Humanities desk
< January 29	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 30

Alternatives to Bible Gateway?

I am interested in reading English (and potentially French) translations of the (Christian) Bible, since I have an intellectual interest in the trappings of Christianity and Judaism. The internet has generally been a good source for this sort of thing -- if I'm not mistaken, there's a Wikisource upload of the Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanakh, and I can find a lot of New Testament material on Bible Gateway.

However, I also feel at-odds with the people who run Bible Gateway; for instance, they run adverts catering to the evangelical Christian crowd and seem to support politics that I disagree with. In a pinch, I'm fine with using the site, but I'm wondering if there's a similar site elsewhere, preferably run by a nonsectarian group. It's really not a big issue though - in the worst case, I can probably just live off of the JPS translation and public domain uploads of the KJV translation (assuming that the KJV translation is any good). --Morningcrow (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like the Skeptics Annotated Bible: [1]. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't spent enough time on any of them in order to recommend one, but there are a couple more listed in our Category:Online Scripture Search Engine. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the ones in Sluzzelin's link, here are a few more: http://www.biblestudytools.com/ http://biblehub.com/ http://www.bible-online.cz/ http://www.bibleserver.com/. Regarding the KJV, that is not a bad translation, but the underlying Greek text for the New Testament is the Textus Receptus, which is based on a small number of rather late manuscripts. Modern translations use a Greek text reconstructed from far more and earlier manuscripts. So although the differences are not all that great, I'd recommend using a more recent translation such as the ESV or NIV if you want a New Testament that is as close as possible to the originals. For the Old Testament, the KJV is fine if you don't mind the dated language. - Lindert (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that different Christian groups have and promote different bible versions. The King James Version is considered authoritative by Mormons and some other Protestants, as King James was a Protestant king. It's definitely not a Catholic or Orthodox version, because it skips out the deuterocanonical books entirely, treating them as if they are not inspired. The Bible is not one holy text; rather, it is a collection of texts that is considered to be inspired by Jews and Christians. Jews reject the entire New Testament, and mainstream Christians reject the Book of Mormon to be inspired. So, when you are looking at the Bible, you are not looking at a book. Instead, you are looking at theological tradition. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Studylight site might interest you. It's obviously a site run by evangelical Christians, but the range of translations is impressive, starting with Wycliffe, and covering the early editions such as Coverdale and Geneva, with a good range of the modern ones. My only quibble is the absence of the marginal notes in the Geneva bible. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That I'm aware of; honestly I guess you could just say that I'm interested in a translation of the Tanakh (for which JPS will most likely suffice) and the standard Protestant New Testament (which was the main thing I wasn't as sure about, particularly since JPS obviously don't have a translation of that, and I wasn't sure how good KJV (which I can definitely find on nonsectarian sites) or any of the other standard "word for word" translations were). --Morningcrow (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are more in need of a commentary written by somebody that understands Hebrew/Greek, and can tell you where Tanakh translators were guessing, or why John 21:15-17 only works in Greek. I'm guessing you'll have to find these on a book by book basis. Alternatively, I've always worked on comparing modern versions with the King James and looking up the differences in a dictionary. KJV is useful if your Hebrew is as bad as mine - as you say, it's almost word for word. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2013 edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures in English is at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/binav/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013 and http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/1 and http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/. (At this moment, the "Book of Matthew" is available in audio at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/binav/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/40.) Also, The Divine Name King James Bible is at http://www.dnkjb.net.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC) and 05:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC) and 14:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New World Translation is the in-house version of the Watchtower Tract and Bible Society, the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses organisation. It differs from the scholarly consensus in a number of important ways, and I would advice against using it as a reference translation. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos the 1917 JPS edition of the Tanakh: I looked at the Wikisource version just now and see that some books are missing. I don't understand how this compares with the Mechone Mamre website that provides the complete edition and other texts besides. Perhaps the site is of use for your purposes? -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out; I probably hadn't realised it since I'd only looked up the Wikisource upload for a specific Exodus passage. That site seems a lot more helpful. --Morningcrow (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Crusade and people on ships

In Third Crusade#King Richard and King Philip's departure it says, Shortly after setting sail from Sicily, King Richard's armada of 100 ships (carrying 8,000 men) was struck by a violent storm. Do we have a reference source that verifies these numbers?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A useful source is The Later Crusades: 1189-1311 edited by Kenneth M. Setton, Robert Lee Wolff, Harry W. Hazard which has a substantial Google Books preview. Annoyingly, the relevant pages, 61 and 62 "are not shown in this preview". It does make it plain that our article is wrong; Richard and Philip did not "...set out jointly from Marseille, France for Sicily", they met at Vézelay and set out together on 4 July as far as Lyons where they parted, Richard to Marseilles and Philip to Genoa where he hired a fleet to transport his force (p. 57). Richard's fleet that had left Dartmouth went straight to Sicily via Portugal, rather than meeting Richard in Marseilles as our article says; Richard hired ships in Marseilles for his retinue of 800, which may be an overestimate. I haven't found the answer to your question yet though. Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lead. It will keep me busy meanwhile.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need for Google Books - all 6 volumes of the "Wisconsin History" (as we like to call it) is available online here. Page 61 of volume 2 says Richard had "180 ships and 39 galleys". There was a storm after they left Sicily, and Richard briefly landed on Crete. A footnote on page 62 gives the primary sources for Richard's journey. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well done sir! Please note Doug, the caveat on page 57; "When a medieval writer had to guess at a number, he did so with lavish generosity. When he was an eye witness, he made his estimates with dashing carelessness. The figures given by contemporary writers are usually magnificently improbable round numbers." Alansplodge (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You guys sure know your stuff. Thanks. This will keep me busy for some time studying it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; a cursory grasp combined with Google I'm afraid (speaking only for myself of course). It's not what you know, it's knowing where to look. Good reading! Alansplodge (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have a better grasp on this than I do. Just one more question and I will get back to my reading and stay out of your hair. If you were to guess (as I haven't found it yet), how many people on King Richard's armada of 180 ships and 39 galleys? A guess is fine, if you don't stumble on an exact number. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forge, Rev Charles (1870) Richard the First and the Third Crusade, Wyman & Sons, London (p. 91) gives a figure of 20,000 men but gives no sources. That equals 100 men on each ship. Bearing in mind that they had to bring horses as well and given the reservations quoted above, you can be sure that it was probably a lot fewer than that: perhaps half? BTW, I have amended the Third Crusade#King Richard and King Philip's departure section using the references above. Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the ships would have transported horses exclusively - since Wikipedia is blessed with people who love to write about horses, we have a pretty informative article on Horse transports in the Middle Ages. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That will keep me busy reading and studying all this.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everlasting punishment

Other than Christianity, which religions believe that everyone who doesn't share their religion receives everlasting punishment in hell? Does any exist today? --Bowlhover (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islam, for one. Google "islamic view of hell" and you'll get plenty of hits that seem to square with the traditional Christian viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you get to wait till the Last Day before going to Jahannam, if your only crime is not believing, and some say you can work your way out. So it's maybe not quite eternal. They have their own version of the Chinvat Bridge, so good deeds alone can help. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And does Islam have the same flaw as Christianity, saying that people who lived before Jesus or Mohammed, or otherwise never even heard of Christianity or Islam, can't get into heaven ? Same is true of Judaism too, I suppose. Reincarnation seems the only convenient way around the assumption that "You can't get into heaven unless you accept X", for those who never even heard of X. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You get resurrected first. That alone should make you aware that something credible is happening. Just a matter of asking someone younger what the deal is. Once you're convinced (assuming you weren't a terrible person), should be smooth sailing. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, dead people are unconscious.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I question the OP's premise in relation to Christianity. Which Christian denominations teach that "everyone who doesn't share their religion receives everlasting punishment in hell"? Because I know of quite a few major denominations that teach nothing of the sort. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Says you can't be saved without the Church, but not necessarily damned. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, with regard to those who lived before Jesus' nativity, see Harrowing of Hell. Deor (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, InedibleHulk, it doesn't say that you can't be saved without the Church. See the section "Inculpable ignorance":

In its statements of this doctrine, the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God";[6] that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control";[6] and that "they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life."[8]

Inculpable ignorance is not a means of salvation.[21] But if by no fault of the individual ignorance cannot be overcome (if, that is, it is inculpable and invincible), it does not prevent the grace that comes from Christ, a grace that has a relationship with the Church, saving that person. Thus it is believed that God would make known to such a person before the moment of death, by either natural or supernatural means, the Catholic faith, since "without [such] faith it is impossible to please God", and this entails, for even the unbaptized, at the very least baptism of desire.

Given that those who never even heard of Jesus and the Church WAY outnumber those who have (since the beginning of humanity), this means that Heaven is full of mainly non-believers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That says God would give the invincibly ignorant (I like that phrase) a crash course, before the moment of death. So they'd still be in the Church, briefly, but long enough. And mercy is at God's discretion. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ashamed to admit that this is a surprise to me. I thought the damnation of non-believers is almost universally accepted by Christians. Which major denominations don't teach it? --Bowlhover (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church, for one. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might that depend on your local church's teachings? I mean some Catholic churches ignore Vatican II. I attended a Jesuit high school as a non-Catholic. Nobody outright told me I would burn in hell (that's usually more the game the evangelical christians play), but I recall them telling me that John 14:6 was about non-Christians not being able to be saved [2], straight from the mouth of Jesus. I'm way out of my element here, just wanted to point out that, outside of formal dogma and creeds (of which many of the faithful are ignorant anyway), you'll find a lot of variety in interpretation even among one Christian sect. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to ask a too personal question, roughly how long ago was your experience? While there's obviously still a few fair who believe anyone who isn't Catholic or at least Christian is going to hell, my experience is that this seems a lot rarer now than it perhaps it was in the past. As the sources and discussion above indicates, I think there's increasing recognition that the idea doesn't go down very well, although there are different levels. The most obvious problem would be babies, as our limbo article indicates this is something recognised as a problem for a long time, since the idea that babies would be eternally punished simply because their parents didn't baptise them. Then there's the related problem of whether it's fair to punish someone who lived a good life but had no opportunity to learn about Jesus (which even nowadays in the internet era is still a problem, let alone in the past). Those who did know about Jesus but still rejected the message is the one that was perhaps the longest for people to come around to but nowadays there seems to be increasing recognition that the idea of an all loving god just seems incompatible with the idea a person who does so would definitely be eternally punished/damned even if they otherwise lived a very moral life, helped all sorts of people etc. (Particularly since someone who lived a terribly immoral life, e.g. murdered etc would be fine if they were genuinely contrite and accepted the proper god at the end. For that matter, most would suggest it's possible someone who sinned a bit and wasn't really contrite for some of them but accepts the proper god may be okay. Of course the whole forgiveness thing hits issues if you just think of ordinary life anyway, since someone who spends 10 years on death row or gets a terminal illness with a long time before they die has far more opportunity to accept their mistakes then someone who is killed while commiting a crime, or has a heart attack, or whatever.) The Vatican's official view on these issues nowadays as per our articles seems to be basically "well we don't think god can be that evil, but we can't truly know god, and it is ultimately only through accepting god that you will be saved so we figure he'll find a way although you're still far better off if you accept god now). In terms of you point, may be it also depends a lot on the area, a place with relatively few Catholics probably finds it harder to suggest that. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're misunderstanding each other. My question was really about the modern world, not people before the founding of the religion or in remote uncontacted regions. Almost everybody today has heard of the major world religions, albeit not necessarily in any detail, so they're surely not "invincibly ignorant". (BTW, thank you Baseball Bugs for pointing out Islam. I thought I understood Islam's views on hell, but obviously not.) --Bowlhover (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that people who died without knowing Jehovah will be resurrected and will learn about him. (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003609)

—Wavelength (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's taught pretty unambiguously by the Athanasian Creed, which is accepted by many denominations (see Ecumenical creeds):

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. (...) Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. (...) And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.". - Lindert (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of the obvious: have a good look at Hell. Many Jewish people don't believe there is a hell, so of course they don't think non-Jews get eternal punishment. The Unitarians aren't big on exclusion or fire and brimstone either, inclusion is central enough to be part of their name. Taoism has no concept of Hell as far as I know, and only some parts of Hinduism acknowledge hell. I suppose there might be concepts of eternal punishment that aren't Hell-like (e.g. endless reincarnation into lives of suffering), but our article is pretty comprehensive. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the Sikhs but Sikhism#Liberation makes it pretty clear that they're not down with heaven, hell, or reincarnation. So it doesn't look like they think I'm going to be tormented for not being a Sikh. Like Judaism, Sikhs don't aggressively recruit, and may actually dissuade would-be converts. My general rubric is, the religions/sects that aggressively recruit are the most likely to think everyone else will burn. It's a compelling argument (to some) - "join us, or suffer eternally". SemanticMantis (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC) (P.S. Oops, sorry, I misread the question, and was answering as though there was a "does not believe" in there. I'll leave these links though, as they at least rule out many candidates :)[reply]

Colonialism in Africa

There are many writers and resources that are about the negatives of colonialism in Africa. However were there any prolific writers or books that view colonialism in Africa as a positive, and a good thing? --Preston pig (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cui bono? I'm sure you can find books by Dutch, British, and French authors of the time who were very happy about how the whole thing was working out for them. For example the directors of the Dutch East India Company were likely very positive about the Dutch Cape Colony. I suppose you'd find some warlords in modern Africa that owe their power to the Belgian_Congo, so they might be more positive on the whole business as well.

Our article on Colonialism has a long section on impacts. Most don't seem very positive for the Africans. I see no comment there on any modern perspectives that think it was good for Africa.

Searching a bit more, I find these three books [3] [4] [5]. None of them say it was generally positive or good for Africa, but they discuss some positives as well as negatives. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A more modern study is The Legacy of Western Overseas Colonialism on Democratic Survival (2004); "We find that Western overseas colonialism, a factor often overlooked in recent large-n studies, continues to have an effect on the survival of democratic regimes". You may also be interested in this 2005 article; French angry at law to teach glory of colonialism. Alansplodge (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a positive continuing effect, or just an effect? I mean, are they saying that western colonialism has generally helped democratic regimes to survive/persist in Africa? SemanticMantis (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! forgot to link it - try this. Bit of a long read I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Empire by Niall Ferguson. This section of our article on him quotes one critic describing it as a "panegyric to British colonialism" and gives a summary of some of Ferguson's arguments that the British Empire "was preferable to the alternatives". AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, also Civilization: The West and the Rest also goes over the subject in some detail. 203.96.130.148 (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one metioned Rudyard Kipling yet? Granted, there is some debate over how pro-imperialism he actually was, but he's usually the first name that comes up when talking about English-language "Hurrah for Empire!" stuff. --71.104.75.148 (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]