Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoyJuice · 10-07-2003, 04:52 AM

Does anyone out there know of a Hebrew to English Bible that leaves the names El, Elohim and Elyon in it's orginal form?

..Or what is the most accurate Hebrew to English translated Tanach?

Thanks

Nectaris · 10-07-2003, 06:49 AM

The New Jerusalem Bible uses "Yahweh" or "Yahweh God" for Priestly and Yahweh texts--I think, while, I think, "God" is used for Elohimist texts. Some day I'll go through with Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? , and compare--it's just not high on my list of priorities.

livius drusus · 10-07-2003, 06:50 AM

I think this will be deftly handled by the denizens of our BC&H forum. Welcome to IIDB, alkech.

CX · 10-07-2003, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by alkech
Does anyone out there know of a Hebrew to English Bible that leaves the names El, Elohim and Elyon in it's orginal form?

..Or what is the most accurate Hebrew to English translated Tanach?

Thanks

There's an excellent resource on the web called: Hebrew Bible in English

Secular Pinoy · 10-07-2003, 05:37 PM

I just finished Freidman's book two days ago, it was very well written and mostly persuasive. I'd like to see a bible where the J,E, P, D and R texts are color coded so that I would know when one writer ends, and another one begins.

Celsus · 10-08-2003, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
I just finished Freidman's book two days ago, it was very well written and mostly persuasive. I'd like to see a bible where the J,E, P, D and R texts are color coded so that I would know when one writer ends, and another one begins.

This won't happen because E is obsolete. Many scholars (e.g. Van Seters, Blenkinsopp) feel that J and E are inextricably tangled together. Also, I'm glad you read Friedman, but the journey certainly doesn't end there. I am currently working on something on the demise of the Documentary Hypothesis, but it won't be up for a good few months owing to real-life commitments.

Joel

Nectaris · 10-08-2003, 07:28 AM

Joel, if you don't mind a few questions:

You stated:

Quote:

This won't happen because E is obsolete. Many scholars (e.g. Van Seters, Blenkinsopp) feel that J and E are inextricably tangled together.

Are you suggesting that current Biblical scholarship is that E and J are actually one text or that they are so tangled up together any distinction between the two is impossible? Or is there something I'm missing here?

Also:

Quote:

I am currently working on something on the demise of the Documentary Hypothesis

Are you suggesting that there are more sources, less sources, only one source or something different? I'm just curious by what you mean by the demise. Wouldn't any other approach have to take some of the proposals of the DH into account in explanation of the newer ideas? I realize you're working on this as a project, so you may not want to answer any questions until you're finished with it.

Dave

Secular Pinoy · 10-08-2003, 10:23 AM

Sure, the journey never ends, but owing to the fact that "higher criticism" books are almost never sold here (I got mine in a used book shop), Friedman's would be where I will stay for a while, unless I get access to more books or SHORT online articles (my sensitive eyes!), or when you finish your project and post it here. Oh, and I'd like to see your responses to Nectaris' thoughtful questions.

Sheshbazzar · 10-08-2003, 06:01 PM

I suggest using a search engine for "Assembly of Yahweh", you will find a multitude of links, many of these congregations have produced Bibles with the original Name and titles carefully restored, The one that I use and am most familiar with is "The Holy Name Bible" published by The Scripture Research Association, (this is an English only version, very similar in wording and format to the King James, allowing for easy side by side comparision) I obtained my copy from "The Assembly of Yahweh" in Eaton Rapids, MI . It is my understanding that they now have a revised modern English version available.
Another version I have used and distributed to friends is "The Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Version" produced by "The Assemblies of Yahweh" Bethel PA.
I have also seen several other Sacred Name versions at the Unity Conferences, but do'nt recall all their titles or origins.
Sheshbazzar, friend of YAHshua

Celsus · 10-09-2003, 02:04 AM

Hello Nectaris, and welcome to the forum.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nectaris
Are you suggesting that current Biblical scholarship is that E and J are actually one text or that they are so tangled up together any distinction between the two is impossible? Or is there something I'm missing here?

Inextricably tangled. One thing that earlier Documentarians missed out were repeated patterns in the literary structure that crossed over J and E. This meant that a redactor was far more influential on the text than previously thought. The second point was that no one could really agree which parts were J or E texts if Yahweh/Elohim wasn't cited, and generally used some extent of circular reasoning to solve this. R.N. Whybray noted that the use of J and E deity names was nowhere near as consistent as needed (despite the notable examples that are cited all the time), and so uniquely E texts turned out to have far less support than thought.

Quote:

Are you suggesting that there are more sources, less sources, only one source or something different? I'm just curious by what you mean by the demise. Wouldn't any other approach have to take some of the proposals of the DH into account in explanation of the newer ideas? I realize you're working on this as a project, so you may not want to answer any questions until you're finished with it.

No problems attempting an answer, but I'll defer to Blenkinsopp's comprehensive review (see the Recommended Reading & Reference). He concludes (after an excellent overview of the developments from Spinoza and Hobbes to Wellhausen to now):

Quote:

(1) There is no longer a consensus on the existence of identifiable, continuous narrative sources covering the entire range of the Pentateuch from the pre-exilic period. . . . There were those who, while content with an early date, rejected the standard JE source division and defended its substantial unity (Coats 1973; Donner 1976). Others accepted source division but dated the sources or strata to a later period (Redford 1970; H.-C. Schmitt 1980). Different again was the explanation of R.N. Whybray (1968), who read it as a sapiential composition from long after the time of Solomon, and that of A. Meinhold (1978), who aligned it with Esther as a diaspora Novelle [! --Celsus].

(2) Criticism of the standard paradigm has taken aim at the J source, and it is difficultto see how the hypothesis could survive its displacement to a much later date, a fortiori, its complete elimination.

[This is my favourite criticism of the Documentary Hypothesis in that J, with some rather strange exilic or post-exilic features (and the lack of knowledge of the narrative in pre-exilic texts) cannot be combined with an ancient, anomalous E, yet the tangle between J and E is very plain in many instances]

(3) The tendency to lower dating, strongly in evidence in recent writing, is not without its problems. To an uncomfortable extent it has to rely on an argumentum e silentio or, as Whybray put it, on the principle that what is not positively known to be early must be late. . . . It also puts those who deny the existence of early sources under obligation to fill the vacuum left in the pre-exilic period by their displacement, in other words, to provide an alternate account of the development of the tradition in either oral or written form or both. Few of the proponents of late dating have as yet addressed this issue.

[This conclusion works in favour of the traditional Documentary Hypothesis]

(4) Much less attention has been paid in recent years to the other documents postulated by the hypothesis. We have seen that E has long been problematic, and there is no longer much enthusiasm for retaining it.

[He goes on to mention D standing easily apart, and P having withstood criticism.]

(5) . . . The entire issue of the relation between law and narrative still remains to be clarified.

The Pentateuch, 1992, Anchor Doubleday, pp. 25-27

I hope that briefly answers the question about what is happening to the sources now. JEDP are still extremely useful for getting into the whole topic, but one quickly realises that E will not stand up to scrutiny, J appears late, and P holds the narrative framework together in its toledot (generations/genealogy) structure.

Joel

10-07-2003, 04:52 AM	#1
JoyJuice Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Beautiful Downtown Tacoma Posts: 370	Bible translation Does anyone out there know of a Hebrew to English Bible that leaves the names El, Elohim and Elyon in it's orginal form? ..Or what is the most accurate Hebrew to English translated Tanach? Thanks

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2003, 06:49 AM	#2
Nectaris Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 855	The New Jerusalem Bible uses "Yahweh" or "Yahweh God" for Priestly and Yahweh texts--I think, while, I think, "God" is used for Elohimist texts. Some day I'll go through with Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? , and compare--it's just not high on my list of priorities.

10-07-2003, 06:50 AM	#3
livius drusus Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Selva Oscura Posts: 4,120	I think this will be deftly handled by the denizens of our BC&H forum. Welcome to IIDB, alkech.

10-07-2003, 05:37 PM	#5
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	I just finished Freidman's book two days ago, it was very well written and mostly persuasive. I'd like to see a bible where the J,E, P, D and R texts are color coded so that I would know when one writer ends, and another one begins.

10-08-2003, 10:23 AM	#8
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	Sure, the journey never ends, but owing to the fact that "higher criticism" books are almost never sold here (I got mine in a used book shop), Friedman's would be where I will stay for a while, unless I get access to more books or SHORT online articles (my sensitive eyes!), or when you finish your project and post it here. Oh, and I'd like to see your responses to Nectaris' thoughtful questions.

10-08-2003, 06:01 PM	#9
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	I suggest using a search engine for "Assembly of Yahweh", you will find a multitude of links, many of these congregations have produced Bibles with the original Name and titles carefully restored, The one that I use and am most familiar with is "The Holy Name Bible" published by The Scripture Research Association, (this is an English only version, very similar in wording and format to the King James, allowing for easy side by side comparision) I obtained my copy from "The Assembly of Yahweh" in Eaton Rapids, MI . It is my understanding that they now have a revised modern English version available. Another version I have used and distributed to friends is "The Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Version" produced by "The Assemblies of Yahweh" Bethel PA. I have also seen several other Sacred Name versions at the Unity Conferences, but do'nt recall all their titles or origins. Sheshbazzar, friend of YAHshua

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.