• Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    What’s with the weird italics and random faint superscript letters? I’m not well versed on that sort of thing, but linguistically it makes no sense that I can see…? I assume some sort of index or something for the superscript but it also has numerical superscript…?

    • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 days ago

      The superscripts are almost certainly references to translators’ footnotes.

      The random italicization I’m less sure about, but it seems to primarily be on words that may not have a direct Hebrew counterpart?

      • prettybunnys@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        More literal translations of bibles are often like you’re referencing and are really interesting to read when you approach from a scholarly direction.

        Take them with a grain of salt and the historian/translators footnotes and see what you take from it. Lots of good thoughts and prayers and wildly different than what the Christian right has championed lately.

        Still a fantasy novel though

    • Malgas@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 days ago

      The numbers are verse numbers, used for citing specific passages, e.g. “Ezekiel 23:20”.

      I would assume that the letters are annotations, and that this is likely an academic Bible.

      • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Does that include the 8 up by “moves” in the preceding paragraph?

        I assume the bolded superscript numbers are verse numbers, I know at least that much of biblical format, but then there’s that 8.

        So there’s like 3+ types of annotations and… that’s confusing…

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      translation notes I’m guessing

      “that yields seeds” could be “which yields seeds” or “doth yield seeds” or “yielding seeds” or “seed yielding” etc

  • s@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 days ago

    So technically who is to blame for the fig tree that bore no fruit as mentioned in Mark 11:12–25 and Matthew 21:18–22?

    • caseyweederman@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      In the Apocrypha, childhood Jesus got mad at another kid and turned him into a tree.
      Now, I’m not saying they’re the same tree. But I am saying I can do whatever I want in my own headcanon.

      2 And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit.

      http://www.gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm

      • Vardøgor@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        not exactly, we say fruiting bodies to be easier to describe, but you can’t botanically be a fruit without being a plant. plus spores aren’t seeds. fungi are more closely related to us than fruit!

        i wonder if any distinction was made that long ago too though, or if mushrooms would’ve been included in the original context 🤔