Sunday, 25 October 2009
-
What Bible Do You Use? Jewish or English?
I had someone ask me what I use and what I recommend. Right now I use the Complete Jewish Bible and The Jewish Study Bible (Tanakh Translation by the JPS), The Scriptures and the King James Version.
If you have any more questions feel free to ask.
The New Testament was written in Hebrew and then in Greek (For the benefit of Gentile People) it helps if we get a Hebrew perspective to the gospels because the writers of the New Testament were Jewish People. With this in mind, I have provided a few Bible resources to help with your search
At the end of the article I have a example of some of the problems you might have using a Greek mindset.
Complete Jewish Bible: A New Translation by Dr. David Stern
Presenting the Word of God as a unified Jewish book, the Complete Jewish Bible is a translation for Jews and non-Jews alike. It connects Jews with the Jewishness of the Messiah, and non-Jews with their Jewish roots. Names and key terms are returned to their original Hebrew and presented in easy-to-understand transliterations, enabling the reader to say them the way Yeshua (Jesus) did! For readers familiar with the Jewish New Testament, the Complete Jewish Bible is a welcome sight! 1697 pages.
Jewish New Testament
The New Testament is a Jewish book, written by Jews, initially for Jews. Its central figure was a Jew. His followers were all Jews; yet no translation--except this one--really communicates its original, essential Jewishness. Uses neutral terms and Hebrew names. Highlights Jewish features and Jewish references. Corrects mistranslations from an anti-Jewish theological basis. Freshly rendered into English using the Greek texts, this is a must for learning about first-century faith. 436 pages. The Jewish New Testament is included in the Complete Jewish Bible
Jewish New Testament Commentary
This companion volume to the Jewish New Testament enhances Bible study. Passages and expressions are explained in their original cultural context, the way 1st century Jewish writers meant for them to be understood! Over fifteen years of research and study went into the JNTC to make the New Testament more meaningful! 960 pages.
The Jewish Study Bible
Now, readers of the Bible who are interested in studying Jewish traditions have an unparalleled resource specifically tailored for their needs.
The Jewish Study Bible presents the center of gravity of the Scriptures where Jews experience it (i.e., in Torah). It offers readers the fruits of various schools of Jewish traditions of biblical exegesis (rabbinic, medieval, mystical, etc.) and provides them with extensive supplementary materials that aid in bringing the ancient text to life. The nearly forty contributors to the Jewish Study Bible represent the cream of Jewish biblical scholarship from the world over. No knowledge of Hebrew is required for one to make use of this unique volume.The JSB's content reflects both contemporary biblical scholarship and the richness of Jewish tradition. Anyone interested in acquiring a fuller understanding of the riches of the Bible will benefit from reading the Jewish Study Bible.
About the translation used in The Jewish Study Bible: A committee of esteemed scholars and rabbis from the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Judaism movements produced the TANAKH translation (1985) for The Jewish Publication Society.
The Scriptures
This is a literal translation of the Bible in English. This translation differs significantly from most common English translations in that it has restored the original book order of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Tanakh, and restored the Name of the Most High, YHWH /
throughout. The Names of all the books in the Tenakh are now restored to the original Hebrew, including the books of the Torah: Bereshith (Genesis), Shemoth (Exodus), Wayiqra (Leviticus), etc, also the books of, Tehillim (Psalms), and Mishle (Proverbs) etc.
The traditional rendering of the word "Law" has been restored with "Torah" throughout the translation, retaining the richness and full meaning of this word in the Hebrew language.
The Scriptures is a literal translation of the Tanakh and the Messianic Scriptures.
The divine Name (the tetragrammaton), YHWH /
, appears in Hebrew characters throughout the translation in the Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim) and also in the Messianic Scriptures. The name by which the Messiah was known, Y'hoshua / Yeshua, is restored in Hebrew as well and appears in the text as such, 
.The original Hebrew personal names of people and places are restored throughout the Scriptures, such as "Yirmeyahu" for Jeremiah, "Yeshayahu", for Isaiah and "Mosheh" for Moses and in the Messianic Scriptures, "Mattithyahu" for Matthew etc. Words and names, as far as possible, have been corrected in order to eliminate any names of idolatrous origin. The books in the Tanakh are arranged according to the original order of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. Difficult phrases in the Scriptures are explained in footnotes and the explanatory word list.
An example of a proof for an original Hebrew text, is Matthew 6:19-24:"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
In these verses we have Yeshua speaking about money, and not making it more important than God. Note that He begins speaking about money, then says something about "an evil eye," then finishes His statement about money. If this were penned in Greek originally, you would have to ask, "Why this odd verse about an "evil eye" in the midst of a money topic?" It makes no sense. However, if you happen to know that having an "evil eye" is a Hebrew idiom of that time for "being stingy with your money," then, a) the passage makes sense, and b) you realize it HAD to be written in Hebrew first, then whoever translated it into Greek, (unaware of the idiom), simply took it word-for-word from Hebrew into the Greek.
There are many "New Testament" verses that are very hard, if not impossible, to understand without knowledge of the deeper teachings of the Judaism of that day. There are also many places where Yeshua and Paul quote from Jewish literature as shown elsewhere in this study.
It is important to note who these letters were originally meant to be read by "leaders" in the Messianic community (most likely Jews), who were well versed in the Judaism of the first century and its understanding of Torah.. (Note Peter's concerns about Paul's letters being hard to understand and often twisted about by "lawless" people -- "lawless" meaning not knowing or respecting Torah, the "Law.")
Nothing in the "New Testament" was ever meant to be read out of context, by people from another culture ignorant of the Hebrew meaning to the words and the concepts behind them, and replacing this with their own personal meaning. Nor were any of the "New Testament" documents ever meant to stand on their own, apart from being interpreted in the context of the Torah (God's direct revelation/instruction), which of course came first.
What Bible do you use?
-
recommend
- recs 2
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: Kristenmomof3@xanga
- Name: Kristen
- Location:
- About Me: I am a married mother of 3 beautiful children. I have a wonderful husband that God has blessed me with. I have been blessed beyond what I could ever have hoped for. He is a wonderful husband, father and follower of God. I am truly blessed.
-
True 
Lifetime
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 20 Views: 0 34924 Comments: 0 1465 View all posts by Kristenmomof3@xanga
Comments (35)
I use the King James Version, although I've REALLY wanted a Jewish one too for comparisons side-to-side! It'd help me understand my "Jewish Roots" as a Christian. :)
I use the ESV
I wouldn't say that the entire New Testament was written in Hebrew first. Yes, the people that read it probably knew Hebrew, but there's only one Gospel that there is SOME evidence that it may have been written in Hebrew first, and they think this not because of content but because of the flow of the language. The rest of it was definitely written in Greek. If there are any Hebrew ideas showing up in the Gospels, it's because their source was Hebrew. That would be like saying that all books about Hitler were originally written in German (and no, I'm not comparing Jesus to Hitler.)
However, I do heavily agree that understanding the original context of the text is important. There's so much going on that people 2,000 years later could never fully grasp.
I use many different translations, and they all have strengths and weaknesses. I need the Holy Spirit's guidance, because God is the only One with perfect knowledge of what the text is intended to mean.
@foxes_have_holes@xanga -
www.pure-little-ladies-ministry.blogspot.com
http://searchwarp.com/swa413703.htm
http://www.search-the-scriptures.org/hebrew_new_testament.htm
http://www.menorah.org/askpr3.html
http://www.mashiyach.com/hebrew.htm
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/2_newtestament.html
@Kristenmomof3@xanga - "the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were
derived from original Hebrew sources." Source, not language it was written in.
Plus, it doesn't really matter. Yeah, Jesus probably didn't walk around speaking Greek, however I wouldn't put it past him knowing it. He was extremely educated. He didn't even start his ministry until he was 30. How many people learn until they're 30 before starting their work?
This seems like a simple question. It is a shame that it was framed in such an indescribably arrogant, not to mention ignorant, manner.
Whether the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew or not is unimportant, because all we have is the Greek. Trying to back-construct what Jesus may have said in Hebrew or Aramaic that would have been translated into what we have is a dangerous activity.
I have found portions of the CJB disturbing, because it doesn't simply translate but interprets. Interpretation is necessary, of course, but it is not the role of the translator to do so and then present it as the original.
@Kristenmomof3@xanga - Do you believe the Greek manuscripts we have access to are inspired scripture?
@SirNickDon@xanga - if everyone didnt know this
jews take their bibles pretty seriously
the english version of the bible has been mistranslated so muchits not even funny anymore
I think everyone should do their research before they start spouting off nonsense
You might want to keep in mind that a Jewish Study Bible isn't going to look at the prophecies in Isaiah as foreshadowing the birth of Jesus. Also in the book of Genesis, the serpent isn't supposed to represent Satan. That's what I learned in my Bible as Literature class with a Jewish professor, anyway.
The problem here is that Jesus was murdered by the Jews and the first Jewish Christians were kicked out of the Synogogue. Paul of Tarsus (St. Paul to be) held the cloaks of those Jews who stoned Saint Stephen, Christianity's first martyr, to death.
To say that the New Testament is Jewish is oxymoronic.
For the New Testament was written by disciples of Christ, not the Jews who rejected and murdered Christ. And the New Testament books were written to various audiences not just Jews.
In the Book of Revelation, for example, Saint John names the Christian Churches is Asia Minor to whom he is writing.
And Paul's letters to the Corinthians and Romans were also written to Christian churches.
@strictlyskinny@xanga - english version of the bible has been mistranslated so muchits not even funny anymore
The Bible translated into Latin by the Catholic Church circa 381AD is pure and without error. The Catholic Church was charged by Christ to teach the Gospel without error.
The New American Bible is great and easily obtainable in almost any major book store.
I'm fairly certain that the majority of the New Testament was written in Greek. Why would Paul, and Luke, who wrote to Romans and other Gentiles primarily write in a language that mostly only Jews would understand? I'm pretty sure they wrote in the people's language so as to be easily understood.
The fact that they refer to Jewish literature is because they were Jews. That doesn't indicate at all that they were writing in Hebrew. If I remember right the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament come largely from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, as it was accessible to them.
Also, if what @SirNickDon@xanga says is true then the CJB most likely needs to be reconsidered because a translation is supposed to do as little interpretation as possible to allow the reader to do the interpreting. While translating without some interpretation is impossible it should be as limited as the text allows.
I use the ESV.
@strictlyskinny@xanga - And you know the Hebrew and Greek better than the translators to show their error?
@sarahzthoughts@xanga - Considering that it has the New Testament I would think the people who translated it were Messianic Jews, and thus would probably see that as Christians do.
@fallingraindrop@xanga - Even the Catholic church has changed to English translated from the Greek as far as I understand.
@MagisterTom@xanga - Even the Catholic church has changed to English translated from the Greek as far as I understand.
True. But since the Bible comes from the Church, the Church has the authority to publish holy scripture in all the languages of the world error free. The orginal Hebrew bible was rife with errors. 70 men worked on translating the Hebrew texts into Greek. That's why the first authentic translation of the Old Testament was called the Septuagint. From the Catholic New Advent website:
The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoreticmanuscripts.
A translation of the Bible may be done in any and all languages as long as it is free of doctrinal error.
All authentic and error free Bibles will have "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" written on the first pages after the cover.
@fallingraindrop@xanga - That infallibility doctrine must go a long ways. Has a Pope ever contradicted a previous Pope? What about the period in time when there were 4 Popes simultaneously? They all thought they were Pope, but, all were infallible. Creates a small problem I think.
@MagisterTom@xanga - That infallibility doctrine must go a long ways. Has a Pope ever contradicted a previous Pope?
The Church is infallible.
Since the Gospel is a matter of Tradition (the Revelation of God that is handed down) Papal consistency is one of the few things in this world that the human race can depend upon.
Out of the over 200 popes who have ever lived, there was only one corrupt pope during the Renaissance who committed a doctrinal error. The Church corrected the error almost immediately.
Pope are not like Protestants. They don't make things up. They follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it was taught by Him and revealed over time by the Holy Spirit.
@fallingraindrop@xanga - "
The Papal Schism. From 1378-1417 there were three simultaneous
popes, each claiming to be the true pope: Urban VII, an Italian; Clement
VII, a Frenchman; and a third pope elected by the Council of Pisa. For
several years there were three popes anathematizing and excommunicating
one another." - http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/jac_arnold/CH.Arnold.RMT.1.html Point IV E on the outline.
If the Church is infallible why did it have three Popes simultaneously? If the Pope is infallible, how can the three of them anathematize and excommunicate one another?
@MagisterTom@xanga - What about the period in time when there were 4 Popes simultaneously? They all thought they were Pope, but, all were infallible. Creates a small problem I think.
This created a HUGE problem. But any human institution will experience problems. What is notable is that the problem lasted less than 40 years (a drop in the bucket of time) and that it was resolved catagorically and with finality. The unity of the Church was preserved.
As a Protestant you should be asking why can the Catholic Church resolve its problems and remain united and faithful to the teachings of Christ while the Protestants continue to fracture into more and more incoherent pieces that fly in the face of the Gospel teachings on unity.
Since the period of the Schism concerns you, can you name a doctrine promulgated by the "popes" of that period that troubles you?
I didn't think so. This is because even though the Renaissance Church had become so hideously secular and corrupt, the Gospel was taken for granted. Doctrines weren't changed, they were perverted into money-making enterprises.
And all of this corruption was eventually stamped out. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) reaffirmed the unchanging doctrines of Christ and the Bible canon.
@fallingraindrop@xanga - I'm not saying the Protestant church is perfect, it's far from it. When the Catholic church refused to reform when Luther called them to repentance he was forced to leave. The schism doesn't concern me, as I hold Scripture to higher authority than any man. Sola Scriptura.
If that multiple Pope problem happened though, that means that the Catholic church isn't infallible, and the Pope isn't either.
The Council of Trent was in reaction to Martin Luther telling the Catholic church to defend their views using Scripture. Prior to that the apocrypha had not been considered Scripture. Because they couldn't defend their views without it they promoted it from useful to Scripture.
@MagisterTom@xanga - If the Church is infallible why did it have three Popes simultaneously? If the Pope is infallible, how can the three of them anathematize and excommunicate one another?
Both the Church and the pope are infallible with regard to faith and morals vis a vis the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Renaissance politics does not fall into this realm.
@MagisterTom@xanga - The schism doesn't concern me, as I hold Scripture to higher authority than any man. Sola Scriptura.
This is illogical since it is the Church that gave us Scripture in the first place. Holding Scripture to a higher authority was never taught by Jesus, his Apostles or Scripture.
In fact, Jesus made it clear that the foundation of the Church was his Apostles, not Scripture.
Sola scriptural is a doctrine fabricated out of thin air for the sole purpose of rejecting Church (Christ's) authority. Luther was quite clear about his hatred for the Church. Consequently all his doctrines are aimed at disunity.
Luther had no authority to do what he did. And the ultimate result of what he did was the distruction of Church unity.
@fallingraindrop@xanga - This has been fun, but, we are way off topic, and we've taken up over half the comments. So, I bid you well, enjoy your Sunday.
@MagisterTom@xanga - The Council of Trent was in reaction to Martin Luther telling the Catholic church to defend their views using Scripture.
The Bible canon promugated in 382AD by Pope Damasus I was confirmed by the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent also confirmed the Gospel teachings of Jesus Christ which meant that Martin Luther was a heretic.
Neither Christ nor the early Church were nearly as Jew-centric as this post.