Maybe. 2000 years ago healing was part of much of Judaism. Healing and resurrection were mainstream ideas. I agree about needing to read the Bible in context but one problem is that the New Testament is often not read in context of Judaism.
1 Like
In my understanding of it, they were seen as real actions that were done symbolically. The people coming to Jesus were skeptical, hopeful, curious etc., but Jesusā frustration with them was that they were unable to see the deeper meaning, not that they didnāt realise it was all metaphorical (Matthew 16 is an example of how the disciples saw the feeding of the five and four thousand as literal, but missed the symbolic meaning of bread and leaven in his teaching). Fortunately at this point, I donāt have to reconcile what I think the Bible is intended to mean with what I think actually happened!
I like your point about Jesusā revolutionary teachings: this was a series of calculated attacks on the religious system of the day using a thorough knowledge of it.
@Aloisius The mistranslation makes more sense if youāre basing your theology on the Greek Septuigent rather than the Hebrew scriptures, which is what the gospels and epistles were doing. In that sense it is a mistranslation, but one carried over from a pre-Christian Jewish text that was accepted as reliable at the time.
1 Like
I definitely wouldnāt just read this if you want anything like a thorough understanding of the text, but fortunately there are plenty of resources for that. I went to a conservative church and the Bible they gave me as a child had notes in the margins that suggested other possible translations and that admitted that the last past of Mark (including the entire resurrection story) is absent in earlier texts. Thereās usually a forward by the translators explaining the sources they used and the methodology behind the particular translation (word for word/phrase for phrase; loose, āreadableā translations like this one; expanded versions with multiple possible translations to compare; a strong focus on the symbolic or poetic elements or a compromise between these).
1 Like
There arenāt many Christian bibles that translate the passage from Hebrew properly. They largely use the Greek translation as a base which has the mistranslated word or intentionally mistranslate it to keep conservative Christians happy. Specifically:
×× ×Öø×Öµ× ×Ö“×ŖÖµÖ¼× ×Ö²×Ö¹× Öø× ××Ö¼×, ×Öø×Ö¶×ā××Ö¹×Ŗ: ×Ö“× ÖµÖ¼× ×Öø×¢Ö·×Ö°×Öø×, ×Öø×ØÖø× ×Ö°×Ö¹×Ö¶×Ö¶×Ŗ ×ÖµÖ¼×, ×ְקÖø×ØÖø××Ŗ שְ×××Ö¹, ×¢Ö“×ÖøÖ¼× ×Ö¼ ×Öµ×.
Which means:
Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
actually ends up getting translated to:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
This is true in nearly every widely used version.
1 Like
A reall fun read and alternate take on the the bible as told by Elvis Himselvis
The Good News of Elvis Christ, Savior and King of Rock and Roll. Finally, a Gospel with relatable characters! A story of hope, love, faith and redemption, against a satirical backdrop of funk, rock, punk and oldschool hip hop. Whether youāre an atheist, an agnostic, or a Christian with a sense of humor (and a love of 20th Century music), thereās something in this Gospel for everyone. Youāll laugh until you canāt breathe. This foundational text of Elvianity teaches us that James Brown, The Godfather of Soul, created the Gates of Graceland and the earth. That Elvis Christ was his only son, conceived by The Funk, born of the Virgin Mary. He taught, suffered, was crucified, buried and rose again then ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of James Brown, The Godfather of Soul. Though the faith has its doubters, no man can disprove one word herein, the word of our Godfather of Soul in Memphis. The Gates of Graceland are open for you, if only you will accept Him.
1 Like
My favourite interpretation of the story of Abraham is that he failed. He was supposed to refuse to sacrifice Isaac. Earlier in life, he has argued and bargained with God to save the lives of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (another widely misinterpreted story)- God initially says that He will spare the cities if he can find fifty righteous people in them, and Abraham bargains Him down to ten. And yet when God asks him to sacrifice his son, he says āOK, just wait while I get the knifeā.
After he goes up to the mountain to sacrifice Isaac, God never speaks directly to Abraham again.
8 Likes
Iām not going to defend the translation itself as accurate, but I think the story of how the text of the Jewish scriptures was changed relatively little to produce something so different is very interesting from the perspective of someone studying religion. In contrast, Islamic teaching seems to have much more significant points of departure from the Jewish or Christian version of events.
I donāt think the writers of the Christian scriptures would be particularly worried by this accusation of mistranslation: they seem to have taken a number of parts of the Jewish scriptures quite loosely and considered them to be fulfilled in Jesusā life. Jesus is seen as the true Israel, being baptised like the Israelites passing through the Red Sea, being tempted for 40 days in the desert, being a faithful son of God where Israel had been unfaithful, etc. The virgin/young woman translation issue would probably be seen as fairly irrelevant in the logic that the Jewish scriptures were all pointing to Jesus as the messiah.
Once again, this is not a defence of the Christian approach to the issue; I just think the question of how early Christians treated Jewish scriptures and their translations is interesting, and often quite different from what we would be comfortable with.
1 Like
Biff is seriously the best. Christopher Moore <3
2 Likes
How does Russell handle the Infamous Begets?*
- āThe Infamous Begetsā should totally also be the title of the next Wes Anderson movie.
1 Like
You were bored by the King James, one of the greatest written works in the history of English literature, but you like the comic book adaptation by R. Crumb and the āplain talkā version illustrated by the New Yorker guys. No doubt you prefer the graphic novel version of Hamlet as well.
In the words of Ezra Pound, you deserve to be shut out from the reading of good books forever.
One of the best sermons I ever heard was by a preacher/archeologist. He would always annotate his sermons with photos of the actual places as they are today and with quotations from the original language with context translations. But by far the best of them was one explaining jokes in the Bible. Camel through the eye of a needle? Hey, that was funny stuff back then. But you had to know that there was a gate called The Eye of the Needle. Camels could barely fit through it, and only if kneeling. And so on. Stuff we just donāt get today and that no updating to modern language is going to fix.
1 Like
Chester Brown did The Gospel of Matthew in the back pages of Yummy Fur. Itās one of my favorite bible comic adaptations. Itās almost like Pasoliniās Gospel According to Matthew except in comic book form. Kind of ugly and kind of beautiful at the same time.
You forgot gender issues, sexuality, and food.
Seriously, Iām always surprise at how over-the-top people become when discussing food (at least those who care about food). I use to administer a largish interest-based web forum (that had nothing to do with food), and food posts were more trigger inducing than religion or politics.
2 Likes
I donāt remember ever being told that the bible wasnāt meant to be taken literally until I started saying it made no sense.
I had to go to a CofE school, growing up in a village there was no secular option. I remember getting a free copy of The Good News Bible at high school (aged 11, I think). Didnāt want it, threw it away that day.
I did try to read the Bible as a kid (aged 6 or 7 or so). Got bored with all the begatting, all I remember is Jacob and his habit of marrying and knocking up sisters and their handmaidens. What was that supposed to be all about?
My later schools all got marked down in their inspections for not having daily acts of worship like they were meant to, for which I am very grateful.
3 Likes
There are actually a lot of versions out there.
When I was in college I had a job working at a community center, and on Sundays a Christian church of some kind or another met (not mainstream protestant), and they always had a lot of bibles in the back that people could buy. The most interesting was the Amplified Bible, where ā I kid you not ā āadditionsā were made to Jesusā passages to make them ābetter.ā (At least the additions were marked in different ink or font, IIRC.)
1 Like
Ironically, the thees and thous WERE an attempt to modernize the language. It was modern for itās time (early 1600s,) and remember it was only recently that the Bible was translated into English, vs Latin.
The do make bibles with more modern translations, and things like study Bibles that try to relate the context in to modern times.
The problem is, while you can update the language, and there are many variable in translating, you still have to keep the āstoryā the same. I have a feeling this book will have perhaps the same āmoral of the storyā endings, but the telling wouldnāt be considered true to the original.
And that is where you will run into trouble with Christians. There are many things in the bible that are out dated. Indeed much of the Old Testament covenant has been superseded by the New Testament. But you canāt say omit parts about polygamy or how to treat slaves because they have no context in our modern society. Itās still part of the book and you have to accept it as a whole.
1 Like
Ummmm, isnāt the set of English literature usually limited to works that were originally written in the English language?
Straight Dope says āThe Eye of the Needleā gate has no firm historical basis.
Mark (or anyone else really) if your interested I. Reading the bible the king James is probably the worst way to go. Itās not a particularly accurate translation, and wasnāt by the standards of when it was produced. It didnāt even even provide a particularly readable vernacular or formal text at the time, and certainly doesnāt now. And it encodes a lot of culture bound misinterpretations and agendas that simple arenāt in the text otherwise. So unless youāve got a particular relgious reason to favor it, or are looking to study the history and effects itās had, thereās no really reason to put up with it. There a bunch of different more accurate, academic or vernacular translations. The standards tend to be the New Revised Standard Version, and it competetor the New Revised Standard Edition (or something like that. I can never remember the second one). Both are frequently updated rigorous translations based on early pre Latin versions. Heavily foot noted to point out translation problems , controversies, context, and connections. They also typically available in āstudy bibleā or academic versions with even more annotations . And written in modern fairly understandable English. They are other similar options based on various specific eras or versions of biblical text. Inculding more modern accurate Catholic and Orthodox bibles based on the formal Latin and Greek text those churches have used for centuries.
Pick literally any of these versions and youāll have a better time of it. I like the NRSV, but growing up my churched used a printing of the other one entitled āThe Good News Bibleā or some such that was excessively annotated and presented in more vernacular language. Weād compare it to the king James, a few other translations, and a big stack of related and unrelated religious texts. Because I went to Episcopal nerd church.
2 Likes
Well, if it makes God feel better Iām pretty disappointed in Him too.
2 Likes
