Throw out your Christian Tanack!

[Quagmire]

***MOD POST***

This thread has been moved from the Judaism DIR to Scriptural Debates
​

 

[Dunemeister]

It can get sticky when comparing modern christianity and 1st century christianity. First century christianity basically was Judaism that did believe jesus was the moshiach. The first followers even kept the Law. But to compare it to what we have today in christianity it shows glaring differneces between christianity and Judasim which, from the point of view of Jewish thought, can not be reconciled.

When it comes to scripture I want the most accurate and clear translation I can get. LXX based translations are not it for me. For the christian, it's fine. But for me, it's not.

The translation doesn't appear to be the issue with you, actually. The problem seems to be that you think that the LXX is a bad translation of the MT (or something like that). That's simply a mistaken assumption about textual transmission. The LXX is a very adept translation of a DIFFERENT TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION WITHIN MAINSTREAM JUDAISM. It renders the key passage of Isaiah 7:14 differently not because the translators didn't understand the text but because they DID. The Hebrew text before them used the word "virgin", so they translated it thus. The Jews who translated the text weren't Christians and therefore didn't have a Christian ax to grind in rendering it this way.

That this translation proved useful for later Christian polemic against mainstream Judaism is entirely beside the point. In other words, the LXX, and translations based upon it, are perfectly fine for all Jews (secular, reformed, conservative, orthodox, ultra-orthodox, whatever). Your reasons for opposing this position appear to be polemically motivated rather than based on any serious scholarly concerns about accuracy. I'm afraid that your polemical concerns are getting in the way of appreciating the richness and diversity of first-century Judaism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That this translation proved useful for later Christian polemic against mainstream Judaism is entirely beside the point. In other words, the LXX, and translations based upon it, are perfectly fine for all Jews (secular, reformed, conservative, orthodox, ultra-orthodox, whatever). Your reasons for opposing this position appear to be polemically motivated rather than based on any serious scholarly concerns about accuracy. I'm afraid that your polemical concerns are getting in the way of appreciating the richness and diversity of first-century Judaism.

Absolutely correct.

 

[NoahideHiker]

It renders the key passage of Isaiah 7:14 differently not because the translators didn't understand the text but because they DID. The Hebrew text before them used the word "virgin", so they translated it thus. The Jews who translated the text weren't Christians and therefore didn't have a Christian ax to grind in rendering it this way.

No, the text did not say "virgin". The Hebrew word used was/is alma meaning young woman. It has no baring on her sexual status. Had it said "virgin" then it would have said betulah which is restrictive and can only mean a virgin. How can we be so sure of what Isaiah was meaning? While he only used alma once he did use betulah five times in 23:4, 62:5, 37:22, 23:12 and 47:1. In all these instances they referred to a virgin. Had he meant virgin in verse 7:14 then he would have said betulah and not alma which he did use.

And again the context must be examined also:

14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.

16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

He told him what the sign would be, what would happen and what the outcome would be. They all happened. Prophecy given, prophecy fulfilled, prophecy done. A man from Nazerine 700 years later had nothing to do with it.

A slight change here or there may not seem such a huge thing to you but it can change the entire meaning of something and give rise to blasphemous concepts completely foriegn to Judaism. And as I stated before if you want to use the LXX then that is fine but I have no need nor use for it. Why would I use it? Why would I use scripture translated from Hebrew to Greek to English when I can use one with a much more direct translation to English? If the LXX is just as good as the Tanach I am using then why can't I just use the one I am using?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, the text did not say "virgin". The Hebrew word used was/is alma meaning young woman. It has no baring on her sexual status.

Rubbish. You simply do not know what you're talking about.

 

[Yid613]

Although I speak Hebrew in the every day, use English on line, and having read and studied the scriptures in Hebrew, I appreciate having the chance of reading them in English as well, for the universality of English, and for being able to discuss the scriptures.
Im happy with the fact that the Hebrew scriptures are being read around the world and throughout history, and that this work of literature and written ethos is world heritage, this fact is possible thanks to monumental translations.
so the slight differences as a result of translation are less of an issue to me.
I think its a benefit being able to read texts in different languages.
language is not a mathematical formula, translations do not nullify the text.

Yes English translations are very useful. We live in a great time when so many Jewish books are available in English. However one needs to remember that a translation is really only a commentary. Ignoring the problem of scribal and intentional errors, a translation still cannot capture the full meaning of the text. Therefore one must take into consideration who the translator, in fact the commentator, was. On does not watch Fox News (or read Arutz Sheva) and expect to understand the liberal option.

 

[Dunemeister]

No, the text did not say "virgin". The Hebrew word used was/is alma meaning young woman.

How would you know? The translators of the LXX didn't have the MT (the earliest version of which dates from AD 900 or so) to translate from. We know from Qumran that even one sect might have several different transmission traditions in use. So on what basis can you possibly say that the LXX translators got it wrong rather than used a text that came from a different textual transmission than that which produced the MT?

 

[Yid613]

From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."

Why Don't Jews Believe In Jesus?

The translation doesn't appear to be the issue with you, actually. The problem seems to be that you think that the LXX is a bad translation of the MT (or something like that). That's simply a mistaken assumption about textual transmission. The LXX is a very adept translation of a DIFFERENT TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION WITHIN MAINSTREAM JUDAISM. It renders the key passage of Isaiah 7:14 differently not because the translators didn't understand the text but because they DID. The Hebrew text before them used the word "virgin", so they translated it thus. The Jews who translated the text weren't Christians and therefore didn't have a Christian ax to grind in rendering it this way.

So St. Gregory was a Jew? If so I don’ think you could call him mainstream. He doesn’t sound very frum.

There is no evidence of a different textual transmission in any other Hebrew writings. Even if there was it certainly could not be called mainstream as such a transmission would not be in accordance with the proper methods of transmission as defined by the Torah its self. In the Talmud, when there was a different version of a Mishna all options were recorded. All options regarding the application of the Mishna were also recorded. If there was a different version of scriptural text there would be evidence of it in other Jewish writing, as there is for the Septuagint.

The answer is simple. It was seen by the early church that it was more important for the people to have faith and to "admire" then to understand and "comprehend". Adding "a little jargon" to the OT was not a problem as their religion was base on faith not on information. This is evidenced by St. Gregory comments and the church’s censorship and burning of contradictory works.

Faith in Judaism is more of a faithfulness that comes from knowledge of Torah. Therefore to Jews the accurate transmission of Torah was critical as was the documentation of erroneously and dissenting views.

 

[NoahideHiker]

How would you know? The translators of the LXX didn't have the MT (the earliest version of which dates from AD 900 or so) to translate from. We know from Qumran that even one sect might have several different transmission traditions in use. So on what basis can you possibly say that the LXX translators got it wrong rather than used a text that came from a different textual transmission than that which produced the MT?

OK, you have my ear. Please list the Jewish translations which DO translate it as "virgin". Not even all christian bibles render it that way. If examine the context of the prophecy we see it simply doesn't fit the situation nor does it fit Jewish thought.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no evidence of a different textual transmission in any other Hebrew writings.

There is abundant evidence. You simple insist on remaining ignorant of it. So, for example ...

Goliath's height

There are significant differences between the Masoretic (Hebrew), Septuagint (Greek), and Dead Sea Scrolls versions of 1 Samuel 17. One of the most interesting of these relates to Goliath's height: 4QSam(a), the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, gives the height of Goliath as "four cubits and a span," (approximately 200 cm or about six feet seven inches), and this is what the 4th century AD Septuagint manuscripts and the 1st century AD historian Josephus also record. Later Septuagint manuscripts and the oldest Masoretic texts (Aleppo Codex, 10th century AD) read "six jouvon cubits and a span," which would make him about 290 cm or nine feet six inches tall. [source]

 

[Dunemeister]

OK, you have my ear. Please list the Jewish translations which DO translate it as "virgin". Not even all christian bibles render it that way. If examine the context of the prophecy we see it simply doesn't fit the situation nor does it fit Jewish thought.

What do you mean "Jewish translations"? I thought the bible was originally penned in Hebrew. Did the Jews translate from Hebrew to Hebrew?

As for English translations, there is a great variety of renderings. The competing renderings are found in the footnotes, so it's not as if readers need be unaware of the controversy concerning the translation. And it MUST HAVE fit the situation AND Jewish thought to have appeared in the LXX. Why would the Greek-speaking translators of the LXX have rendered the text "virgin" if the Hebrew text they were working from didn't mean or imply virginity? There are Greek words available for "maiden" or "young woman". The translators didn't have to render it "virgin" because there were no other options. So they must have rendered it "virgin" because that was the best Greek word to use for the Hebrew that was there.

Honestly, if Jesus and the NT hadn't happened, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Your quibbles have to do with Christian developments in theology and their appropriation of the Tanack. It Christianity hadn't happened, I presume the LXX would have remained a proud and honored part of the Jewish tradition (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that it's not). It's only because of Christianity that you have any issues with the rendering. Part of the evidence for that is that you completely ignore my argument. Here it is again:

Qumran demonstrates that even among one sect, several highly distinct variations of the Tanack could exist side by side, each being treated with equal authority. So we know that there were several different versions of the Tanack available in the two or three centuries BCE. Therefore, it's possible that the translators of the LXX used a different text than that which turned into the MT. They translated it faithfully, choosing words and phrases that matched the meaning in the Hebrew as exactly as possible. It's hard to say how successful they were unless we had the Hebrew texts they used to make their translation, and we don't have those. But we can't presume incompetence or nefarious motives without evidence for that. And the MT does not provide that evidence. The MT only provides evidence of how another transmission tradition renders the text.

 

[Yid613]

Qumran demonstrates that the Masoretic Text we have today is very accurate. There were no errors in the first five books and only a few spelling differences in the rest of it. They did have additional Psalms and other non-canon works. This is nothing new. We know that they were many works that were not included in the canon. Only those that would speak to future generation were included. Information of interest from these works may very well have been the bases for other Jewish texts. There are a lot of Jewish texts.

From Wikipedia:
Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Greek in the third century BC[6]. Further books were translated over the next two centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[7] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative. According to one assessment "the Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Qumran demonstrates that the Masoretic Text we have today is very accurate.

No. Qumran demonstrates that the Masoretic Text we have today is a very accurate representation of the Proto-Masoretic text found at Qumran. The authority on this is Emanuel Tov. His

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible​

is quite readable, as is Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and Judaean Desert Discoveries. They are also easily avoided so there is certainly no need for you to challenge your biases with actual scholarship.

 

[NoahideHiker]

So let me see if I can nutshell the last 6 pages here...

NoahideHiker: The OT and the Tanach are different. I don't care for the LXX.

Dunemeister: You're wrong. The LXX is awesome. It's Jewish.

NoahideHiker: That's fine if you want to use it but it's not for me.

Dunemeister: You're wrong. The LXX is awesome. It's Jewish.

NoahideHiker: That's fine if you want to use it but it's not for me.

Dunemeister: You're wrong. The LXX is awesome. It's Jewish.

NoahideHiker: That's fine if you want to use it but it's not for me.

Dunemeister: You're wrong. The LXX is awesome. It's Jewish.
Lather, rinse, repeat...

 

[Scuba Pete]

However one needs to remember that a translation is really only a commentary. Ignoring the problem of scribal and intentional errors, a translation still cannot capture the full meaning of the text.

This is poppycock. The only time a translation loses it's meaning is when we have lost the meaning of the original language. English is not the only language that evolves and changes with time. Readers of the KJV translate Olde King's English into modern English each and every day.

Of course, it's impossible for us to clearly translate the idiomatic phrases of any "dead" language. That's not the problem of translation, but a problem of our ability to fully understand the language in question. The original meaning, including nuance, is often lost to EVERYONE and not just those reading the translation.

The focus on "virgin" is way off base. Up until recently, it has always been assumed that being a virgin was a part of being a girl, and often they were not considered to be a "woman" until their wedding night. Look at the difference in German between Mädchen and Frau. Virginity is/was assumed for the former and having had sex was assumed for the latter.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So let me see if I can nutshell the last 6 pages here...

Would you mind telling us the last book you've read on either the Septuagint or source criticism?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is poppycock. The only time a translation loses it's meaning is when we have lost the meaning of the original language. English is not the only language that evolves and changes with time. Readers of the KJV translate Olde King's English into modern English each and every day.

Of course, it's impossible for us to clearly translate the idiomatic phrases of any "dead" language. That's not the problem of translation, but a problem of our ability to fully understand the language in question. The original meaning, including nuance, is often lost to EVERYONE and not just those reading the translation.

The focus on "virgin" is way off base. Up until recently, it has always been assumed that being a virgin was a part of being a girl, and often they were not considered to be a "woman" until their wedding night. Look at the difference in German between Mädchen and Frau. Virginity is/was assumed for the former and having had sex was assumed for the latter.

Excellent post.

It seems as if we'll need a new thread on the almah-betulah controversy (even though I have no doubt that I'll be wasting my time). Perhaps tonight ...

 

[Yid613]

This is poppycock. The only time a translation loses it's meaning is when we have lost the meaning of the original language. English is not the only language that evolves and changes with time. Readers of the KJV translate Olde King's English into modern English each and every day.

My comment was base on a quote by Aryeh Kaplan one of greats in the translation of Jewish texts. Translation is more than just simply mapping words from one language to another. The grammar must also be adjusted and tenses mapped to ones available in the language you are translating to. The context of a verse must also be taken into consideration. A strictly literal translation would be unreadable.

In general you need to rewrite the document being translated. The freer the translation the better the ideas can be expressed in the other language, but this requires an in-depth understanding not just of the language but the material it’s self. A more literal but readable translation with commentary explaining the concepts in the text is best approach.

With the Bible (OT) it is even harder as it can be intruputed at many different levels. Translations are generally at the simplest level therefore commentary is vital to understand the deeper meanings.

Of course, it's impossible for us to clearly translate the idiomatic phrases of any "dead" language. That's not the problem of translation, but a problem of our ability to fully understand the language in question. The original meaning, including nuance, is often lost to EVERYONE and not just those reading the translation.

But this is not a document we just found in a language we don’t know. It’s been studied continuously for the last three thousand years. We have quite a bit of information about it.

The focus on "virgin" is way off base. Up until recently, it has always been assumed that being a virgin was a part of being a girl, and often they were not considered to be a "woman" until their wedding night. Look at the difference in German between Mädchen and Frau. Virginity is/was assumed for the former and having had sex was assumed for the latter.

It seems that many xtain translators have acknowledged and correct the mistranslation of almah.

xtian Translations of Isaiah 7:14

Revised Standard Version
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Revised English Bible
Because you do, the Lord of his own accord will give you a sign; it is this: A young woman is with child, and she will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel.

New English Bible
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and will call him Immanuel.

New Revised Standard Version
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

The Message of the Bible
He will give you a sign. A young woman shall bear a son who shall truly represent the hopes we have inherited from the days of David. His very name, "God-is-with-us," shall express the secret of his power.

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
(Jehovah Witnesses) Therefore Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel.

Good News Bible
Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: A young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him "Immanuel."

The Jerusalem Bible: Readers Edition
The Lord himself, therefore, will give you a sign. It is this: The maiden is with child and will soon give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.

The Bible: A New Translation
An omen you shall have, and that from the Eternal himself. There is a young woman with child, who shall bear a son and call his name "Immanuel" (God is with us).

The Bible: An American Translation
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold! A young woman is with child, and is about to bear a son; and she will call him "God is with us."

The International Critical Commentary
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a damsel is with child, and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.

The New Jerusalem Bible
The Lord will give you a sign in any case. It is this: The young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.

The Layman's Bible Commentary
In reply, Isaiah says that the Lord will provide a sign. It will be a most unusual and remarkable event. A young woman shall bear a son and name him "Immanuel," meaning "God is with us."

World Biblical Commentary
Therefore my Lord himself will give you (pl) a sign. Behold, the woman shall conceive and bearing a son -- she shall call his name "Immanuel."

The Bible in Basic English
For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It seems that many xtain translators have acknowledged and correct the mistranslation of almah.

Two brief points:

1. Many reasonably find the rendering "xtain" intentionally derogatory and offensive. Stop it.
2. Your comment is deeply, deeply disingenuous. The issue is not, and has never been, whether "young woman" is an 'accurate' literal translation but, rather,
   • whether the Septuagint is inaccurate and, more provocatively,
   • whether it represents an intentional "xtain" mistranslation.
   What makes the comment even more hypocritical is that it comes from someone who recommends The Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi - Classic Texts, one of the least literal translations available.

 

[Yid613]

Many reasonably find the rendering "xtain" intentionally derogatory and offensive. Stop it.

It's childish innuendo, nothing more.

This is deceitful nonsense.

Your commitment to ignorance is irrelevant as is, in fact, whether or not I care for your views.

Deceitful rubbish.

That is simply ignorant drivel driven by dogma but, sadly, you seem wholly uninterested in any of the relevant scholarship.

Good grief ...

Rubbish. You simply do not know what you're talking about.

There is abundant evidence. You simple insist on remaining ignorant of it.

Would you mind telling us the last book you've read on either the Septuagint or source criticism?

It is just an abbreviation, like xmas, it was not meant to be derogatory.
We all could probably choose our words a bit better.

2. Your comment is deeply, deeply disingenuous. The issue is not, and has never been, whether "young woman" is an 'accurate' literal translation but, rather,
   • whether the Septuagint is inaccurate and, more provocatively,
   • whether it represents an intentional "xtain" mistranslation.

1. 
   
   My post was in response to Dunemeister’s, Scuba Pete’s and your posts regarding the translation of almah. The Septuagint (that is lost) and the first five books of the LXX (a copy of the Septuagint) are an acceptable translation. However the other books and later revisions have problems. The almah mistranslation was discussed as it demonstrates this.
   
   The mistranslation could very well have been due to an incompetent translator. But as it fixed a theological problem caused by Matthew's mistranslation one could see it as intentional and in accordance with the ideas expressed by St. Gregory. As it has been fixed in new translations this could be a simple correction or a move away from St. Gregory position.
   
   

   What makes the comment even more hypocritical is that it comes from someone who recommends The Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi - Classic Texts, one of the least literal translations available.

It’s online, it’s free, and it has Rashi!!!

If you want to buy one then:

The ArtScoll Stone Edition Chumash is very good.
The ArtScoll Tanack is good, but with a freer translation as there is not a lot of commentary​

.