Can anyone find the Torah?

B

Bruce Wayne

.
Registered Senior Member
I was looking for a english version of the Torah -of course one with a jewish background. Alas, I could not find it. Does anyone have a link to an online rendering? Does one exists?

:m:
 
That seems to be a slippery fish but is this of any use?

torah
I have no idea about the quality but it did look interesting with hebrew, and english text and hebrew sound.
 
Torah is just the teachings of Moses. you could just read the Old Testimate, the first four books are from the Tora.
 
I think Batman was looking for the Tanach.
Many people mistakenly refer to it as the Torah.
 
Well, the Torah, as pointed out by a few, is not the same thing as The Old Testament.
It is just the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Old Testament.
An English translated version of the Pentateuch is the first five books of the Old testament, you can get that anywhere.
There really isn't a difference in the Pentateuch of the Old Testament (probably on your bookshelf) and the Torah (different translations not withstanding).

Are you simply looking for one that is more accurately translated than the King James Bible?
 
I want to know what the Jews understood from those texts that were also translated by the "Christians".

:m:
 
Bruce Wayne said:
I was looking for the Torah, the old testament as understood by the Jews themselves.
Click to expand...
Bruce Wayne said:
I want to know what the Jews understood from those texts that were also translated by the "Christians".
Click to expand...
You'll have to choose one, because the Bible early Christians and Jews used was translated around 200BC by the Jews themselves. Today it's called the Septuagint, or LXX. Just from the translations they made, you can already learn a lot about what was understood from the original Hebrew text. In response to the Christian "threat", they rejected their *own* Greek translation.

But why only the Torah? Only the Samaritans use only the Torah, and they weren't even considered Jews by the Pharisees or Sadducess.
 
Jenyar, if you want, you could go to this site: http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/ They do not, from my knowledge, believe that the Septuagint in present form is the same one as in the past. Also, it is believed the Septuagint only contained the "Books of the Law" (the first five books). The idea that the Septuagint was an authorized Greek translation of the entire Hebrew scriptures is not supported by them, from my knowledge. Besides, there should be little reason for a Jewish scholar, who should know Hebrew, to rely on a Greek translation of their Hebrew texts. But, the NT authors might have used a Greek translation to support their theories.

Considering Christians basically had control over what was copied in the West for a thousand years or more, I doubt the Jews are going to rely on such a "Septuagint."
 
Last edited:
It's possible that the first translations (the tradition one referred to by the Jews) wasn't the complete Hebrew Bible, but that's besides the point. There were plenty of reasons why a Greek Bible would be necessary, and lots of proof that it was finished by the time of Jesus.
...it was natural that the Alexandrian Jews, making use of the translated Pentateuch in their liturgical reunions, should desire to read the remaining books also and hence should gradually have translated all of them into Greek, which had become their maternal language; this would be so much the more likely as their knowledge of Hebrew was diminishing daily. It is not possible to determine accurately the precise time or the occasions on which these different translations were made; but it is certain that the Law, the Prophets, and at least part of the other books, that is, the hagiographies, existed in Greek before the year 130 B.C., as appears from the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, which does not date later than that year. - Catholic Encyclopedia​
There are a few points you can't ignore: Their world was Greek and Roman. The particular Greek dialect used in the Septuagint, koine dislektos, shows a Hebrew influence. That we can see this even today, means that we have versions that were originally written by people who spoke Hebrew. If they had been changed or were adapted, a more modern Greek would have been evident. Then there are the about 230 quotations in the New Testament, not counting indirect references (see The Septuagint in the New Testament). The Samaritans have always only accepted the Pentateuch, and "In about two thousand instances in which the Samaritan and the Jewish texts differ, the LXX agrees with the former." Philo and Josephus knew and quoted from it. They were Jewish scholars who wrote in Greek. I think it's safe to say that people use the language they wish to be understood in. "when in Rome..."
A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era. - JewishEncylcopedia.com​
The following website has an Encyclopedic entry for the Septuagint.

Considering Christians basically had control over what was copied over a thousand years or more, I doubt the Jews are going to rely on such a "Septuagint."
Click to expand...
The amount of time that passed between then and now is irrelevant. If Christians relied on scripture to make their point, they had little reason to invent the quotation in order to make the interpretation their own. Of course Jews would prefer their own interpretations, especially on a site like "Jews for Judaism". However, I would like to know why their texts differ from the ones that were used for translating the Septuagint. They had no interest in maintaining other versions, but Christians did. As a matter of fact, it is still in active use by the Greek Orthodox church.
The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews... The translation, which shows at times a peculiar ignorance of Hebrew usage, was evidently made from a codex which differed widely in places from the text crystallized by the Masorah. - JewishEncyclopedia​
Keep in mind that this is in comparison with later manuscripts.
The earliest Hebrew manuscript is the Nash papyrus. There are four fragments, which, when pieced together, give twenty-four lines of a pre-Massoretic text of the Ten Commandments and the shema (Ex., xx, 2-17; Deut., v, 6-19; vi, 4-5). The writing is without vowels and seems palæographically to be not later than the second century. This is the oldest extant Bible manuscript ... It agrees at times with the Septuagint against the Massorah.​
As the BELIEVE website states:

"This version [the LXX], with all its defects, must be of the greatest interest:
  • as preserving evidence for the text far more ancient than the oldest Hebrew manuscripts;
  • as the means by which the Greek Language was wedded to Hebrew thought;
  • as the source of the great majority of quotations from the Old Testament by writers of the New Testament.
Despite all this, the content isn't in question. You won't get any great revelations comparing the different texts. The main difference is that Jesus was accepted as the messiah by Jews, and that it is their testimonies - among all messianic claimants and gnostic sects - that survived. The Sadducees didn't survive the destruction of the temple, so all Jews today share a Pharisaic legacy. If they didn't accept Christ then, using the same scriptures his followers used, they won't now. It's those same scriptures that are rejected today in favour of
 
Jenyar said:
It's possible that the first translations (the tradition one referred to by the Jews) wasn't the complete Hebrew Bible, but that's besides the point. There were plenty of reasons why a Greek Bible would be necessary, and lots of proof that it was finished by the time of Jesus.
...it was natural that the Alexandrian Jews, making use of the translated Pentateuch in their liturgical reunions, should desire to read the remaining books also and hence should gradually have translated all of them into Greek, which had become their maternal language; this would be so much the more likely as their knowledge of Hebrew was diminishing daily. It is not possible to determine accurately the precise time or the occasions on which these different translations were made; but it is certain that the Law, the Prophets, and at least part of the other books, that is, the hagiographies, existed in Greek before the year 130 B.C., as appears from the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, which does not date later than that year. - Catholic Encyclopedia​
Click to expand...

Would you also quote Catholic opinion about the church fathers, Mary, Catholic miracles? Why should this impress a Jew? However, I pretty much agree with you, and I think a Jew might also. Why does this mean anything? All it shows is that someone who knew Hebrew translated the books. It doesn't necessarily mean that it was an authorized translation, however.


Jenyar said:
There are a few points you can't ignore: Their world was Greek and Roman. The particular Greek dialect used in the Septuagint, koine dislektos, shows a Hebrew influence. That we can see this even today, means that we have versions that were originally written by people who spoke Hebrew. If they had been changed or were adapted, a more modern Greek would have been evident. Then there are the about 230 quotations in the New Testament, not counting indirect references (see The Septuagint in the New Testament). The Samaritans have always only accepted the Pentateuch, and "In about two thousand instances in which the Samaritan and the Jewish texts differ, the LXX agrees with the former." Philo and Josephus knew and quoted from it. They were Jewish scholars who wrote in Greek. I think it's safe to say that people use the language they wish to be understood in. "when in Rome..."
Click to expand...

The Jews say they translated the first 5 books, under duress pretty much (they didn't want to do it, I even read that it was under the penalty of death), and even translated it differently than verbatim in order for the non-Jews not to misconstrue what was written. That didn't seem to work very well, in their view. Sure, there were a lot of Greek speaking Jews, but just like now, do you rely on an English translation as the "ultimate authority" (because there are so many Christians who speak English and don't have a great knowledge of Hebrew and/or Greek), or would you believe the Greek and Hebrew texts are more accurate? I'm guessing the latter, unless you are a KJV only type person. ;)

Jenyar said:
A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era. - JewishEncylcopedia.com[/indent]
The following website has an Encyclopedic entry for the Septuagint.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is true that the whole Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era. That doesn't mean that orthodox Jews themselves were the ones who authorized it though, does it? For instance, if Mormons translated a Bible, would you call it a Christian translation? Do you have proof that the entire Septuagint was translated by Orthodox Jews? Or just merely people who knew Hebrew?

Jenyar said:
The amount of time that passed between then and now is irrelevant. If Christians relied on scripture to make their point, they had little reason to invent the quotation in order to make the interpretation their own. Of course Jews would prefer their own interpretations, especially on a site like "Jews for Judaism". However, I would like to know why their texts differ from the ones that were used for translating the Septuagint. They had no interest in maintaining other versions, but Christians did. As a matter of fact, it is still in active use by the Greek Orthodox church.
The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews... The translation, which shows at times a peculiar ignorance of Hebrew usage, was evidently made from a codex which differed widely in places from the text crystallized by the Masorah. - JewishEncyclopedia​
Keep in mind that this is in comparison with later manuscripts.
The earliest Hebrew manuscript is the Nash papyrus. There are four fragments, which, when pieced together, give twenty-four lines of a pre-Massoretic text of the Ten Commandments and the shema (Ex., xx, 2-17; Deut., v, 6-19; vi, 4-5). The writing is without vowels and seems palæographically to be not later than the second century. This is the oldest extant Bible manuscript ... It agrees at times with the Septuagint against the Massorah.​
As the BELIEVE website states:

"This version [the LXX], with all its defects, must be of the greatest interest:
  • as preserving evidence for the text far more ancient than the oldest Hebrew manuscripts;
  • as the means by which the Greek Language was wedded to Hebrew thought;
  • as the source of the great majority of quotations from the Old Testament by writers of the New Testament.
Despite all this, the content isn't in question. You won't get any great revelations comparing the different texts. The main difference is that Jesus was accepted as the messiah by Jews, and that it is their testimonies - among all messianic claimants and gnostic sects - that survived. The Sadducees didn't survive the destruction of the temple, so all Jews today share a Pharisaic legacy. If they didn't accept Christ then, using the same scriptures his followers used, they won't now. It's those same scriptures that are rejected today in favour of
Click to expand...


You can argue with them if you wish, I am merely presenting their point of view. They claim that the Christians themselves started to view the Septuagint was corrupt.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2226

From a post by Sophiee:

In the 3rd century BCE the Torah (Pentatuch: Five Books of Moses) was translated from Hebrew into Greek. Per Josephus, Philo of Alexandria and the Talmud ONLY the Torah was translated and that it was done by 70-72 learned Jews at the order of King Ptolemy.

The rest of the bible (Prophets and Writings) were NOT translated. This includes Isaiah and Proverbs.

Over the next 300 years the rest of the bible were translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translators are unknown. How educated they were in Hebrew or Greek is unknown. We assume they were Jews, but if they were (and we do not know for certain). The order of the books translated is unknown. . .in other words nothing IS known except the fact that translations were done prior to the common era.

Over time the Greek translations (now all called “Septuagint” after the 70 original translators of Torah, (even though they only translated the Five Books of Moses) became corrupted. The Jews stopped using it altogether and by the 3rd century CE the Xians themselves became very concerned at the corrupted nature of the Septuagint.

As a result the Xians stopped using the Septuagint by the 5th century, preferring to go back to the Hebrew original and re-translate it into other languages. Here are some statements by church leaders on the fact that the Septuagint as they knew it (and we know it today) is not reliable:

Origen, an early church father (circa 325 CE) tried to piece together a decent translation by putting 6 different versions side by side (called the Hexapla). Here is what HE says about how bad the Septuagint had become “

Quote:
we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery!” Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4.]


St. Jerome (early 5th century) decided to re-translate from the MT rather than rely on the Septuagint saying: Quote:
“I was stimulated to undertake the task by the zeal of Origen, who blended (the Septuagint) with the old edition Theodotion’s translation”


Sophiee’s note: So Jerome is saying that the “Septuagint” had already been blended with Theodotion’s translation by Origen.

Jerome continues in a letter Quote:
“the Seventy (aka Septuagint) have said more than is found in the Hebrew. But the asterisks indicate what has been added by Origen from the version of Theodotion. “


Sophiee’s note: This reconfirms that what was called the Septuagint by the 5th century CE was NOT the Septuagint as written 300 BCE. It had been highly modified by many . . .whether with good intentions or bad. My point is simply that the Septuagint is unreliable in its current state because we do not possess any copies of the original translation(s).

The website with the Jerome letters goes on to say “The copies of the Septuagint then widely available, according to Jerome, were actually Origen’s redaction - and perhaps the editorial symbols that would have allowed one to locate the true Septuagint reading were missing from many of the copies in the libraries. “

Origen’s reconstruction of the Septuagint was thought necessary, apparently, because of the diversity of readings in the many copies in circulation. In fact, in addition to Origen’s version, two other recensions of the Septuagint were prepared early in the fourth century: one by Lucian of Antioch, and the other by Hesychius of Egypt.

Now -- what does the quality (or lack thereof) have to do with the MT? All the Masoretes did was take the oral vocalization and create visual marks for them. In other words: the Masoretes changed NOTHING, they simply added punctuation for vocalizations.

And in another post:

More from Sophiee:


Here is another Origen quote on the lack of reliabiity of the Septuagint:

Quote:
“Again, through the whole of Job there are many passages in the Hebrew which are wanting in our copies, generally four or five verses, but sometimes, however, even fourteen, and nineteen, and sixteen. But why should I enumerate all the instances I collected with so much labor, to prove that the difference between our copies and those of the Jews did not escape me? “

“I marked with an asterisk those passages in our copies which are not found in the Hebrew. . . sometimes the meaning even does not seem to be akin? And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery!” Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4.]


And maybe even better for the fundies, the KJV discredits the Septuagint!

The preface to the original KJV.

Quote:
(The Septuagint) "It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? . . .

. . . the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews.

For not long after Chr*st, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known. [Epiphan. de mensur. et ponderibus.]

These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen.

. . .so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) . . . that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it. . .

But it is high time to leave them, and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. . . http://www.biblebelievers.com/PREF1611.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top