We are 2000 years removed from the faith as delivered to the apostles. The instructions in our possession came from a Jewish culture, written by Jews, concerning a Jewish Messiah. Yet most who read this can not imagine any thing other than a modern gentile Hellenistic mindset. In fact a large number don't really know what a Hellenistic or a Hebraic mindset is. The best way I can think to help gentiles to begin to grasp the difference is to attend a local Jewish synagogue. That will at least open your eyes a bit.
Suffice it to say that the abandonment of our Hebraic roots is responsible for much of the decay in the congregations today through translations and interpretations that are for the most part anti-Semitic. Even some translators who are not anti-Semitic still reflect the overwhelming consensus of their Christian church upbringing.
Much of what we hear as Gospel has been filtered over the centuries through the mesh of antisemitism. It is an anemic version of the original flavor and energy of the message. You can compare it to the difference between buying orange juice with all the pulp or the variety with all the pulp removed. One is full of vigor and strength reflecting the original orange, while the other is similar to colored sugar water.
Some will immediately object - as I once did out of ignorance - that there is any antisemitism in our translations of Scripture. I'll make only two points on that for now.
One is that there is no Scriptural basis for imparting infallibility or inerrancy to those who have translated our modern versions for the last 500 years. It is wishful thinking or human reasoning alone that has brought many to that belief. We are all biased to some degree and the translators were no exception. Often they made decisions of translation based on their personal theological understanding of what the particular verse should say. Some of the sources I use candidly admit doing this by interjecting their understanding of Hebraic/Jewish roots to add the pulp back to the colored sugar water.
Secondly, a prime example is in the title the Book of James. A quick look in Strong's concordance will reveal that the author of this epistle is not named James. His name is the same as that used elsewhere in the Old Testament (Tanack) as Jacob in English. Considering that names can't be translated - only transliterated to sound similar - the name should have at least had a "Y" beginning. That's because there is no "J" sound in the Hebrew. More correctly the name should be transliterated as Ya'akov.
Why the change of the name? Why the inconsistency? The answer is not clear, but the result is the same. We are given an anglicized version that removes any Jewish flavor of the name. The same double standard can be seen in the name of Mary, the mother of Yahshua (Jesus). In the Old Testament (Tanack) the same name is Miriam.
In any case, this is not really a commentary,or a devotion, or a new translation, but a discussion. The sources used here include four Messianic Jewish, or Hebraic roots versions of Scripture along with the New King James version. That will explain why you may see alternate words in parenthesis in the verses to reflect any diverging translations.
In this discussion it is my purpose to exhort, encourage, and enlighten others. I am especially aiming at new believers or teen agers trying to get a practical grip on how to live out their new-found faith and to taste the message with the "Jewish pulp" included.
From this point forward I will use certain conventions in labeling or naming.
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
Hebraic Roots Version NT (HRV)
The Scriptures (TS)
Restoration Scriptures True Name Edition Study Bible (RSTNE)
New King James (NKJV)
Old Testament (Tanack)
New Testament (Brit Hadassah)
Jesus (Yahshua)
God (Elohim, Master)
LORD (YHWH, Yahweh)
James (Ya'akov)
No comments:
Post a Comment