Daisies4me
Active Member
(quote)
For the perusal of those who are interested in learning about the older translations of the Bible.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Any tips for Bible Study?
- Thread starter SearchingForGod
- Start date
(quote)
For the perusal of those who are interested in learning about the older translations of the Bible.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Oh, you quoted me, so it seemed as though you were trying to tell me something.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Different schools of thought and I disagree with you, obviously.
A basic knowledge of the work allows for greater personal application when returning for later study. The unguided read through allows for a refined application of guides and annotations when the reader returns to the work for in-depth analysis, should they choose to do so. I'm not saying they can't do a bit of tag-along research while they're reading the first time - say, for example, if they need to be reminded of who someone is or where a certain city or region is located geographically. But I believe it's important for readers to distance themselves as much as possible from the biases and dogmas that coincide with most modern Protestant "study guides".
Rubbish. You confuse willful ignorance and "basic knowledge" and pretend that there is some advantage to accumulating misconceptions. It's a sophomoric argument.
Hi Tumah
1) Tumah said : “Whether or not the MT is a translation as well, is irrelevant, since both of us believe it isn't.” But even were that not so, the English translations used by Christians are based on the MT and the Septuagint which is based on the Hebrew as well. So you're comments don't seem to have any relevance.
Tumah It's illogical to claim that the translation of the MT is "irrelevant" simply because other translations used it or because you do not believe it is a translation. This is not an answer to Daisies4Mes’ question regarding why you think your editor/translators were better.
As I look at issues surrounding the translation and editing of the Masoretic bible, I do not think the translators/editors of the Masoretic Bible were any better than any other translators or editors. I do not think the Masoretes were more objective than other translators. I believe rabbinic Jewish editor/translators were as biased as other translators are, perhaps more so. For example, the Talmud, offers a great deal of evidence for rabbinic textual interpretations that are tenuous and even bizarre in many cases. (If you want examples, let me know…)
Tumah, Do you think your translators were more accurate, more objective, etc. than other translators?
The fact that the Masoretic Text (MT) is a translation (as the creators of the Masoretic themselves tell us), means Daisies4mes’ question as to the quality of that edition/translation IS relevant.
The Masoretes who edited and created the Masoretic version TELL us in the Masorah they noticed mistakes and they made changes AND these same translator/editors left us examples and lists of changes they made. What the translators/editors DID with the text and the mistakes they found and what changes they made and the reasoning underlying the changes to original text underlie Daisies4mes’ question. The question still remains unanswered. Why do you claim the Masoretes in their role of editors/translators any better than any other editors/translators?
2) Tumah said : "...English translations used by Christians are based on the MT and the Septuagint which is based on the Hebrew as well."
The Septuagint (approx 300 b.c.) is almost 1000 years older than the Masoretic bible (approx 700 a.d.) thus the Septuagint is NOT based on the Masoretic text.
3) Tumah Said : “You'll first have to prove that the Hebrew speaking Jews weren't the ones that fabricated the texts to begin with. I can write a story about you in Hebrew, that doesn't mean originally someone else wrote it in English.”
Tumah, This claim doesn't help you. One can just as easily claim that An original story written in a k u s h s h i t i c language from the time of Abraham doesn't mean someone else originally wrote it in Hebrew. The rational logic doesn't follow. Especially if there is no evidence for Hebrew in the earlier time periods or in that geographical locale. Your claim that Hebrew is an original language of Adam, Abraham, etc. (and thus records originated in Hebrew…) is inconsistent with historical reality.
Multiple languages existed from early on:
Genesis Chapt 10 relates the three sons of Noah, spreading out into lands that Became Egypt, Cush, Canaan, etc. Verse 4 speaks of “peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language”. Verse 20 summarizes Hams descendents saying “These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.”. Verse 31-32 summarizes Shems descendants as they spread out : “These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations. These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations". From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood having different languages.
Abraham, for example, came from UR. It is well known that the area that Abraham came from spoke a k u s h i t i c language. It is OLDER and different than national Hebrew. For example, two consonant roots were typically used in this language while Hebrew tends to three consonant roots. They are different languages. Even Arabic is closer to this language than Hebrew. Any original text would have to have been translated into the language of its readers. Any Hebrew text existing in an earlier different language would have had to be translated into national Hebrew, after national Hebrew came into existence.
These things have been well known and taught by historical linguists for a long, long time. Pedersens point from the last century is still correct that “Hebrew, Aramaic and Akkadian languages had all undergone significant linguistic degeneration. Only Old Arabic, due to it’s relative isolation in the Arabian peninsula, remained close to the old stratum of the ‘Semitic’ form of the language.”
Why do you claim the Masoretes in their role of editors/translators any better than any other editors/translators?
4) Regarding the three versions of the Torah found by Hilkiah
Tumah said : "The three texts were three minor changes in three places, not three entirely different Pentateuchs. This is identified in the passage. 1. In Deut. 33:27 one text said "me'on", the other said "me'onah" 2. In Ex. 24:5 one text said "za'tutei" and the other said "na'arei" 3. A variation in whether a few verses said "hu" or "hi" All these words and their counterparts mean the same thing. "
Only "three minor changes"? The Jerusalem Talmud tells us that IN A SINGLE CODEX, the reading with with yod occurred nine times in one codex and eleven times in another codex, again, they chose the readings simply based on majority reading rather than on a basis of priority or originality or upon another basis. Also, these are examples of readings, NOT a list of all variants. If there had been only “three minor changes”, there would have been NO need to create an entirely new 4th version of the Torah from the other three.
This Talmudic description confirms that the translator/editors were already collating multiple texts having multiple readings and that, in this case, they decided in favor of the reading which the majority of the Codices exhibited rather than which reading was more correct. The “rule of majority” is NOT the best way to edit or translate or decide meaning of an original text. If the translators/editors used such silly rules to create text, then why would you claim that your translators are better than other translators?
In giving these examples, one should not conclude that these examples were the only differences. Not only are other readings quoted in the Talmud and Midrashim but there were other versions floating about by that time. As I said, the Masorah gives us LISTS, MULTIPLE LISTS of changes made to the text which are NOT correct translations and they describe their reasoning as to why they did this. Why would inaccurate insertions and changes mean your translators/editors are better than other translators/editors?
In your response, you also inadvertently give us a good example of translational difficulty. You claim the different words meant the same thing ,yet the Jerusalem Talmud tells us that “One Codex read [ζητητης] enquires of [Exod. XXIV:5] and the other two Codices read young men of. The reading of the two Codices was accepted and that of the one Codex was rejected.“ Surely the rabbis knew the difference between "inquiries" and "young men"? These "counterparts" do NOT "mean the same thing".
The Masorete chose to have the text say that “young men” offer burnt offerings and sacrifice while another Jewish version chose to translate that Moses “inquired of” Israel. However, in verse seven, and in both versions, Israel is responding to an inquiry. Why is the translation made by the Masoretes which leaves out the inquiry more correct in this specific case than that of the original which includes the inquiry which Israel responded to?
5) Modern Rabbinic Judaism is not the same religion as ancient Judaism.
Clear said : "Jews, like Christians, often like to assume their religion is unchanged. I think while it gives them a psychological reassurance to tell themselves this, in reality, modern Judaism and ancient Judaism are different religions with different characteristics despite having the same name. (one can even be an athiest nowadays and still be "Jewish")
Tumah responded : “While there are many additions to Judaism that are not present in the Written Law, the things that are in the Torah are only followed by Jews today.”
This is incorrect as well. Rabbinic Jews also respond doctrinally to points made in the Talmud and MODERN JUDAISM is NOT the same religion as ANCIENT JUDAISM. A different religion than modern Judaism translated and interpreted these books anciently, a religion different than your religion. You USE their books. You call yourselves by a similar name. But a different religion than yours created and edited these texts. Your interpretations are not the same as ancient Jews or Judeo-Christians. Why would your editor/translators have been superior, more objective translators?
6) Tuma said : "I don't think anyone was arguing about the NT."
I wasn’t arguing about the New Testament either. I was explaining that Daisies4Me had a good question as to why you think your translator/editors were better than other translators. Were they more objective and less biased than others? Their descriptions of themselves and rabbinic interpretations from the Talmud itself are evidence that they were no better and no more objective and no less biased than the later translators.
Do you think your translators/editors of the Masoretic Bible were better than other translators? IF so, why?
Clear
ειδρσεειω
1) Tumah said : “Whether or not the MT is a translation as well, is irrelevant, since both of us believe it isn't.” But even were that not so, the English translations used by Christians are based on the MT and the Septuagint which is based on the Hebrew as well. So you're comments don't seem to have any relevance.
Tumah It's illogical to claim that the translation of the MT is "irrelevant" simply because other translations used it or because you do not believe it is a translation. This is not an answer to Daisies4Mes’ question regarding why you think your editor/translators were better.
As I look at issues surrounding the translation and editing of the Masoretic bible, I do not think the translators/editors of the Masoretic Bible were any better than any other translators or editors. I do not think the Masoretes were more objective than other translators. I believe rabbinic Jewish editor/translators were as biased as other translators are, perhaps more so. For example, the Talmud, offers a great deal of evidence for rabbinic textual interpretations that are tenuous and even bizarre in many cases. (If you want examples, let me know…)
Tumah, Do you think your translators were more accurate, more objective, etc. than other translators?
The fact that the Masoretic Text (MT) is a translation (as the creators of the Masoretic themselves tell us), means Daisies4mes’ question as to the quality of that edition/translation IS relevant.
The Masoretes who edited and created the Masoretic version TELL us in the Masorah they noticed mistakes and they made changes AND these same translator/editors left us examples and lists of changes they made. What the translators/editors DID with the text and the mistakes they found and what changes they made and the reasoning underlying the changes to original text underlie Daisies4mes’ question. The question still remains unanswered. Why do you claim the Masoretes in their role of editors/translators any better than any other editors/translators?
2) Tumah said : "...English translations used by Christians are based on the MT and the Septuagint which is based on the Hebrew as well."
The Septuagint (approx 300 b.c.) is almost 1000 years older than the Masoretic bible (approx 700 a.d.) thus the Septuagint is NOT based on the Masoretic text.
3) Tumah Said : “You'll first have to prove that the Hebrew speaking Jews weren't the ones that fabricated the texts to begin with. I can write a story about you in Hebrew, that doesn't mean originally someone else wrote it in English.”
Tumah, This claim doesn't help you. One can just as easily claim that An original story written in a k u s h s h i t i c language from the time of Abraham doesn't mean someone else originally wrote it in Hebrew. The rational logic doesn't follow. Especially if there is no evidence for Hebrew in the earlier time periods or in that geographical locale. Your claim that Hebrew is an original language of Adam, Abraham, etc. (and thus records originated in Hebrew…) is inconsistent with historical reality.
Multiple languages existed from early on:
Genesis Chapt 10 relates the three sons of Noah, spreading out into lands that Became Egypt, Cush, Canaan, etc. Verse 4 speaks of “peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language”. Verse 20 summarizes Hams descendents saying “These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.”. Verse 31-32 summarizes Shems descendants as they spread out : “These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations. These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations". From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood having different languages.
Abraham, for example, came from UR. It is well known that the area that Abraham came from spoke a k u s h i t i c language. It is OLDER and different than national Hebrew. For example, two consonant roots were typically used in this language while Hebrew tends to three consonant roots. They are different languages. Even Arabic is closer to this language than Hebrew. Any original text would have to have been translated into the language of its readers. Any Hebrew text existing in an earlier different language would have had to be translated into national Hebrew, after national Hebrew came into existence.
These things have been well known and taught by historical linguists for a long, long time. Pedersens point from the last century is still correct that “Hebrew, Aramaic and Akkadian languages had all undergone significant linguistic degeneration. Only Old Arabic, due to it’s relative isolation in the Arabian peninsula, remained close to the old stratum of the ‘Semitic’ form of the language.”
Why do you claim the Masoretes in their role of editors/translators any better than any other editors/translators?
4) Regarding the three versions of the Torah found by Hilkiah
Tumah said : "The three texts were three minor changes in three places, not three entirely different Pentateuchs. This is identified in the passage. 1. In Deut. 33:27 one text said "me'on", the other said "me'onah" 2. In Ex. 24:5 one text said "za'tutei" and the other said "na'arei" 3. A variation in whether a few verses said "hu" or "hi" All these words and their counterparts mean the same thing. "
Only "three minor changes"? The Jerusalem Talmud tells us that IN A SINGLE CODEX, the reading with with yod occurred nine times in one codex and eleven times in another codex, again, they chose the readings simply based on majority reading rather than on a basis of priority or originality or upon another basis. Also, these are examples of readings, NOT a list of all variants. If there had been only “three minor changes”, there would have been NO need to create an entirely new 4th version of the Torah from the other three.
This Talmudic description confirms that the translator/editors were already collating multiple texts having multiple readings and that, in this case, they decided in favor of the reading which the majority of the Codices exhibited rather than which reading was more correct. The “rule of majority” is NOT the best way to edit or translate or decide meaning of an original text. If the translators/editors used such silly rules to create text, then why would you claim that your translators are better than other translators?
In giving these examples, one should not conclude that these examples were the only differences. Not only are other readings quoted in the Talmud and Midrashim but there were other versions floating about by that time. As I said, the Masorah gives us LISTS, MULTIPLE LISTS of changes made to the text which are NOT correct translations and they describe their reasoning as to why they did this. Why would inaccurate insertions and changes mean your translators/editors are better than other translators/editors?
In your response, you also inadvertently give us a good example of translational difficulty. You claim the different words meant the same thing ,yet the Jerusalem Talmud tells us that “One Codex read [ζητητης] enquires of [Exod. XXIV:5] and the other two Codices read young men of. The reading of the two Codices was accepted and that of the one Codex was rejected.“ Surely the rabbis knew the difference between "inquiries" and "young men"? These "counterparts" do NOT "mean the same thing".
The Masorete chose to have the text say that “young men” offer burnt offerings and sacrifice while another Jewish version chose to translate that Moses “inquired of” Israel. However, in verse seven, and in both versions, Israel is responding to an inquiry. Why is the translation made by the Masoretes which leaves out the inquiry more correct in this specific case than that of the original which includes the inquiry which Israel responded to?
5) Modern Rabbinic Judaism is not the same religion as ancient Judaism.
Clear said : "Jews, like Christians, often like to assume their religion is unchanged. I think while it gives them a psychological reassurance to tell themselves this, in reality, modern Judaism and ancient Judaism are different religions with different characteristics despite having the same name. (one can even be an athiest nowadays and still be "Jewish")
Tumah responded : “While there are many additions to Judaism that are not present in the Written Law, the things that are in the Torah are only followed by Jews today.”
This is incorrect as well. Rabbinic Jews also respond doctrinally to points made in the Talmud and MODERN JUDAISM is NOT the same religion as ANCIENT JUDAISM. A different religion than modern Judaism translated and interpreted these books anciently, a religion different than your religion. You USE their books. You call yourselves by a similar name. But a different religion than yours created and edited these texts. Your interpretations are not the same as ancient Jews or Judeo-Christians. Why would your editor/translators have been superior, more objective translators?
6) Tuma said : "I don't think anyone was arguing about the NT."
I wasn’t arguing about the New Testament either. I was explaining that Daisies4Me had a good question as to why you think your translator/editors were better than other translators. Were they more objective and less biased than others? Their descriptions of themselves and rabbinic interpretations from the Talmud itself are evidence that they were no better and no more objective and no less biased than the later translators.
Do you think your translators/editors of the Masoretic Bible were better than other translators? IF so, why?
Clear
ειδρσεειω
Last edited:
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
The idea that you can accumulate misconceptions simply by reading a work of literature doesn't make any sense to me. You have to know what you're reading before you can dissect it, don't you?
Misconceptions are what happen when a reader's only Biblical knowledge comes from snippets quoted on Sunday or from taught dogmas established outside of the individual's actual experience with the work. Purposefully reading the book blind to denominational direction is imperative for any worthy independent personal study.
There! Yet another misconception.
Are you truly telling us that, as you read through a text, what you are currently reading is in no way informed (or misinformed) by what you previously read? Seriously?
Therefore? No one is suggesting that one should read the Torah commentary before reading the Torah but, rather, that it be read and digested as one reads the Torah.
Try it. You might actually find that it helps understand both the verses being read and the verses that follow.