A Translation of the Tanakh without Rabbinic Bias?

[Amatsyah]

Also Andrew, in regards to your #3,

3) The Dead Sea Scrolls BIble by Wise, Abegg and Cook (honorable mention to Geza Vermes and his similar works)

I am wondering if you are at all familiar with one Theodor Herzl Gastor's "The Dead Sea Scriptures in English Translation"?

I've only recently come across this work, and haven't been able to see it for myself. It does look like it may be a resurrected old work, which is perhaps why it took me so long to come across it? Here is a little info. for all of us about him and some reviews of his work that I found:

This revised enlarged third edition of the now classic translation of the Dead Sea Scriptures has added all of the coherent texts published since 1964. Dr. Theodor Gaster, one of the world???s leading Hebraists, has provided a separate introduction for each new scroll, as well as new translations of the Hymns and paraphrases of the Bible narratives.

"Professor Gaster???has produced a literary masterpiece."
--Journal of Biblical Literature

"His translation of the documents and his notes on them are informed by great learning, and his volume can be recommended as the best single door through which the layman in this field can enter into an understanding of just what the scrolls are and are not."
--Christian Century

"It furnishes the most complete translations yet to be published together with Professor Gaster???s introductions and notes. The book is addressed to the intelligent general reader. It contains a wealth of original insights."
--Biblical Archaeologist

If you're familiar with it, I'd appreciate your "two cents" on it, so as to whether I should seriously consider pursuing it or not. BTW, I concur with your #1 library recommendation (Lamsa), as well as Christina's alternative for #2 (Van der Pool's Polyglot).

If there were only one bible (complete Tanakh) that I should have to choose within my budget, it'd be Lamsa's. And yes, Daniel, I actually do peruse my own recommendation - and this is why I recommend it. It's not from the Hebrew, granted, but it is from the Aramaic which translated a Hebrew Vorlage. The LXX also did this. Both the LXX and the Peshitta Tanakhs come from differing Hebrew text-families. I have found innumerable instances of superior readings from the LXX and DSS against the MT (Masoretic Text), such as in Deut. 32 and especially in Samuel. Andrew's recommendation of Wise, Abegg and Cook's DSS translation annotates and footnotes this phenomena for the English reader. As to akhan Albion's recommendation of the Koren Jerusalem bible, I have yet myself to see it; it may do better than Lamsa, I know not.

Alas, akhi Andrew - one more question to mind. Another more obscure translation I've recently come across which I wonder about: do you know of the Ferrar Fenton translation?

Oh, but alas once more - this one I'll defer to Christina this time, the LXX expert: art thou familiar with the late Secretary of the Continental Congress of the U.S.A. Charles Thomson's "The Septuagint Bible", and its comparability to Sir Brenton's?

Many thanks to all,

Ryan

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Ryan,

Sorry I have not seen either work you mention, so I can't comment.

I think though that the greater issue is the methodology of the READER. By that I mean that for me the ideal is this:

1) That the sincere seeker of the Word has a working knowledge of the alap-beet and general morphology of the four main scriptural languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin).

2) That in addition to any English only translations a person uses for convenience sake that a strong interlinear version exists for at least three of these languages. As I have implied, the only interlinear I don't have in book form (my preference rather than electronic versions) is the Latin tradition. On the other hand, Latin is kind of the easiest language of the four due to its influence and proximity to English.

3) That with these interlinears the sincere seeker spends a good part of his or her time just looking at the text line by line in both languages. I am a big believer in what I call osmosis learning. If the proper structure for grammar and such is already present, the careful and consistent reader can, over a long period of time, perceive those structures and learn those languages in the same way that they learned their native language.

4) That of course the reader then validate these perceptions of patterns in the interlinears through respected grammars in those languages, but to not do rote-immersion as a first step. If you are anything like me, rote-immersion will cause you to burn out, but osmosis is kind of like a detective adventure.

Bottom line is I guess if we have the source texts and do our best to understand the ancient languages bit by bit, a good translation can act as a bridge to that understanding, but should never be a crutch.

[rungold315]

Hmmm, Lamsa's OT is completely based on the Aramaic tanakh? Meaning the whole Masoretic text matches word for word with the Peshitta Tanakh? (Well, at least in structure. Genesis to Malachi, and no other additional books, ommited books, or foreign poems and additions of any sort such as the relationship between the LXX and Masoretic.)

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Daniel,

Yes, Lamsa is translating OT straight from Peshitta Tanakh. I think JW Etheridge is correct when he says that the Peshitta Tanakh is as he put it "a targum of the entire Tanakh in Western Aramaic that is beyond price" or words to that effect.

As to whether it is identical to MT, no, I wouldn't say that. The MT is a standardization from Hebrew sources though that had a direct bearing on how various Targums, Peshitta Tanakh, the LXX (and later additions thereto) were produced. By defintion, the standardization of the Masoretes cannot be identical to all the sources that inspired it.

I kind of like the way the editors of JPS 1999 put it when they said, again paraphrapsing, "while a perfectly transmitted text is not possible, it has been our intention to produce a DEFENSIBLE text". What they mean by DEFENSIBLE I believe is that anyone who does a deep study to the ancient variants and lines them up with the MT (Leningrad Codex mostly) will find as the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Isaiah proved that those ancient voices are well represented and taken into account.

I think it is also the case that at a concept level, with the possible exception of some very loose exposition in Targum Jonathan, the MT and the ancient voices line up extremely well. There is no real contradiction theologically speaking between them or on basic facts. The most I think we can say in the contrary direction is that certain targums and midrash either add to plain understanding or at least shed light on how difficult passages were interpreted during a point in history.

One thing though that I had heard about and been looking for but can't seem to track down: Someone mentioned to me years ago that there was a great Rabbi who went line by line between MT and Peshitta Tanakh and claimed it was a terrific early confirming witness for the MT, in part because he thought some Aramaic words with mutliple meanings had been mistranslated. But who that Rabbi was or what the study was called I simply do not know.

[rungold315]

Holy moly! Then surely there is a Peshitta Tanakh in English apart from Lamsa? I hope it differs from the MT in the MT'S differences between the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls, in which I think it is obvious the MT has been tampered with. After quickly skimming Lamsa's Genesis online, I already noticed that God finished his work on the SIXTH day, instead of the MT's account of 7th. If there is a Peshitta Tanakh online, I think I will purchase it instead of the Jps. I know its not the original Hebrew which doesnt exist any longer, but if it matches up with the Masoretic text in structure and amount of books, AND follows the LXX/Masoretic in the questionable verses that might have been tampered with by Rabbis, then I'll be very excited. <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Daniel,

Actually to my knowledge Lamsa is IT for Peshitta Tanakh.

Yes there are other resources that quote from PART of Peshitta Tanakh but as BASE TEXT and having every line, no.

That is one of the reasons I have been wrestling with whether I should do one or not. I know that at least one other person, Mr. Levine, is trying to do one online but there were just a few portions up last time I checked. In a way, the need for the Peshitta Tanakh interlinear is just as great, but for different reasons, than what I did in Mari for the NT.

The Peshitta Tanakh is, by far, the most important version of the OT that most folks have never heard of. The Peshitta Institute at Leiden has been trying to get a Critical Edition of the Peshitta Tanakh out for at least 30 years and there is no indication as to when they will finish. I can only tell you that the first reference I ever saw about the Peshitta Tanakh was from a book called "Old Testament Survey" which was written in 1982 and I remember back then hoping the PI would finish soon...

[rungold315]

I dont see how such an awesome text could go unseen by the public eye. I can tell why Jews would not want to use it, because it doesnt fit their traditional MT text and Jews are very strict and exclusive with tradition. Thank god Lamsa's text is free online, that way I can see if the differences match up...but then again, it could be biased translating at the same time.

[rungold315]

Well in Exodus 1:5 of the Peshitta Tanakh, it mentions "seventy persons" in contradiction of the NT's seventy five. So, I guess the Peshitta still has at least some of the mistakes that the MT does. Oh well. <!-- s:| --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/neutral.gif" alt=":|" title="Neutral" /><!-- s:| -->

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Actually Akhi Daniel, as our brother Paul Younan showed some years ago, there TWO ways to count Abraham's family, and depending on who is counted, it can be 70 or 75, so both are correct. I liked the observation so much that I copied and pasted it into LEARNING THE BASICS (an essay, and I give Paul credit) as well as in the Ruach Qadim books.

Here is what Paul said:

It should be realized by now, although Western scholars are stubborn, that not every passage cited as an Old Testament quotation is in fact a quotation. Many times
they are allusions or simply a general reference, but not an excerpt from an OT passage. For example, your Acts 7:14 example, in which Stephen says, ??? Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.??? The number which Stephen gives is 75. However, the passage in Genesis 46:27 totals 70. There we read, ??? And the sons of Joseph,which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.??? The Greek LXX agrees with Stephen in Genesis 46:27 and lists the number as 75 souls. This passage is often used as an example of a NT saint citing the LXX. The truth is that Stephen is not quoting anything, he is *referring to something.*

These two texts reflect two ways of numbering Jacob???s family. Jacob???s children, grandchildren, and greatgrandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Gen. 46:8-26). Adding Jacob
himself, and Joseph with his two sons, we have seventy. If to the sixty-six we add the nine wives of Jacob???s sons (Judah???s and Simeon???s wives were dead; Joseph could not be said to call himself, his own wife, or his two sons into Egypt; and Jacob is specified separately by Stephen), we have seventy-five persons, as in Acts.

Therefore the difference in number can be clarified by an examination of the Biblical texts and not referencing the citation to that of the LXX. Further, scrutiny of the passage in Acts
clearly shows that Stephen was referring to events in Genesis 46 and not quoting the passage.

[rungold315]

So would you say the Peshitta OT and the MT are nearly identical? I mean sure its crazy that the Peshitta OT has not been translated except by Lamsa, but once it is finished by others, is there really any difference compared to a typical Masoretic-based OT?

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Daniel,

That's hard for me to answer precisely since I have not gone line for line with both sources but compared to the two at a leisurely yet consistent pace over the years. My impressions are probably broader than you would otherwise like and I also separate what I see with Lamsa in English and what I see in the Aramaic from my published forms in swadaya script.

I will tell you that generally I think the Peshitta Tanakh follows MT rather closely and in fact seems to have a kind of "memory" almost about the Hebrew form that gave birth to it. One thing that really struck me actually was the very first line, Genesis 1:1. In the Peshitta Tanakh the line is exactly transmitted as it is in Hebrew except for the spelling of Alaha instead of Elohim. That verbatim nature includes the direct object pointer ET and this is what struck me--THAT ET IS EXCLUSIVE TO HEBREW. NO ARAMAIC DIALECT THAT I AM AWARE OF USES IT. It certainly is not in Peshitta NT or other Aramaic literature that I have read.

If the ET is nowhere in Aramaic naturally, then the only reason I can think it appears in Peshitta Tanakh is to show respect for the Hebrew mother text. That to me, if I am correct, speaks volumes right there as to how literal the Peshitta Tanakh compilers truly wish to be. And again going from my lesiurely pace I have found no flights of fancy or radical departures from thought by thought discourse in PT and MT. There are cases though, as Lamsa tries to show, where it is possible the wrong meaning of an Aramaic word got into the MT, but that is not because Peshitta Tanakh is compositional Aramaic. Rather it is more likely due to the MT coming in final form so late in the game and Peshitta Tanakh had a tremendous head start and went from a much more ancient Hebrew form.

I should point out though that both PTanakh and the LXX adapted longer canons than those in Israel did so in terms of the book list, that is a very significant difference between MT and PT. But does Isaiah pretty much read the same way? Yeah I think so. Same with other books the traditions agree on. Again it is not so much a word for word comparision as it is a general impression that I am reading pretty much the same material except for dialectical considerations.

I need to check my sources perhaps later, but going from memory as it is late at night and I am writing in bed with my laptop, I seem to recall that P Tanakh has Cain saying to Abel "let's go into the field" and other small things that the LXX has that MT does not. Having said that, it is also my belief that in those cases the ancient but lost Hebrew version also had those things which is why they show up in PT and LXX, so much so that I almost "forget" LXX entirely and look for its origin in "H-LXX" or HEBREW LXX SOURCE.

There is though also an ad hoc quality to P Tanakh without it going off too far from source and there are places where it more heavily favors LXX but that is not surprising again given the late time of the final form of MT. So "nearly identical"? Probably not. But substantially rooted in every way that is important theologically and historically? Yes, absolutely. A credible witness to the underpinnings of the MT? I would again say yes but it is more an opinion as opposed to clinical hard and fast result.

[rungold315]

I had no doubt that the Peshitta as well as the LXX were derived from the original Hebrew text, but I gotta agree with you when I also say the MT has a LOT of differences compared to the original, most likely due to a lot of tampering and/or scribal mistakes. Ive already accepted that we'll simply never have the original, it simply cannot be done, but the other voices can help us point to it. The problem is, there isn't a Tanakh out there that uses the MT as its base, AND incorporates the other voices when differences in texts occur like I personally think there should be.

You know, I found an awesome link years ago that shows various tables of the differences between the MT, DSS, and the LXX. Im most interested in the table showing how the DSS and LXX agree against the Masoretic. So if one had the MT as we all do, they can easily insert these differences in there and create their own Tanakh fit to their own beliefs of what it SHOULD say. Ive thought about it, but what do I know? I only speak English, am 21 years of age, and still dont feel I know enough to ever do something like that...although it does seem to make sense in my mind. Hmmm. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

P.S. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm">http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pine ... pindex.htm</a><!-- m -->

[rungold315]

Now that I think about it, the DSS reads 75 souls in Exodus, so with all due respect to your response Andrew, I think it might just be a huge determined effort in covering up a scribal error. They exist elsewhere in the MT, so this passage is no more difficult to accept as a mistake. Heres the link specifically stating the agreements between the LXX and DSS, while both disagreeing with the MT.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm">http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pine ... pindex.htm</a><!-- m -->

[Spyridon]

There are Dead Sea Scrolls that agree with the Masoretic, just as there are DSS that agree with the Septuagint. I wouldn't say, then, that the difference is intentional tampering. It's two different textual traditions.