Featured The New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh

I am reading the Old Testament from beginning to end for the first time, using the New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh:

I am now at the Book of Isaiah. While the local Chabad rabbi recommended to me the Artscroll translation, which is more expensive, the local Conservative rabbi recommended the NJPS Tanakh. Orthodox rabbis seem to recommend the Artscroll translation more often, though Orthodox rabbis and scholars participated in the NJPS translation.

Unlike their 1917 translation, the new JPS Tanakh was entirely original and not based on any previous Christian translation. It's both relatively easy to read and accurate to the traditional Masoretic text. The Hebrew Bible is coming alive to me in a way I never imagined.

The word Tanakh is derived from the traditional threefold division of the Hebrew Bible, the Torah (law), Nevi'im (prophets), and Kethuvim (writings). In Luke 24:44, Jesus refers to this threefold division of the Hebrew canon.

A significant difference between the Hebrew Tanakh and Christian translations is that the Books of Chronicles are included at the very end, in order to summarize the story of the Hebrew Bible. In Christian versions, people often skip over the Books of Chronicles, thinking that it's just a repeat of the Books of Kings.

 

I think it depends on which verse one is speaking about. For example, "like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet" might be a more accurate rendering of the Masoretic text in Psalm 22:16, a verse which isn't quoted in the New Testament.

Also, the authors of the New Testament quoted from the Greek Septuagint, and the Hebrew text that the translators of the Septuagint used might have been different in certain verses than the Masoretic text. I don't believe the Jewish people deliberately perverted their own scriptures to remove messianic prophecies.

 

I can agree with you on that, but I also think the translators of the NJPS Tanakh tried to be as accurate as possible in translating the Masoretic text, and they even used non-Jewish sources in helping them make an accurate translation.

When I read Isaiah 53 in the NJPS Tanakh, for example, it's obvious to me that Isaiah is speaking about the sufferings of Christ. Rabbinic sources, however, have maintained for centuries that the Suffering Servant is symbolic of Israel's sufferings as a whole.

I think that both of these interpretations of Isaiah 53 can be true at the same time, just as Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:12-18 describe both the fall of Lucifer from heaven and the fall of historical, earthly kings:

 

Can you please provide some evidence?

 

Can you please explain the difference of meaning? Please keep in mind that the 1917 version was adapted from Christian translations, while the 1985 version was entirely new.

 

Yes, that's what I mean.