Old Testament of Christian Bible vs Hebrew Bible (English Version)

[R. Crusoe]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

It is curious that no Jewish Scholars were employed to translate it since it is a Jewish text...

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

I will simply say"There are people that do not want a Judaic interpretation" and leave it at that.

J

It is exceedingly strange that the scroll was translated by a non-Hebrew speaking scholar. I didn't know that. But then would it make a huge difference if the translator is truly fluent in Hebrew, familiar with Judaic interpretation and faithful to the original text, I wonder?

I suspect the decision of not using a Jewish scholar to translate the scroll involves discrimination of any kind at all. The chosen translator might simply be at the right place and in the right time, and perhaps has a close connection to the organization responsible. I hope it was the case. Of course, discrimination is wrong under all circumstances.

[Woodrow LI]

Originally Posted by R. Crusoe

It is exceedingly strange that the scroll was translated by a non-Hebrew speaking scholar. I didn't know that. But then would it make a huge difference if the translator is truly fluent in Hebrew, familiar with Judaic interpretation and faithful to the original text, I wonder?

I suspect the decision of not using a Jewish scholar to translate the scroll involves discrimination of any kind at all. The chosen translator might simply be at the right place and in the right time, and perhaps has a close connection to the organization responsible. I hope it was the case. Of course, discrimination is wrong under all circumstances.

There would be a difference if a Jew, Muslim or Christian do the translating.

The main reason being the nature of ancient Hebrew. Addressing this from a linguistic view and not tradition or Religious. Ancient Hebrew requires a fairly good knowledge of what is on the Script before you can read it accuratly. The script is more of a memory aid rather than a source of storage. For the most part you can not determine the pronunciation of a word from the spelling. Words are reduced to just a few root letters. with Ancient Hebrew if you do not know the oral handed down tradition you can not understand the written. Many related, but different words will have the same spelling. To translate the dead sea scrolls one needs to have a good isea of what is on them to begin with.

The Dead Sea group doing the "Official" translation is a Christian bible group. Their knowledge is based upon the OT and their translation will match the OT. A Jew doing the same thing is going to base his interpretation upon the oral Tanakh and His translation will Match the Tanakh. A Muslim doing the translation is going to base his interpretation upon the Qur'an and his translation will come out to be in agreement with the Qur'an.

It also has to be taken into consideration that the actual dead seas are very fragmented. The majority of the pages simply have a few recognizable words or a couple of lines.

The Group doing the interpretation is the Biblical Archaeology Society

Digital Dead Sea Scrolls Online – Biblical Archaeology Society



A view of the fragments can show what is being translated--small fragments of pages for the most part often just a couple complete words. It is quite surprising how little is there and they are interpreting them as entire books of the OT.

The Dead Sea Scrolls - Explore the Archive

[nateswift]

The point to consider is that what Richard is calling Tanach is just as much or even more of a different reflection of "original" Hebrew Scriptures, of which there have been several versions over the centuries, including some that are part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what Richard relies on is just as much a result of a thousand years of Rabbinic Judaism as The different versions of Septuagint are a result of translations from original texts in various versions. Scholarship is and will always be as much a reflection of attitudes as it is an effort to understand original thought.

What is most important is that we under the various perceptions and the reasons for them. "Judaism" has evolved and branched just as "Christianity" has.

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by nateswift

The point to consider is that what Richard is calling Tanach is just as much or even more of a different reflection of "original" Hebrew Scriptures, of which there have been several versions over the centuries, including some that are part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what Richard relies on is just as much a result of a thousand years of Rabbinic Judaism as The different versions of Septuagint are a result of translations from original texts in various versions. Scholarship is and will always be as much a reflection of attitudes as it is an effort to understand original thought.

What is most important is that we under the various perceptions and the reasons for them. "Judaism" has evolved and branched just as "Christianity" has.

Resurrecting a four year old thread?...

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

Resurrecting a four year old thread?...

All part of a continuing conversation you would like to avoid y