Tree of Life Version

[Tuviya ben-Chesed]

At the MJAA's SE Regional Conference in December, I bought a copy of the Tree of Life Version's New Covenant Scriptures and its Psalms. Since then, I've found that the TLV's New Covenant Scriptures is available online (http://www.treeoflifebible.org/#!read-the-tlv/c1bs6).

So far, I've been pleased with the easy, flowing way the translation reads. I also appreciate the rendering of Romans 9:5 ("To them belong the patriarchs--and from them, according to the flesh, the Messiah, who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen."), which shows Yeshua to be divine as well as human.

Admittedly, I've not thoroughly examined the TLV. If any of you are familiar with it, I'd appreciate your input. The Complete Jewish Bible remains the translation primarily read and preached from at my congregation, but I'm wondering if we should start using the TLV.

Something else: if any of you have the Shared Heritage Bible, which includes the JPS TaNaKH, I'd appreciate your opinions of it.

Thanks.

In Yeshua,
Tuviya

[Yedidyah]

Thanks for sharing! I spent some time checking it out online and it sounds interesting. I do wish they would have kept all the names in their Hebrew pronunciation but they did place Yeshua in there instead of Jesus so I will give them credit on that.
From what I did read it sounded like an ok translation but like any translation of the scripture there will always be debate
I had not heard of this one so again thanks for posting.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

I still like the CJB better....

[Yedidyah]

Mar 20, 2013 21:03:04 GMT -8 R' Y'hoshua Moshe said:

I still like the CJB better.... [img src="img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/peek-a-boo/book.gif"]

[/img][/quote]
I think that if one is to go into the work of making sure the names are back into Hebrew they should do it with all the names not just Yeshua I like the CJB also.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Yes, to not provide the actual Hebrew names seems like a step backwards....

[Tuviya ben-Chesed]

Yedidyah & Reuel, thanks for your comments. I've not decided whether I like the CJB or TLV better; in fact, I may simply use them both without picking a favorite. My rabbi owns a TLV, a TLV Psalms, and a Shared Heritage Bible (TLV New Covenant Scriptures with JPS TaNakH [1917 ed.]); but the CJB is what he reads and preaches from and what we use for public readings.

As to the names in the TLV, they jibe with those in the 1917 JPS TaNaKH, likely because the publisher was planning to publish the two versions together and is thinking a wider audience will relate to the names. I've grown accustomed to the names in the CJB, but I've noticed that we Messianics tend to sound more Jewish than our area's non-Messianic Jews, most of whom say "Moses" instead of "Moshe."

There are about 300,000 persons where I live (the Central Savannah River Area). The Jewish community has declined from about 1,500 to about 1,200. Of the religious among them, most are Conservative or Reformed. The local Chabad, where members are more likely to say "Moshe" than "Moses," is small enough to operate out of a building that used to be a small drug store. So I'm wondering if the TLV with the 1917 JPS may be a good tool for outreach.

Getting back to names, one thing I've never understood is the decision to print "Sha'ul" instead of "Paul" in the CJB even where "Sha'ul" isn't in the underlying Greek text. The TLV's use of "Paul" seems truer to the original text, don't you think?

[alon]

Mar 18, 2013 5:48:35 GMT -8 Tuviya ben-Chesed said:

... if any of you have the Shared Heritage Bible, which includes the JPS TaNaKH, I'd appreciate your opinions of it. ...

I don't have the Shared Heritage Bible, but my Jewish Study Bible does feature the JPS translation of the TNK. I find it reads pretty much like the several other Bible translations I have.

I'd recommend getting a Study Bible like the JPS one I have if you get a TNK. I get a lot out of the commentary, though a truckload of discernment is advisable. But it is fair and they try to be accurate, even when they at times give the Christian view on scripture. I suspect I am getting a whole lot of Talmudic interpretation in the commentary- either that or they decided to write their own Gemara, because the text is at least 3 parts commentary to 1 part scripture! Truly amazing how much they wring out of each verse.

Dan C

Edit: I too love the CJB, and it is usually what I quote from online. But I'm still undecided as to whether to get a CJB or a Hebrew/Transliterated/English Bible to use regularly.

[Tuviya ben-Chesed]

Mar 22, 2013 10:50:35 GMT -8 alon said:

I don't have the Shared Heritage Bible, but my Jewish Study Bible does feature the JPS translation of the TNK. I find it reads pretty much like the several other Bible translations I have.

Thanks for weighing in on the Shared Heritage Bible and bringing up the JPS Study Bible. I agee that a truckload of discernment is necessary for appraising the JPS Study Bible's notes and commentaries.

Please note, though, that the Shared Heritage Bible includes the 1917 edition of the JPS TaNaKH, which may be more conservative than the current JPS TaNaKH. Here's an interesting comparison:

(22) And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
(23) But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
(24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
(25) burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exodus 21:22-25 JPS TaNaKH, 1917 ed.).

(22) When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. (23) But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, (24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise (ibid, current JPS TaNaKH).

As you can see, the 1917 edition allows for the possibility that the departure of the pregnant woman's fruit was a premature birth, but the current edition is abortion-friendly, for it assumes the death of the unborn and treats it as if it warranted only a fine. The Shared Heritage Bible, then, may have a better TaNaKH and therefore be worth buying.

Sadly, the CJB follows the current JPS TaNaKH:

(22) “If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman’s husband and confirmed by judges.
(23) But if any harm follows, then you are to give life for life,
(24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
(25) burn for burn, wound for wound and bruise for bruise (Exodus 21:22-25 CJB).

Getting back to the TLV, I notice that it has restored an important sentence omitted by the CJB:

(1) Since we are co-laboring, we also urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain. (2) For He says,

“At a favorable time I listened to you,
in a day of salvation I helped you.”

Behold, now is the favorable time. Behold, now is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:1-2 TLV).

(1) As God’s fellow-workers we also urge you not to receive his grace and then do nothing with it.
(2) For he says,

“At the acceptable time I heard you;
in the day of salvation I helped you” (ibid, CJB).

It's unclear why the CJB would omit Paul's statement that we're living in the favorable time, the day of salvation. To me, the TLV has scored points by restoring the statement. The more I look at the TLV, the more I like it.

In the Messiah Yeshua,
Tuviya ben-Chesed

[alon]

Thanks, and I can see why you like the TLV.

Actually, when I first read the term "so that her fruit depart" I was thinking in terms of a miscarriage there as well. I wondered why only a fine for this. I suppose you'd have to go back to the original to find out, but at least you'd question enough to get out your Strong's with the older version.

It's how men so blatantly twist the Word despite clear warnings throughout scripture not to do so.

Dan C

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Getting back to names, one thing I've never understood is the decision to print "Sha'ul" instead of "Paul" in the CJB even where "Sha'ul" isn't in the underlying Greek text. The TLV's use of "Paul" seems truer to the original text, don't you think?

Being that Sha'ul (Paul) was Jewish he would have been given a Hebrew name first, only to be given a Greek name later to get along in the Greek culture that surrounded him. Because it was a Greek version of the text it probably made sense to the scribe to record the Greek version of His name when relating to the intended audience. But, I am sure Sha'ul preferred his Hebrew name...and so do I. We know his Hebrew name was "Sha'ul" based on the text saying so in places like Ma'asim (Acts) 7:42, 8:1,3, 9:1,4. "Saul" is just the English version of the Hebrew "Sha'ul". The CJB rightly takes the Greek document and restores the proper Hebrew names. Personally, I don't think we should change someone's proper name. My name is Reuel...please don't change it
Also, I have a hard time reading a version of scripture that butchers and changes the names of the people we are reading about...but, that is just me

Chazak uv'rachot b'Yeshua,

R' Reuel

[alon]

Apr 9, 2013 15:21:56 GMT -8 R' Y'hoshua Moshe said:

... My name is Reuel...please don't change it [img src=".gif" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.synagoguechm.com/images/.gif"]

[/img] ...[/quote]

I don't know; seems calling you "Rule" would be easier!

I read it "rei-u-'el" (or something close to that)

How do you pronounciate it?

Dan C

[Deleted]

With the Tree of Life version, is there a full bible with the Old Testament? Or is it just the New Testament only?

Moriah Ruth

[Questor]

Mar 22, 2013 10:50:35 GMT -8 alon said:

Mar 18, 2013 5:48:35 GMT -8 Tuviya ben-Chesed said:

... if any of you have the Shared Heritage Bible, which includes the JPS TaNaKH, I'd appreciate your opinions of it. ...

I don't have the Shared Heritage Bible, but my Jewish Study Bible does feature the JPS translation of the TNK. I find it reads pretty much like the several other Bible translations I have.

I'd recommend getting a Study Bible like the JPS one I have if you get a TNK. I get a lot out of the commentary, though a truckload of discernment is advisable. But it is fair and they try to be accurate, even when they at times give the Christian view on scripture. I suspect I am getting a whole lot of Talmudic interpretation in the commentary- either that or they decided to write their own Gemara, because the text is at least 3 parts commentary to 1 part scripture! Truly amazing how much they wring out of each verse.

Dan C

Edit: I too love the CJB, and it is usually what I quote from online. But I'm still undecided as to whether to get a CJB or a Hebrew/Transliterated/English Bible to use regularly.

I have both, and just now prefer the CJB, but the Hebrew/Transliterated/English is particularly good for studying specific phrases. Unfortunately, my Hebrew is no where near up to the task of even reading the actual Hebrew. But the Transliteration is marvelous for simply reading the scripture aloud, to get the feel for the Hebrew.

[Loxody]

Feb 17, 2014 18:39:18 GMT -8 @moriahruth7 said:

With the Tree of Life version, is there a full bible with the Old Testament? Or is it just the New Testament only?

Moriah Ruth

There is now a full Tree of Life Bible with both the Tanach and the B'rit Ḥadasha.
You can find it at their website:

www.treeoflifeversion.com/

[Loxody]

What are y'all's thoughts on the TLV versus the CJB as far as verse renderings and the fact that the TLV was created by a team of Messianic translators as opposed to an individual?


The TLV seems to be the new translation being promoted in Messianic Judaism, although the CJB is still the most widely used.