1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by Ehav4Ever, May 11, 2020.

  1. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    In the the "oldest" text there were only helper letters such as Yod and Waw in non-offical Torah texts to assist with pronunciation in some texts. The Dead Sea scrolls are a good example of this since they add Yod and Waw in places that are not in official Torah scrolls.

    The principles of pronunciation were taught to children starting at the age of three. This still continues today.
     
  2. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Actually, the reality is that the "Septuagint" that was made by Jews was a translation from Hebrew into Greek of ONLY the Torah - the 5 books of Moses. That text no longer exist because it was destroyed in the destruction of the Alexandria library and there were no copies made of that text.

    The texts that have been called Septuagint for some time now have only been Greek texts made by Christians later which have never been accepted or used by Jews.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Actually, the history is that the translation of the Torah into Greek was not looked at highly at all among Jews. see below.

    "Torah translated into Greek (246 BCE)
    In a second attempt to translate the Torah into Greek (after an unsuccessful attempt 61 years earlier), the ruling Greek-Egyptian emperor Ptolemy gathered 72 Torah sages, had them sequestered in 72 separate rooms, and ordered them to each produce a translation. On the 8th of Tevet of the year 3515 from creation (246 BCE) they produced 72 corresponding translations, including identical changes in 13 places (where they each felt that a literal translation would constitute a corruption of the Torah's true meaning). This Greek rendition became known as the Septuagint, "of the seventy" (though later versions that carry this name are not believed to be true to the originals). Greek became a significant second language among Jews as a result of this translation. During Talmudic times, Tevet 8 was observed by some as a fast day, expressing the fear of the detrimental effect of the translation."


    The True Translation
    By Tali Loewenthal
    "Nonetheless, the later Jewish sages commented that the day the Torah was translated into Greek “was as difficult for the Jewish people as the day when the Golden Calf was made, because the Torah cannot really be translated.” (Talmud, Soferim 1:7) What is meant by the comparison with the day the Golden Calf was made?

    (Incidentally, the worship of the Golden Calf caused Moses to break the Tablets of the Law on the 17th of Tammuz, commemorated recently with a fast. This began the Three Weeks which culminate with the fast of the Ninth of Av, when both Temples were destroyed.)

    The sages were worried about a false translation of the Torah. In a sense, that is exactly what the Golden Calf was: a false translation of spirituality.
     
  4. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    If you look at the commentaries on Yoel you will see that they are pretty consistant. The areas where you could say they differ is only in what areas they chose to comment on or where they see something deeper than the simple reading. There are commentators who are using Midrash and such to discuss what they want and there are others who looking at spellings/structure/etc. and making comments. The closer the commentor was to the time frame of the text the more authorative they are.

    Sure, someone can add their own insight but if to considered authorative they have to prove what they claim based on ancient sources that were themselves proven athoratative. By like token there are some later commentators that are simply giving their thoughts and not trying to prove out their ideas. We know the difference based on reading their introduction and what they are stating as their purpose and who they themselves learned from. Also, it would have to be consistant with other Jewish communities and what they received.

    The process of Jews reading a Hebrew text starts at the plain simple meaning of the text. Even if someone sees deeper meanings it does not trump the plain meaning.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Actually, most Jewish communities that keep Torah have the a larger number of Jews who can at least read and understand Hebrew, even if they can't speak it as a language. This is especially true in Torath Mosheh/Orthodox Jewish communities. Jews in these communities often go to Yeshivah or Hebrew schools where they are taught Hebrew as a 1st or 2nd language.

    Also, you have to take into account that there are Jews living here in Israel in a country where the national language is Hebrew.

    It is mainly in places where Jews don't keep Torah, outside of Israel, where you see a lot less or no Hebrew literacy. Hebrew literacy has always been extremely high in most Torah based Jewish communities.

    Even with this, most Jews would never view a translation as equal in any way to the original Hebrew text. That is why there are some Jewish parents who themelves don't know Hebrew but try to insure that their kids can learn it. Also, some Jewish young adults outside of Israel get their Hebrew better when they do army service here in Israel.
     
  6. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    One major problem is that in each English translation they often place their punciation places and ways that don't match the Hebrew text. I have seen this a lot in many Christian translations. In the Hebrew text there are marks called Taamim and each of them has meaning. Some of them, if not observed properly can change the entire meaning of the text if ignored or not expressed properly.

    For example, taking what you listed above in the Voice, NKJV and OJB I have listed below just the punciation and translations issues below. Translation issues marked in red and blue/bold for punctiation issue.

    The Voice:
    2 I will assemble all Israel’s enemies ("all the nations" not enemies), (comma for Ta'am missing) (missing translation of הורדתים "I will bring them down"), (comma for Ta'am missing) in the valley of Jehoshaphat—My judgment. (This period is incorrect - should be a semi-colon)
    I will judge them (more correctly rendered as "I will enter into judgement with them/against them" the verb type is not straight forward judgement), (comma for Ta'am missing) (missing translation of שם "there"), (comma for Ta'am missing) for how they treated My people (more correctly rendered as "on account account of"), My legacy, (this comma should not be here) Israel— (this gap and seperation is incorrect. The Ta'am that is here connects "my-legacy-Israel" together)
    Whom they deported and exiled to the nations. (This period is incorrect - should be a comma)
    They divided My land among themselves; (This semi-colon is incorrect - should be a period)

    Based on the above you can see some the similar issues below but in other areas they had correct.
    1. And I will enter into judgment with them, (comma for Ta'am missing) there, (comma for Ta'am missing) On account of My people, My heritage Israel, (This comma should not be here) NKJV
    2. I will also ("also" should not be here) gather all Goyim("all the goyyim" no need to capalize), and (I) will bring them down, (comma for Ta'am missing) into the valley of Yehoshafat, (This comma is incorrect - should be a semi-colon) and will enter into judgment against them, (comma for Ta'am missing) there, (comma for Ta'am missing) concerning My people OJB
    Now this might not seem like something trivial but it shows the difference in what I can see in the text that can't be seen in English. Also, reading the Hebrew text and knowing how the Taamim can determine things that cannot be easily translated without lots of grammer commentary along with literal and cultural/historical explainations.
     
  7. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    13,584
    Ratings:
    +4,423
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    I guess we could have a difference since history shows that Jewish scripture in Greek was widely used..

    quote:
    We know from archeology, that all rest of the Old Testament post-Pentateuchal books (ie. Joshua to Malachi) were fully translated into Greek by 150 BC:
    ...The eminent Jewish Septuagint scholar Emanuel Tov dates the pre-Christian era manuscript of the Greek translation of Isaiah (LXX) to 170 BC because it contains allusions to historical situations and events that point to the years 170-150 BCE.

    132 BC: The apocryphal book "Wisdom of Sirach/Sira, Ecclesiasticus [Latin]" was written by Jesus Ben Sirach in Jerusalem c. 200-175 BC in Hebrew then translated into Greek by his grandson c. 132-100 BC.

    “The books in the Prophets and Writings were translated later, probably all of them by about 130 b.c. as suggested by the Greek Prologue to Ben Sira." (The Septuagint and the Text of the Old Testament, P. J. Gentry, Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 16, p 193, 2006 AD)

    50 BC: The Nahal Hever Greek scroll of the 12 minor prophets is a Jewish translation in 50 BC:Greek Manuscript 8HevXIIgr (ie. Dodekapropheton) dates to 50 BC and cannot be a Christian manuscript. The Greek scripture scroll (cave 8) is the longest scroll ever found in Israel at 32 feet long and are currently housed in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem. The name of the God (YHWH) is written in paleo-Hebrew letters. Of special importance is the Greek Minor prophets scroll found at Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) because here, the Jews inserted Paleo-Hebrew into the Greek text out of respect for the name of God: YHWH. Christians simply would never do this, proving the Greek minor prophets scroll was a Jewish Greek translation long before Christ was born. This scroll was corrected by Jewish scribes to make it agree with the Hebrew manuscript of the day. The book order and text closely follows the Masoretic. If this was a Christian production in 300 AD, a different book order would have been used. It was among the possessions of the forty Bar Kokhba refugees who died in in 135 AD inside the Nahal Hever “Cave of Horror” near En Gedi. The fact the scroll was found among rebel Bar Kochba Jews as late as 135 AD proves it was a trusted text among the most pious Jews of the first century.

    So, apparently, the Jews of that time didn't really have a problem with the translation.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    13,584
    Ratings:
    +4,423
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    Yes... I agree completely.

    Just saying that it is possible that it wasn't so prevalent in the years of Roman control, especially since Alexander the Great and made Greek a prevalent language.
     
  9. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    13,584
    Ratings:
    +4,423
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    Yes, I agree that commas can make a big difference. But as I mentioned before, I don't believe the original Hebrew texts had any punctuation so even the pronunciation (the pauses, high and lows) were at the discretion of the reader.
     
  10. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    No disagreement that translations existed. They were not authorative just like they aren't now. just as the Talmud states "Twice in Hebrew once in translation - meaning the Aramaic." (Brachoth 8a) This means that the only widely recgonized translations was and still is the Aramaic and even then the Aramaic does not outweigh the original nor does the translation take precedence. Take into account that Aramaic is a close language to Hebrew and there "easier" to translate to. Especially since it even share the same letters.

    Also, the informtaion you listed does not point to any Greek translation being "widely used" they are a a mishmash of "translations" simply existed.

    I will show how the information you posted above is not from a reliable site on Jewish text.
     
  11. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    The original text had orally transmitted punciation just like it had orally transmitted vowel sounds. If one wants to say that the punciation didn't exist you also have to say that the vowels didn't exist either. (Thus, no one would know when the word חלב was meant milk or when fat was intended.)

    Thus, there was no language to speak of and thus there was no way to translate. Also, given the fact that all Jewish Tanakh texts from ancient and more recent Jewish communities share the same Ta'amim including Jewish communities that little or no contact with others, and even the ones who used the Babylonian superscript, that contradicts your point.
     
  12. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Hebrew was extremely prevelant especially given that it, instead of Greek, is found in all diaspora Jewish communities that existed during the from Alexander and even after.
     
  13. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    The Christian site you referenced isn't reliable. Here is a what Emanuel Tov actually wrote in whole.

    Emanuel Tov LXX

    Further, concerning his work, here is how it is described.

    "Tov's initial publications on the Septuagint deal with that translation's early revisions that were intended to approximate the Greek text to the Hebrew text current in Israel from the 1st century BCE until the 2nd century CE. For that research, he established sound principles by determining the criteria for defining and characterizing the revisions. His preoccupation with matters of translation technique and the reconstruction of the Hebrew parent text of the Septuagint was influenced by his practical work in the HUBP (Hebrew University Bible Project). In that research, he combined the field work in that project with the formulation of abstract rules for the evaluation of details in the Septuagint, constantly cross-fertilizing both areas. These rules were formulated in his theoretical book on the Septuagint that grew out of his courses at the Hebrew University, each year on a different Bible book."

    Tov's studies on the Septuagint and 4QReworked Pentateuch led him to new thoughts regarding the development of the last stages of the biblical books and the original text of these books. In his view, the early stages of the biblical books such as reflected in the Septuagint of 1 Samuel, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, show that the formulations of these books developed stage by stage. This reconstructed development makes it difficult to posit an original text of the biblical books. In Tov's view, there was not one original text, but a series of "original texts." This view developed after the appearance of the second edition of his Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2001) and was emphasized more in the third edition (2012).

    Also, if you look at this video below where Emanuel Tov describes the language the type of Greek used in the LXX. (3:23 to 8:00) See from start to about

     
  14. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    13,584
    Ratings:
    +4,423
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    I agree that Hebrew will always be the best..

    However, I would disagree that the Septuagint wasn't widely in circulation among the Jews. It may not have been popular with certain Jews in Jerusalem but it was widely used:

    Screen Shot 2020-05-13 at 6.30.33 PM.png Screen Shot 2020-05-13 at 6.30.33 PM.png
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Try looking up Greek LXX in Iraq or Greek LXX in Yemen. See if you go around looking up Jewish communities in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Morocco and see how much information you find about Jews in those areas using the LXX.

    Also, it must be noted that information you provided actually proved that the original LXX was a translation of the Torah only. Translations into Greek of other texts came a lot later and it is not clear who translated exactly them and what parts.

    Also, you will notice that none of the information claims that Jews who knew Hebrew used the translations to be equal to or compariable to the Hebrew text.
     
  16. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    Fragments found in a cave don't prove that these fragments were considered authoratitve among knowlegable Hebrew speaking/reading Jews. For example, we know that there were numerous sects that existed near the end of the 2nd Temple period but they died out. That is why there are some who beleive that the early Jewish Christians came into existance out of groups like this and Essenes.

    The first question you have to ask is, what happened to the Jews who left these texts in the cave? 2nd why did that group not survive yet the Hebrew fluent communities survived?
     
  17. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    13,584
    Ratings:
    +4,423
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    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."
     
    #57 KenS, May 13, 2020
    Last edited: May 13, 2020
  18. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    It is not a matter of the Hebrew being the best, it is a matter of Hebrew being authoratative. Big difference. This is something Emanuel Tov even mentions in the interview I posted. See his comments at 27:27 to about 28:15 where he even states this.

    The Septuagint, Emanuel Tov, Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Fortress Press, Minneapolis 1992.
    G* is known in various languages as the translation of the seventy (two elders). Its traditional name reflects the tradition that seventy two elders translated the Torah into Greek (see especially the Epistle of Aristeas, an apocryphal composition describing the origin of G*). In the first centuries CE this tradition was expanded to include all of the translated biblical books, and finally it encompassed all of the Jewish-Greek Scriptures, including compositions originally written in Greek.

    Today, the name Septuagint(a) denotes both the original translation of the Bible into Greek and the collection of sacred Greek Writings in their present form. The former use is imprecise, since the name Septuaginta is not suitable for a collection which contains, in addition to the original translation, late revisions (recensions) of that translation as well as compositions written in Greek. Because of this, scholars usually distinguish between the collection of sacred Greek writings named the Septuagint and the original translation, called the Old Greek (OG) translation. The presumed original translation is known from two sources- the greater part is included in the collection of sacred Greek writings (G*) and a smaller segment is reconstructed by modem scholars from various later sources. In places where it is necessary to stress the diverse nature of the collection of books included in G*, its name is placed in quotation marks (“G*”).
     
  19. Ehav4Ever

    Ehav4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2020
    Messages:
    1,451
    Ratings:
    +857
    Religion:
    Torath Mosheh
    I read that statement. Again, check to see what he actually means by that.

    Also, check with Jews from the communities I mentioned and see if they have such a history. He even details what he mans by all Jews. He is not talking about that all Jews around the world at that time accepted the Greek texts. They definately didn't accept them authoratative or else they would still be in use today.
     
  20. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    13,584
    Ratings:
    +4,423
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    Ok... we will have to agree to disagree in as much as your site stipulated quite the contrary.

    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.
     
Loading...