The Hebrew Bible

T

Turok76

Member
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I am wondering, what do newly found scriptures, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, say about the theology, interpretation, and accuracy of the Masoretic Text I think that Jews use? I am wondering because the authors of the New Testament used Septuagint text, which is a greek translation of the Hebrew. Christians and Jews obviously interpret the Bible differently and I am wondering if new evidence supports one over the other.
 
I am wondering, what do newly found scriptures, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, say about the theology, interpretation, and accuracy of the Masoretic Text I think that Jews use?
Click to expand...
the answer depends really on your perspective. from mine, which regards the consonantal text of the pentateuch as Divine Revelation from Sinai, as well as regarding the masoretic text as theologically correct, newly found scriptures would merely be interesting, inasmuch as they could be incorrectly copied or deliberately altered (and therefore discarded) versions. either way, they don't have much bearing on the theology, which is fairly basic and minimalist.

for "progressive" thinkers, these documents will inform their thinking upon the historical development of the bible, which is seen as developing in time.

for "bible scholars", it will presumably be another set of "proofs" that everything is all based on some mythical Q document, or that everything is based on/plagiarised from other early sources, or that all of judaism is based on some zoroastrian with a stammer, or whatever theory they happen to be hawking books with this week.

I am wondering because the authors of the New Testament used Septuagint text, which is a greek translation of the Hebrew. Christians and Jews obviously interpret the Bible differently and I am wondering if new evidence supports one over the other.
Click to expand...
well, from our PoV, obviously there's no need to use the septuagint, because you're just going to have translation problems. as i understand it, the septuagint is a fairly late document and therefore would be less authoritative than, say, the targum onkelos or targum yonatan, although obviously traditional commentators can often poke holes in even the classic translations. the only thing *everyone* agrees on (at least within normative rabbinic judaism) is that the masoretic text is now authoritative and the only thing that is to be relied on for the purposes of interpretation, for legal matters in particular.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Dondi said:
Do you know of an online resource containing a masoretic text in Hebrew and English?
Click to expand...
That is one of the problems I have, I cannot understand Hebrew, so translated into English there are sure to be many problems. This is especially because the two languages don't mix well from what I hear.

As far as I know, there are several English translations, the 2 I have most interest in are the JPS(1917) translation and the other is the New JPS, "Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures" Both based on Jewish interpretation.

http://www.breslov.com/bible/

That is a site that contains the original JPS, although I hear negative criticisms of it for it being too closely related to the KJV Bible in its structure. The other isn't available online as far as I know, but if somebody finds it I would be glad to take it. Of course, most Jews would probably say reading the Hebrew is the best thing to do.
 
Thanks for all the links,Turok76, bananabrain, and ygalg. Is the JPS the most acuurate version of the Hebrew scripture? If not, is there a closer version?
 
There's a story behind that. When Everett Fox was in college, I think it was for his doctorate, he translated numbers. Someone approached him and asked him if he could translated the entire Tanach.

"But that would take the rest of my life." He said.

"Do you have something better to do?"

So he's finished translating the Torah and now he's working on other translations. Like he's done the book of Samuel. But it's grade A dark amber translation. Like butta. And it's the most fundamental part of the Tanach, at least from a Jewish perspective.

edit: If you get just one thing, get the newest JPS translation. If you get two, also get Fox's translation of the Torah. That is my recommendation.

Dauer
 
The chabad translation isn't close. It's biased based on a rabbinic understand of the text. And the old JPS is mostly just ripped from the KJV.
 
dauer said:
The chabad translation isn't close. It's biased based on a rabbinic understand of the text. And the old JPS is mostly just ripped from the KJV.
Click to expand...

I did not post they are exact match I said closest to

Compare to Christian’s versions that went even farther



Try the translations of the Qu’ran and you won’t consider chabad translation it’s very much biased



http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

Mechon-mamre shows you in parallel Hebrew text and English text

For a person knows Hebrew and English can make comparison and decide if it's faithful to original text or not

 
Mr.ygalg

Sir

I was reading your post #15 dated 09-02-2005, 07:42 AMon the thread “The Hebrew Bible”.

I have tried but sitehttp://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm does not open up on the internet.



By the way ,in what context you have mentioned Qu’ran in your following passage:-

“Try the translations of the Qu’ran and you won’t consider chabad translation it’s very much biased http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htmMechon-mamre shows you in parallel Hebrew text and English text”

Please elaborate further for my information. Thanks

Yours

inhumility
 
dauer said:
edit: If you get just one thing, get the newest JPS translation. If you get two, also get Fox's translation of the Torah. That is my recommendation.

Dauer
Click to expand...

i feel real comfortable with JPS version.:)
 
JPS is a better standard translation. Fox tries to capture the rhythm and feeling of the original Hebrew. So it gives some of that flavor. But JPS is more standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top