spin

Do you know exactly who the translator is and what his other works include? No, of course not.

Perhaps you can show some evidence for this claim in Garcia Martinez's writings.

Whatever.


spin

yummyfur

Actually it's you who are lucky, I almost didn't give my info because you were so rude. It seems you are actually uninterested in why someone might prefer other translations over Vermes, and just want to score some kind of point or something.

Despite that I'll tell you why, In the original post you put up by spin, he recommends other translations over Vermes', that's it, that's all he said. The only qualification one needs to recommend a book or not, is to have read it, nothing else is needed. You don't have to take someones recommendation, if you don't want to, it's not like spin said "all copies of Vermes book should be burned".

Sometimes when one recommends a book(or translation) over others, it's not because one is terrible, merely the others are better, or better for the purposes intended. For example I would not recommend Robert Graves translation of Seutonius to someone interested in seriously studying Roman History. Not because it is horrible, but it was written with a wider audience in mind and therefore glosses over problems in the text and makes interpretations beyond the text, for the benefit of easier reading.

Do I think Robert Graves is an idiot because of this? No, his translation is inappropriate for scholars, as I think he himself admitted, because he wrote for a general audience. The same is true of Vermes, he was going for readability, so he didn't do a literal translation, because this requires the reader to do some work, or have or get some background knowledge. The problem is that non-literal translations require the translators bias on how to interpret certain complex ideas to enter into the translation, this especially true where lacuna exist(or variant readings exist) in the text in question, and the translator decides to interpret what they think belongs there, so that the text is readable. If a translation is fairly literal, one doesn't have to be as concerned about the translators biases coming into play. Though the reader might end up in situations where they say "what the hell does that mean?!", this is not a problem for someone seriously studying the text, but someone who just wants a quick and easy read, they might be frustrated.

Even if one agrees with a translators biases, a scholar would usually prefer a fairly literal translation over such a work. Most non-scholars, who just want a quick romp through a text, prefer non-literal translations, despite their biases. Actually, I should say, most scholars prefer to get as many translations as they can afford

PS. Mention was made of Martinez being originally in Spanish, considering Vermes is not a native speaker or writer of English, I'm not sure it's that important. Martinez also documents variant readings.

austin2

I saw the Scrolls the last time I was in Israel.

when did you see them?

and yummyfur...

I did ask spin why he preferred Martinez over Vermez...he never answered

you seem to be his agent? you answer for him?

he has chosen ad hominem

that actually, makes me think he has another agenda

Christian scholars would tend to see Jewish writing through a Christian prism, and that often determines the 'literal' translation

(the famous one...Christians translate the Hebrew, almah, as virgin, to describe the mother of the messiah, whereas almah is always translated as young woman in the far older Jewish tradition. Virgin birth being a pagan norm, anethema to Jewish teaching. Similarly Jews consider G-d "our Father" and Jews are "children of G-d" so saying one is the "son of G-d" does not mean divine in Jewish understanding.

Only early Romans and pagans would think that meant divine. So 'literal' translations can often be misleading. Given the history of the church claiming to superceed Judiasm and be the 'new Israel' there is a great deal at stake for Christians regarding control of the scrolls and their translation. Surely you are aware of the history of the scrolls ?)

I agree with you regarding more translations are better.

really?

and asking someone WHY one translation is better, and the basis for this recommendation, is rude?

spin

Not much to see. There are no originals on display.

Martinez lets fewer of his presuppositions intrude.

Does the truth have to be ad hominem. You have persisted in posting on threads about things other than BC&H.



You are back to irrelevance.

If you had been here longer than five minutes you'd know that no-one gets sympathy here, giving christianizing interpretations.

Most scholars primarily dealing with the scrolls show no interest in christianizing interpretations of them. There are a few foamers who push chistian agendas but they are mainly seen as fundies. Then there are a few fringe loonies.

The tone is.


spin

Amaleq13

I got the impression he felt yummyfur provided a sufficient answer.

Actually, he seemed to me to be responding to your comment (ie "eveb Spin can't speak for Spin").

Nope but making a comment suggesting an individual is incapable of defending his opinion is probably not the best way to engage that individual in a discussion.

If you are hinting that spin has some sort of bias favoring Christian translations/interpretations, you are not only barking up the wrong tree you are in the wrong forest and possibly the wrong continent.