/RTG/ - Religious Text General?

there's the jefferson bible. TJ cut out all the fugazi parts of the bible and kept the parts he felt were beneficial to ones life. The concept is awesome., but the execution is terrible. its just random lines from the bible in a random order. its not fun to read. Didn't finish it.

>>9798327
Thanks for the recommendation, but it doesn't sound like the kind of thing I'm looking for.

With the bible (for example) I'm trying to find a translation that is "literal", that conveys the semantics of the text, without being "biased" by any exegesis.

A translation which is based on the oldest available sources, since some versions of the bible contain phrases that aren't seen in other versions. For example Revelation 1:11
For example

Revelation 1:10

King James Bible
I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

International Standard Version
I came to be in the Spirit on the Day of the Lord, when I heard a loud voice behind me like a trumpet,

--
Revelation 1:11

King James Bible
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

International Standard Version
saying, "Write on a scroll what you see, and send it to the seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea."
--

It'd be better if it's translated directly from those earliest sources (rather than being a translation of another translation), which accounts for all the available fragments or differences and discuss them in a manner that would be applied in any other translation (like Loebs compilation of the Iliad, which mentions differences between different fragments and manuscripts)

There are (what I perceive to be) problems when comparing different translations
For example, Matthew 19:17

King James Bible
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

International Standard Version
Jesus asked him, "Why ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you want to get into that life, you must keep the commandments."

Comparing
1)Why callest thou me good?
2)Why ask me about what is good?

It seems that 1) is Jesus asking why they call him good, whereas 2) is Jesus asking why they ask him about what is good.
These two translations or versions seem to have different meanings. Perhaps it is just a misinterpretation on my part, but I don't want someones interpretation of what it means, I want the accurate translation of the passage from the original sources.

I can recommend some translations of the Qur'an, but it depends what you're specifically looking for. If you're trying to study religion to fully understand it, I'd strongly advise against looking at only one translation of each book. With the Qur'an specifically, a "literal" translation does not exist.

File: sacred texts.jpg (1015KB, 2000x2820px) Image search: [Google]

1015KB, 2000x2820px

>>9798023
Here you go

File: 1492451641952.png (71KB, 1570x1016px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1570x1016px

>>9798624
And for bibles

>>9798512
Get the ESV or the NASB.

>>9798512
>without being "biased" by any exegesis.
You can mitigate this, but there is no such thing as an unbiased translation.
>It'd be better if it's translated directly from those earliest sources
This is more complicated than what you think. The New Testament has drastically greater amounts of copies available than any other piece of ancient literature. There are various streams of transmission which scholars current collate under what is called an "eclectic text." There isn't one single version and it is amorphous.
>rather than being a translation of another translation
This is a silly meme about Bible translations. Almost every English translation in the past 500 years is translated from the Hebrew and Greek.
>which accounts for all the available fragments or differences and discuss them in a manner that would be applied in any other translation
Most modern translations include textual annotations. You don't need nor would you be capable of making use a full critical apparatus.
>I want the accurate translation of the passage from the original sources.
I'll suggest to you several translations and you can research them on your own. NASB, Protestant, critical text, theologically conservative, very literal. NKJV, Protestant, Byzantine text (similar to the KJV), contains sufficient textual footnotes regarding differences with the critical text, theologically conservative. RSV, NRSV, Protestant (albeit more ecumenical), critical text, liberal bias which is more apparent in the NRSV, current standard in scholarship, apocrypha available.

>>9798662
>You don't need nor would you be capable of making use a full critical apparatus.
This is a rather presumptuous thing to say

Thank you for your recommendations.
I would tend towards NRSV, since it is more ecumenical; I've looked into it but it doesn't seem to cover all the areas that I'm concerned with.

For example, 1 Samuel 28:13

The king said to her, “Have no fear; what do you see?” The woman said to Saul, “I see a divine being coming up out of the ground.”

The original hebrew is:
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָ֥הּ הַמֶּ֛לֶךְ אַל־תִּֽירְאִ֖י כִּ֣י מָ֣ה רָאִ֑ית וַתֹּ֤אמֶר הָֽאִשָּׁה֙ אֶל־שָׁא֔וּל אֱלֹהִ֥ים רָאִ֖יתִי עֹלִ֥ים מִן־הָאָֽרֶץ

The word עֹלִים (olim) is a plural verb, and the word translated as "divine being" in the original hebrew is "Elohim". The preface of the NRSV says Elohim means God, yet the translation isn't faithful to the original Hebrew.

NRSV does have a small foot note saying that the "divine being" can also be "or a god; or gods". But given that olim is a plural, and that the word used is Elohim, the translation they should give is " I saw gods ascending out of the earth." which is the translation that KJV gives.

The point being, it seems already that there is some eisegesis in the translation in NRSV, if it is translated from the original Hebrew then it should not make this kind of inaccuracy.

Similarly, as I noted above, the KJV has a passage about the Alpha and Omega in 1:11, which is not included in the oldest manuscripts.

The point I'm making here is that, whilst some versions of the bible translate things in a way that is not true to the original manuscript (like NRSV and this elohim olim case) or include additional material not found in the original manuscripts (like this Alpha and Omega in revelations 1:11). I want to find a version that is secular, so that there is no concern of eisegesis like with NRSV, and that is based on the oldest manuscripts, so that there is no issue like that with KJV.

I appreciate that there are different streams of transmission, and that there is such a large amount of material.

Since many sources would overlap or support each other, I was hoping there would be a text that was a compilation of just the variations, and then an appropriate exegesis.

>>9798652
>>9798634
>>9798624
>>9798590

Thank you all

>>9798957
Elohim actually could refer to any divine being, not just gods, even angels are referred to as elohim in some passages. It has contextual meaning, which is what the NRSV translates. If you want a totally word-for-word translation you want interlinear Old and New Testaments.

>I was hoping there would be a text that was a compilation of just the variations
These exist in the original languages, the standard critical texts are Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Nestle-Aland Text, which almost all modern translations use, as well as consulting other sources like the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls.

>and then an appropriate exegesis
What counts as 'appropriate' is why there are variations in translations. The NRSV takes a generally historical-critical approach which is the standard in academic Bible scholarship.

The Oxford Annotated NRSV has notes on historical context, authorship, and translation, so that's probably what you want.

>>9798957
Elohim referring to a singular being is a use of the majestic plural.

>I was hoping there would be a text that was a compilation of just the variations, and then an appropriate exegesis.

Try "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" by Bruce Metzger

>>9798996
>Elohim actually could refer to any divine being, not just gods, even angels are referred to as elohim in some passages. It has contextual meaning, which is what the NRSV translates

If that is the case, it further makes a point about the preface to NRSV stating that Elohim means "God".

>>9799026
>>9798996

Thank you, Anons

I'll take a look at these books

>>9798996
>Oxford Annotated NRSV

This book seems to have the secular perspective that I've been looking for. I'm very grateful for your help here.
I'm thinking of reading the 4th edition, do you have any opinions on whether this is the best edition?