Talk:Messianic Bible translations

What About The New Messianic Version of the Bible?

Would this translation be worthy of adding to the main list? Link: http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Messianic-Version-Bible-ebook/dp/B00EPR3URE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.30.162 (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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).

Here we are again, Nov. 2012, with a new round of disagreements about what constitutes a Messianic Bible. There have been some repeated edits and reversals. How can we resolve this amicably? Shall we list here the versions in question, then discuss their features? We cannot simply keep reverting each other's edits. Peace to all. Pete unseth (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that a section on a translation from Aramaic has been inserted. What makes a translation from Aramaic specifically "Messianic"? I don't think Lamsa's was particularly Messianic? Help us think.Pete unseth (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I just removed it. There's no indication that it's notable as a Bible translation or that it's a Messianic translation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:17, 15 August 2013 (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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · 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). — Malik Shabazz (talk · 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. Fredeee (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Phil Goble • contribs) 09:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Fredee. I linked to that review above. I recommend that you review Wikipedia's guideline concerning conflicts of interest. I'm not saying whether you have a conflict in this instance, but as the author of the subject bible, you should exercise caution. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? One of my mentors was Ken Taylor, the translator of The Living Bible who also founded one of the largest Bible publishing companies in the world, Tyndale House Publishers in Wheaton, Illinois. Would Tim and the rest of you say that their Bible could not be listed here because they also have a not for profit arm that publishes their Bibles in foreign languages? Why strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? To be even-handed, why don't you take your microscope off of me and put it on the killer cult Yehovah Witnesses (bleeding to death Jehovah Witnesses are [or were] denied blood transfusions by their killer cult) that you have listed, whose non-Bible "Bible" you gratuitously seem to have no problems with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredeee (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredeee, for what it's worth, I've argued in favor of your translation being presented. Malik Shabazz was simply giving a friendly nudge regarding an entirely different subject: conflict of interest. Basically, it's like this -- even if your book belongs there, YOU aren't the one who's supposed to list it! I personally think that your book should be listed. I also think (another friendly nudge) that you really need some work with your webmaster. That site is... problematic. The formatting shouts at you (at the very least!). In any case, Wikipedia eventually gets around to noticing things that are out there.Tim (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredeee, I've toned down your entry. Please don't add links in other pages to that website until the formatting and subject matter become more encyclopedic. Right now, it's just a huge advertisement, and not a very artistic one at that.Tim (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ESV

I am surprised that the ESV is included in the category of being a Messianic translation. I guess it brings us again to "What is a Messianic translation?" One wiki-editor once even objected to my categorization of Heinz Cassirer's translation of the New Testament as being Messianic. I don't find the ESV to be particularly Messianic.

But there is a simpler issue: is this about the ESV or a specific edition with study notes. Whoever inserted this originally, did they mean the ESV text or the study edition? Some clarificatino of this would be helpful. Peaceably Pete unseth (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

From the sources that I reviewed that discuss the ESV and the ESV Study Bible, I found absolutely nothing that would make the think either text would be attractive to or used by MJs. Earlier today, I updated the article to reflect that finding. I am not an MJ myself and so I didn't think it would be right for me to remove the entry altogether, but if you have better knowledge about what MJs actually use, and you know that the ESV and/or the ESV Study Bible are not actually used by MJs, please go ahead and remove it from the article. Zad68 (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"Messianic Bibles" a problematical term

I and a few other editors have been improving an article called Sacred Name Bibles and was hoping to include some of these Bibles in that category. Sacred Name Bibles use the Name. The other point I would like to mention is that, a "Messianic Bible" is going to clash with a group called the Assemblies of Yahweh. They are called "Messianic Israelites" and so there might be an issue there as they could just as easily use the term "Messianic Bible" to describe the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. If someone could get back to me about the former point that would be brilliant! (SN_Movement) 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the Tree of Life Bible?

On Amazon I have seen this bible and reviews seemed to be comparing it to the Complete Jewish Bible. I think there's only a New Testament for it. This is my first talk and I don't really know how to properly edit stuff so it would be up to you guys to add it to the page if you deem it worthy. They have a website too: http://www.treeoflifebible.org/#!read-the-tlv/c1bs6 Learis (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@Learis: See

• YouVersion

1. Introduction
2. Genesis 1:1–3 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was chaos and waste, darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Ruach Elohim was hovering upon the surface of the water. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light!” and there was light.
3. John 3:16 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

• Michael L. Brown#With others

--Je suis Nigérian (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

We need to have the difference better explained and compared

I come here because I've been on a site that offer Messianic Bible, saying it corrects some mistakes of translation of English Bible. But what are the mistakes and the difference between them? For instance, is a Messianic Bible trinitary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:B894:712F:A1B7:285C (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Unpronounceable

Was the name originally unpronounceable? No. People pronounced it all the time, say, in the period when the Bible was written. Was the name later traditionally unpronounceable? Yes. Jewish tradition forbade pronouncing it. Did it later become actually unpronounceable? Sort of. The Masoretes in the middle ages put some vowels on it that are just ... not workable, so if one was just going by the name with the traditional nekudos one couldn't be sure how it was pronounced. Is it's pronunciation still unknown? The consensus of scholars is that it was Yahweh, and has been for over a century.

In that sense it's no more unpronounceable than the name Habakkuk. Was the name Habakkuk originally pronounced with a 'v' or 'b' sound on that second consonant? I dunno. But I wouldn't call it unpronounceable. So YHWH is unpronounceable in certain religious contexts but pronounceable in the sense that it can in fact be pronounced, or at the very least a well-supported scholarly reconstruction can be pronounced.

I would hope there is some better way to deal with this issue that just yanking the bare word "unpronounceable" in and out of an article. Alephb (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Alephb for intelligently dealing with the issue. First, as you highlight, there is a difference between not pronouncing a name and it being unpronounceable. People pronounce it all the time therefore it is not "unpronounceable." If one want's to say it is not pronounce correctly that is different but as it states (stated- I will correct it again and without consensuses it should not be reverted) it says that it is impossible to pronounce it, as if God will strike someone down who tries. Next, many Karaite Jews have continued to use God's Name for centuries, for example see Nehemia Gordon who says the pronucation was never lost and uses the name "Yehovah" not any 2 syllable construction that doesn't seem Semitic at all. However, to say it is unpronounceable is a theology position that has no biases in an encyclopedia. If one wishes to keep it then it must be in a quotation to show it is the theological stand of the writers or authors/translators of the TVL. Hope that helps. Johanneum (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Pronounce it however you'd like. I'm outta here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I've dealt with enough fringey stuff lately. Not touching that Nehemiah Gordon reference with a ten-foot pole. Alephb (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

English only?

In the lead section, the English language is specified as if it's part of the definition. Is it really intended that way? It seems to me that "translated into a modern language" would reasonably be a defining characteristic, thus excluding purely original-language publications - but I think if such a book were published in (for example) Spanish or Chinese, it ought to qualify. It may be true that all existing examples do happen to be in English, and I'm not arguing that point. I just doubt that English should define the category. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)