Why are Jewish Bible translations based on KJV?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lllj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lllj

Guest
I’ve been wondering why Jewish Bible translations I see tend to be based off the King James Version and then edited for that parts that seem to counter Judaism.

For example:

Isaiah 7:14

KJV: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

JPS: Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

NJB: The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.

Psalms 22:16 (or 22:17 in JPS)

KJV: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

JPS: For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

NJB: A pack of dogs surrounds me, a gang of villains closing in on me as if to hack off my hands and my feet.

As you can see, the New Jerusalem Bible (my personal favorite translation) does not contradict Jewish belief from the start (in these verses, at least) and would not need to be edited. So I find it kind of strange that Jewish translations use KJV and then go back and edit only the words they disagree with, instead of either re-translating entirely or going off of a version like NJB which agrees with Judaism from the start. The fact that they disagree with the translation of “הָעַלְמָה” to “the virgin” would make me think that they would be likely to disagree with other translations from Hebrew in KJV as well. For English-speaking Jews, is this problematic at all?

Just a thought.
 
That’s not what’s going on here. Jewish translations of the Bible from the Hebrew follow the Masoretic text (and most Protestant translations, actually; I do not remember exactly, but I think even the Catholic NAB may follow this trend, shamefully). Christians traditionally used the Greek translation of the OT made some two centuries before the birth of Christ, known as the “Septuagint” (this is the OT that Eastern and Oriental Christians still do today). It is almost 1000 years earlier than the Masoretic text used by the Jews and Protestants (the MT from c.7th-11th century AD), The Masoretic text differs from what you’ll find in most older editions of the Christian Bible (e.g., things like the KJV, from way before Protestants started using the MT more or less exclusively) because Hebrew, like Arabic, Syriac, and most other scripts for Semitic languages, is a purely consonantal alphabet (what in linguistics we call an “abjad”, which is Arabic for “alphabet”), in that the letters that can stand for vowels can also stand for consonants (ex from Arabic: alif is a glottal stop or a, waw is either w or u, ya is either y or i). So since there are no vowels, or basically no vowels, in the script, it is necessary to mark the vowels that give the words their precise meanings (e.g., KTB in Arabic can be “book”, “writer”, “clerk”, etc. depending on the arrangement of long and short vowels that fill it in), primarily by a series of extra little marks that go around the letter and give it a precise reading. Without these (which are basically never written outside of religious texts and pedagogical grammars) the text could be read in several different ways, and of course the Jews would prefer it to be read in a way that does not point so clearly to Christ as the Christians say it does. 🙂

I think Mark Twain (or Benjamin Disraeli) had it wrong. There are lies, damned lies, and linguistics. 😛
 
I don’t know how other people choose their Bibles. But in terms of its cultural-histofual value, nothing even gets close to the Authorized Version in English - even the present Douay Rheims Bible is a mid 18th century revision based on the AV (try finding the original Latinate DR - pretty much unreadable).
 
As far as Isaiah 7:14 goes the Hebrew word for virgin is not specific in depth and can be used for virgin or young woman. However when the OT was translated into the Greek Septuagint LXX the translators chose the Greek word that specifically means virgin and not young woman.
 
dzheremi said:
That’s not what’s going on here. Jewish translations of the Bible from the Hebrew follow the Masoretic text (and most Protestant translations, actually; I do not remember exactly, but I think even the Catholic NAB may follow this trend, shamefully). Christians traditionally used the Greek translation of the OT made some two centuries before the birth of Christ, known as the “Septuagint” (this is the OT that Eastern and Oriental Christians still do today). It is almost 1000 years earlier than the Masoretic text used by the Jews and Protestants (the MT from c.7th-11th century AD), The Masoretic text differs from what you’ll find in most older editions of the Christian Bible (e.g., things like the KJV, from way before Protestants started using the MT more or less exclusively) because Hebrew, like Arabic, Syriac, and most other scripts for Semitic languages, is a purely consonantal alphabet (what in linguistics we call an “abjad”, which is Arabic for “alphabet”), in that the letters that can stand for vowels can also stand for consonants (ex from Arabic: alif is a glottal stop or a, waw is either w or u, ya is either y or i). So since there are no vowels, or basically no vowels, in the script, it is necessary to mark the vowels that give the words their precise meanings (e.g., KTB in Arabic can be “book”, “writer”, “clerk”, etc. depending on the arrangement of long and short vowels that fill it in), primarily by a series of extra little marks that go around the letter and give it a precise reading. Without these (which are basically never written outside of religious texts and pedagogical grammars) the text could be read in several different ways, and of course the Jews would prefer it to be read in a way that does not point so clearly to Christ as the Christians say it does. 🙂

I think Mark Twain (or Benjamin Disraeli) had it wrong. There are lies, damned lies, and linguistics. 😛
Click to expand...
I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. I’m 100% clear with the fact that Hebrew is a consonantal language. I don’t see what that has to do with it.

What I’m saying is, say I’m a Jew that doesn’t speak much Hebrew, and I need to rely on an English translation.

The JPS Bible is definitely based off KJV; just read it. It’s word-for-word the same except for what you get to words like “almah,” which Jews believe should be translated as “young woman,” not “virgin,” so they switch it.

If they were going to go and retranslate everything from the Masoretic text, go ahead, but instead, it’s copy-and-pasted from KJV, for the most part. Which I find strange, when there are other translations available that they could have used. Even if NJB is going more off the Septuagint, isn’t the English actually better to fit Jewish belief?
 
lllj said:
I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. I’m 100% clear with the fact that Hebrew is a consonantal language. I don’t see what that has to do with it.

What I’m saying is, say I’m a Jew that doesn’t speak much Hebrew, and I need to rely on an English translation.

The JPS Bible is definitely based off KJV; just read it. It’s word-for-word the same except for what you get to words like “almah,” which Jews believe should be translated as “young woman,” not “virgin,” so they switch it.

If they were going to go and retranslate everything from the Masoretic text, go ahead, but instead, it’s copy-and-pasted from KJV, for the most part. Which I find strange, when there are other translations available that they could have used. Even if NJB is going more off the Septuagint, isn’t the English actually better to fit Jewish belief?
Click to expand...
I think the way the decided to translate works just as well for them as the way you are suggesting. To “copy and paste”, but then alter the text when in strays from Jewish understanding of what the translation should mean, works fine.
 
jericho777 said:
As far as Isaiah 7:14 goes the Hebrew word for virgin is not specific in depth and can be used for virgin or young woman. However when the OT was translated into the Greek Septuagint LXX the translators chose the Greek word that specifically means virgin and not young woman.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t really have anything to do with my topic.

I realize that different versions translate it differently.

What I’m saying is, Jews believe almah = young woman. So I would think when looking for English Old Testament translations (since they are mostly just tweeking Christian translations), they would choose the one whose translation matched their belief. JPS uses KJV then goes back and changes virgin to young woman. I don’t get why they wouldn’t trust NJB more, since the translators seem to agree with them that almah = woman.

I suppose it’s just a Masoretic text vs. Septuagint issue - I’m not sure of NJB’s source - but it seems to me like NJB comes closer to saying what Jews believe the Hebrew says.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
I think the way the decided to translate works just as well for them as the way you are suggesting. To “copy and paste”, but then alter the text when in strays from Jewish understanding of what the translation should mean, works fine.
Click to expand...
It’s not that it doesn’t work, but for me, it would make the whole translation seem more untrustworthy. Like, I’m supposed to believe all of this was translated accurately except for two or three words? I would be skeptical of the whole thing. I would rather someone go back to the Hebrew and re-translate it all for me, or find somebody who had already done a full seemingly trustworthy translation. If that makes sense.
 
But I guess it’s just me! Lol. And I’m not Jewish, so it doesn’t really matter.
 
lllj said:
As you can see, the New Jerusalem Bible (my personal favorite translation) does not contradict Jewish belief from the start (in these verses, at least) and would not need to be edited. So I find it kind of strange that Jewish translations use KJV and then go back and edit only the words they disagree with, instead of either re-translating entirely or going off of a version like NJB which agrees with Judaism from the start. The fact that they disagree with the translation of “הָעַלְמָה” to “the virgin” would make me think that they would be likely to disagree with other translations from Hebrew in KJV as well. For English-speaking Jews, is this problematic at all?
Click to expand...
Hm

I think we’re at one of those ‘this is a Christian problem, not a Jewish problem’ moments.

Now, why do I say that?

Well, because Christians use the Jewish scriptures in an entirely different way from the way that we use them.

Christians start with Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament, with the Old Testament (Tanakh to us Jews) being basically all about Jesus (in one way or another). For us, it’s all about Torah (‘The Law’) with the rest of the Tanakh (which is organized differently from your Old Testament, the Tanakh is ‘Law/Prophets/Writings’ in order of importance) being, in one way or another, about Torah.

So, the KJV with the Christian spin removed was adequate to that task.

Always remember - Christianity isn’t Judaism plus Jesus and Judaism isn’t Christianity minus Jesus, they’re entirely different religions - paradigmatically different with entirely different foci.
 
lllj said:
It’s not that it doesn’t work, but for me, it would make the whole translation seem more untrustworthy. Like, I’m supposed to believe all of this was translated accurately except for two or three words? I would be skeptical of the whole thing. I would rather someone go back to the Hebrew and re-translate it all for me, or find somebody who had already done a full seemingly trustworthy translation. If that makes sense.
Click to expand...
I think it is safe to say that some well-educated rabbis read through the translation word for word to be sure that everything in the translation was appropriate for the Jewish faith.
 
It is also worth mentioning that the AV was itself a conservative translation and not a radical refashioning of the English Bible, even back in 1611. As the foreword puts it: “with the former translations diligently compared and revised”.
 
lllj said:
I’ve been wondering why Jewish Bible translations I see tend to be based off the King James Version and then edited for that parts that seem to counter Judaism.

For example:

Isaiah 7:14

KJV: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

JPS: Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

NJB: The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.

Psalms 22:16 (or 22:17 in JPS)

KJV: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

JPS: For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

NJB: A pack of dogs surrounds me, a gang of villains closing in on me as if to hack off my hands and my feet.

As you can see, the New Jerusalem Bible (my personal favorite translation) does not contradict Jewish belief from the start (in these verses, at least) and would not need to be edited. So I find it kind of strange that Jewish translations use KJV and then go back and edit only the words they disagree with, instead of either re-translating entirely or going off of a version like NJB which agrees with Judaism from the start. The fact that they disagree with the translation of “הָעַלְמָה” to “the virgin” would make me think that they would be likely to disagree with other translations from Hebrew in KJV as well. For English-speaking Jews, is this problematic at all?

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
My thought on this is: is it really a matter of the Jewish version being based on the KJV, or is it just that there are only so many ways to translate the same sentence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top