Answering Tzarah's Question about Hebrew text of Yoel 4:1

[Ehav4Ever]

I don't think you read it:

quote:
"All these Greek books, most of them translations from Hebrew and Aramaic, were accepted as authoritative (sacred) by the Alexandrian Jewish community and later by all the Jews."

It is only "rejected by traditional Judaism,"

EDIT:

And this is why (as per your site)

"The dislike of the LXX by the Jews became stronger when the Greek writings of early Christianity (the "New Testament") based themselves, quite naturally, on the LXX."

Yes, it is the "view" of Emanuel Tov. That is what his credentials even state. See also below.

The Septuagint, Emanuel Tov, Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Fortress Press, Minneapolis 1992
The books of the Bible were translated at different times and there are various attestations of the date of composition of the books of G*. Some of the evidence is external, e.g., quotations from G* in ancient sources, and some internal, e.g., reflections of historical situations or events found in the translation.

According to the generally accepted explanation of the testimony of the Epistle of Aristeas, the translation of the Torah was carried out in Egypt in the third century BCE. This assumption is compatible with the early date of several papyrus and leather fragments of the Torah from Qumran and Egypt, some of which have been ascribed to the middle or end of the second century BCE (4QLXXLeva, 4QLXXNum, Pap. Fouad 266, Pap. Rylands Gk. 458).

The translations of the books of the Prophets, Hagiographa, and the apocryphal books came after that of the Torah, for most of these translations use its vocabulary, and quotations from the translation of the Torah appear in the Greek translations of the Latter Prophets, Psalms, Ben Sira, etc.
​

See also:

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Jewish translations of the Old Testament were made from time to time by Jews, in order to satisfy the needs, both in public service and in private life, of those that had gradually lost the knowledge of the ancient national tongue. In Palestine itself, Hebrew was driven out first by Aramaic, then by Greek, and finally by Arabic. Portions of the Bible itself (in Daniel and Ezra) are written in Aramaic; and there is no consensus of opinion among scholars as to whether these parts were originally written in that tongue or were translated from the Hebrew.

Though Hebrew remained the sacred and the literary language, the knowledge of it must have faded to such a degree in the second century preceding the common era that it became necessary for a "meturgeman" to translate the weekly Pentateuch and prophetic lessons as read in the synagogue (Berliner, "Onkelos," p. 7; Friedmann, "Akylos und Onkelos," p. 58). The assertion made by the two scholars just cited, that the Targums date from the time of Ezra, is unwarranted; since they are written in a West-Aramaic dialect.

The authorities of the synagogue did not willingly allow such translations to be written down. They felt that this would be putting a premium upon ignorance of the text, and that the Biblical word would be in danger of being badly interpreted or even misunderstood. They sought to minimize the danger by permitting only one verse to be read and translated at a time in the case of the Law, and three in the case of the Prophets (Meg. iv. 4). Certain passages were never to be translated publicly; e.g., Gen. xxxv. 22; Ex. xxxii. 21-25; Num. vi. 23-26; Lev. xviii. 21 (Meg. iv. 10; see. Berliner, l.c. p. 217; Ginsburger, "Monatsschrift," xliv. 1). ​

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Ok... we will have to agree to disagree in as much as your site stipulated quite the contrary.

Greetings. Just a side not, what I provided It isn't my site.

I was simply showing how the information you provided came from a site that was not fully showing what Emanuel Tov wrote it was a missionary site that was trying to disprove Rabbi Tovia Singer and not trying to allucate the view of Emanuel Tov. In Emanual Tov's interview he he even confirmed what I said that the translation is not considered the same as the original Hebrew.

Again, my point is consistant that the only time translaitions were used was when there were Jews who didnt' understand Hebrew. Jews who knew/know don't need them and don't use them looking at what the original says. This is especially true when the translation is into a language that does not fully lend itself to the origanal's particulars.

Regardless, the video on "plead" was simply applying a modern day usage when in the time it was written in English it was referencing judgment as per the quote that I made.

My comment wasn't only about the word "plead" on its own, yet even still it is a big thing based on what the Hebrew actually says and the availability of better wording.

My entire statement was concerning the use that poster who is a Hebrew Israelites making using the KJV bible, while making incorrect claims, which they also claim that King James was a Black Hebrew Israelite. The second point was that the 1611 KJV doesn't support the Hebrew Israelite claim. Thus if you go from Yoel chapter 1 to the end there are several places, such as chapter in the Hebrew text - chapter 2 in the Herbrew Israelite version the poster was making incorrect claims that can't be supported by the Hebrew text and can only be made by using a translation.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, it is the "view" of Emanuel Tov. That is what his credentials even state. See also below.

The Septuagint, Emanuel Tov, Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Fortress Press, Minneapolis 1992
The books of the Bible were translated at different times and there are various attestations of the date of composition of the books of G*. Some of the evidence is external, e.g., quotations from G* in ancient sources, and some internal, e.g., reflections of historical situations or events found in the translation.

According to the generally accepted explanation of the testimony of the Epistle of Aristeas, the translation of the Torah was carried out in Egypt in the third century BCE. This assumption is compatible with the early date of several papyrus and leather fragments of the Torah from Qumran and Egypt, some of which have been ascribed to the middle or end of the second century BCE (4QLXXLeva, 4QLXXNum, Pap. Fouad 266, Pap. Rylands Gk. 458).

The translations of the books of the Prophets, Hagiographa, and the apocryphal books came after that of the Torah, for most of these translations use its vocabulary, and quotations from the translation of the Torah appear in the Greek translations of the Latter Prophets, Psalms, Ben Sira, etc.
​

Again, I agree that the Hebrew text is the best text.

I'm not saying that they translated it perfectly either. All I am saying is that they did use the Septuagint and didn't seem to have a problem with using it.

"The Significance of the Septuagint

The significance of the Septuagint translation can hardly be overestimated. Following the conquests of Alexander the Great (336-323 BC), Greek became the official language of Egypt, Syria and the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. The Septuagint translation made the Hebrew scriptures available both to the Jews who no longer spoke their ancestral language and to the entire Greek-speaking world."

Associates for Biblical Research - A Brief History of the Septuagint

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Regardless, the video on "plead" was simply applying a modern day usage when in the time it was written in English it was referencing judgment as per the quote that I made.

One other small point. Sorry if it seems like I am getting wordy. Just as the translations you provided showed. A person who knows Hebrew sees things in the text that a person would not know are there if they don't know Hebrew. Further, as the person who inspired me to make the video showed it is a lot easier to fabricate claims in translation when someone can't verify the claims because they can't read the original.

Again, as I mentioned earlier one of the issues that makes the text clear is that Torath Mosheh Jew is required to go for the original Hebrew text above anything elso also to read it from start to finish and not just pick up in the middle for a theology or an idea on it and leave it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Again, I agree that the Hebrew text is the best text.

I'm not saying that they translated it perfectly either. All I am saying is that they did use the Septuagint and didn't seem to have a problem with using it.

I know we agree about the that Hebrew text is the original and the authoraty.

What I am saying that a larger number of Jews did have a problem with the Greek it. That is why those texts, at the level they were even being used at, stop being used completely and that is why for about the last ~1,700 years it is extremely rare for a Jew to even use a Greek translation and even more rare for a Hebrew fluent Jew to even consider a Greek text.

Just like the Encylcopedia Judaica even stated, In Israel, "Hebrew was driven out first by Aramaic, then by Greek, and finally by Arabic." It would be one thing if we are saying that only the rabbis spurned the Greek, for about 1,700 you don't find even non Rabbinical Jews using it. Not the average Jew and not the Karaites.

Besides, the LXX that is used today is not proven to be from Jews - and we all know that the original LXX was only the 5 books of Moses.

 

[Kenny]

One other small point. Sorry if it seems like I am getting wordy. Just as the translations you provided showed. A person who knows Hebrew sees things in the text that a person would not know are there if they don't know Hebrew. Further, as the person who inspired me to make the video showed it is a lot easier to fabricate claims in translation when someone can't verify the claims because they can't read the original.

Again, as I mentioned earlier one of the issues that makes the text clear is that Torath Mosheh Jew is required to go for the original Hebrew text above anything elso also to read it from start to finish and not just pick up in the middle for a theology or an idea on it and leave it.

And I agree that "judgment" (in today's lingo) is a better wording and all other English translations, translate it as such. We no longer speak the King's English.

And, yes, it is Jewish scripture, Hebrew is still the best and even Jewish culture should be factored in.

I just think that the whole of the video was making a mountain when it was a mole hill.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, I have to get some sleep. Great friendly mentally sparing with you with you.

 

[Kenny]

I know we agree about the that Hebrew text is the original and the authoraty.
.

PS... I did appreciate your sharing, your demeanor, and the information presented.

Thank you!

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I just think that the whole of the video was making a mountain when it was a mole hill.

Not really. If you look at the Hebrew Israelite comments you will that he made some wrong conclusions based on having a bad translation that he misrepresented. That was the big point of the video and is why I spent the video explaining out the Hebrew text.

Again, you may want to look up Hebrew Israelites. I have had a number of encounters with them they often go off the rails partially due to using English translations. And also the idea they have that King James was a Hebrew Israelite like them.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

PS... I did appreciate your sharing, your demeanor, and the information presented.

Thank you!

Same here. It is communications like this that keep me on my mental toes and also checking my sources. Thanks for pushing me. Now I have to get some sleep. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Tazarah]

This is very interesting.... question (as I go through it):

The Aleppo Codex was made in 10th century AD... how do we know that it wasn't without errors?

Wow.... if I would have known this, then I would have taken the OP less seriously than I already did. Thank you for pointing this out.

 

[Tazarah]

I just think that the whole of the video was making a mountain when it was a mole hill.

My point exactly.

 

[Tazarah]

Finally, I think that Joel 4 or 3, depending on which one you are reading, was more of a misinterpretation of "plead" than it was a wrong translation (in this case). I would agree that KJV didn't always translate exactly.

Don't get me wrong, the original hebrew text is very important. However, people who know how to read a little bit of hebrew always try to make things seem as if there are huge contradictions between the different translations either because:

1. They feel the need to show off the fact that they understand some hebrew.

and/or

2. They honestly just don't know any better.

Both 1 and 2 are obviously the case in this scenario.

Anyone who studies the bible in context can obtain the true understanding of what is being said regardless of the language that the text is being read in.

For example, you mention how Joel 3:1-2 (or Yoel 4:1-2) says that God will "plead" with the nations. The word "plead" is not being used in the modern or standard sense of the word and by putting the verse in context you can easily understand what is actually being said.

According to biblical context, this is how God "pleads":

EZEKIEL 38:22

"22 And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone."

ISAIAH 3:13

"13 The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people."

 

[Tazarah]

Not really. If you look at the Hebrew Israelite comments you will that he made some wrong conclusions based on having a bad translation that he misrepresented. That was the big point of the video and is why I spent the video explaining out the Hebrew text.

This is completely false and it's sad how you continue to say this when it has already been clearly established that both texts (the Hebrew as well as the English) draw the same conclusion -- that Judah and Jerusalem will be saved from their captivity or "exile" on the same day that God gathers all of the nations to judge them -- which is exactly what I have been saying from the very beginning.

You can pretend that there was an "error" in the translations as much as you'd like, but you yourself have proven that both texts ultimately say the same thing, as I've already stated. You yourself admit and prove this at the 12:53 mark of your video in the OP.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It says that in those days, and in that time,

Thos days and that time could be decads, even centuries. It does not imply that the two events are 100% concurrent, which is the essence of what you are claiming.

No one is trolling you. It's just that the claim that you are making is so strange and obscure, that it really does take a while for us to figure out what it is, precisely, that you want.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, as I view and interpret what you are interpreting:

View attachment 39979

I would agree that the original is always better.
I would also agree that the Septuagint, a Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew text into Greek, was widely used and accepting by the Jewish teachers. (Apparently they didn't have a problem with a translation)
I would hold that even Jewish scholars have differences of opinion on what was being said in Hebrew.
I would hold that not all Jewish people read Hebrew and thus translations become helpful but one must study to show oneself approved.

Finally, I think that Joel 4 or 3, depending on which one you are reading, was more of a misinterpretation of "plead" than it was a wrong translation (in this case). I would agree that KJV didn't always translate exactly.


2 I will assemble all Israel’s enemies in the valley of Jehoshaphat—My judgment.
I will judge them for how they treated My people, My legacy, Israel—
Whom they deported and exiled to the nations.
They divided My land among themselves; The Voice


And I will enter into judgment with them there On account of My people, My heritage Israel, NKJV

I will also gather all Goyim, and will bring them down into the valley of Yehoshafat, and will enter into judgment against them there concerning My people OJB

Seems to be consistent with all English translations.

The Septuagint is NOT a translation that should be used by any Jew, unless they speak Greek and not Hebrew, and even then, they should use only the Torah section.

 

[Tazarah]

Thos days and that time could be decads, even centuries. It does not imply that the two events are 100% concurrent, which is the essence of what you are claiming.

No one is trolling you. It's just that the claim that you are making is so strange and obscure, that it really does take a while for us to figure out what it is, precisely, that you want.

JOEL 3:1-2

1 For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land."

God clearly says that during the same time that he ends the captivity or exile of Jerusalem, he will also gather all nations to judge them. That's literally what it says, there's no way around that.

So how have you guys defied bible prophecy returned from "exile" without the nations being gathered to be judged?

Let's skip a few verses down. Verses 7 and 8 in the same chapter say that once God gathers Judah and Israel and places them back into their land, he will sell the children of the people who enslaved Judah and Israel to Judah and Israel.

This has not happened either. How are you guys defying bible prophecy and returning to the holy land without fulfilling Israelite bible prophecy?

JOEL 3:7-8

"7 Behold, I will raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them, and will return your recompence upon your own head:
8 And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

JOEL 3:1-2

1 For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land."

God clearly says that during the same time that he ends the captivity or exile of Jerusalem, he will also gather all nations to judge them. That's literally what it says, there's no way around that.

So how have you guys defied bible prophecy returned from "exile" without the nations being gathered to be judged?

Let's skip a few verses down. Verses 7 and 8 in the same chapter say that once God gathers Judah and Israel and places them back into their land, he will sell the children of the people who enslaved Judah and Israel to Judah and Israel.

This has not happened either. How are you guys defying bible prophecy and returning to the holy land without fulfilling Israelite bible prophecy?

JOEL 3:7-8

"7 Behold, I will raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them, and will return your recompence upon your own head:
8 And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it."

No, read your verses again. They say nothing, NOTHING, about concurrence. One could come before the other, one could start, and then later the other one happen at the same time. There are any number of different timelines that could happen with these verses. It is wrong for you to assume they are concurrent. The fact that the return from exile is mentioned first, then the judgement, seems to me FAR more indicative of the former happening first, and then the latter.

 

[Tazarah]

No, read your verses again. They say nothing, NOTHING, about concurrence. One could come before the other, one could start, and then later the other one happen at the same time. There are any number of different timelines that could happen with these verses. It is wrong for you to assume they are concurrent. The fact that the return from exile is mentioned first, then the judgement, seems to me FAR more indicative of the former happening first, and then the latter.

This is why reading the scriptures in context is important. As I've told you before, the day in which God said he would end the captivity/exile of Israel has not yet come.

Jeremiah 30:7-11 says that the day will be so great that none are like it, and that in that day, God will end the captivity/exile of Israel.

So once again I ask you -- if that day clearly has not come yet then how are you guys defying bible prophecy and "returning from exile" before God said he would save Israel from their exile?


JEREMIAH 30:7-10

"7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be saved out of it.
8 For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him:
9 But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.
10 Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the LORD; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid."

 

[Kenny]

The Septuagint is NOT a translation that should be used by any Jew, unless they speak Greek and not Hebrew, and even then, they should use only the Torah section.

Yes, in today's society that would be a true statement.