Back issues of The London Review of Books.

I do not know if this is related to this comments but if you are reading The London Review of Books so that you do not have to read the whole book, maybe it is. I do not watch movies much anymore. Sometime though I want to know what a movie is all about. So, I just read the wikipedia plot review on it. It saves me the time by not having to sit through much tedium but I get a scenes of what it is about.

I have been reading The Bible. It has been a long time project and I have a long ways to go. I am much more agnostic that a true believer but it has been interesting. Hearing popular views about it and Christianity vs. reading The Book is sort of like the difference between reading a novel and watching the based on movie.

▲

zero_shift a day ago | parent [-]

I am an atheist but I have read a little bit of the bible, mostly early OT. I recommend reading a scholarly / literal translation, because there is a lot of nuance in the Hebrew

▲

tocs3 a day ago | parent [-]

Do you have any recommendations for translations? I have been reading from some I just have laying around.

I have been wanting to read Donald Knuth's "3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated".

(https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/316.html)

▲

throwaway093020 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The King James Version! I'd only recommend modern translations as a second point of reference when trying to interpret a difficult verse, or for looking at how modern critical editions of the NT differ from the traditional Byzantine NT. When a verse is difficult to read in the KJV, that's usually because the original text is difficult/ambiguous. Modern editions tend to pave over those difficult/ambiguous passages with a "clear" but opinionated reading, while the KJV provides a more literal rendering of what's in the source text.

My favorite example: see how all mainstream modern editions (NRSV, NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB, and even the NKJV) say "every man" (or something along those lines), rather than "any that pisseth against the wall" (literal rendering of the Hebrew): https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Samuel%2025%3A22

▲

zero_shift 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I do not advise this. It is effectively translating twice: Hebrew through EM English to contemporary English

▲

throwaway093020 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I personally like the term "biblical English" as a description of the KJV's dialect. It's not really representative of early modern English, as it often uses non-standard grammar to preserve the word order and cadence of the source texts.

▲

zero_shift 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I would be less confident about that, there are false friends in EME and most modern readers would benefit from not having the added complication.

(I don't have a theology degree, but I do have an English degree. I have read parts of KJV, and it has literary significance, but it is not attempting to be a bare literal translation)

	▲	throwaway093020 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's usually pretty obvious when a word means something different than what you think it means, because the verse won't make any sense. And stopping for a moment to resolve that confusion is always a good learning experience. You either learn something about English, about Hebrew/Greek, or about the text's cultural context or how it's been historically understood.

▲

haensi 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have read 3:16 and it’s really good. Also, it made me want to meet Donald Knuth so I went to his church for Bible study and to his home after service. Great memory.

▲

nephihaha 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For the purposes of this post, I'm concentrating mainly on English language style, and not the quality of the translation from the original languages. The KJV, though outdated, has good turns of phrase. Many modern translations are lacking when it comes to the beauty of the English. A decent translation stands up as literature in its own right.

* New Living Translation (NLT): My main one nowadays. This one is not for everyone, but I find it very readable and was recommended it online. My one criticism is that the style is a bit too American. It works on a thought for thought basis.

* New English Bible (NEB): I have something of a soft spot for this one. It has the opposite problem to the NLT in that its style is sometimes too British. Nonetheless I always liked its text lay out and style. Sadly it got superseded by the Revised English Bible which is not so good. I mostly come across it second hand.

* New King James Version (NKJV): this one at least retains some of the literary qualities of the KJV while making the text more accessible to a modern audience. It does have some problems (mostly those that afflict other modern Bible versions).

The International Standard Version is online only, but its range of sources has piqued my interest as a study Bible, but its readability seems to vary. I hope it comes out in print.

I have Lorimer's New Testament in Scots. I find it a bit uneven. I know folk who love it.

As for BAD Bible versions, I'd out the following on the naughty stool. The Scholars' Version is gospels only, but is horrendous to read (its version of the Beatitudes says "congratulations to the..." as if they'd won Reader's Digest Prize Draw.) The New World Translation is the Jehovah's Witness version and had clunky prose, making it extremely unpleasurable to read. The Good News Bible is not as annoying as the other two but its English is oversimplified and directed at children and learners. The Message goes for colloquial English and doesn't always work. The Conservative Bible, like NIV and NSRVue allows its political biases in.