Masoretic text as a translation

[normansimonr]

Hello there.

Some days ago I had the chance to read some parts of Tanakh Ram, the recent translation of the Tanakh into Modern Hebrew (actually I didn't understand much, since I'm still a beginner in both Biblical and Modern Hebrew ), and an idea came up.

So, Tanakh Ram is a targum that translates the Hebrew of the masoretes into Modern Hebrew. But isn't the masoretes' text a translation from Biblical Hebrew into Medieval (or masoretic) Hebrew? Does such a statement make sense?

I say that because as some people have pointed out here, the original biblical texts didn't contain vowel points nor accents and, to a large extent, I suppose, what we call the masoretic text is the interpretation the Medieval Jewish scholars gave to the texts they were reading.

Certainly I'd find the masoretic pointing system quite useful when reading the Tanakh, just as a modern Israeli would find it useful to read the Aleppo Codex along with the Tanakh Ram's text. But neither the Tanakh Ram, nor the Aleppo Codex, nor the Leningrad Codex are actual original texts, they might be thought as translations, even though they're all in Hebrew... Well, I'm not so sure, it's just an idea that came to my mind. What it would imply is that when reading the text one shouldn't stick too rigidly to the niqqud's interpretation and instead weigh it just as we weigh the Septuagint or the Vulgate. What do you think?

[Mark Lightman]

But isn't the masoretes' text a translation from Biblical Hebrew into Medieval (or masoretic) Hebrew? Does such a statement make sense?

It doesn't make sense to me. The most you could say is that the Masoretic text is a version of the Hebrew text. If someone else wanted to repoint the text, that would be another version, not a translation.

So, Tanakh Ram is a targum that translates the Hebrew of the masoretes into Modern Hebrew.

I would prefer to call it an intra-lingual version, like Bambas' Katharevousa version of the Greek NT, or Gaza's Koine paraphrase of the Iliad.

Some days ago I had the chance to read some parts of Tanakh Ram, the recent translation of the Tanakh into Modern Hebrew...

Where did you read it? Are excerpts available on line? Where can one buy it?

[kwrandolph]

I say that because as some people have pointed out here, the original biblical texts didn't contain vowel points nor accents and, to a large extent, I suppose, what we call the masoretic text is the interpretation the Medieval Jewish scholars gave to the texts they were reading.

The consonants are the best copies they had of the original text. That part is not an interpretation, rather just what was originally written (or as close as was then possible).

Only the points are an interpretation, or commentary, added to the original text.

I personally prefer to read the consonantal text without the points, the commentary.

Certainly I'd find the masoretic pointing system quite useful when reading the Tanakh, just as a modern Israeli would find it useful to read the Aleppo Codex along with the Tanakh Ram's text. But neither the Tanakh Ram, nor the Aleppo Codex, nor the Leningrad Codex are actual original texts, they might be thought as translations, even though they're all in Hebrew... Well, I'm not so sure, it's just an idea that came to my mind. What it would imply is that when reading the text one shouldn't stick too rigidly to the niqqud's interpretation and instead weigh it just as we weigh the Septuagint or the Vulgate. What do you think?

The Septuagint and Vulgate are translations into other languages. Whereas the Masoretes tried to keep the consonantal text original, the same can’t be said of these translations.

I don’t know modern Israeli Hebrew. What I’ve seen on this list, is that knowledge of modern Israeli Hebrew seems to hurt one’s ability to internalize Biblical Hebrew. So unless you have need to know modern Israeli Hebrew, such as living in Israel, I would not recommend learning it if your purpose is to read and understand Bible. Just my 2¢.

Karl W. Randolph.

[normansimonr]

Thanks for your thoughts, Karl and Mark. Maybe the boundary between translation and commentary is not that well-defined at the end of the day, but yes, I agree with you that the masoretic text is more reliable than the Septuagint and the Vulgate, just because the masoretes tried to keep the consonantal text unaltered.

Mark, the Tanakh Ram is a series of four books, of which only two have been published so far. In my case, a friend of mine who lives in Israel bought them and sent them to me. As far as I know, they're not in Amazon but only in Yediot Books. See this Wikipedia entry for a bit more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh_Ram

Actually I'm learning Modern Hebrew just for pleasure, and these books help me lots to understand both BH and MH a bit better. Thanks!

[Mark Lightman]

I don’t know modern Israeli Hebrew.

Hi, Karl. Can you understand this?

מלאה העת וקרבה מלכות אלהים. שובו בתשובה והאמינו בבשורה

[kwrandolph]

I don’t know modern Israeli Hebrew.

Hi, Karl. Can you understand this?

מלאה העת וקרבה מלכות אלהים. שובו בתשובה והאמינו בבשורה

“The time is full (filled) and near is the reigning of God. Turn in the return (“return” usually used in the context of the annual cycle) and trust in the report.”

Is this of what you were thinking when you wrote the above? It sounds sort of awkward.

Or were you thinking more along the lines of:

באה העת לגשת ממלכת אלהים. שובו נא מרעתך והאמינו באמרתו.

Karl W. Randolph.

[S_Walch]

I do believe that שובו בתשובה is Modern Israeli for "Repent", and בשורה is Good news/Gospel.

I think it means "The time is complete, and has approached/is near the kingdom of God. Repent, and trust in the Gospel."

After reading that, I'm going to assume that this is from a Modern Hebrew translation of the New Testament Gospel of Mark (1:15 to be exact)

[Mark Lightman]

Yes, the passage that I asked Karl about is Mk 1:15 from the Bible Society in Israel's Modern Hebrew New Testament.

http://www.kirjasilta.net/hadash/

Reading it, and comparing it to the versions of Shem Tov, Delitsch, Salkinson-Ginsburg and Lindsey is one way to answer the question for oneself of how different Biblical Hebrew is from the modern language. That Tanahk Ram diglot, if it is a diglot, would be another.

[kwrandolph]

Yes, the passage that I asked Karl about is Mk 1:15 from the Bible Society in Israel's Modern Hebrew New Testament.

http://www.kirjasilta.net/hadash/

I suspected as much.

While I have never studied modern Israeli Hebrew, I’m not 100% ignorant of it. I know it has a tense based verbal system. I know its pronunciation is largely based on German (Yiddish) pronunciation of medieval Hebrew. And I had heard others use the modern word תשובה used in the sense of repentance, so that was the clue that made me recognize the sentence. However, I decided to respond according the Biblical Hebrew meanings, and gave a possible Biblical Hebrew translation of the verse.

Don’t ask me to read a modern Israeli newspaper—I tried, and was completely lost. I can understand a Yiddish newspaper, even though I never studied Yiddish.

Even Mishnaic Hebrew sometimes (often?) doesn’t make sense to me.

There’s an advantage to not knowing other versions of Hebrew, nor other cognate languages, and that is that I can react to Hebrew without having to filter it through “is this modern, medieval, Mishnaic or Biblical Hebrew?” and similar questions. This is especially helpful for me as a dyslexic, so I can recognize when I misread a sentence, without having consciously think things through. I can just react.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

What peaked my interest was the use of a cognate accusative שובו בתשובה. I found it intriguing that modern Hebrew still uses a classic feature from ancient Hebrew.

Jonathan Mohler