TANAKH תנ״ך

Why write about Tanakh in a Christian site? We have to remember that Jesus came as a Jew. Ministered to Jewish people. And the authors of most of the books in our Bible were Jewish. Not to mention, “our” Old Testament is Jewish Scripture – Tanakh. Therefore, we cannot fully understand what our own Scripture said without also understanding its roots.

TANAKH תנ״ך

I’ve been including Jewish culture, history, and points of view for several years now. I’m starting to use Tanakh in a series that’ll go through creation in Genesis. Hopefully further. In any case, now that I’ve begun to use it, I expect it will show up in other places as well.

In order to explain something about it, the following are excerpts from – Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, Jewish Publication Society. (1985).

This translation of Tanakh, the Holy Scriptures, produced by the Jewish Publication Society, was made directly from the traditional Hebrew text into the idiom of modern English. It represents the collaboration of academic scholars with rabbis from the three largest branches of organized Jewish religious life in America. Begun in 1955, the ongoing translation was published in three main stages: The Torah in 1962, The Prophets (Neviʾim) in 1978, and The Writings (Kethuvim) in 1982. These three volumes, with revisions, are now brought together in a complete English Tanakh (Torah-Neviʾim-Kethuvim), the latest link in the chain of Jewish Bible translations.  1Jewish Publication Society. (1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (p. xv). Jewish Publication Society.


Alongside the close, literal method of Bible translation, the earliest Jewish translators were also influenced by the widely held view that, along with the Written Law (torah she-biktav), God had given Moses on Mount Sinai an Oral Law (torah she-beʿal peh) as well; so that to comprehend God’s Torah fully and correctly, it was essential to make use of both. Thus, when a translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Judeo-Arabic vernacular was deemed necessary for Jewry in Moslem countries toward the end of the first millennium, the noted philologian, philosopher, and community leader Saadia Gaon (882–942) produced a version that incorporated traditional Jewish interpretation but was not based on word-for-word translation; at the same time, it was a model of clarity and stylistic elegance. The present version is in the spirit of Saadia.

With the growth of Christianity in the first century, the Church adopted the Septuagint as its Bible, and the Septuagint was translated into the languages of the various Christian communities. As Greek began to give way to Latin in the Roman Empire, it was only a matter of time before a Latin translation of Scripture became the recognized Bible of the Church. The Church father Jerome (c. 340–420) produced the official Latin version. Drawing on Jewish tradition and consulting Jewish teachers, he achieved what came to be known as the Vulgate, the Bible in the language of the common people. The Vulgate, the Bible of European Christianity until the Reformation, is clearly the most significant Bible translation after the Septuagint.

With the rise of Protestantism in Europe, scholars within this movement set themselves the task of making the Bible available in the various vernaculars of the time. By 1526 the first parts of two notable translations began to appear: Martin Luther’s in German and William Tyndale’s in English. The latter, by way of several subsequent revisions, became the King James Version of 1611. The more modern English versions—such as The Holy Scriptures by the American rabbi Isaac Leeser (1855), the (British) Revised Version (1881–1885), the American Standard Version (1901), the Jewish Publication Society’s The Holy Scriptures (1917), and the (American) Revised Standard Version (1952)—made extensive use of the King James.  2Jewish Publication Society. (1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (pp. xvi – xvii). Jewish Publication Society.


The present English rendering of Kethuvim, like Torah and Neviʾim, is based on the traditional Hebrew text—its consonants, vowels, and syntactical divisions—although the traditional accentuation occasionally has been replaced by an alternative construction. Following the approach of the original committee, the entire gamut of biblical interpretation, ancient and modern, Jewish and non-Jewish, has been consulted, and, whenever possible, the results of modern study of the languages and cultures of the ancient Near East have been brought to bear on the biblical text. In choosing between alternatives, however, just as antiquity was not in itself a disqualification, so modernity was not in itself a recommendation. Divergences of the present translation from recent renderings reflect the committee’s judgment that certain innovations, though interesting, are too speculative for adoption in the present state of knowledge. The as yet imperfect understanding of the language of the Bible, or what appears to be some disorder in the Hebrew text, makes sure translation of many passages impossible. This uncertainty in Kethuvim is indicated in a note; and, where the Hebrew text permits, alternative renderings have been offered. However, emendations of the text of Kethuvim—except for the five Megilloth—were not proposed, and notes were kept to a minimum.

Some passages in Kethuvim are identical or very similar to passages in Torah and Neviʾim. The rendering of these passages in Kethuvim generally follows the wording in the earlier books; on occasion, however, owing to various considerations, divergences in style and translation will be found. For example, in the presentation of the poetry of the Psalms, it was deemed fitting, because of their liturgical use, to indicate the thought units through appropriate indentation. The text of Kethuvim frequently presented the translators with extraordinary difficulties, for it is hardly possible to convey in English the fullness of the Hebrew, with its ambiguities, its overtones, and the richness that it carries from centuries of use. Still, it was their goal to transmit something of the directness, the simplicity, and the uniquely Israelite expressions of piety that are so essential to the sublimity of the Hebrew Bible.

The committee’s translation of The Psalms appeared in 1973; of The Book of Job, in 1980. The two were incorporated, with revisions, into the complete translations of The Writings (Kethuvim), which appeared in 1982.

For this one-volume edition of Tanakh, the translation of The Torah, first published twenty years earlier, has undergone more revision than the more recent publications of The Prophets and The Writings. A number of the changes had already been projected in Notes on the New Translation of the Torah, edited by Harry M. Orlinsky and published by the Society in 1969. Subsequent research on the text has led to further revisions in the translations of Torah and some revisions in Neviʾim as well.  3Jewish Publication Society. (1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (pp. xx – xxi). Jewish Publication Society.


There’s one thing in particular I want to point out:

Following the approach of the original committee, the entire gamut of biblical interpretation, ancient and modern, Jewish and non-Jewish, has been consulted, and, whenever possible, the results of modern study of the languages and cultures of the ancient Near East have been brought to bear on the biblical text. In choosing between alternatives, however, just as antiquity was not in itself a disqualification, so modernity was not in itself a recommendation. Divergences of the present translation from recent renderings reflect the committee’s judgment that certain innovations, though interesting, are too speculative for adoption in the present state of knowledge.

I know there are some people who object to applying more modern thought to anything that’s written in the Bible. But I believe there’s a problem if we don’t apply modern knowledge. At least, as long as it’s real knowledge and not the stuff we get lately ranging from hearsay to conspiracy theories to outright lies.

God gave us a brain. God also brought us, in many ways, from children to adults. Although, I must say the idea of us actually reaching maturity seems to be moving backward lately. In any case, God did give us knowledge. He gave us the ability to be more. dare I say, civilized – even if we don’t always choose to act that way.

Because of the progress we’ve made over thousands of years, the better understanding we have of the science that describes to us the things God created and how our world is what it is, it’s only natural that our understanding of the words/concepts in the Bible would also increase.

However, that’s not to say God’s laws of what’s right and wrong, pleasing and detestable, etc. have changed or will change. God isn’t changing. God hasn’t changed. It’s us who are changing, sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

But our understanding of God should be changing. Growing. Maturing. As Paul wrote, we should be moving from milk to solid food. Part of the milk is understanding the religion and culture of Biblical times. Part of the solid food is understanding the foundation of our beliefs, as Paul wrote.

But part of it is also applying the knowledge that God gave us to have an even better understanding, a stronger faith, and even more reason to follow the path that includes the things pleasing to the God who created us. At the same time, it also means leaving behind us the things we might like, but that are detestable to God.

After all, if our preference is for the things God tells us are not pleasing to Him, then our preference, by definition, is for things that will not be part of His Kingdom in the next life. By extension, that also means, if we insist on keeping our preferences for things not in His Kingdom, then we wouldn’t expect to be in His Kingdom either. Instead, we’ll be in the other place.

I pray that adding the Jewish roots of our own Christian faith will help us better understand God, as He really is, instead of the way we try to make Him in our own fallen image.

Hope to see you in Heaven,

chris


Image by Ri Butov from Pixabay


Footnotes

  • 1
    Jewish Publication Society. (1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (p. xv). Jewish Publication Society.
  • 2
    Jewish Publication Society. (1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (pp. xvi – xvii). Jewish Publication Society.
  • 3
    Jewish Publication Society. (1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (pp. xx – xxi). Jewish Publication Society.

Please leave a comment or ask a question - it's nice to hear from you.

Scroll to Top