[ 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: 64 KB, 781x444, translations.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11706242 No.11706242 [Reply] [Original]

Which Bible translation should /lit/ be reading?

https://www.strawpoll.me/16273082

>> No.11706258

Start with the Greek

>> No.11706270

>>11706242
There is no such thing as "ESV-CE"

>> No.11706280

>>11706270

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bible

http://catholicbiblestudent.com/2018/03/review-esv-catholic-edition-bible-esvce.html

>> No.11706298

>>11706280
Welp, I was wrong.

Seems weird to put it on the chart considering almost no one has read it though.

>> No.11706307

>>11706242
Nestle-Aland and Stuttgartensia are currently the only serious options if you are interested in the Bible.

>> No.11706316

>>11706307
If you're fluent in Greek and Hebrew they're the standard base texts, yes. But you're obviously a clueless dilletant, since a proper reading of the Bible involves consulting variants in the Septuagint, other Greek OT translations, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, at least. Most here aren't Bible scholars (certainly not you) so they'll read a translation. Your tryhard attempt at appearing informed has done the opposite.

>> No.11706323

>>11706242
Bump
Just wanted to start this thread.

>> No.11706422

Maybe this is a better question for a /lang/ thread, but anyone with more knowledge on Greek know how with a passive aorist case what would be the most precise way of translating something such as in Matthew 1:24.

arisen
having arisen
having been arisen

Also in 1:20
for that conceived in her
having been conceived

I assume something like "that which was/what was conceived in her" would correspond to the indicative or other case. I'm not sure if in this case if by not having a participle before the verb it changes it into an active voice.

https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/1-24.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/1-20.htm

>> No.11706506
File: 44 KB, 300x300, dtstrain-article-pic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11706506

>>11706242

>> No.11706704

>>11706242
The one and only correct answer to this is the Vulgate.

>> No.11706720

I'm currently reading the Recovery Version. Awesome, awesome footnotes.

>> No.11706726

>>11706242
>English Bible
uhm ok I'll be honest here, that's gonna be a strong to medium "yikes" for me

>> No.11706802

>>11706726
>The really become fluent in 2-3+ no longer spoken languages and dialects just to read a single composition poster

>> No.11706843

>>11706704
Petrine primacy doesn't explicitly imply that such is going to also be applicable to bibles made by followers of the alleged Petrine church.

>> No.11706867

>>11706242
Not King James that's for sure.

>> No.11706884

>>11706242
I only read Lattimore's New Testament

Literally god-tier translation

>> No.11706893

Douay–Rheims

>> No.11706914

>>11706884
Kind of diverges and innovates a little, otherwise reads similarly to many other popular translations. That David Bentley Hart translation is possibly better.

>> No.11706924
File: 45 KB, 413x269, 79582488-9B25-451D-B255-B66F891A5716.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11706924

King James ONLY!

>> No.11706934

>>11706924
I lol'd. His debate with James White was hilarious.

>> No.11706961

If you're interested in English literature and reading the Bible for the literary or aesthetic experience, then read the King James Version. That is far and away the most important version in the English language, and is a beautiful work of literature, despite its flaws. Preferably get an edition without commentary, and pick up a copy of the Apocrypha, too. If you're reading the Bible for theological, doctrinal, or historical purposes, then there are better translations that the KJV. For those purposes, avoid translations tainted by being drawn from the Masoretic Text or the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were doctored by the Pharisees and the Gnostics, respectively, to comport with their anti-Christian heresies. The KJV drew from the Masoretic Text, sadly, and most modern translations draw from the Dead Sea Scrolls, but are bananas for other reasons, like gender-neutral pronouns and whatnot.

>> No.11706970

It'd be nice if a comprehensive online interlinears of the Samaritan Pentateuch were made available.Such a projects is in the works.
http://tanakh.info

Here are some links to Targum and Peshitta interlinears.
http://www.peshitta.org
http://targum.info/targumic-texts/

Also found this subreddit just now.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/

>> No.11706976

>>11706961
The Dead Sea Scrolls are older than the time of the Masoretic Text (800 AD) and even the Septuagint (130 BC). There's no reason the Pharisees would have corrupted it because it predates the time the New Testament was written 150 BC.

>> No.11706980

Currently going through the RSV ( revised standard version )

>> No.11706996
File: 265 KB, 500x917, pastorjim.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11706996

King James

>> No.11707005
File: 141 KB, 1000x1091, priest.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11707005

>>11706242
P&V translation when???

>> No.11707012

>>11706970
>Reddit
You know where you have to.

>> No.11707015

>>11707005
ok now this is epic

>> No.11707017

>>11706961
The DSS agree with Septuagint readings in places and due to being the same language are identical with the Masoretic text some in places as well. The Septuagint sometimes exhibits quite interpretational readings sometimes reading like the dynamic equivalence version of the ancient Hellenistic world. In any case it's probably only a partial influence that the DSS may have if any since its texts have been mostly fragmentary. You might perhaps mixing it up with the Nag Hammadi library. It should be noted that other types of writings were also found among these like Plato and Greek OT fragments.

>> No.11707023

none

>> No.11707027

>>11707012
At least least there it looks like there won't be as much of the eternal KJO and Cathlishill shitflinging.

>> No.11707485

>>11706961
So then what are the other translation of choice?

>> No.11707695

>>11706976
>The Dead Sea Scrolls are older than the time of the Masoretic Text (800 AD) and even the Septuagint (130 BC).
The latest date of composition of the DSS was AD 318. The DSS were also a collection in the library of a wacky isolated sect, and contained many non-canonical and sectarian works. It's irrelevant that the DSS are older than the MT because it's best to avoid both.

>There's no reason the Pharisees would have corrupted it because it predates the time the New Testament was written 150 BC.
The New Testament wasn't written in 150 BC. That's almost as ludicrous as saying it was written in AD 150. It was written between AD 49 and 100, centuries before the MT. The Pharisees censored the MT when they wrote it in the 7th and 10th centuries AD to remove or alter prophecies related to the Messiah that Jesus had fulfilled.

>> No.11707706

>>11707017
You're right. I did mix up the DSS with the Nag Hammadi library. DSS were older and collected by the Essenes. NH was the Gnostic collection I was thinking of.

>> No.11707734

>>11707695
I said the Dead Sea Scrolls are 150 BC.

They wouldn't be censoring it because Jesus didn't exist yet and there was no New Testament.

>> No.11707738

I read the whole NRSV when I was a teenager.
Took me over a year.
The God of the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible) is hilariously evil; he is like a psychopathic child who has temper tantrums and kills everyone.

>> No.11707751

>>11707738
based God

>> No.11707855

>>11707734
DSS aren't 150 BC. They're 400 BC to AD 300. And they weren't written by Pharisees, but by Essenes. I mistakenly though they were written slightly later and by the Gnostics, because I had them confused with the Nag Hammedi library. You're right that the later Essenes' rejection of Christ wouldn't have factored into their editorial decisions as much as it did with the Pharisees and their MT, but simply in terms of the orthodoxy of the ancient Hebraic faith, Essenes were the most heterodox of the ancient sects, moreso than the Pharisees or the Sadducees, so Old Testament texts from an Essenes library are untrustworthy sources for a Christian Bible regardless of their vintage.

>> No.11707913

>>11706316
Not everyone has a Ph.D in bible studies fagboy.

>> No.11707919

>>11707855
PS Actually the Sadducees were very wacky as well, and shared many of the errors of the Essenes now that I'm reading up on them a bit, but at least they denied the Pharisaical doctrine of the Oral Torah.

>> No.11709187

>>11707695
You're borderline schizo and not making any sense. The last DSS manuscripts are from the 1st century AD, the community site was abandoned during the Jewish War and most likely occupied by the Romans after that. There was no one to contribute to them after 70 AD because the sect was dead and the Scrolls were hidden in caves and forgotten until rediscovery in the 20th century.

>> No.11709403

>>11706316
peak pseud right here lads

>> No.11709413
File: 523 KB, 610x594, 1524977461180.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11709413

>>11706843
>explicitly imply

>> No.11709431

>>11709413
ok now this is epic

>> No.11709437

>>11706242
D-R or KJV for literary purposes, OSB for the theology.