Talk:Jewish English Bible translations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] new translations

there are many translations not metioned in the article, but i wonder if its worth putting them in (e.g. the Artscroll Rashi, Ramban, Ba'al HaTurim Chumashim), anyone who saw these editions will have to admit there are quite a few differences between them--Brl 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about Bible translations, not Bible commentary translations. If there are differences in different editions of Artscroll's translation, or if it has been republished in several editions, that can be noted in the Artscroll section.Dovi 06:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bilingual Editions

it should be noted that many of the orthodox translations are bilingual. this should be noted by each individual translation --Brl 03:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the "Complete Jewish Bible"

Dovi has removed the David Stern's Complete Jewish Bible from the list of translations for what he cites to be the following reasons: "1st minor vandalism. 2nd Christian translation".

The first reasons of "minor vandalism" is ludicrous; I made it clear that the Jewish community generally does not recognize that translation as legitimate, but that the translation self-identifies as Jewish, and was very NPOV in my approach, so it is very arrogant to attempt to classify my edit as any form of vandalism.

The accusation of "Christian translation" is at least as arrogant. Rav. Dr. David Stern's translation fell under the criteria in the article's introduction because it: 1. Was translated by a Jewish person with a Doctor's degree in religion 2. For the Tanakh, follows the traditional Torah, Neviyim, Ketuvim order 3. Uses the original Hebrew for the various existing names and places 4. Stern does not identify as a Christian 5. Whether or not is so accepted, it self-identifies as being Jewish 5. Includes a table of synagogue readings 6. Tanakh is mainly based off of the 1917 JPS translation 7. The entire purpose of his translation was to restore in full force the Jewish and Torah continuity of Biblical texts (which has always been there, less translation), and directly contrary to being yet another Christian Bible translation

For these reasons, I feel that there is no conflict of reason if I re-insert that portion of the article. Please state objections here. Noogster 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add Christian Bibles to the article on Jewish English Bible translations. If you want to add it to a special "Messianic Jewish Bible translations" article, feel free to. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This comes under the category of "who gets to define what a Jew is" that comes up so very often in the J-v-MJ debates. All of Noogster's points are valid—the CJB translation is very Jewish in general style for those reasons. None of those points can be factually refuted. I believe any objective editor would find absolutely no basis for removing the CJB from this list. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please note that I reverted the last two edits. The edit before you was "big nose" (or something silly like that), and that is what I was refering to. Not to your edit, which was well-meaning and certainly not vandalism. In fact, your very hesitance in the way you worded your contribution made it clear that you were trying to add to the article, and I never thought otherwise. Sorry for the confusion.

As to the matter at hand, I do disagree. Jewish translations do not include the New Testament. In fact, the whole motivation for the creation of the JPS 1917 translation was the need felt for a translation without Christological leanings (see the introduction). Isaac Leeser felt the same way. So a revision of the old 1917 JPS published along with the New Testament simply does not fit into the genre. Also, Jewish translations are only of the masoretic text, and do not include the New Testament.

As to using "the original Hebrew for the various existing names and places" -- most Jewish translations actually do not do this at all, but rather they use the normal Anglicized equivalents. (One major exception is the Koren Jerusalem Bible that I added today.) In fact, the use of such transliterations (e.g. "Moshe" instead of "Moses" within the translation) has actually become a hallmark of missionary work: Such Christian bibles are published with a supposed Jewish "flavor" given through these transliterations, in an effort to make a bible that includes Jesus more palatable to Jews. One example of this not-entirely-honest tactic by missionaries is the "Hebrew Names Version" of the World English Bible, which is openly trying to grant a Jewish-flavor bible to Jewish-Christian congregations. It is, by the way, a very fine translation, but by no means a Jewish one. Dr. Stern has done the same.

(By "missionary work" I mean what you call "messianic Judaism." I personally avoid using your term, because it is misleading: Judaism is messianic, but its messiah is not Jesus.)

To conclude: Since (1) all streams of Judaism do not recognize what some call "messianic Judaism" as Jewish; and (2) since the entire genre of Jewish Bible translations was conceived as an alternative to Bibles with Christological leanings (exegesis) or content (the New Testament), it is very reasonable to conclude that Dr. Stern's translation is not part of this genre. It should probably be listed along with the "Hebrew Names Version" of the World English Bible in Modern English Bible translations. Dovi 22:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Hebrew Names Version" - Your argument depends on the intent of the "translator". If the HNV is indeed merely a replacement job of the World English Bible (I've never seen it so I don't know) then your contention (that the "translator" is not being entirely honest) probably has merit. However, Stern makes it quite clear that the intent of the CJB is to provide a version that holistically conveys the Jewishness of all scripture. (Whether or not the New Testament "actually is" Jewish is not the subject of debate here. That's the claim, we here on WP simply decide how to write about it.) The result bears this out. It is not a "Judaified" version of a Christian translation. It is an entirely new work by a Jewish person, with Jewish sensibilities in mind, for use in synagogues by Jewish people. Noogster's way of addressing the concerns was very fair. You may disagree with the theology, but you cannot disagree that it is a Jewish translation. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The HNV is simply a replacement job for the WEB. Whether the Christian New Testament is part of Jewish Scripture is very much the subject of the debate here. The genre of Jewish Bible translations is governed by the Jewish canon, which for nearly two millenium has been the masoretic text precisely, nothing more and nothing less. No synagogue of any Jewish denomination has ever defined the Bible differently, and it is this definition that gave rise to the genre of Jewish translations that this article lists and describes, along with the desire to avoid Christological content. So yes, Jews of every denomination can disagree that it is a Jewish translation.
You can personally disagree with the statement that Christological content is not Jewish, and as a Christian you may be tempted to do so, but you cannot disagree with the fact that bible translations produced by all Jewish denominations treat it as such. It is these translations that the article is about.Dovi 19:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, Dovi's assertion that "the use of such transliterations (e.g. "Moshe" instead of "Moses" within the translation) has actually become a hallmark of missionary work" is contrary to the statement in English translations of the Bible#Jewish translations that "distinctive features of Jewish translations ... include ... a tendency to prefer transliterated instead of Anglicised names." In my experience, though, I have seen transliterations limited to the names of the books of the Bible and rarely to the names of people and places in the text. (I also am most familiar with JPS and NJPS, and much less familiar with the Orthodox translations.)
However, one of the quirks of some recent Orthodox Jewish translations has been the translation of the various names of God as HaShem (where JPS and NJPS use "God," "Lord," "God of Hosts," etc.). — Malik Shabazz | Talk 20:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You are of course right, and that should be changed because most of the translations simply don't do that. I am also struck by the Artscroll "Hashem" as a "quirk" (in comparison to other translations). But they don't transliterate other names.Dovi 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
To me, anyway, this goes straight to the question of who is a Jew? (as I mentioned above)—or a variation of it. Even if the CJB is not religiously Jewish (by a law of rabbinic Judaism against mentioning Jesus), it certainly is culturally Jewish. We can discuss which sense we are classifying a scripture translation as Jewish, and we can discuss whether or not the messianic take on Judaism "really is" Judaism. Mainstream Judaism may not like the theology presented by the Apostolic writings, but the fact remains that there are people who claim to be Jews who believe they do have scriptural authority (thus making the CJB a true Jewish bible, not just a Jewish bible with other stuff tacked on), and the translation is certainly in a "Jewish" style. At the very least, it could be seen as a Jewish bible with a big appendix of non-scriptural material. To be intellectually honest and NPOV, the CJB fairly deserves mention. A disclaimer that the translation would not be accepted in most Jewish circles is certainly fair, and I believe Noogster's edit included something to that effect. ⇔ ChristTrekker 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me ask this, Dovi: If the Tanakh portion of the CJB were published by itself, would that be a "Jewish English Bible translation" by your definition? Just curious. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apocrypha / New Testament

I notice that there has been a little edit war over one sentence:
"Jewish translations don't contain the apocrypha or the New Testament." vs. "Jewish translations contain neither the books of the apocrypha nor the Christian New Testament."
I have two questions:
1) What is the difference between the two statements? Is it primarily the word "Christian", or is the word "neither" significant?
2) More importantly, does anybody have a source to back up the article's categorical assertion about what makes a translation a "Jewish translation"? By including that sentence, Wikipedia is stating that a volume that includes the JPS translation and the apocrypha is, ipso facto, not a Jewish translation. We're not talking about the laws of kashrut here, folks. Unless somebody can find a reference that makes a compelling argument that the inclusion of the apocrypha or the Greek Bible makes a Jewish translation treyf, I don't think we can keep the sentence in the article. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 07:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

1. There was no edit war, because I wrote both versions of that sentence :-). The only serious difference is style.
2. Jewish bible translations are translations of the Jewish biblical canon. The Jewish canon is the Masoretic Text. The masoretic text, unlike the Septuagint which served as the basis for the Christian Old Testament canon, does not contain the apocrypha. Nor does the masoretic text contain the books that Christians consider the New Testament. All of this is very common knowledge, but for a printed source one can consult the introductions to some of the earlier translations, such as the JPS 1917 version.
Newer versions, especially Orthodox ones, do not even bother stating this, because to them it is inconcievable that a Jewish translation would incorporate either Christian exegesis or any text not masoretic. They are usually issued in bilingual editions with the masoretic Hebrew on the right, such that in this case the facts speak louder than words. Nevertheless, "a translation of the masoretic text" is the basic definition of a Jewish translation even for non-Orthodox translations (see some of the discussions regarding the notes for textual emendations that took place during the production of the new JPS version). Dovi 18:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1) The page's history shows that you wrote the "contain neither" sentence, Noogster changed it to "don't contain", and Jayjg reverted it. Maybe "edit war" was too strong a term, but clearly the changes represent a disagreement between two or more editors.
2) I don't need somebody to explain to me what the masoretic text and the Septuagint are. My point is that a categorical statement in a Wikipedia article — even if it's "very common knowledge" — should come from a reliable source, and not because an editor stands on one foot and says it's so ("'a translation of the masoretic text' is the basic definition of a Jewish translation"). If it's so basic, adding a reference shouldn't be a problem; if it's a problem, that suggests it's not generally accepted and shouldn't be in the article.
3) I'm not taking sides in the CJB debate, but portions of the apocrypha are considered of value by many Jews. I dispute the idea that a Jewish Bible translation (such as the JPS) ceases to be a Jewish Bible translation because it is published with a translation of an apocryphal book as an appendix (Maccabees for example). — Malik Shabazz | Talk 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1. Thanks for refreshing my memory.
2. Fine, basic references to the idea appear in the intros and notes to both JPS translations. Digging up some other references shouldn't be too hard. So you've got references, and they can eventually be put into the article. If you really insist, you can add "citation needed" in the meantime. But in general, no one demands a proof that a Roman Catholic translation is of the Catholic canon, or that a Greek Orthodox translation is of the Orthodox canon. So why is there suddenly a demand for a source proving that a Jewish translation is of the Jewish canon? The reason this comes up now is not Wikipedia policy, but rather the promotional efforts of Jewish-Christians which caused the sentence you question to be written in the first place.
3. Just as you wrote, I am Jewish and I do indeed consider much of the apocrypha quite "valuable" for a number of reasons. That does not, however, mean that I consider it to be part of the bible. No Jewish denomination does. Bibles are also published with all sorts of commentaries and supplementary appendices, but that does not make these elements part of a biblical canon. That the Jewish canon is the masoretic text need not be documented here, but can be dealt with in the numerous articles dealing with mesorah, masoretes, manuscripts, publishing of the Hebrew bible, etc.Dovi 20:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember writing that you're Jewish, but maybe I did. I'm Jewish myself, in case it matters. The reason I'm focusing on that sentence is that it seems (to me at least) central to the question of whether a Bible like CJB is a "Jewish" Bible. If a Bible ceases to be Jewish when it includes the Greek Bible, the article should cite an authority or two — hopefully somebody with a little more authority than the editors of the JPS, if such an authority exists, although that's a good start. (I say that because I don't know whether the JPS editors are respected by all Jewish movements, or whether they were drawn mostly from the more liberal movements.)
It's also very important that the sentence be worded carefully. I don't think that reference to the "Christian New Testament" is helpful, because the CJB doesn't include the Christian New Testament, it includes a Judaized "B'rit Hadashah." (You may consider it the "Christian New Testament," but its author and readers don't.)
With respect to your comments about Catholic and Orthodox translations, you're probably right. But a look at this discussion page and the history of this article indicates that there is, at least in some people's minds, a question of why a Bible that purports to be Jewish isn't a Jewish Bible. Clearly defining what a Jewish Bible is, and is not, may help resolve the question.
One last thought: Maybe two sentences in that paragraph can be re-arranged. The first sentence would end after "exegesis of the Bible." The second sentence would begin with "All such translations ..." or "All Jewish translations ...". — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because something purports to be something doesn't mean it is, nor does it mean it deserves mention in any encyclopedia article. The CJB is low enough on the notability scale to ever question its status as a Wikipedia article at all, but certainly not in a list of quite prominent translations that define a genre which doesn't include it.
"Clearly defining what a Jewish Bible is, and is not, may help resolve the question." I fail to understand what is unclear about the definition of Jewish canon as the masoretic text. Do any serious scholars question this basic fact?
The NT is not added to the CJB as an appendix, but as something without which the bible is "incomplete" (the Complete Jewish Bible). This is its entire purpose. Thus it is not a Jewish Bible. Dovi 05:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
"I fail to understand what is unclear about the definition of Jewish canon as the masoretic text." Obviously it isn't clear, because you felt it was necessary to add a sentence to the article stating what a Jewish translation doesn't include.
"Do any serious scholars question this basic fact?" If all the "serious scholars" support your argument, what is the problem with supporting your sentence with a reference from one or two scholars? Is this an unreasonable request?
It seems evident to me, from the edit history of the article and from the discussion section on CJB, that some other editors don't agree with your assertion that CJB isn't a Jewish Bible. What harm does it do to write a clear statement — building on what's in the article, and backed up by solid sources — that defines what a Jewish Bible / Jewish Bible translation is? I don't understand your vehement resistance to this suggestion.
Now before you stomp your feet and repeat the same tiresome lecture about the masoretic text, please take a deep breath, read what I just wrote, and think about it. Does it make this article worse in any way if it defines what a Jewish Bible / Jewish Bible translation is, even if it simply repeats information that can be found in other articles? — Malik Shabazz | Talk 06:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You have every right to "stomp around" the articles on Tanakh and masoretic text, demanding sources which show that the MT is the Jewish canon and the Jewish biblical text for the past two millenia. It might even do some good, because those articles do need much tighter editing and sourcing (and serious updating). After the weekend I will try to do some initial basic sourcing, though most of the references will have to be to printed works, not online, because most modern study of Jewish canonization and textual tradition is not online. Not the most popular subject. Perhaps some summary of the references can be made a footnote here. But in general, here in an article on translations of the Jewish canon is not the place for debating or proving what that canon is. Dovi 07:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, you wrote: "hopefully somebody with a little more authority than the editors of the JPS, if such an authority exists, although that's a good start. (I say that because I don't know whether the JPS editors are respected by all Jewish movements, or whether they were drawn mostly from the more liberal movements)" -- The two JPS translations were done by some of the finest Jewish biblical scholars in the 20th century diaspora, most of whom were liberal but not all of them. There is no need to require "a little more authority." Orthodox Jewish scholars are, of course, even less prone than their liberal colleagues to recognize anything as "Jewish" in the bible besides the masoretic text. This was indeed reflected in some of the central discussion regarding textual emendations in the new JPS version. Shabbat Shalom. Dovi 07:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe what needs to be done to resolve this dispute is to create two major sections. One for the Masoretic translation (strict/religious) sense and the other for the marketed/directed toward Jewish sensibilities (loose/cultural) sense. There's no reason there can't be a compromise here. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when do "cultural sensibilities" change the biblical canon of a religion? There are tens of millions of "ethnic" Catholics in North America who are only marginally religious, and have only the vaguest idea of biblical canon. Now, since I personally do not subscribe to the New Testament, maybe I should do just as Dr. Stern did: Self-publish and market an "ethnic" Catholic bible without the NT, make some concessions to Italian-American or Irish culture or habits, and then list it under Roman Catholic translations here? Perhaps publishing The Authentic Catholic Bible (without the NT) would make my own beliefs more appealing to Catholic "sensitivities"? Better yet: If I were Christian, perhaps I might sell a "Complete" edition of the Koran published together with an Arabic translation of the New Testament, all adjusted for "Arab sensibilities..."
But the truth is that I wouldn't do any of that, nor do I think that almost anyone else would try to do so, simply because basic respect towards both Catholicism and Islam would prevent most people from stooping so low.
And what exactly are "Jewish sensibilities"? Does Dr. Stern's use of Yiddishisms in his translation ("Jewish English") make his self-published revision of the old JPS translation plus the New Testament the least bit relevant to Judaism? Remember that the masoretic text is the biblical canon and text for all Jews, not just those who vaguely remember some Yiddish from their grandmothers. Will Stern's use of Yiddishisms help make his translation part of "Judaism" for English-speaking Jews of Syrian, Persian, Yemenite, or Morrocan origins? Or the Jews of Georgia, Uzbekistan... No, I am not kidding or being sarcastic here. I know Jews from all of these countries and English-speaking Jews from most of them; all their bibles are identical (the masoretic text), but none of them share Yiddish culture. If Stern's bible truly represents "Judaism" then it should speak to their "sensibilities" as well...
The sensible solution for this issue already exists, and has in fact already been implemented: Stern's self-published Complete Jewish Bible, if it is indeed notable enough for an article, may be included in Messianic Judaism or in a list of "Messianic Jewish" translations (if indeed this relatively new sect has issued more than one translation). Because that is exactly what the CJB is, and no one in this discussion has ever disputed its being so. That is also the "Religious Affiliation" listed in its article.
Bible translations are categorized both here and within Modern_English_Bible_translations based on two very clear and sensible criterion: The first and most important is canon (i.e. what books are recognized as biblical) and the second is doctrinal differences. Not "loose cultural sensibilities". As far as this article goes, (1) the Jewish canon is absolutely clear, (2) and all modern Jewish translations were at least partially motivated by doctrinal differences with Christianity. The CJB thus fails as a Jewish translation on both accounts. But its mention would be perfectly welcome in an article on the group that accepts its canon and its doctrine.Dovi 11:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Dovi...calm down. This article is not Jewish bible canon, is it? It's about Jewish bible translations to English. You are trying to make this article about translations of the canonical masoretic text, but the title alone does not imply that. That is precisely why I suggested the compromise above, to address the two separate views on what exactly "Jewish English Bible translation" means, so that no one does get confused. No one is trying to say the CJB is a masoretic translation (and nothing more; it is verifiable that the Tanakh portion is a paraphrase of the JPS)—but nonetheless it is a Jewish English bible translation. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, when Malik (above on this talk page) asked for sources to back up my assertion that the genre of Jewish bible translations over the past 150 years is defined by (1) canon and (2) doctrine, he was absolutely right. Even thought to me this was self-evident from having studied such translations for decades, "self-evident" isn't what Wikipedia demands; WP wants attribution, i.e. sources. So I started looking, and was quite gratified to find that the Britannica defines the genre of Jewish bible translations precisely the way I thought. And while the Britannica is not the ultimate authority for the content of Wikipedia articles, it certainly carries heavy weight.
So on the one hand, this genre with these characteristics has existed for over a century and a half; it is a true, unique genre that continues to grow, and the definition and usage of "Jewish bible translation" for this type specifically continues to hold true (witness the Britannica article).
On the other hand, the the self-published CJB is well outside this genre and its name. Rather than being Jewish in its canon and doctrine, it is a bible published for Jews, i.e. with Jews as its target audience, and this is what its supposedly "ethnic" feel is designed to do. Now that is something entirely different. Jewish not necessarily in terms of Judaism, but rather in terms of a market or a target audience. At first I thought that CJB was unique in this, a new kind of bible by a new Jewish-Christian sect, and one which doesn't fit the venerable, sourced genre this article describes. But then I realized that the CJB too is actually part of quite an old genre. For well over a century, evangelical publishers have been printing bibles aimed at a Jewish audience, the most famous being the Hebrew-English bible on facing pages including the NT (which I think I remember was translated by C.D. Ginzburg and printed by a British evangelical society?). Now that is a bible truly aimed at "Jewish sensitivities," just like the CJB. That too is a bible intended to send the subliminal message that "Jesus fulfills you as a Jew." I'm sure there have been many other attempts at this sort of thing that I am not aware of, each with its own unique approach. The HNV is another (and in my opinion the best of the bunch in its professionalism and style).
So the latter group really is a genre entirely of its own, with no relationship whatsoever to the established genre described on this page. In fact, the two genres are diametrically opposed. So try to think of a good, descriptive title for it. Maybe Bible translations for Jews, or more simply and accurately Messianic bible translations (as in other articles on MJ). I hope a fascinating new article comes out of this.
P.S. Please note that none of the claims for the "ethnicity" of Stern's bible have been either sourced or shown to be noteworthy. I suspect that when they are finally described on WP, they will be in no way convincingly "Jewish", ethnic or otherwise. Dovi 22:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
PPS Despite trying, I really can't remember which Hebrew NT versions I saw. Some searching found three different main translations (the third being a modern one so not relevant here). I have listed and briefly described them here. Dovi 10:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Dovi, and I was going to write something similar to what he did. I happen to have a Hebrew language version of the New Testament (I don't know if it's the one he mentions), but that doesn't make it a Jewish Bible. Likewise, translating the Gospels into English in a manner intended to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus's life and mission doesn't make them into Jewish books of the Bible.
And while the article isn't "Jewish bible canon," ChristTrekker, that canon has to be the foundation on which an article about translations of that canon is built. Claiming that an edition of the JPS translation is made "complete" by the addition of the Gospels is antithetical to the Judaism that is practiced by the overwhelming majority of the world's Jews. Our faith doesn't believe that there is a "new covenant" that has replaced or supplemented the "old covenant," and a Bible translation that says that there is has forfeited its right to be considered a "Jewish Bible" as that phrase is understood by millions of Jews and billions of non-Jews. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Malik, the purpose of this article isn't to debate theological points, about what is or isn't "really" Jewish. Those distinctions require the reader to have some knowledge of the domain, and even then it's a contentious issue. From the perspective of the relatively ignorant, something that appears to be a Jewish bible in English should certainly be mentioned in an article entitled "Jewish English Bible translations", don't you think? And that's my whole point in a nutshell. If this article is about something else than what a plain reading seems to indicate, that needs to be clarified! ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree, ChristTrekker. An article about Jewish Bible translations doesn't need to mention every book that calls itself a Jewish Bible translation — particularly those that are not accepted as such by the majority of Jews and non-Jews. The fact that such a book is not considered a Jewish Bible translation should be clear from the lede: "Jewish translations contain neither the books of the apocrypha nor the Christian New Testament."
If an article about Messianic Jewish English Bible translations is created, or one about Bibles translated into English for Jews, I personally think it should be included here under "See also," but I don't think that discussion of those Bibles is appropriate in this article. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the version dating to the beginning of this discussion did not have that clarifying statement, which led to this whole confusing situation. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Dovi, WP may be all about attribution, but even the best attribution in the world isn't useful if the true subject of the article isn't self-evident. If it had been, none of us would have wasted several days and thousands of words now debating a non-issue. Moving on...
Your suggestions for new articles seem reasonable. I'd go a step further and recommend that this article clarifies its scope. It is definitely not clear upon a plain reading of the title, as this whole situation has illustrated. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the scope has been clarified since I last remember. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fox & Alter translations / Book of J

Both Fox and Alter have translated Samuel as well as the Torah. Do people think they should be in another section, perhaps "partial translations," rather than "Torah translations"?

Also, do people think this article should include The Book of J, which is a translation of the Jahwist portion of the Torah according to the documentary hypothesis? — Malik Shabazz | Talk 18:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you've been doing great work expanding this article with interesting information.
We already have a "partial translation" section in addition to "Torah translations," and it seems to me that this is the best way to organize things (Torah translations are significant enough on their own). What bothers me is the notability: How notable is it, really, that in the fraction of Rav Kasher's Torah Shelemah that was translated to English there is also a translation of the verses? But full translations of Samuel by well-known scholars should cetainly find a place in "partial translations," perhaps organized by book. Or maybe: "Individual books."
The Book of J is certainly quite noteworthy. I wonder, though, whether a reconstruction of a source whose contours are hypothetical is the same as a translation of the Torah. I guess you are suggesting it as a "partial translation"? Dovi 20:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that Torah translations are significant enough to warrant a section of their own. Maybe I'll rework the "Partial translations" section into "Complete books" and "Incomplete translations".
I'm not familiar enough with the Orthodox world, and even less so with Chabad, to know whether the translations already mentioned in the "Partial translations" section are notable. I'll have to rely on the judgment of other editors.
With respect to The Book of J, I don't know whether it should be included as a partial translation or whether it belongs in a section of its own ("Related books" or "Other translations"). I don't think anybody actually considers it a Torah translation. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
PS - Interesting trivia about Leeser: I thought his name was pronounced Lee-zer or Lee-ser, but I saw a copy of his translation over the weekend at my parents' house. On the Hebrew title page, his name is spelled like Eliezer without the aleph, so I imagine it was pronouned Lee-ezer.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/w/Talk%7EJewish_English_Bible_translations_484f.html"