Many in the messianic/HR group use the CJB, believing it is accurate and clearly more Jewish. Is it accurate? Or is it loaded with paraphrase and opinion and not necessarily accurate renderings?
(12-11-2008 02:08 PM)Vic Wrote: [ -> ]Many in the messianic/HR group use the CJB, believing it is accurate and clearly more Jewish. Is it accurate? Or is it loaded with paraphrase and opinion and not necessarily accurate renderings?
From what I have read, it's not real accurate. I noticed several language issues - he uses some Yiddish words, which are not true Hebrew. For instance:
CJB:
Luk 10:4 Don't carry a money-belt or a pack, and don't stop to shmoose with people on the road.
and
Luk 18:5 but because this widow is such a nudnik, I will see to it that she gets justice -- otherwise, she'll keep coming and pestering me till she wears me out!'"
Somehow, I don't think Jesus used "shmoose" and "nudnik" :s
Yiddish is an early middle ages blend of German and Polish, with some Hebrew thrown in.
I also noticed that the CJB uses "sh’khinah" - which is a kabbalistically created word also from the middle ages referring to the presence/glory of God. Do we really want to put a mystic word into the mouths of the apostles?
Joh 12:41 (Yesha`yahu said these things because he saw the Sh'khinah of Yeshua and spoke about him.)
Rom 9:4 the people of Isra'el! They were made God's children, the Sh'khinah has been with them, the covenants are theirs, likewise the giving of the Torah, the Temple service and the promises;
Tit 2:13 while continuing to expect the blessed fulfillment of our certain hope, which is the appearing of the Sh'khinah of our great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah.
Heb 1:3 This Son is the radiance of the Sh'khinah, the very expression of God's essence, upholding all that exists by his powerful word; and after he had, through himself, made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of HaG'dulah BaM'romim.
All the "Hebrew" words make the CJB look pretty good, but at the cost of what the text "really" says :-/
I don´t think the CJB is accurately rendering the passages at all. As one example, compare these two versions
Quote:Gal 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (KJV2000)
Quote:Gal 2:15 We are Jews by birth, not so-called 'Goyishe sinners';
Gal 2:16 even so, we have come to realize that a person is not declared righteous by God on the ground of his legalistic observance of Torah commands, but through the Messiah Yeshua's trusting faithfulness. Therefore, we too have put our trust in Messiah Yeshua and become faithful to him, in order that we might be declared righteous on the ground of the Messiah's trusting faithfulness and not on the ground of our legalistic observance of Torah commands. For on the ground of legalistic observance of Torah commands, no one will be declared righteous.
(CJB)
As sheepwrecked mentioned in the previous post ,Goyishe is a Yiddish word and would not mean much to a non yiddish associated jew or those of Sephardic descent with no connections to yiddishkeit..
In verse 16, the phrase
ergon nomos in the greek refers to the works of the law…
ergon for acts, works ,doing while
nomos being law.
Stern chooses to translate ergon nomos as " legalistic observance of Torah commands"
However, in his Jewish New testament Commentary p 534 Stern admits:
Quote:For comparative purposes here is a literal translation of vv15-16:
We, by nature Jews and not sinners from Gentiles, but knowing that a person is not justified from works of law but through trust of Messiah Yeshua, even we unto messiah Yeshua trusted, in order that we might be justified from trust of Messiah and not from works of law, because from works of law not will be justified all flesh.
I wonder why the literal translation is included in the Commentary while the paraphrase-aka-commentary is included as the translation??????
Stern goes on to say in p536
Quote:The greek word "nomos" usually means "law" ; it is also the normal New Testament word for Hebrew Torah, which can usually be translated by the "Law of Moses" or simply "law". Most Christians therefore suppose that "erga nomou", literally, "works of law", a term which appears three times in v16, must mean,"actions done in obedience to the Torah." But this is wrong. One of the best kept secrets about the New Testament is that when Sha´ul writes "nomos " he frequently does not mean "law" but "legalism."
So I guess that the secret was kept for 2000 years until Stern came along.
Stern then goes on to quote two scholars who he believes justify such a view and then "submits" that
Quote:in every instance "erga nomou" means not deeds done in virtue of following the Torah in the way God intended, but deeds done in consequence of perverting the Torah into a set of rules which, it is presumed, can be obeyed mechanically, automatically,legalistically, without having faith, without having trust in god, without having love for God or man , and without being empowered by the holy Spirit.
So it seems that Stern gives us his opinion of what he thinks Paul meant rather than what the text actually said.
It's funny that you mention the Yiddish words because as a Sephardic Jew, Yiddish is something I never learned in any way. I have tried in the past to use the CJB, but didnt like the liberties it took.
(12-13-2008 07:05 PM)Rob Wrote: [ -> ]It's funny that you mention the Yiddish words because as a Sephardic Jew, Yiddish is something I never learned in any way. I have tried in the past to use the CJB, but didnt like the liberties it took.
Well, that's one way to start getting rid of the "mess". :D
MMMMMM I would like to see the translation with nudnik and schmooze in it. It gives flavour and character. And if done correctly with proper scholarly disclaimers, I think it could be useful.
Put it this way, the KJV does the same thing
they weren't "sat at meat" (Matthew 9:10 etc) they were eating. The greek for meat did not appear, the word was in fact to recline (as at table in the roman style of dining and
Mat 27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.
The thieves crucified reproached him with the same things that the crowd were
Teeth are not mentioned in the Greek original but the throwing of accusations into one's teeth is a colourful english idiom that gives a good flavour of what is going on. It just does not appear in Greek.
Nothing wrong with it if you are aware of what is going on.
Meaning is more than the verbal equivalent of number crunching, it is an art not just a craft, context, style and idiom are all relevant.
words cannot be pinned down, they are not numbers. try and pin down words and you strangle them. A poet has as much to say as a rationalist on this matter
QUOTE STERN:
in every instance "erga nomou" means not deeds done in virtue of following the Torah in the way God intended, but deeds done in consequence of perverting the Torah into a set of rules which, it is presumed, can be obeyed mechanically, automatically,legalistically, without having faith, without having trust in god, without having love for God or man , and without being empowered by the holy Spirit.
Strefanash: actually i think he is quite right here. This by examining the larger context of Pauls thought. Obeying the Law as God intended is what Paul calls Walking in the Spirit
Stern is right, and has to be if we are to reconcile James with Paul and if we are also to reconcile Paul as to the fultilty of leglistic effort with his passion to buffet the flesh, run the race, and fight the fight, all of which have caused me to stumble through understanding them legalistically
But to me this man's error is to think that by resolve he can be different, and obey in faith and powered by the Spirit (what are the odds he thinks gods power is like electricity he can plug into? this is a heresy i utterly reject. )
HE CANT.
NONE of us follow the Torah as God intended. As Paul was not against Law, as he in fact magnified it and confirmed it, I am sure this is the case.
I would be all for following Torah properly taking into account Jesus's statement that all food was clean etc etc etc, but I cannot and trying to is a blasphemous waste of time.
THIS is Stern's error. In his self righteousness he ignores the inner nature of sin and thinks he can obey the Torah, or the law if you will.
NB OF course as i hinted above the food laws are not applicable to us, neither the sacrifice laws, etc etc. But the moral law still stands yet if I try to keep it by force of will I will be condemned as one forsaking christ
I would really have doubts about it's accuracy.
The use of yiddish is ludicrous and looks absolutely ridiculous.
I've heard of the CJB but have never seen any verses from it
and I must say it looks absolutely silly.
I mean, it's a bunch of gentiles reading it, what's with the yiddish?
Also, it just seems to take away from the majesty of the writing.
Quote: I have some quotes around here somewhere of his Yiddish that are ridiculous. I will post them tomorrow!
I'll look forward to it, I'm always up for a good laugh!
(06-30-2009 12:06 AM)SheitlQueen Wrote: [ -> ]Quote: I have some quotes around here somewhere of his Yiddish that are ridiculous. I will post them tomorrow!
I'll look forward to it, I'm always up for a good laugh!
I had these posted in an earlier post on this thread 
but will try to find more - I have a list of the Hebrew and yiddish words that he uses in his glossary 
CJB:
Luk 10:4 Don't carry a money-belt or a pack, and don't stop to shmoose with people on the road.
and
Luk 18:5 but because this widow is such a nudnik, I will see to it that she gets justice -- otherwise, she'll keep coming and pestering me till she wears me out!'"
Most Messys love it and use it as their "main" translation. I used it for several years myself, even before I got into the movement! 
not any more, though. Now I use it to refute his stuff. I have some quotes around here somewhere of his Yiddish that are ridiculous. I will post them tomorrow!