Hebrew-English Bible

[YYZ Skinhead]

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

It says "According to the Masoretic Text and the JPS 1917 Edition". Is the Masoretic Text a good source? I've seen the name in several articles and posts on this site but I cannot remember if it is good or bad.

Here is how Genesis 1 looks in Hebrew: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

[sheep wrecked]

(02-02-2010 03:34 PM)YYZ Skinhead Wrote:  http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

It says "According to the Masoretic Text and the JPS 1917 Edition". Is the Masoretic Text a good source? I've seen the name in several articles and posts on this site but I cannot remember if it is good or bad.

Here is how Genesis 1 looks in Hebrew: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

The Masoretic text refers to the Hebrew manuscript which is where all versions of the OT come from. It is written in the Hebrew script. There are actually two Masoretic manuscripts [abbreviated as mss]. One is called the Jacob ben Chayyim and the other is known as the Leningrad/Allepo [also called the ben Asher]. The ben Chayym is the preferred mss used by the King James Bible and by Judaism. There are some differences between the two mss.

Interestingly, Jacob ben Chayyim was a Jew who converted to Christianity

[YYZ Skinhead]

(02-02-2010 03:59 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote:  

(02-02-2010 03:34 PM)YYZ Skinhead Wrote:  http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

It says "According to the Masoretic Text and the JPS 1917 Edition". Is the Masoretic Text a good source? I've seen the name in several articles and posts on this site but I cannot remember if it is good or bad.

Here is how Genesis 1 looks in Hebrew: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

The Masoretic text refers to the Hebrew manuscript which is where all versions of the OT come from. It is written in the Hebrew script. There are actually two Masoretic manuscripts [abbreviated as mss]. One is called the Jacob ben Chayyim and the other is known as the Leningrad/Allepo [also called the ben Asher]. The ben Chayym is the preferred mss used by the King James Bible and by Judaism. There are some differences between the two mss.

Interestingly, Jacob ben Chayyim was a Jew who converted to Christianity

That explains why the English translation on the Genesis 1 page is so like the King James. When did ben Chayyim transcribe it?

[sheep wrecked]

(02-02-2010 05:17 PM)YYZ Skinhead Wrote:   That explains why the English translation on the Genesis 1 page is so like the King James. When did ben Chayyim transcribe it?

The ben Chayyim is from the 1500s, the Aleppo is from around 1000. Many say that because the Aleppo is the oldest, it's the most reliable. That is not the case. ben Chayyim searched for the best mss from all over europe to find all the parts of the OT intact. The Aleppo was transcribed from mss that had missing pages and had come through a fire, plugging in what was assumed to the proper text. Although they are quite similar, there is a difference, although technically you could find evidence out there to compare the two. Personally, I don't find that necessary having read a lot of info on the topic. If the ben chayyim was good enough for the scholars when the KJ was translated, it's good enough for me

[SheitlQueen]

Quote: That explains why the English translation on the Genesis 1 page is so like the King James.

It was intentionally patterned after the KJV:

The first JPS translation was completed in 1917 by a committee led by Max Margolis and was based on the scholarship of its day. Its literary form was consciously based on that of the King James Version; Margolis, a non-native speaker of English, felt that was the proper standard of language that Jews should adopt for their translation (from wikipedia)

---

Wiki also has a good article on the Masoretic text:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_text

[YYZ Skinhead]

(02-17-2010 02:53 PM)SheitlQueen Wrote:  

Quote: That explains why the English translation on the Genesis 1 page is so like the King James.

It was intentionally patterned after the KJV:

The first JPS translation was completed in 1917 by a committee led by Max Margolis and was based on the scholarship of its day. Its literary form was consciously based on that of the King James Version; Margolis, a non-native speaker of English, felt that was the proper standard of language that Jews should adopt for their translation (from wikipedia)

---

Wiki also has a good article on the Masoretic text:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_text

That article is fascinating. (Linguistics is another science I enjoy pursuing, albeit on an amateur level.)

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

SheitlQueen Wrote:intentionally patterned after the KJV: The first JPS translation was completed in 1917 ... literary form was consciously based on that of the King James Version;

There was some toning down of the Messianic prophecies from the proper AV expression.

In later translations Jewish Bibles from JPS and others did this to a greater degree, more deliberately. Also later JPS did new translations with many errors of words and inferior style and form. Even among Jewish translations the later JPS editions are decidedly inferior.

The Ben Hayim is the general main source of the Authorized Version. However, not 100%, that is a common error in English Bible literature, since in some cases the AV took the proper minority reading that was not the Ben Hayim text, including two specially important cases, Joshua 21:36-37 and Psalm 22:16. Actually Joshua 21 was in the majority of Masoretic Text manuscripts but had been referenced only in a margin note in the Ben Hayim. Also the qere/ketiv decisions were done individually, verse by verse, in the AV.

The Christian Hebraist movement was very strong and informed in that era. The number of grammarians and writers and commentaries, Jewish and Christian, was large, editions of the Masoretic Text were plentiful. The learned men of the AV went over every single verse individually, with multiple study and checking committees, to make the proper, providential decisions.

The phenomenon of today, lexicon scholars, was unknown. The concept of that day was to read, study, speak and converse fluently in the Biblical languages. Not an atomistic grammarian approach. This distinction is especially noticeable in the NT language mastery, where the learned men of Cambridge would have public debates directly in Biblical Greek. Remember, publish and perish on arcane topics was unknown, the classics and early church writers were appreciated, they worked in an extremely strong and supportive univerisity environment, the best in the world, and there was not a lot of movie and TV diversion away from reading Cyrprian, Kimchi and the word of God.

The common technical error in the literature of asserting the AV is 100% based on the Ben Hayim has reasons and cautions on both ends. Some AV defenders want to make the AV only an uninspired derivative text from the inspired Hebrew, thus they want one particular Hebrew text to lift up. Similar to what is done with the Scrivener Greek NT. And an AV opponent, James Price, wanted to accuse the AV of "emendations" whenever it departed from the Ben Hayim text. Which is a scholastic absurdity that led to calling the inclusion of the majority MT reading of Joshua 21:36-37 an "emendation".

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Vic]

Thank you Steven for that information. It's a fascinating topic and much needed. Although newbies aren't normally allowed to start threads, I am going to set that aside if you are of a mind, since I 'sort of' know you. So if you want to present information on these types of issues, and discuss things like the greek nt revision in the 1800's, or the process and manuscripts the KJ translators used etc, please by all means, that is very much welcome.


Btw, just a note for all members, if you have trouble posting, or your posts seem to disappear when you thought you posted, it might be as simple as you previewing your post and not actually then posting it, for those who may have that happen.