Translation most faithful to the MT?

[nunzilla]

Hi friends,

I study theology in Spanish so I am lost sometimes when I switch to English... even though it is my native tongue! I am doing a paper on Isaiah 1-12 and I need to decide what translation to use... is there a general consensus out there about what xlation is truest to the Masoretic Text? In Spanish, it's the xlation of Cantera, in case anyone cares...

Pax
Nunzilla

[nunzilla]

*tap tap*
[clears throat]

Is this thing on?
Seriously, if anyone can help me I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

[wunderblast814]

Welcome. I'm a night owl.

Someone might have better advice, but for serious study I use the NAS (I believe there's an update) and the Hebrew-Greek Study Bible by Zodhiates (AMG Pub.).

The NAS, at least in the 1980s, was considered by some theologians to be a more accurate translation. "Accuracy second to none" is how Josh McDowell put it.

The NAS Hebrew-Greek Study Bible contains numerous footnotes translated literally from the original languages. Especially important in the case of idioms which can lose some of their nuances during conversion. Also valuable regarding certain verses about women--yes, they were screwed with.

[Andius]

You might need to be jumping from one version to another, since each version usually has some sort of intent of communication. For Spanish examples;

1) Reina Valera 1960 attempts to preserve the poetic aspect of the Bible in the same fashion that the King James Bible does.
2) The Spanish version of the NIV tries to convey the scripture in simplified fashion adjusted to western audiances, for which it's pluses include simple reading, but at the cost of losing a bit of poetic expression and the context (such as, the phrase "we cast our salt to you" was a semitic expression for swearing an oath to a king. Unless there is commentary, the exact phrase of an enunciation is overlooked)
3) I am in agreement here with wonderblast that the NAS Bible is excellent for preserving the original intent of the expressions. It's only minus (which only applies for people of the non-scholarly ranks ) is that because of it's tedious high-context reading and terminology, it could frustrate the average reader. (I assume that won't be problem for you caballero )

I reccomend having a small handfull of different versions for citation and comparison when doing research matters of scriptural literature. Hope this has been of assistance.

EDIT: Oh, regarding which Spanish translations are truest to the Masoretic texts, admittedly, I don't know of which Spanish ones are closest to the enunciations of those old texts, which is why I reccommended having multiple versions at hand.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Hi friends,

I study theology in Spanish so I am lost sometimes when I switch to English... even though it is my native tongue! I am doing a paper on Isaiah 1-12 and I need to decide what translation to use... is there a general consensus out there about what xlation is truest to the Masoretic Text? In Spanish, it's the xlation of Cantera, in case anyone cares...

Pax
Nunzilla

I'd recommend the shortest linkage of translations. Instead of a bible that goes from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, get one that goes straight from the original Hebrew to English.
http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...with-Rashi.htm
It can't help but be the most accurate.