Reading the Bible as source material

Submitted by Saxon2060 t3_z0wk0w in books

I have done due diligence and searched the sub and there a few bible posts but not precisely what I'm looking for.

I've just finished watching Generation Kill (fantastic series) and the song in the finale used to incredible effect is "The Man Comes Around" by Jonny Cash which is full of biblical references. Some of my favourite authors lean very heavily on the bible and I suppose were writing for an audience who were familiar with it. For instance, I love William Faulkner and I didn't even know what "Absalom! Absalom!" meant until I looked it up and found it's a bible story.

Living in a "post-Christian country" as the former Archbishop of Canterbury astutely described the UK, and enjoying 20th century classics, my reading is littered with Bible references that I want to understand.

So I would like to know which version of the bible people would recommend as readable but not so 21st-century that the language is hard to link to the references I constantly see. If it matters, I'm not looking for any kind of spiritual experience, I not only feel that I'm an atheist (or I guess perhaps more accurately an obligate agnostic?) but actually aspiritual. I find religion and philosophy and humanity interesting but I suppose I'm very much on the outside looking in, it's an "intellectual" interest. (I'm not saying I'm a intellectual person, just drawing the distinction between that and spiritual.)

I'm not just making a lame point there about "look how atheist I am!" my reason for mentioning that is that I'm not so interested in the spiritual meaning of "timshel", that eventually lost my interest in East of Eden actually, I just want to be aware of which bit of the bible they're talking about. And that might make a difference to the version people recommend if anyone is kind enough to have read this far. And what happens in the story of Absalom, and what actually supposedly happens during the christian apocalypse, and what's going on with that story where a bear eats some kids. I want context for the cultural references we're surrounded by rather than a theological or personal spiritual journey.

I'm figuring the King James version because that's the most influential one in my part of the world and will be the one that Faulkner and his ilk were familiar with. but that's a very basic assumption and I would happily be advised otherwise.

33

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AccomplishedBasil700 t1_ix7r5jg wrote

For literary history and cultural reference: King James Version is the one. This was influential in western literature from later Jacobean writers until today.

For readability and scholarly responsibility: New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). This is modern enough to be read clearly today.

For a Jewish and historical point of view: Robert Alter’s Hebrew Bible, which also comes in particular books. Tons of notes and interesting interpretations/translations.

And a recommended way of reading: Lots of Christians like to read particular verses of the Bible for spiritual purposes. I’d recommend reading entire books of the Bible for literary purposes. Many of them really are incredible—Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, and 1 and 2 Samuel are a good place to start, and those and Isaiah will give you a lot of reference points for reading the New Testament.

73

Zerokku t1_ix9e6cf wrote

As the kind of weirdo that isn't Christian/traditionally religious but likes to study the Bible for fun - seconding this comment.

In particular for the NRSV I'd recommend the Oxford Annotated NRSV for the annotations and essays alone which provides a lot of great info. It also includes the apocrypha which is missing from a large percentage of Protestant Bibles, but many of those books are hugely influential on the development of Christianity, and a lot of the references you may see are also touched on in those books.

14

AccomplishedBasil700 t1_ixa1e6b wrote

Yes! The Oxford Annotated is a must. Thank you! I’d actually just conflated NRSV with the Oxford Annotated because that’s the only NRSV I’ve ever had.

5

No_Wolf_3134 t1_ixb7y82 wrote

YES! My undergrad degree is in English and I took a Bible as literature course. We used the Oxford annotated Bible and hot damn it was so fascinating. I've recommended it just to regular friends as reading.

2

pineapplesf t1_ix9q9yv wrote

KJV was written after Shakespeare....

0

AccomplishedBasil700 t1_ixa14eq wrote

KJV was published in 1611 (commissioned in 1605), but Shakespeare died in 1616. Not many of his plays were written after KJV’s publication, but some of them were.

2

zorionek0 t1_ix7qz6o wrote

Bible gateway is a good one. The link I’ve attached is my favorite verse, Mark 8:36, with every English translation.

My personal Bible is an English Standard Version (ESV), which I find has a nice middle ground between the flowery King James Version (KJV) and the too plain New International Version (NIV).

If you are looking for a historical perspective, I would recommend the KJV as this was the most common English language version of the Bible and the one most of the authors you cite would have been familiar with. If you’re not clear on the language then use a site like Bible Gateway to find a version you can parse (pun intended).

If you’re looking for a more scholarly look at the Bible, I suggest an aptly named “study” Bible. These are annotated copies of the Bible that provide deeper context from both a theological and an historical perspective when possible.

You should also consider your local library, which could help you identify books analyzing the Bible. If you are a university student that goes double, as literary analysis of the Bible are certainly available there.

To paraphrase Stephen Fry about the Quran, “one doesn’t have to be a Muslim to appreciate the poetry.” The Bible can be considered from a mundane lens as with a spiritual lens.

16

Saxon2060 OP t1_ix7rdy9 wrote

>The Bible can be considered from a mundane lens as with a spiritual lens.

While I resent the implication that I'm mundane because I'm not spiritual... ;) I really appreciate your thorough response. KJV but looking up other versions where I might struggle with a verse sounds like a good compromise.

4

zorionek0 t1_ix7s62b wrote

I can’t resist a good pun, but in this case I meant the older meaning of mundane, worldly rather than spiritual.

Which is a great Segway into a common phrase, “sic transit Gloria mundi” - thus passes the glory of the world. A line from the papal coronation ceremonies that’s been referenced by everyone from Emily Dickinson to Mel Brooks to the band Brand New.

8

AchillesNtortus t1_ix9fhvc wrote

Pendant here. The word is "segue", a term from music, not "Segway", a form of transportation.

Yes I know it should say pedant.

4

zorionek0 t1_ix9l5a2 wrote

Like I said, I can’t resist a good pun

1

cyan_dandelion t1_ix8usxm wrote

I second the suggestion of a study Bible. They can be very useful for providing historical and cultural context that would be difficult to know otherwise, whether or not the reader has a Christian background and/or familiarity with the bible. KJV might be quite hard work (not a judgement on you, just I don't find it so easy to understand personally), but I recognise it has historic and linguistic value. Maybe try having a flick through some different versions to see how you find them.

Also, I too was unaware of this second definition. Glad to have learnt it! mundane 1. lacking interest or excitement; dull. 2. of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one.

1

Pleasant_Jaguar_4935 t1_ix84uw2 wrote

I'm going to recommend the new king James version, or NKJV. It is a lot easier to read than the king James version but is close enough to let you get references to the king James. the biggest difficulty you'll run into is what things are translated from. KJV/ NKJV are translated from the Latin Vulgate, which is the Catholic version. Most other modern versions are translated from closer to original Greek and Aramaic texts like the dead sea scrolls. the differences are rather small, especially once you consider the compounding factor that two thousand years has on a book but they are there. These would be an important consideration if you were reading for religious reasons but not so much for you. I'd still recommend sticking to KJV or NKJV due to that fact, it has had the most impact on our literary tradition I'd also recommend picking up a study edition of whichever edition you go with, the Jeremiah study bible is a good one. Or just googling the meaning of whatever passage you're looking at, precept Austin is a great resource for looking up interpretation of passages.

Good luck with your research, and may it be of good use to you

6

Saxon2060 OP t1_ix87vz5 wrote

>These would be an important consideration if you were reading for religious reasons but not so much for you.

Thank you! I think you've understood what I'm looking for so thanks for your recommendations.

2

ActonofMAM t1_ix86a2z wrote

True enough. You can't understand English-language literature, going back at least as far as Chaucer, without understanding Christianity as they practiced it at the time. I expect the same is true for any other Western literature. And that goes double for Western history. You don't have to believe a word of it, but you do have to grasp what they believed.

6

bofh000 t1_ix82wts wrote

Asimov has a cool guide to the Bible. It’s dense, because so’s the Bible.

5

wearyourphones t1_ix842wn wrote

Everyone keeps saying King James Version, but I’ll say New King James, because it’ll be the easiest to read and the closest to the original versions your literary sources used. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say what you really need is a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. They have them for KJV, NKJV, and a few other translations. When you run across a quotation, you can look the keywords up in the concordance and it’ll show you every instance of the word and the sentence in which it appears. Then you can look it up in the Bible and read the passage. Pretty sure you can use Strong’s online, but I always recommend having reference materials as a hard copy.

5

Saxon2060 OP t1_ix87qu9 wrote

Thank you, I have never heard of a "concordance", looks very much like something that would help me out a lot.

4

Lhamo55 t1_ix7x60d wrote

Seconding KJV annotated for study editions. This is where the internet shines when you can key in a phrase and get explanations, and go back to reading.

BTW, I have a feeling you might also enjoy a romp through Neil Gaiman's 20th anniversary edition of American Gods (or the full cast audiobook) for a palate cleansing pagan roadtrip through the US.

4

Saxon2060 OP t1_ix80rt0 wrote

Thanks for the recommendation!

2

Lhamo55 t1_ix8226a wrote

The first season (show runner: Brian Fuller of Hannibal fame) of the now cancelled Starz series is a feast for the eyes and open minds) then he left and it became a bit bedraggled but do have a look.

0

Ffishsticks t1_ix865wj wrote

I've heard of notable atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) recommend studying the Bible for just this reason. It is a major influence on western culture, and much of our art is drawn from it

4

LilJourney t1_ix7q14i wrote

There is a couple sites online that offer you the chance to read different bible verses side by side. I can't find my bookmark for the one I use to use right now - sorry. But basically google any bible quote and check for sites that offer different translations (bible versions).

Then see which one seems to fit what you prefer. Most traditional ones, inc. King James should work well for your purpose. But a quick check online would give you the best feel for how each handles a particular story.

3

Saxon2060 OP t1_ix7q6se wrote

Good tip, thank you. If you do find the one you use, let me know!

1

Asecularist t1_ixaig3j wrote

Bible hub. If Johnny cash says “kick against the pricks,” Google the phrase. Then find the reference. Then Google “Bible hub acts 26:14”

You find Cash was quoting kjv but pricks means goads or thorns.

You can see lots of versions

I’d recommend listening to kjv on audible or similar. To learn phrases. They will all be kjv.

I’d recommend reading the NIV or nlt for the stories if you want. There are some chronological bibles and one called The Story that is NIV abridged and chronological. 500 pages. Miss some stuff but get the story.

Then kjv listen to some famous passages. Some psalms and epistles and sermons of Jesus.

1

lazylittlelady t1_ix7upyw wrote

I think for classical authors, KJV is the gold standard. If you need clarification, the website that does various versions side by side can be useful.

3

NeverLickATazer t1_ix7tl3i wrote

King James Version is sometimes hard to read. New Living Translation is a good choice. For references, read Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 kings, 2 kings, and Matthew. These books build off of each other from the beginning of creation until Jesus happened.

2

[deleted] t1_ix9hsfy wrote

[deleted]

5

NeverLickATazer t1_ixcsjlk wrote

Good point, King James would be better for word-for-word quotes. For references to stories, an easier translation would be better. King James would be better tho.

1

Glitz58 t1_ix80fkf wrote

As you're well aware, are these are ancient texts of all sorts, collected together into

Old Testament ie anything to do with the Hebrew peoples, talking about themselves to themselves (over a fair range of time so ranging from pro having kings in Judges to blaming the kings for their problems later on!)

New Testament ie anything by Christian writers including 4 very varied biographies, a collection of memories of the early days after the death of Jesus (called Acts, possibly compiled for Paul's court case in Rome) and quite a bit of mail by different writers, some of which are FAQ eg 1 Corinthians , others to sort out arguments like Romans and 2 Corinthians) Revelation is most likely a coded letter, perfectly logical if you know both Old Testament prophets and Greek theatre. The word angel is untranslated Greek for messanger which everyone used before telephones.

As for version if you want the creepy joy feeling of undeciferable poesy go for KJV, if you want to be able to zap through the stories and make some sense of them read The Message.

The original NT Greek is a lower class version spoken by ordinary people and foreigners across the Roman Empire.

The level of the vocab of the original is about the level of The Sun. Only politically orientated translation has made it The Times complicated. The KJV deliberately used old fashioned language the same as Shakespeare did to impress and add drama.

They left some words in greekified versions because the word was day to day greek but a religious practice had been made out of it. Eg baptise is the word for plunge underwater as in dyeing (as in the final scene of Ever After, what the women are doing with the poles in the laundry room) or sailor talk for a submerged rock on the rocky Mediterranean coastlines. Angel as above. Tabernacle was Latin for a tent that nomadic people used as a meeting room.

The Message is quite colloquially American but means you can speed up the reading.

I found it helped to understand that the O T is variety of documents is like a collection of Baowolf, the Anglo Saxon Chronicals, the Pipe Rolls, and so on. Some is fiction or poetry and meant to be, some official or Minority Report Chronicals, warnings and more.

1

Saxon2060 OP t1_ix81bsk wrote

I am mostly pretty aware of the stuff you mention but it hadn't really occurred to me that the "originals" were likely in totally vernacular or common speech and not especially poetic. I suppose that makes sense but I get the probably false impression that the prose was high-faluting because the KJV is in English... not really considering that they didn't write it in English, high-faluting or otherwise.

7

Glitz58 t1_ix81uda wrote

The NT especially was written by second or third language speakers. I live in a second language country and see the language layers quite differently now. Paul's Greek was better than my French though.

2

Glitz58 t1_ix82ch1 wrote

That 's why I went off fancy translations big way. And because I can't read it as a bunch of magic sayings, apart from the wisdom books it wasn' t written like that. We've played fast and loose with someone else's history. We'd go lary if people did that with our history. I think the OT at least should be judged on a similar level like hyroglyphics for example.

1

Glitz58 t1_ix82uyt wrote

PS I don't get why someone down voted your post. I think it's common sense. I suppose someone is triggered about something. Once you know what to spot it's all over the place. Even in the Terry Pratchett Discworld Series that I like. Its part of our literary and cultural heritage.

1

[deleted] t1_ix9h4u7 wrote

[deleted]

1

Saxon2060 OP t1_ix9ou9z wrote

>When you're reading for cultural relevance, I think understanding what Christians take a verse to mean is less important than seeing the words that have been referenced elsewhere.

Exactly my thinking. Thank you

2

pineapplesf t1_ix9ntjb wrote

I grew up areligious. I highly recommend The Catholic Bible, Personal Study Edition (green cover). Each section is has an introduction which explains the history, the original text, when, why and how subsequent versions changed it. It gives context on why some books were included and others were not which I found really illuminating. It also has copious footnotes.

My favorite part is that it explains common symbols/allegories/stories and how these are interpreted by various groups throughout history with contextualization. Seeing the evolution of how different groups viewed passages overtime is great for literary references because how we view it now is radically different than even 100 years ago.

ETA: KJV, despite people here insisting on it, didn't influence early Americans or Shakespeare. Most pilgrims brought over the Geneva Bible which is the foundation of puritanical Christianity and most American cultural beliefs -- which is why you won't find the same quotes in the KJV.

1

nobikflop t1_ixpdkwu wrote

As someone who grew up reading the bible, I can say that you’ll definitely want to read the KJV version to understand common phrases. If you want to skip some books for brevity’s sake, Leviticus-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ezra, and Nehemiah probably don’t have many phrases quoted verbatim in other literature. As another commenter said, this is how you get your “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” stuff.

However, you absolutely must read a modern translation as well, imo. I grew up learning the stories and mythology so it’s all embedded in my brain, KJV or not. Read the whole thing through in the New Living or Christian Standard editions. They will present a clear story so you understand what’s going on, especially in the Old Testament. Some of those stories are absolutely nuts, and the Old Testament prophecies are very poetic, but also very confusing in KJV.

Good luck! I know you’ll find lots of Western culture “Easter eggs” as you read, and realize where certain ideas and phrases came from.

1

Grace_Alcock t1_ixa2fp8 wrote

I love the KJV. It’s just not religious if it’s not in Elizabethan English!

If you are just looking for the allusions, you could also skip the charm and go straight for a kids’ Bible stories book. The Jehovah’s Witnesses has one with pretty illustrations and good readability. I assume other sects do as well. (I read the KJV myself, but I had a sister who was bent on conversion…she lives with the disappointment).

0

markireland t1_ix7z04d wrote

You could start with Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. There are many 'readers digest' versions and comic books.

−1

MediumLong2 t1_ix8zg6u wrote

There's nothing in the bible worth reading, IMHO.

−3

[deleted] t1_ix9ipae wrote

[deleted]

1

MediumLong2 t1_ix9jic2 wrote

I disagree. I think reading the bible has negative worth. As in, if you read some of it, you're likely worse off than if you hadn't read from it.

>should be able to recognise a reference being made with six pomegranate seeds

>should equally be able to recognize a reference being made to a strongman who doesn't cut his hair.

In the real world, being able to recognize and understand these references isn't worth much compared. Whereas the time it takes to read and learn them is worth a lot.

−4

crazycake77 t1_ix7y34e wrote

So you are reading Christian mythology and you want the prequel. No shame in that, my family are atheists too but still covered Christian mythology and history in our homeschool. Had to, in case our son is ever on Jeopardy lol. The one I always read as a kid was King James, that was pretty simple.

−4

Leroyboy152 t1_ix7rrr4 wrote

When it comes to science fiction, I prefer the Dune series, followed by Tolkien.

−13

Saxon2060 OP t1_ix7sb64 wrote

The funny thing is I'm pretty sure both of these things riff very heavily on theology...

8

zorionek0 t1_ix7uish wrote

Especially Dune, with the OC Bible and the Missionaria Protectiva

5

Leroyboy152 t1_iy2von1 wrote

Exactly, sci-fi

1

Saxon2060 OP t1_iy2yrhn wrote

I think you mean fantasy but okay.

0

Leroyboy152 t1_iy3kvzo wrote

No, sci-fi, but if you believe any of it, you're either part of the Ponzi scheme or fucking crazy

1

Saxon2060 OP t1_iy3mjs1 wrote

Calm down, bud. I've always been an atheist and a vehement secularist but I've learned nobody likes atheists screeching about it. Discourse about whether religion has a place in public life (I believe it doesn't) and whether you should inflict your religion on anybody including your own kids (I believe you shouldn't) are important, but what any individual believes isn't important or interesting. You don't make any friends by saying that people's religious beliefs are fantasy. They believe that they're not and the rest of us think that they are.

1

Leroyboy152 t1_iy3ul0f wrote

Ah, a theist believes in a diety an antitheist believes in the opposite of a deity, both are fucking crazy. I'm agnostic, I believe in science not fucking crazy. Yes, I know, agnostic is mislabeled, as is antitheist-atheist, things change... But, I won't identify as a antitheist-atheist, a devil worshipper, get my point? Sorry if I offend you, but religion has always been a Ponzi scheme, and today it's getting worse, not trying to mix in politics but, look at what's happening in just the US because of religion. Weaponizing crazy.

1

Saxon2060 OP t1_iy3w289 wrote

Atheist is a convenient term. I said in my initial post that I'm more accurately an obligate agnostic (we can't "know") and also aspiritual (I have no spiritual beliefs of any sort) and an apatheist (the question of whatever the supernatural exists is of no consequence to me and I don't care.)

Also, to add to the mix I'm a scientist. Professionally. By training and as a career. You're getting riled up at the wrong guy and it's fruitless getting riled up the way you are anyway. Definitely rail against religion in public life, in politics, its place in society, that's healthy and constructive discourse. The rise of religious "ethics" in national and international politics is worrying. I just mean that commenting on reddit threads talking about the bible and its place in literary cannon with scathing comments about how religious people are deluded? Okay, I 100% agree with you from a personal perspective, but it's no good for your blood pressure and not helping anyone. I still hold all the same opinions as I did in my "edgy anti-religion" phase, I just realised nobody cares what I think about what they personally believe, and nor should they.

2

Leroyboy152 t1_iy419db wrote

Touche, Err, I'm not at all riled up, I just think letting religion dictate reality is as crazy as religion. All's well that ends well.

1