The Complete Jewish Study Bible Notes - New Pre-Pub

I wish we hadn't. 
It is one of two Bibles I have purchased this year that I regret; fortunately, one I did purchase I am thrilled about. But, this is one of the absolute worst Bibles ever. The translator, and I use the term loosely, has pretty much desecrated the text, in at least one place, leading me to believe he has tainted the entire thing, to fit his own agenda. 
So sad, because I was thrilled to get a Jewish perspective on the Bible. Instead, what I got was a Jewish type of a New World Translation. 

Denise said:

Ok, Batman, you need to let the other shoe drop.

GL with that...

I purchased it elsewhere use it little not overly impressed, but what feels bad to me is that the cost of Logos editions for notes alone gets you the complete study bible notes and translation at the other store. I got the whole thing over at the other store with it's introductory pricing for I believe half  of what Logos sells the notes alone for. I don't regret buying it but wouldn't have wanted to pay more than I did.

-dan

Whoops. Sorry this is several centuries late, but, I never saw a response to this thread. 

I do want to respond, esp. since for whatever reason, I did not state why I said he "desecrated the text". I should have. 
Yes. You are correct. There are those who would make the argument you make in regards to "ghost" and "spirit". However, I do not see this as in this category. 
In the "at least one place" I mentioned, Rev. 22:15 "Outside are the homosexuals, those involved with the occult and with drugs, the sexually immoral, murderers, idol-worshippers, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." David H. Stern, Complete Jewish Bible: An English Version of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and B’rit Hadashah (New Testament), 1st ed. (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1998), Re 22:15.

And, the ESV as most translations do, state similarly to "Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."
There are three items I take some issue with, and one indeed is just plain wrong. The first may very well be in the "ghost/spirit" category: "occult" vs. "sorcerers", and the other, is more obvious, "homosexuals" as unless it is a Greek idiom for "homosexuals", I do not see "dogs" as a viable translation. While one can argue that homosexuals are sexually immoral, sexually immoral is larger and greater than homosexuality, and homosexuality is more specific, leaving out heterosexual immorality. Again, unless "dogs" is idiomatic for "drugs", I have to find this to be very much a translation motivated by agenda, than actual and accurate translating. Which is very sad, because this could have been an awesome tool for non-native speakers. 

David Paul said:

Batman said:

The translator, and I use the term loosely, has pretty much desecrated the text, in at least one place

Hmmm...well, since some people think not using the word "ghost" in favor of "spirit" is a sort of desecration, I'm not sure your distress is quite my distress. I'm also not convinced that "one" rises to the level of a trend. Still, though, I am pretty sure this note-riddled Bible will be a real hoot...the sort of comedy that brings tears to your eyes.

Indeed. My mother was an odd duck when it comes to translating. Despite all her attempts at learning Greek and Hebrew, she never got how languages work; especially when it comes to translating. She always thought translations should translate literally-- and precisely as written. Kind of Yoda speak. Unfortunately, I dont think she every studied much past "et", a Hebrew grammatical marker, untranslatable. So it goes. Translating is indeed merely paraphrasing from one language to another, and opinion and guess work as to how best to convey the original author's intended message. So, while I may not equate "sorcery" and the "occult", I can overlook that one. But, where he gets "drugs" and "homosexuality" out of the text, is beyond me, and he sets himself up as having an agenda. So, very disappointing to me. 
I wonder if the reason people like his work is, because they dont see his error, or, they dont care? Or, am I too harsh; all have error in their teaching, somewhere, because we are not God? 

Denise said:

Batman said:

This is why I am upset with this "translation". It's one thing to put in the notes these things as opinion of things that are included; but, to make the text say what it does not; well, that is wrong.

Yes, there's always a quandary from language to language. Then religion to religion. Then time to time. Finally, specific culture to specific culture. NT jewish Bibles are faced with all 4, and it's guesswork.

Sorcery in Palestine (the east), 2,000 years ago? Or in western Asia (the west)? Was sexual immorality, marrying the wrong relation? Or a bit of fun on the side. Or a mistress? Or the wrong gender? And so on. You can consult various greek writers. Papyri. Or as a book I'm (slowly) reading, later greek. But always guessing.

I agree, the translator  takes liberties. And I avoid Stern, though many like him.

But, missing a thread follow-up is pretty normal! At least for me!

I suppose in the end, this is why a group effort, of differing opinions and backgrounds is good. Oddly, I do not mind "Dynamic Equivalence" if the idea gets the point across; such as the NIV does. I do prefer a more literal translation, but, at the same time, where DE helps the reader better understand the point, it's probably in some ways more accurate. 
As an example, I offer up a Russian/American illustration where the Russian speaker used the common phrase The man went out of his house and got eaten by a bear; in translation, the translator decided to use the popular American phrase, Out of the pan, into the fire, to get the point across. Is that what the Russian politician said? No. Did it get the point across? Absolutely. 
When I was young, Kenneth Taylor was criticized for using our more colorful "SoB" when King Saul yelled at Jonathan. In my opinion, that was the precise sentiment Saul had, when he spoke those words. While some and later editions, used a less offensive phrase, "Son of a rebellious women", I believe SoB is more accurate, in sentiment and intent in our language. 

Where it comes to Stern, I am not sure of anything other than his translation and notes in the Complete Jewish Bible. As I have previously stated, unless there is something else going on in the Greek, that i am unaware of, at which point, I would apologize, I would at the very least, would love the opportunity to ask why he chose to do this translation. 
Perhaps I am throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but, I cannot give creedance to what appears to be such blatant bias and agenda. And if he is doing this in one place, I have to question his intregrity for the text everywhere. That's just me; and, others will undoubtedly feel the same about  me. 

Denise said:

Batman said:

Despite all her attempts at learning Greek and Hebrew, she never got how languages work; especially when it comes to translating. She always thought translations should translate literally-- and precisely as written. Kind of Yoda speak.

Obviously, you were a lucky boy, with a mother who could do yoda speak! But in the mid-1800s, there was another lady (Julia Smith), who too, was frustrated with translations, so she learned greek and translated the NT. Then, hebrew and the OT. I liked her translation (Logos sells it), though Metzger ding'd her OT refusal on one key point.

If my response seemed too ambivalent, it's only because I see the problem you mention as slowly acidic to Christianity ... over-stating, textual modernizing, hot-sins galore, made-up statements that people can see through, and a tremendous disinterest in simple honesty. 

A bit OT, but illustrative. If you take FL's Bible Study Magazine at face-value, and imagine 200 church guys walking into a room (the data was guys), you can't even get to the 2nd guy before you've run into Jesus' warnings of gehenna (porn). If they were pastors, the 11th pastor recommends drawing your wife, daughters and maybe sons closer (sexual abuse), which is slightly more likely than the 'awful' gay folks. And you'll have to get all 200 in, before the super-hot sins show up. Mr Stern was hot on the trail.