Versions like this for the Torah

This is exactly what you're looking for. It has copious notes and essays by Jewish and secular academics.

Attached: 978465_1_ftc.jpg (557x792, 60K)

Yeah, but that's just the opinion of experts in the field. Why would you listen to them when you could listen to the views of anonymous strangers on a Balinese cross-stitch forum?

NEW King James

Stirner is all about getting dat ass. To the max. I love stirner. My cock conquers for my own gain. Cockgain.

What's the problem? Always available.

Attached: tanakh-the-holy-scriptures-181002030420-thumbnail-4.jpg (768x1087, 158K)

>The bible
>complaining about jews influencing it
wut

This. JPS TANAKH. Added pleasure of reading it back to front as well

If it's just for the translation and not the notes then the RSV2CE and ESV are a better option. The American King James was a hobbyist project that revises the archaisms while preserving the original KJ reading more faithfully than any other KJ revision I've seen.

Otherwise if you were willing to handle the archaisms then I'd say the ASV is the best all around translation and of the Hebrew text in particular. The JPS Tanakh is largely similar since it was based on it but Jewish translations have to introduce questionable revisions as well for which there is no complete agreement on among scholars like changing virgin to young woman in Isa. 7:14. which the standard RSV and the NRSV also do. The ASV itself is a KJ revision for the most part with some terminology updated to 20th century standards and an NT which follows Alexandrian readings.

99% of all bible commentary is complete shit. Now I'm not saying don't read any modern exegesis/interpretation/criticism but you should at least have a foundation of historical criticism.

For this reason the best SINGLE best edition I can recommend is Norton Critical Edition but you can safely ignore the introduction and prefaces, but DO read the context, reception, and criticism in the appendix (pic related).

It comes in two volume's so if you only want the OT:
books.wwnorton.com/books/webad.aspx?id=22613

Although the apocrypha is included at the end of the new testament volume, which also has a significant appendix.

Attached: nortonoldtestament.png (1203x3825, 2.07M)

Use the appendices as a starting point for further study Almost all the authors listed in part 2 have mountains of writing on the bible, if you find an interpretation you find particularly estimable investigate the rest of their œuvre.

IMO the only modern bible commentary you should read is authors you already know of and respect, and material history/archaeological. And of course denominational if you actually are a practicing christian or interested in becoming so.

But you're just pushing the KJV onto xir and op said xe can't read Archaic.

well in that case there's always the Queen James Bible

Attached: 565049680.jpg (500x359, 50K)

but seriously there's extensive footnotes "translating" any dated terms, also letting you know when the KJV diverges from the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts.

but the people being referred to were unspecified gender. how does clarifying the neutral he in Hebrew to the inclusive he/she (as neutral he has been dead in English for a century now) constitute an agenda?

Im reading this on my kindle, it's great :)

Also its on libgen :)

>dead in English for a century now
It's only dead in the mind of politically correct revisionists. Also how do you know it's neutral in Hebrew?
Not to mention it does have faulty application in existing translations.

The original KJ print had blackletter typeface similar to the bold lettering formal Torah scrolls use. Not that it was used in them originally though.

Attached: 3909118328_ece7a0b418_b.jpg (1024x683, 194K)

apostles and the patristics have been using father and son since the inception of the NT. Even if the Hebrew word was neutral, nobody in the ancient world interpreted the OT that way since the rededication of the second temple. And certainly no Christian ever used neutral terms for god until the 20th century.

>Robert Alter.
>New JPS

Most Jews use New JPS, though I know many academics are starting to research Robert Alter's version.

If you don't care for the commentary, then you can just read NIV Bible for the first 5 books (Torah). There are small translation differences, but they're nbd. The standard rule, is if something sounds like it's foreshadowing Jesus, double check it with the Hebrew version. There's only one case of this I think.

Attached: iabizyu1inqz.jpg (884x884, 77K)

Examples of problems with gender neutrality

>Ezekiel 2:1- 'mortal' instead of 'son of man'
It says "son of man" though, ben-’ā·ḏām (בֶּן־אָדָם֙), and this is repeated in the Greek of the NT, υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (huiós toû anthrṓpou), and this was also the interpretation of all the main ancient translations.

>Hosea 1:10- 'children of the living God' instead of 'sons of the living God'

>Mark 1:17- 'fish for people' instead of 'fishers of men'
Greek actually has two words for 'people/folk' already, λᾱός (lāós) and δῆμος (dêmos), from where words such as 'democracy' are derived.

>Romans 1:13- 'brothers and sisters' instead of 'brothers' or 'brethren'
Could have used sibs/siblings if they wanted to be neutral. The fact is though that a feminine form of the word is used for 'sister', ἀδελφή (adelphḗ), and a feminine gendered word is used for 'brotherhood', ᾰδελφότης (adelphótēs), similar to Latin fraternitas and germanitas and its derivatives. The English word was also feminine in Old English apparently.

>fishers of men
makes it sound like he's forming The Village People. the NRSV translators really dodged a bullet there, don't want any homoeroticism in our bibles, do we?

Attached: 44168f6873983fc0fcdcc5c1c919e2910e5c5efa1bfc07b0189db80c9a2d514a.jpg (550x728, 26K)

Attached: th.jpg (474x535, 18K)

I trust real life more than this comic

HOW CAN YOU TRUST SOMETHING THAT YOU IGNORE?

oh, so we do want homoeroticism in our bibles? thanks for the confirmation, just ordered a copy of the QJV

If it does seem to be foreshadowing Jesus it's not like altering the reading makes the translation more authentic because Christians might have altered the Bible rather it would rather be more logical that the NT authors purposely employed verses that were relevant and indicative of the prophecy fulfillment they were alleging.

Anyway here's a comment of Jerome (347 – 420 AD) on Jewish alterations.
"Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope: "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel." I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah! What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men. Then again, Rebecca, on account of her extreme purity, and because she was a type of the Church which she represented in her own virginity, is described in Genesis as Almah, not Bethulah, as may clearly be proved from the words of Abraham's servant, spoken by him in Mesopotamia: "And he said, O Lord, the God of my master Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way which I go: behold I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden which cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of this pitcher to drink; and she shall say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed for my master's son." Where he speaks of the maiden coming forth to draw water, the Hebrew word is Almah, that is, a virgin secluded, and guarded by her parents with extreme care. Or, if this be not so, let them at least show me where the word is applied to married women as well, and I will confess my ignorance. "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."

Just dandy