Talk:Messianic Bible translations

What do I consider a "Messianic Bible Translation"?

A Messianic Bible Translation can be defined as a translation of the Bible that is a) Produced by a Messianic Jewish translator/organization b)Translates the Tanakh based on the Masoretic text c) Does not contain antinomian translational renderings present in most Christian Bible translations, and USUALLY but not NECESSARILY d)Renders names and places in Hebraized format.

The "Hebrew Names" version of the World English Bible meets none but the fourth of the above criteria (which is not truly essential for a MJ translation) and is produced by a conventional Christian denominational organization, not a Messianic Jewish organization. Furthermore, although it does render original Hebrew names/places, it pronounces the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), which NO Messianic translations that I know of do, and which the majority of Messianics find objectionable or are at the very least uncomfortable with. The vast majority of Messianic Bible translations would meet all four criteria, and render the sacred Tetragrammaton as "Adonai" or "El<...>, not as a pronounced Yud-Heh-Vauv-Heh"

That is why I am removing it from this list. Thank you, and please raise any objections here. Noogster 01:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Great to know this, but if it is a common view (and not simply your view) perhaps this "definition" should be stated in the article. I'd like to avoid misunderstandings of article intent as happened at Jewish English Bible translations. Actually, I would like to see a list of "Jew-targeted" translations (e.g. WEB) as well. Do we need yet another article for this? I'm hoping not. I think it would be informative to put both there, with a section for messianic translations and another for translations that a non-messianic might consider messianic. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To further clarify my earlier comment: you say, "A Messianic Bible Translation can be defined as [...]", and you're right, it can be defined that way, but a plain reading of the title gives the impression of a broader definition. This is the point I was trying to make before; a plain reading by those "outside the circle" yields a different definition than what "insiders" would understand it to be. I think WP should appeal to both groups by including both types here, but denoting the distinction. Where else is a reader going to go to find translations like WEB:ME? The casual reader would certainly expect to find it right here. We certainly can create another article (indeed, the previous discussion precipitated this article) but how far do you split hairs? ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think putting the "Hebrew Names" version of the World English Bible and anything similar into a new article called Missionary Bible Translations would be very appropriate; there have been a tremendous number of such Bibles through history. I can pretty assuredly tell you that they don't belong in this Messianic Bible Translations article, though, because Messianic Bible translations are always produced by a Messianic translator/organization, and are generally produced primarily to serve the needs of Messianic congregations/synagogues and not as missionary outreaches. Noogster 01:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK...if you'd rather go that route. Can you suggest a better name, though? Any translation can be used by missionaries...often the point of the translation is to evangelize a new group of people. What about Jewish missionary bible translations? That's possibly confusing—is "Jewish" describing the evangelizer or the evanglized? This is partly why I suggested combining both here, but making the distinction between them. ⇔ ChristTrekker 05:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see no conflict with calling such an article Missionary bible translations, because it would be understood that such translations are made primarily for missionary purposes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noogster (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

A note about "contrary to Jewish tradition"

Quoted: but also employs the Hebrew יהוה‎ for the proper name of God throughout, contrary to Jewish tradition. Let's be very careful about phrasing this so as not to confuse uninitiated readers of this article. The four Hebrew letters Yud-Heh-Vauv-Heh simply being written on paper is not contrary to Jewish tradition (if you ever see "Adonai" or "HaShem" on a Torah scroll then the scroll is definitely not kosher), it is the attempted PRONUNCIATION of the Name that is. As far as I'm concerned they could be simply writing out (in unpointed Hebrew) what is already there in the Hebrew manuscripts in order to provide maximal theological leeway to those that are reading from the text. Noogster 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've presented a satisfactory verbal compromise. Noogster 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RSTNE and HRV Messianic Bibles

Someone might like to research a couple of other Messianic bible translations which are gaining wide circulation:

1. Restoration Scriptures True Name Edition (RSTNE) which is now running into its third edition. It is published by [Your Arms to Israel].

2. Hebraic-Roots Version (HRV) which uniquely seeks the Aramaic and Hebraic roots of the NT employing the Peshitta and other Syriac texts. It is published by the producers of the ISRV which appears in the main article [ISR] (Landau7 11:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

3. The Orthodox Jewish Bible which is written with a view to appealing to the Orthodox Hassidic community of New York and Israel [OJB] (Landau7 13:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC))NOTICE THAT SOME ENEMY OF THE GOOD NEWS HAS DELETED ALL TRACE OF THE OJB FROM THE MAIN ARTICLE.

4. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_society It should be noted that the editors of the Bible Society wikipedia article refuse to include the organization that publishes The Orthodox Jewish Bible but they are quite willing to list the killer cult that is notorious for forbidding blood transfusions to bleeding-to-death J.W. cult members. This tendentiousness shows a clear bias against Messianic translations and the editor(s) of the Bible Society article should be brought to accountabiltiy for what they are doing, INCLUDING the listing of a cult and EXCLUDING a messianic bible society, afii.org.]

Orthodox Jewish Bible

I am once again deleting the reference to the Orthodox Jewish Bible and the section it supports. The link to orthodoxjewishbible.org does not establish notability. Before this section can be re-added notability must be established through reliable sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing that needs to be determined is if the thing really exists. I guess checking Amazon would be enough (you don't need to buy it). I agree that the web site is bunk. Bear in mind that "notable" is relative. Messianism is pretty small to begin with!Tim (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that the thing exists. I've seen it at amazon by looking around at some of the deleted links. But amazon is usually not an acceptable source and the mere fact that it's in print doesn't establish notability. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm -- well, the problem is that Messianic Judaism is so small that I've seen people that it isn't notable at all! I agree that we can't list every book on the planet, but this is a limited little puddle. I doubt they'll ever have more translations than we can handle on a small page. I'd suggest including it... but I wouldn't fight over it. Just my barely nudging vote...Tim (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The section has been re-added. This time I will leave it alone and ask that the editor adding the material come here and explain himself. Since I can find no reliable sources that mention the OJB, I maintain that it should not be included in the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. You've got me curious about this thing, but I've seen nothing inspiring me to pull out a credit card. Now, if it promised to bring me some money from Nigeria... well, THAT would be interesting...Tim (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on notability, I'll point out that I found a review of the OJB here. The other Google hits appear to be copies of the bible, links to the bible, or lists of bibles. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I saw a number of favorable reviews on Amazon. So, the target audience appears to like it. I would definitely favor keeping it in. Again, let's look at the context here. This isn't a notable book in the general world. But in the microcosm of Messianics this is one of the small translations/paraphrases tailor made to them. If I were a Messianic, I'd find it notable.Tim (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviews on Amazon are not reliable sources. Are you kidding? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding. The book itself isn't getting it's own article. Here's the rub -- I actually DON'T think it's notable enough for an argument. But neither are most of the other Bible translations out there. There's a hip hop Bible, for gosh sakes! And the Cotton Patch Bible. Are they going to get critical scholarly praise? Of course not. What's notable is that it's a Bible that's Messianic (which isn't so notable in the grand scheme of things, but IS for that tiny spec of a population that wants it). I would bet that it had more sales last year than the Cotton Patch Bible, and I do find that little treasure notable enough to stick in a Wiki-niche somewhere. Well, this is a teeny tiny little niche. WITHIN that niche it's notable. Beyond that, probably not. But yanking it out of here is almost a statment against the existence of this entire article -- and THAT I would argue for.

To give an analogy, there are twelve little bitty gold fish, and one bitty baby gold fish. In the ocean, not significant. But in a glass of water... might as well mention it before someone drinks it...Tim (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tim on one point. If every one of the bibles mentioned in Jewish English Bible translations or Modern English Bible translations had to satisfy WP:Notability (books), those articles would be decimated. To me, the fact that the OJB was reviewed in an independent publication raises its presence in this article to a level higher than link-spam.

But I vehemently disagree that the reviews at amazon.com have any value. Steven is right; they're not WP:RS, nor are they "non-trivial published works" per WP:Notability (books). — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the reviews have no value. I was just trying to verify the book even existed. The link Steve gave me was misspelled garbage -- seriously. It looked like a Nigerian money scam, it was so bad. The only thing Amazon is good for is: "Does the thing even exist?" Okay, so we have on record that it's in the market. I wasn't verifying NOTABILITY. I was just trying to make sure it wasn't a puff of smoke.Tim (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the translator of the Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB). As to its notability see this review http://www.lcje.net/bulletins/2003/72/72_05.html by the Lausanne people. The editor of all of my books, Donald McGavran, was Billy Graham's choice for Key Note Speaker of the historic Lausanne Conference in 1974 if by chance you don't know what "Lausanne" is all about. I would respectfully ask that you keep the OJB in since many messianics use it.