlomo.

>>16161030
The Catholic Church wouldn't make such a stupid assertion.

>>16157066
Q

>>16160278
KJV is based and prose-pilled. I'd recommend the KJV for reading along with a very literal and annotated translation for comparative study.

>>16161262
KJV is garbage

>>16162212
The KJV was expressly translated to be enjoyable to read. The deficiencies in its accuracy are made up for by having a modern and technical translation, which is why I recommended he find one. As a spiritual text, the most important quality of a Bible is that it speaks to the soul. There's no point in having an ultra-correct translation if reading it makes you want to blow your brains out. If you've got a better reading translation, feel free to post it, but judging by your poorly formatted reactionary statement, I'm guessing you're just a brianlet.

>>16162289
>The KJV was expressly translated to be enjoyable to read.
Will you listen to yourself? Like a bunch of translators got together with the express, overriding goal to make it enjoyable. How would they even know what's enjoyable? You can't even get two guys to agree that the sky is blue but you think a committee agreed on what was enjoyable. Stop with idolatry of the KJV. You and every other goofy bastard is only turned on by it because of the old timey language.

>>16162335
Not him, but while I don't prefer the KJV for everything, it is the best translation from a literary perspective, and its influence on English literature is massive.

>>16162212
The nature of "mashal" משל or wisdom is connotative rather than denotative language. So with proverbs and parables having the "original phrase" was pointless, living sayings. In antiquity parablists would often say 300 parables in a day, all to iterate the same moral lesson. This is akin to the folk tale nature of the old russian minstrels.

Old King James is a great Bible, get some supplementary Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew if you're fiending for the older stuff.

>>16161037
>Gospels and almost al of the NT were written in Koine Greek
American education at best.

>>16157363
the Oxford Annotated Study Bible is NRSV. The Oxford World Classics is KJV. I recommend the former.

>>16161008
Based, Mr. Goldstain.

>>16160175
The man that eateth the lion becomes unclean,
but the lion that eateth the man becomes clean.

>redpill
Have you ever considered Hegel's prologue to the Phenomenology of Geist where he asserts that intuitive "knowing," is not knowing at all because it in now way participates in negative motion?

>>16157066
The Injil.

>>16157066
John = Matthew > Luke > Mark

>>16157363
Either Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) or Eastern Orhodox Bible (EOB)

Both are using the Septuagint translation of the Bible for a more accurate representation.

>>16157325
>John ought to be ignored.
I sometimes wondered why John wasn't considered apocryphal.

>>16157241
Informative, thank you.

>>16157153
Yes.
The synoptics Mark, Matthew and Luke are drawing closer to the oral teachings, sayings and possible written records of Jesus ministry and that's their essence.

John is more of a theological statement and it's possibly the latest.

Matthew is written for the Jews, and cites Hebrew scripture often It's a mega-catechesis Gospel. It's also the most balanced.
Mark is the simplest, the soldier’s gospel. Very direct.
Luke is more sophisticated, written in the urbane Greek. Oriented towards the elite/educated public, usually pagan.
John is the director’s cut, the deeper knowledge intended for one already well-versed in Christianity.

>>16165609
And then there's all the gospels that people were actually reading…

>>16157363
I recommend you two modern and correct translations of NT that you can get from Libgen or w/e.
NT Wright new testament (secondary - formal equivalence) and DBH New Testament. (primary - dynamic equivalence)

For OT in the same spirit I recommend ESV and Robert Alter Hebrew Bible. Alongside Michael Heiser naked Bible podcast to follow while reading, because it's complex and we lack the 2nd temple Jews worldview... I'd also use the Bible Project on youtube for various topics, the writer is a very good Hebraicist.
ESV already incorporates LXX and DSS findings.

>>16165625
https://vimeo.com/9633910
https://youtu.be/KBVGGeN5GXM

>>16163285
It's also quite good scholarly effort, it still has some errors and understood some words in ways neither Greeks contemporary with them, reading Koine texts, neither our modern scholarship on Koine greek agrees, alongside some protestant/Catholic erroneous readings that come from theology; but still.. solid.

>>16162335
>Like a bunch of translators got together with the express, overriding goal to make it enjoyable

They actually did that, they read it aloud to a bunch of common people in multiple sessions and took their input then edited the text.

While the KJV only people are wrong in their motivations and annoying, KJV is actually a good translation for other good reasons, scholarly and stylistic.
Hebraic scholar Michael Heiser went through every single word of KJV for a reverse interlinear and said the OT is good, similarly modern translators agree that KJV NT is also decent.

bump

>>16165356
brainlet here... can you explain that like if I was 5?

Some guys who were fans of Jesus and didn't even knew him personally wrote some fanfiction texts about him. I would take anything on those texts with a grain of salt.

>>16168260
is there ANY actual writings directly from anyone that knew jesus directly?

>>16168291
all of the New Testament except for, like, Hebrews. >>16168260 is ignorant.

>>16160292
Who is this painting?