From joelcsalomon at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 15:13:17 2009 From: joelcsalomon at gmail.com (Joel C. Salomon) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:13:17 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] Exodus 21:8 In-Reply-To: References: <4AE7A845.90606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7871fcf50911011213l7f657712qd20ca3526a6f68cc@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:17 AM, K Randolph wrote: >> > This is from the section from verses 7 ? 11 dealing with how one should >> > deal with a purchased Hebrew slave girl. >> > >> > ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???????? ????? ????????? >> >> The first unclear verb (what the master ?did not do? or ?did to him?) is >> ???? (designated her), not ???? (sexual relations). > > Here I read ???? as calling her to an appointed meeting, with the > implications that it is sexual in nature. The traditional understanding is that ???? (related to ????) is designation for marriage; cf. v. 10 "If he takes himself another [wife], he shall not diminish her ? conjugal rights." The master has already provisionally designated the girl for this, and has the obligation to marry the girl to himself or his son, or (if "?? ??? ????? ??????")? >> The second verb in question (?????) is taken to be a form of the verb >> ???, ?redeemed?. > > This is what puzzles me, in that ?redeem? does not fit the context here. > This is a Hebrew female slave, therefore she is not to be ?redeemed to a > foreign people? ????? ??? ???? . How does redemption fit in there at all? I don't recall the name for this grammatical form, but ????? = "he shall arrange for her to be redeemed" or "?allow her to be redeemed". (The word ????? has an esnachta; "??? ?????" begins a new phrase.) Verse 11: "If he does none of these three (marry her, marry his son to her, or have her redeemed by relatives) then [when her term is up] she goes free gratis." ?Joel Salomon From transcriber at tanach.us Wed Nov 4 12:55:04 2009 From: transcriber at tanach.us (Christopher Kimball) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:55:04 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] Unicode/XML Westminster Leningrad Codex potential service problem Message-ID: <4AF1BFF8.9040301@tanach.us> The web hosting provider for the Unicode/XML Westminster Leningrad Codex at http://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml may have gone out of business. E-mail, snail-mail, and phone attempts to contact the provider have failed. Although the site continues to operate correctly, it may fail suddenly and completely. (The hosting contract is paid until Feb 2010.) In the event of problems with the site, please go to the backup site at http://www.cvkimball.com/Tanach/PreviousVersions/Tanach-2009-10-27/Tanach.xml Be sure the Server mode to "Local" The RSS feed is not generated by the backup site. Please notify me immediately as a complete alternative site is available at "an undisclosed location". Relocation of the site to an other web hosting provider is in progress. Chris Kimball West Redding, CT 06896 USA From pporta7 at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 23:48:40 2009 From: pporta7 at gmail.com (Pere Porta) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:48:40 +0100 Subject: [b-hebrew] Verb YD( in absolute use Message-ID: <3910bdd80911052048y787c5497w2720410ad21fdce8@mail.gmail.com> Regarding Is 43:10. We have here verb YD( in absolute use: TD(W, you (will) know. I checked some (English, Spanish, Catalan...) versions and I realize that usually a "me" is inserted after "you know". *You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen in order that you may know me and believe me and understand that I am He/Who.before me there was no God formed and there will be none after me.* I'm wondering whether this "me" is legitimate and rightful. Indeed, no )WTY comes after TED(W. Is this a legitimate translation of the Hebrew? Would it not rather be "you begin to understand" "you know what the matter is", with no relation to "me"? Maybe this "me" is usually put here because it is induced by the "LY" that comes after "WT)MYNW"? Pere Porta (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain) From jgorran11 at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 09:20:12 2009 From: jgorran11 at gmail.com (Jody Gorran) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:20:12 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] Request for Assistance Message-ID: <72e391d00911060620q412bc39m4fc5d91ad31ec2c6@mail.gmail.com> I have cross-posted this request for assistance to several lists, so please forgive me if you happen to see it more than once. I am seeking to locate an open-access publication that would be interested in publishing a paper I have written a entitled Ancient Hebrews and Arabia. The paper is a literature review of books, journal articles and dissertations published over the past 175 years which provide numerous references to theories relating to a substantive Hebrew relationship, involvement and/or presence in Arabia during the millennia before the destruction of the first temple in 586 BCE and the century thereafter. The majority of these references seem to be unacknowledged by today?s scholarly community. I take no position or make any judgments as to the validity of any of the theories that I present along with their reference citations. ?I leave those determinations to scholars with appropriate academic and field credentials. The paper is 52 pages including citations and as a pdf document it is 205 KB. I would be pleased to send a pdf copy via email to anyone on this list who might request one. ?Even if you are unable to directly assist me in my search for a publisher, I am most willing to send you a copy for your review. My point is to make this material easily available to any interested scholar. You may request a copy directly from me at ? ? ? jgorran11 at gmail.com Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Jody A. Gorran Delray Beach, Florida USA From srshead at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 17:38:05 2009 From: srshead at gmail.com (Stephen and Rebecca Shead) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 09:38:05 +1100 Subject: [b-hebrew] Verb YD( in absolute use Message-ID: Pere, I checked seven English translations (ESV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, NET, NKJV, Holman Christian Standard Bible), and not one of them inserts a "me" after "know"; e.g. "so that you may know and believe Me", or "so that you may consider and believe in me". What English version inserts an extra "me"? In Spanish versions, yes, a "me" is usually inserted - presumably because they translate with a personal knowing (conocer) rather than a factual knowing (saber). The only Spanish version I have in BibleWorks which doesn't insert a me uses "saber": "para que sep?is y cre?is en m? y comprend?is que soy yo". It's a rather obscure version called the "Versi?n castellana del P. Seraf?n de Ausejo", or something like that - I like it, because it tends to be very different to the Reina Valera and Biblia de Las Am?ricas, and often makes interesting (but defensible) translation decisions. Anyway, I agree with your translation (i.e. the English rather than Spanish consensus) - LY modifies WT)MYNW, but I doubt it also modifies TD(W. Stephen Shead Centro de Estudios Pastorales Santiago, Chile ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Pere Porta > To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:48:40 +0100 > Subject: [b-hebrew] Verb YD( in absolute use > Regarding Is 43:10. > We have here verb YD( in absolute use: TD(W, you (will) know. > I checked some (English, Spanish, Catalan...) versions and I realize that > usually a "me" is inserted after "you know". > > *You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, and my servant whom I have > chosen in order that you may know me and believe me and understand that I > am > He/Who.before me there was no God formed and there will be none after me.* > I'm wondering whether this "me" is legitimate and rightful. > Indeed, no )WTY comes after TED(W. > Is this a legitimate translation of the Hebrew? Would it not rather be "you > begin to understand" "you know what the matter is", with no relation to > "me"? > Maybe this "me" is usually put here because it is induced by the "LY" that > comes after "WT)MYNW"? > > Pere Porta > (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain) > > From pporta7 at gmail.com Sat Nov 7 03:42:42 2009 From: pporta7 at gmail.com (Pere Porta) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 09:42:42 +0100 Subject: [b-hebrew] Verb YD( in absolute use In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3910bdd80911070042l64465726h4c21bd800258e47f@mail.gmail.com> Dear Stephen and Rebecca, Yes, you're right. The English translation having "me" is the so called New Living Translation (NLT in BW). While all Spanish versions -with the exception of that you mention- have "me". Excuse me, I wasn't accurate enough. To me the real sense of the issue on discussion is (in Spanish): "... para que sep?is de qu? va la cosa y teng?is fe en m?..." and not "...para que me conozc?is..." Heartly Pere Porta (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain) On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Stephen and Rebecca Shead < srshead at gmail.com> wrote: > Pere, > > I checked seven English translations (ESV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, NET, NKJV, > Holman Christian Standard Bible), and not one of them inserts a "me" after > "know"; e.g. "so that you may know and believe Me", or "so that you may > consider and believe in me". What English version inserts an extra "me"? > > In Spanish versions, yes, a "me" is usually inserted - presumably because > they translate with a personal knowing (conocer) rather than a factual > knowing (saber). The only Spanish version I have in BibleWorks which > doesn't > insert a me uses "saber": "para que sep?is y cre?is en m? y comprend?is que > soy yo". It's a rather obscure version called the "Versi?n castellana del > P. > Seraf?n de Ausejo", or something like that - I like it, because it tends to > be very different to the Reina Valera and Biblia de Las Am?ricas, and often > makes interesting (but defensible) translation decisions. > > Anyway, I agree with your translation (i.e. the English rather than Spanish > consensus) - LY modifies WT)MYNW, but I doubt it also modifies TD(W. > > Stephen Shead > Centro de Estudios Pastorales > Santiago, Chile > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Pere Porta > > To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > > Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:48:40 +0100 > > Subject: [b-hebrew] Verb YD( in absolute use > > Regarding Is 43:10. > > We have here verb YD( in absolute use: TD(W, you (will) know. > > I checked some (English, Spanish, Catalan...) versions and I realize that > > usually a "me" is inserted after "you know". > > > > *You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, and my servant whom I have > > chosen in order that you may know me and believe me and understand that I > > am > > He/Who.before me there was no God formed and there will be none after > me.* > > I'm wondering whether this "me" is legitimate and rightful. > > Indeed, no )WTY comes after TED(W. > > Is this a legitimate translation of the Hebrew? Would it not rather be > "you > > begin to understand" "you know what the matter is", with no relation to > > "me"? > > Maybe this "me" is usually put here because it is induced by the "LY" > that > > comes after "WT)MYNW"? > > > > Pere Porta > > (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > -- Pere Porta "Ei nekr?i ouk egu?irontai, f?gomen kai p?omen ?urion gar apothn?skomen" (1Cor 15:32) From ishinan at comcast.net Mon Nov 9 00:45:20 2009 From: ishinan at comcast.net (Ishinan) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:45:20 -0600 Subject: [b-hebrew] WHAT LANGUAGE DID ABRAHAM, FATHER OF ISHMAEL AND ISAAC, SPEAK? Message-ID: <75D7544828B74725823A1221EFAD1AD1@KarimaPC> SCENARIO #1 -- In Genesis, Abraham appears as a Hebrew speaker, an idea taken for granted by the compilers of Genesis with no linguistic self consciousness whatever. PROBLEM: If Abraham spoke Hebrew and he was also father to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arabs, then this would imply that the Arabic language is a dialect of the Hebrew language. How would we account then for this prospect, if we consider that the Arabic alphabetic inventory is much more developed (28 letters) than the Hebrew (22 letters). In Semitic languages, only the Ugarit Alphabet surpasses Arabic with 31 letters (1500 BCE). Hence, in terms of vocabulary, the Ugaritic language is older than Hebrew, and is considered closer to the Old Arabic. SCENARIO #2 -- Sir Charles Leonard Woolley (17 April 1880 - 20 February 1960) was a British archaeologist best known for his excavations at Tell el-Mukayyar (site of ancient Ur in present-day Iraq). Ur was the burial site of what may have been many Sumerian royals. Following Woolley's digs, many have placed Abraham's birth place in the Sumerian Ur. However, if it was true that Abraham was a native of Sumer, he would have spoken Akkadian. Note that the Akkadian dialect spoken in Abraham's time would have been Old Babylonian/Old Assyrian, with "Old Babylonian" being the same as "Sumerian." So, should we assume that Abraham's native language was a Sumerian/Old Assyrian mix? PROBLEM: It is well known that Woolley offered interesting, if not always accurate, interpretations of the physical evidence of his findings. Despite this criticism Woolley argued strongly for the connection of his archaeological finds to the location of Ur . However, Woolley, the son of a clergyman, who had considered following in his father's footsteps at a young age, is always thought to have been often biased in his interpretations. Hence, if we agree with Woolley's conclusions, we are confronted with the dilemma of 'Ur of the chaldees'* as Abraham's birth place. This conclusion is a mistake. As many Bible critics have pointed out, 'Chaldean' was associated with Alexander the Great. Hence, time wise it does not fit. Nor does Aramaic fit, since Aramaic came later in about the 12th century BC, and was spoken in Jesus' time and afterwards. Hitherto, current scholarship has yet to prove or disprove whether Tell el-Mukayyar (the current Iraqi name for Woolley's site) is or is not the famed birthplace of Abraham. SCENARIO #3 -- Gordon Donald Fee (b. 1934), one of the foremost experts in textual criticism of the New Testament of the Bible, posited a half century ago a different Ur located north of Haran, where possibly Amorite was spoken. Amorite is an early Northwest Semitic language, spoken by the Amorite tribes which were prominent in early Near Eastern history. PROBLEM: The Amorite language is known exclusively from non-Akkadian proper names recorded by Akkadian scribes during periods of Amorite rule in Babylonia. Because of the paucity of further existing examples, we do not have a way to verify Gordon's claim. SCENARIO #4 -- In Jody Gorran's paper "Ancient Hebrews and Arabia: A Literature Review," there is an interesting idea raised by David Samuel Margoliouth (b. 1858 - d. 1940) orientalist and professor of Arabic at the University of Oxford: "According to Margoliouth (1924), inscriptions had been discovered by English, French and Austrian explorers that had him conclude that the original source of the Hebrew language came from the written languages of ancient Arabia (p. 7). Having found what he described as Hebraisms in inscriptions in south Arabia, justifies the thinking that "we have traced the particular usages to their homes" He continued by adding, "they certainly did not come from Palestine to Saba; they may have come from Saba to Palestine" (p. 8)." For more on this subject, I strongly suggest you read Jody's paper in its entirety. You may request a copy directly from her at: jgorran11 at gmail.com In addition, there is a view expressed by the renown Holger Pedersen (1867-1953), a Danish linguist who made significant contributions to language science. Pedersen once wrote in his famous 1931's book "The Discovery of Language" about the "Semitic languages". According to him, "Hebrew, Aramaic and Akkadian languages had all undergone significant linguistic degeneration. Only Old Arabic, due to its relative isolation in the Arabian peninsula, remained closer to the old stratum of the "Semitic" form of the language." Historically, Hebrews living in the Persian Empire adopted Aramaic, and quickly Hebrew fell into disuse as Aramaic became the vernacular language. By the time the Old Testament, including the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), was written down (perhaps as late as 500 BC), the Hebrew language had considerably deteriorated. It's vocabulary had changed so much that there was no similarity to the original. Moreover, over their long history, Jews had different dialects depending upon where they lived. For example, the Jud?o-Arabic languages comprise a collection of Arabic dialects spoken by Jews living in the Arab world, particularly in the Middle Ages. This phenomenon may be compared to cases such as Ladino (Judeo-Spanish) and Yiddish (Judeo-German). Having outlined the pros and cons within the various scenarios mentioned above. I reiterate my original question: In your opinion, what language did Abraham, father of Ishmael and Isaac, speak? Was it related to Arabic, to Hebrew, or to Aramaic or neither? Anyone care to give his opinion on the subject? Ishinan Ishibashi ---------------------------------------------------------- *Hellenistic designation for a part of Babylonia, which became an independent kingdom under the Chaldees From leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il Mon Nov 9 01:32:40 2009 From: leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il (Yigal Levin) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:32:40 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] WHAT LANGUAGE DID ABRAHAM, FATHER OF ISHMAEL AND ISAAC, SPEAK? In-Reply-To: <75D7544828B74725823A1221EFAD1AD1@KarimaPC> References: <75D7544828B74725823A1221EFAD1AD1@KarimaPC> Message-ID: <29DB39BAE1CA49909C5BDE12E098D985@usere5c2048031> Dear Ishinan, Your post is so full of factual and methodological errors, that I hardly know where to begin. So I'll just list off my comments, in no particular order of importance. 1. Even if we take the biblical story of Abraham and his sons literally, the idea that Ishmael is the progenitor of all the people that we now call "Arabs" is a much later tradition. Nowhere in the Bible are Abraham's descendants called "Arabs". 2. Even if we did accept that Ishmael is the progenitor of the people that we call "Arabs", who ever said that a person's distant descendants must speak the same language that he did? 3. You're assuming that the more "letters" a Semitic language has, the "older" it is. This is simply not true. The number of individual signs an alphabet has reflects, in part, the number of sounds that were pronounced when that alphabet was originally adopted by that particular alphabet. Hebrew actually had more than 22 phonemes, but since it adopted a Canaanite alphabet, it was forced to combine such phonemes as Ayin/Ghayin and Sin/Shin into single letters. In the first case, the distinction was lost before the Masoretes invented the dots that tell them apart. In the second, the distinction was preserved. 4. You're assuming that Abraham lived in the Middle Bronze Age. This is far from proven. 5. "Old Babylonian" is an Akkadian dialect, and is not the same as "Sumerian". 6. While I don't take for granted that Abraham's Ur was that of southern Mesopotamia, even if it were, this does NOT mean that Abraham would have spoken OB as his native language. Many of the inhabitants of Southern Mesopotamia at the time were of Amurru origin and spoke a Western-Semitic dialect. 7. Throughout your post, you write "Amorite" when you mean "Amurru". This is a common mistake. 8. I have not read Jody Gorran's paper, but I have seen in referred to on various lists. Since I am not a professional linguist, I would like to know what other linguists think of it before forming an opinion. Has she published it in a professional journal? 9. What I do know, is that discoveries of the past 60 years have changed the field of Semitic linguistics totally. I would be wary of any theory based on "discoveries" and theories from the 1930's and 40's, without reference to all that has happened in the field since. 10. Both the time in which Hebrew ceased being a spoken language and the time in which the Pentateuch was written down have been much debated, including on this list. You state one opinion as if it were accepted fact. 11. what is clear, is that inscriptions from the 8th-6th centuries from Judah and neighboring areas are written in a dialect that is very close to that of the "pre-exilic" books of the Bible, which shows that the Bible in its written form is not that far removed from the language of pre-exilic Judah. 12. Given all of the above, I?d still go for your "scenario #1". Yigal Levin -----Original Message----- From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Ishinan Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 7:45 AM To: B-Hebrew Subject: [b-hebrew] WHAT LANGUAGE DID ABRAHAM, FATHER OF ISHMAEL AND ISAAC,SPEAK? SCENARIO #1 -- In Genesis, Abraham appears as a Hebrew speaker, an idea taken for granted by the compilers of Genesis with no linguistic self consciousness whatever. PROBLEM: If Abraham spoke Hebrew and he was also father to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arabs, then this would imply that the Arabic language is a dialect of the Hebrew language. How would we account then for this prospect, if we consider that the Arabic alphabetic inventory is much more developed (28 letters) than the Hebrew (22 letters). In Semitic languages, only the Ugarit Alphabet surpasses Arabic with 31 letters (1500 BCE). Hence, in terms of vocabulary, the Ugaritic language is older than Hebrew, and is considered closer to the Old Arabic. SCENARIO #2 -- Sir Charles Leonard Woolley (17 April 1880 - 20 February 1960) was a British archaeologist best known for his excavations at Tell el-Mukayyar (site of ancient Ur in present-day Iraq). Ur was the burial site of what may have been many Sumerian royals. Following Woolley's digs, many have placed Abraham's birth place in the Sumerian Ur. However, if it was true that Abraham was a native of Sumer, he would have spoken Akkadian. Note that the Akkadian dialect spoken in Abraham's time would have been Old Babylonian/Old Assyrian, with "Old Babylonian" being the same as "Sumerian." So, should we assume that Abraham's native language was a Sumerian/Old Assyrian mix? PROBLEM: It is well known that Woolley offered interesting, if not always accurate, interpretations of the physical evidence of his findings. Despite this criticism Woolley argued strongly for the connection of his archaeological finds to the location of Ur . However, Woolley, the son of a clergyman, who had considered following in his father's footsteps at a young age, is always thought to have been often biased in his interpretations. Hence, if we agree with Woolley's conclusions, we are confronted with the dilemma of 'Ur of the chaldees'* as Abraham's birth place. This conclusion is a mistake. As many Bible critics have pointed out, 'Chaldean' was associated with Alexander the Great. Hence, time wise it does not fit. Nor does Aramaic fit, since Aramaic came later in about the 12th century BC, and was spoken in Jesus' time and afterwards. Hitherto, current scholarship has yet to prove or disprove whether Tell el-Mukayyar (the current Iraqi name for Woolley's site) is or is not the famed birthplace of Abraham. SCENARIO #3 -- Gordon Donald Fee (b. 1934), one of the foremost experts in textual criticism of the New Testament of the Bible, posited a half century ago a different Ur located north of Haran, where possibly Amorite was spoken. Amorite is an early Northwest Semitic language, spoken by the Amorite tribes which were prominent in early Near Eastern history. PROBLEM: The Amorite language is known exclusively from non-Akkadian proper names recorded by Akkadian scribes during periods of Amorite rule in Babylonia. Because of the paucity of further existing examples, we do not have a way to verify Gordon's claim. SCENARIO #4 -- In Jody Gorran's paper "Ancient Hebrews and Arabia: A Literature Review," there is an interesting idea raised by David Samuel Margoliouth (b. 1858 - d. 1940) orientalist and professor of Arabic at the University of Oxford: "According to Margoliouth (1924), inscriptions had been discovered by English, French and Austrian explorers that had him conclude that the original source of the Hebrew language came from the written languages of ancient Arabia (p. 7). Having found what he described as Hebraisms in inscriptions in south Arabia, justifies the thinking that "we have traced the particular usages to their homes" He continued by adding, "they certainly did not come from Palestine to Saba; they may have come from Saba to Palestine" (p. 8)." For more on this subject, I strongly suggest you read Jody's paper in its entirety. You may request a copy directly from her at: jgorran11 at gmail.com In addition, there is a view expressed by the renown Holger Pedersen (1867-1953), a Danish linguist who made significant contributions to language science. Pedersen once wrote in his famous 1931's book "The Discovery of Language" about the "Semitic languages". According to him, "Hebrew, Aramaic and Akkadian languages had all undergone significant linguistic degeneration. Only Old Arabic, due to its relative isolation in the Arabian peninsula, remained closer to the old stratum of the "Semitic" form of the language." Historically, Hebrews living in the Persian Empire adopted Aramaic, and quickly Hebrew fell into disuse as Aramaic became the vernacular language. By the time the Old Testament, including the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), was written down (perhaps as late as 500 BC), the Hebrew language had considerably deteriorated. It's vocabulary had changed so much that there was no similarity to the original. Moreover, over their long history, Jews had different dialects depending upon where they lived. For example, the Jud?o-Arabic languages comprise a collection of Arabic dialects spoken by Jews living in the Arab world, particularly in the Middle Ages. This phenomenon may be compared to cases such as Ladino (Judeo-Spanish) and Yiddish (Judeo-German). Having outlined the pros and cons within the various scenarios mentioned above. I reiterate my original question: In your opinion, what language did Abraham, father of Ishmael and Isaac, speak? Was it related to Arabic, to Hebrew, or to Aramaic or neither? Anyone care to give his opinion on the subject? Ishinan Ishibashi ---------------------------------------------------------- *Hellenistic designation for a part of Babylonia, which became an independent kingdom under the Chaldees _______________________________________________ From kwrandolph at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 10:36:19 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:36:19 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] WHAT LANGUAGE DID ABRAHAM, FATHER OF ISHMAEL AND ISAAC, SPEAK? In-Reply-To: <75D7544828B74725823A1221EFAD1AD1@KarimaPC> References: <75D7544828B74725823A1221EFAD1AD1@KarimaPC> Message-ID: Ishinan: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Ishinan wrote: > SCENARIO #1 -- In Genesis, Abraham appears as a Hebrew speaker, an idea > taken for granted by the compilers of Genesis with no linguistic self > consciousness whatever. > > PROBLEM: If Abraham spoke Hebrew and he was also father to Ishmael, the > progenitor of the Arabs, then this would imply that the Arabic language is > a > dialect of the Hebrew language. How would we account then for this > prospect, > if we consider that the Arabic alphabetic inventory is much more developed > (28 letters) than the Hebrew (22 letters). In Semitic languages, only the > Ugarit Alphabet surpasses Arabic with 31 letters (1500 BCE). Hence, in > terms of vocabulary, the Ugaritic language is older than Hebrew, and is > considered closer to the Old Arabic. > This is the scenario presented in Genesis. The only opposition to this scenario is philosophic, not linguistic nor historical. The reason it is not historical is because there are no surviving historical records other than the Bible that either corroborate or contradict the Biblical record that a historical Abraham even lived in the early bronze age when the Bible claims that he lived. Nor are there any historical records as to when Genesis was written other than the Biblical claim that Moses wrote it down in the 15th century BC, and internal evidence that Moses used older documents to compile Genesis. And if he used older documents, did he update the language to 15th century Hebrew or did he leave the documents unchanged? The reason it is not linguistic is for much the same reason, namely that so few records survive from the early bronze age that our understanding of the languages spoken is very patchy at best. Languages both gain and lose phonemes, therefore the number of phonemes a language has is no indication of its age. Your other claimed scenarios suffer from the lack of even a claimed historical record (Bible) to back them up. > > Ishinan Ishibashi > > Yigal: Your claim that Biblical Hebrew had more phonemes than the 22 represented by the alphabet has two problems: 1) if the Bible is accurate history, that indicates that the Hebrews were using the 22 letter alphabet before the Phoenicians, therefore the alphabet reflected the number of phonemes present in the language at that time, and 2) our record of a greater number of phonemes comes from a period long after Hebrew ceased to be the spoken language of the street and hearth, therefore most likely was corrupted by other languages. I include the sin-shin split, ayin-ghayin and other distinctions as examples of that linguistic corruption. Karl W. Randolph. From yohanan.bin.dawidh at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 13:35:06 2009 From: yohanan.bin.dawidh at gmail.com (Yohanan bin-Dawidh) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:35:06 -0600 Subject: [b-hebrew] WHAT LANGUAGE DID ABRAHAM, FATHER OF ISHMAEL AND ISAAC, SPEAK? In-Reply-To: References: <75D7544828B74725823A1221EFAD1AD1@KarimaPC> Message-ID: <2875e18d0911091035q53bc6e62k7b3198b408cf9334@mail.gmail.com> Ishnian: It is a Western Idea that Ishmael is the father of the Arabs, not an Islamic idea, or a Jewish idea. The actuality of the issue is that Arabs were already in existence when Ishmael was born, and Ishmael, and his offspring married into the Arab peoples, plus the peoples that we currently refer to as Arabs are not the ancient Arabs. The ancient Arabs did not even speak what we currently refer to as Arabic, which is a language that evolved out of Nabaetan Aramaic. Modern Arabs are made of descendents of several different tribal peoples throughout the Near East and Africa. Regards, Yo*h*anan bin-Dawidh From sarasotapt at comcast.net Mon Nov 9 18:16:28 2009 From: sarasotapt at comcast.net (Ron Snider) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:16:28 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] WHAT LANGUAGE DID ABRAHAM, FATHER OF ISHMAEL AND ISAAC, , SPEAK? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF8A2CC.3020204@comcast.net> Boring, and what difference does it make...how does it affect you life at this moment, or at any time. Please Biblical Hebrew...did you forget the name of the list? What, did we run out of Hebrew texts? Please note that I deleted all previous references before responding...nothing I like more than attempting to work through 10 questions and 15 responses all repeated...can we establish some proper decorum for responding, which will not clog the mail servers and shows good discretion? Ron Snider, Pastor-teacher From gfolbreiii at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 19:59:46 2009 From: gfolbreiii at gmail.com (Gerry Folbre) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:59:46 -0700 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust Message-ID: I would like to discuss what I perceive as incongruent anomalies composed within Gen. 2:6b & 2:7a. Gen. 2:6b ????? ???????????????? ... {and irrigated [watered/made wet] the whole face of the ground). Gen. 2:7a ... ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? {and it formed the human archetype of dust from the ground ...) Gen. 2:6b states that the entire face (surface) of the ground is irrigated. But then Gen. 2:7a not only describes ?dry, loose earth (or dust)? being found upon the newly irrigated surface of the ground, Gen. 2:7a also apparently stats that somehow this ?dry, loose earth (dust)? can somehow be ?formed?. However, ?dust (dry, loose earth) from the ground? is not an earthly substance that lends itself to being ?formed {like a potter forms a vessel)?. If there is anyone who may have some constructive insight into these contextual anomalies, I look forward to discussing these subjects with you. Gerry Folbre From jtifft at sbcglobal.net Mon Nov 9 20:32:52 2009 From: jtifft at sbcglobal.net (Jim T.) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:32:52 -0600 (Central Standard Time) Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust References: Message-ID: <4AF8C2C3.000004.06324@JIMTIFFT-PC> As a lay teacher I always refer my students to this in Psalm 90:4 Here the lord is telling us why time seems so misunderstood. (Psalm 90:2-6?NRSV) 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. 3 You turn us back to dust, and say, "Turn back, you mortals." 4 For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past, or like a watch in the night. 5 You sweep them away; they are like a dream, like grass that is renewed in the morning; 6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers. Jim Tifft Universal City, United Methodist Church Universal City, Texas jtifft at sbcglobal.net -------Original Message------- From: Gerry Folbre Date: 11/09/09 18:59:56 To: B-Hebrew Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust I would like to discuss what I perceive as incongruent anomalies composed within Gen. 2:6b & 2:7a. Gen. 2:6b ????? ???????????????? ... {and irrigated [watered/made wet] the whole face of the ground). Gen. 2:7a ... ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? {and it formed the human archetype of dust from the ground ...) Gen. 2:6b states that the entire face (surface) of the ground is irrigated. But then Gen. 2:7a not only describes ?dry, loose earth (or dust)? being found upon the newly irrigated surface of the ground, Gen. 2:7a also apparently stats that somehow this ?dry, loose earth (dust)? can somehow be ?formed?. However, ?dust (dry, loose earth) from the ground? is not an earthly substance that lends itself to being ?formed {like a potter forms a vessel)?. If there is anyone who may have some constructive insight into these contextual anomalies, I look forward to discussing these subjects with you. Gerry Folbre _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew From gfolbreiii at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 20:49:42 2009 From: gfolbreiii at gmail.com (Gerry Folbre) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:49:42 -0700 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: <4AF8C2C3.000004.06324@JIMTIFFT-PC> References: <4AF8C2C3.000004.06324@JIMTIFFT-PC> Message-ID: Jim T. Thanks for the response, but your quoting of Ps. 90:4 is not very helpful. I am trying to discuss the perceived contextual anomalies displayed in Gen. 2:6b thru 2:7a. Find another place in the Heb. Tanakh where "dust" (???) is used to describe "the irrigated surface of ground" or where "dust" (???) is used to describe the substance employed by potters. I have found none, but I may have missed something. Gerry Folbre On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Jim T. wrote: > As a lay teacher I always refer my students to this in Psalm 90:4 Here > the lord is telling us why time seems so misunderstood. > > (Psalm 90:2-6 NRSV) 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you > had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are > God. 3 You turn us back to dust, and say, "Turn back, you mortals." 4 For > a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past, or like a > watch in the night. 5 You sweep them away; they are like a dream, like > grass that is renewed in the morning; 6 in the morning it flourishes and > is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers. > > Jim Tifft > Universal City, United Methodist Church > Universal City, Texas > jtifft at sbcglobal.net > > > *-------Original Message-------* > > *From:* Gerry Folbre > *Date:* 11/09/09 18:59:56 > *To:* B-Hebrew > *Subject:* [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust > > I would like to discuss what I perceive as incongruent anomalies composed > within Gen. 2:6b & 2:7a. > > Gen. 2:6b ????? ???????????????? ... {and irrigated [watered/made wet] the > whole face of the ground). > > Gen. 2:7a ... ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? {and it formed the > human archetype of dust from the ground ...) > > > > Gen. 2:6b states that the entire face (surface) of the ground is irrigated. > But then Gen. 2:7a not only describes ?dry, loose earth (or dust)? being > found upon the newly irrigated surface of the ground, Gen. 2:7a also > apparently stats that somehow this ?dry, loose earth (dust)? can somehow be > ?formed?. However, ?dust (dry, loose earth) from the ground? is not an > earthly substance that lends itself to being ?formed {like a potter forms a > vessel)?. > > > > If there is anyone who may have some constructive insight into these > contextual anomalies, I look forward to discussing these subjects with you. > > > > Gerry Folbre > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > From kwonbbl at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 20:57:11 2009 From: kwonbbl at gmail.com (Oun Kwon) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:57:11 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5f1984b20911091757g753342cq60a5370db60cb29c@mail.gmail.com> I'm ignorant of Hebrew. As I read from some commentaries, however, I take it as 'humus' or 'clay' rather than 'dust'. Oun Kwon. On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Gerry Folbre wrote: > I would like to discuss what I perceive as incongruent anomalies composed > within Gen. 2:6b & 2:7a. > > Gen. 2:6b ????? ???????????????? ... ?{and irrigated [watered/made wet] the > whole face of the ground). > > Gen. 2:7a ... ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?{and it formed the > human archetype of dust from the ground ...) > > > > Gen. 2:6b states that the entire face (surface) of the ground is irrigated. > But then Gen. 2:7a not only describes ?dry, loose earth (or dust)? being > found upon the newly irrigated surface of the ground, Gen. 2:7a also > apparently stats that somehow this ?dry, loose earth (dust)? can somehow be > ?formed?. ?However, ?dust (dry, loose earth) from the ground? is not an > earthly substance that lends itself to being ?formed {like a potter forms a > vessel)?. > > > > If there is anyone who may have some constructive insight into these > contextual anomalies, I look forward to discussing these subjects with you. > > > > Gerry Folbre From transcriber at tanach.us Mon Nov 9 21:07:00 2009 From: transcriber at tanach.us (Christopher Kimball) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:07:00 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] Unicode/XML Westminster Leningrad Codex server change Message-ID: <4AF8CAC4.2050002@tanach.us> The Unicode/XML Westminster Leningrad Codex at http://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml will move to a new server on Wednesday, 11 November at approximately 2100 hr EDT. With luck, the change will be imperceptible. In the event that you experience difficulty with the site, please contact me at mail (at sign) cvkimball.com as the usual transcriber (at sign) tanach.us may be down. Chris Kimball West Redding, CT USA From gfolbreiii at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 21:14:19 2009 From: gfolbreiii at gmail.com (Gerry Folbre) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:14:19 -0700 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: <5f1984b20911091757g753342cq60a5370db60cb29c@mail.gmail.com> References: <5f1984b20911091757g753342cq60a5370db60cb29c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Oun Kwon: The Hebrew masculine noun ???? {dust; dry, loose earth) from the ground" is never used as a synonym of the masculine noun ??? {cement, mortar, clay (as material of vessels; of God?s fashioning man; as material of human bodies), mire}. Therefore, ??? & ??? are not synonymous. >From my point of view, the commentaries you have been reading are incorrect. Gerry Folbre On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Oun Kwon wrote: > I'm ignorant of Hebrew. As I read from some commentaries, however, I > take it as 'humus' or 'clay' rather than 'dust'. > > Oun Kwon. > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Gerry Folbre wrote: > > I would like to discuss what I perceive as incongruent anomalies composed > > within Gen. 2:6b & 2:7a. > > > > Gen. 2:6b ????? ???????????????? ... {and irrigated [watered/made wet] > the > > whole face of the ground). > > > > Gen. 2:7a ... ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? {and it formed the > > human archetype of dust from the ground ...) > > > > > > > > Gen. 2:6b states that the entire face (surface) of the ground is > irrigated. > > But then Gen. 2:7a not only describes ?dry, loose earth (or dust)? being > > found upon the newly irrigated surface of the ground, Gen. 2:7a also > > apparently stats that somehow this ?dry, loose earth (dust)? can somehow > be > > ?formed?. However, ?dust (dry, loose earth) from the ground? is not an > > earthly substance that lends itself to being ?formed {like a potter forms > a > > vessel)?. > > > > > > > > If there is anyone who may have some constructive insight into these > > contextual anomalies, I look forward to discussing these subjects with > you. > > > > > > > > Gerry Folbre > From gfolbreiii at gmail.com Tue Nov 10 00:23:47 2009 From: gfolbreiii at gmail.com (Gerry Folbre) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:23:47 -0700 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: <5f1984b20911091937t48328421y72afb01ef50ad7f4@mail.gmail.com> References: <5f1984b20911091757g753342cq60a5370db60cb29c@mail.gmail.com> <5f1984b20911091858mad8066djbd3551d5812aad4c@mail.gmail.com> <5f1984b20911091937t48328421y72afb01ef50ad7f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In Gen. 2:7 the author could have used the feminine noun terminology ???????? {from the ground}, as used in Gen. 2:19 and there would be no contextual anomaly. But that terminology was not used in Gen. 2:7. Or, in Gen. 2:7 the author could have used the masculine noun ??? {clay} and again there would be no contextual anomaly. In stead, however, the author specifically used the masculine noun ??? {dry, loose earth} thus creating the contextual anomaly. Did the author intend to create this anomaly? And, if the author did intentionally create this anomaly; why? Gerry Folbre On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Oun Kwon wrote: > I hear you well. > > Thank you. > > Oun. > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Gerry Folbre > wrote: > > Oun Kwon: > > Am I reading you correctly? You are wondering if lexical meanings as > such > > are all that fixed? > > It is not so much "the meanings" of the terms, but rather how the same > term > > is used throughout the Hebrew Tanakh, as well as what terms are used as > > synonyms. For example: ??? {dry, loose dirt} is used as a synonym of ??? > > {dry partacles of sand} as well as ??? {dry ashes}. However, ??? {dry, > > loose dirt} is never used as a synonym of ??? {wet mud, or potters clay}. > > Do you see what I am driving at? > > > > Gerry Folbre > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Oun Kwon wrote: > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> I'm wondering lexical meanings as such are all that fixed. > >> > >> Oun. > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Gerry Folbre > wrote: > >> > Oun Kwon: > >> > > >> > The Hebrew masculine noun ???? {dust; dry, loose earth) from the > ground" > >> > is > >> > never used as a synonym of the masculine noun ??? {cement, mortar, > clay > >> > (as > >> > material of vessels; of God?s fashioning man; as material of human > >> > bodies), > >> > mire}. Therefore, ??? & ??? are not synonymous. > >> > > >> > From my point of view, the commentaries you have been reading are > >> > incorrect. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Gerry Folbre > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > From leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il Tue Nov 10 00:45:47 2009 From: leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il (Yigal Levin) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:45:47 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2DCD234140B84F21A5F6426D6183B523@usere5c2048031> Gerry, I think that the problem is that you insist on using Aristotelian logic on an Ancient Near Eastern text. When the Bible says that God caused water to irrigate "all" of the land, the ancient readers understood that "all" means "all of the land that it would be appropriate to irrigate". The fact that the very next verse implies that there was still "dry dust" around is proof of this. The Bible is a work of literature, written (whether by God or man - it doesn't matter) according to the literary conventions that were expected by its intended audience. The Bible is NOT a scientific text in which you would expect precise wording. Yigal Levin -----Original Message----- From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Gerry Folbre Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:00 AM To: B-Hebrew Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust I would like to discuss what I perceive as incongruent anomalies composed within Gen. 2:6b & 2:7a. Gen. 2:6b ????? ???????????????? ... {and irrigated [watered/made wet] the whole face of the ground). Gen. 2:7a ... ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? {and it formed the human archetype of dust from the ground ...) Gen. 2:6b states that the entire face (surface) of the ground is irrigated. But then Gen. 2:7a not only describes ?dry, loose earth (or dust)? being found upon the newly irrigated surface of the ground, Gen. 2:7a also apparently stats that somehow this ?dry, loose earth (dust)? can somehow be ?formed?. However, ?dust (dry, loose earth) from the ground? is not an earthly substance that lends itself to being ?formed {like a potter forms a vessel)?. If there is anyone who may have some constructive insight into these contextual anomalies, I look forward to discussing these subjects with you. Gerry Folbre _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.57/2492 - Release Date: 11/09/09 14:11:00 From leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il Tue Nov 10 00:56:51 2009 From: leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il (Yigal Levin) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:56:51 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] WHAT LANGUAGE DID ABRAHAM, FATHER OF ISHMAEL AND ISAAC, SPEAK? In-Reply-To: References: <75D7544828B74725823A1221EFAD1AD1@KarimaPC> Message-ID: Karl, As you know, the Bible DOES NOT state that Abraham lived in the Early Bronze Age or that Moses lived in the 15th century. You may disagree with the commonly accepted dates, but your dates are just as conjectural. The Bible also does not state that Moses wrote Genesis. This is a long-standing tradition, but not stated specifically in the Bible. As far as the second part of your post below, even assuming that "Hebrews" were writing before "Phoenicians" were: 1. How do you know what alphabet they were using? 2. When you write "Phoenicians", do you mean Canaanites in general, or specifically the Iron-Age inhabitants of the Lebanese coast (the Bible's "Sidonians")? If the former, the Canaanites were developing their "proto-Canaanite" alphabet as far back as the 16th century if not earlier. If the latter, the Iron Age "Phoenicians" adopted the old Canaanite alphabet about the same time as the Iron Age "Hebrews" did. Yigal Levin -----Original Message----- The reason it is not historical is because there are no surviving historical records other than the Bible that either corroborate or contradict the Biblical record that a historical Abraham even lived in the early bronze age when the Bible claims that he lived. Nor are there any historical records as to when Genesis was written other than the Biblical claim that Moses wrote it down in the 15th century BC, and internal evidence that Moses used older documents to compile Genesis. And if he used older documents, did he update the language to 15th century Hebrew or did he leave the documents unchanged? The reason it is not linguistic is for much the same reason, namely that so few records survive from the early bronze age that our understanding of the languages spoken is very patchy at best. Languages both gain and lose phonemes, therefore the number of phonemes a language has is no indication of its age. Your other claimed scenarios suffer from the lack of even a claimed historical record (Bible) to back them up. Yigal: Your claim that Biblical Hebrew had more phonemes than the 22 represented by the alphabet has two problems: 1) if the Bible is accurate history, that indicates that the Hebrews were using the 22 letter alphabet before the Phoenicians, therefore the alphabet reflected the number of phonemes present in the language at that time, and 2) our record of a greater number of phonemes comes from a period long after Hebrew ceased to be the spoken language of the street and hearth, therefore most likely was corrupted by other languages. I include the sin-shin split, ayin-ghayin and other distinctions as examples of that linguistic corruption. Karl W. Randolph. _______________________________________________ From guy at suddenlinkmail.com Tue Nov 10 01:35:59 2009 From: guy at suddenlinkmail.com (Guy) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:35:59 -0600 Subject: [b-hebrew] B Message-ID: <76986B12-8CC4-4C54-B273-386569D57704@suddenlinkmail.com> Guyphone From cosmos at intergate.com Wed Nov 11 08:50:43 2009 From: cosmos at intergate.com (Steve Teague) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:50:43 -0600 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FD4A8A9D300434AB0B2DCC3CA5C0BA6@StevePC> Gerry: Not knowing the finer points of the grammar I can't comment on them. However, as one who has installed irrigation systems on my few acres in east Texas, I can say that this kind of irrigation process is never continuous, nor even uniform (although I may irrigate the entire surface from time to time), and it is desireable for the land to dry out from time to time. If this is the kind of watering Genesis refers to, perhaps this present day example may offer some insight. But then again, the context may not support that this is the kind of watering that is meant. Steve Teague ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerry Folbre" To: "B-Hebrew" Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 6:59 PM Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust >I would like to discuss what I perceive as incongruent anomalies composed > within Gen. 2:6b & 2:7a. > > Gen. 2:6b ????? ???????????????? ... {and irrigated [watered/made wet] > the > whole face of the ground). > > Gen. 2:7a ... ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? {and it formed the > human archetype of dust from the ground ...) > > > > Gen. 2:6b states that the entire face (surface) of the ground is > irrigated. > But then Gen. 2:7a not only describes ?dry, loose earth (or dust)? being > found upon the newly irrigated surface of the ground, Gen. 2:7a also > apparently stats that somehow this ?dry, loose earth (dust)? can somehow > be > ?formed?. However, ?dust (dry, loose earth) from the ground? is not an > earthly substance that lends itself to being ?formed {like a potter forms > a > vessel)?. > > > > If there is anyone who may have some constructive insight into these > contextual anomalies, I look forward to discussing these subjects with > you. > > > > Gerry Folbre > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > From kwrandolph at gmail.com Tue Nov 10 11:34:48 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:34:48 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] WHAT LANGUAGE DID ABRAHAM, FATHER OF ISHMAEL AND ISAAC, SPEAK? In-Reply-To: References: <75D7544828B74725823A1221EFAD1AD1@KarimaPC> Message-ID: Yigal: While this is a discussion group for the Biblical Hebrew language, comments concerning its history are tangentially appropriate. And for that, an understanding of history in general is applied. While I agree that we cannot connect the Biblical dates exactly to modern history, i.e. to the exact year, it is possible to date it roughly, to within a few decades (in the case of Abraham, did he live four or six centuries before the Exodus?). While you and many other professors may disagree with those dates does not negate that those dates are given. What is the philosophic question, is whether or not one accepts the Biblical dates as given as being accurate (accepting that scribal error may have corrupted the timeline slightly)? For example, the Biblical picture is that all of history postdates the world wide flood mentioned in Genesis in that everyone who lived afterwards is a descendant of Noah and his sons, which is given as being mid third millennium BC. If that is true, then all the earlier dates given by modern historians are wrong, as well as many of the post flood dates. To respond to your message, I looked up the dating for the bronze age sub-ages, and found disagreement. Some say that the early bronze age ended about 2100 BC, others as late as the 18th century BC. Going from the latter, Abraham lived late in the early bronze age, from the former early in the mid bronze age. As for the time of Moses, that is given as 480 years before the building of the temple in the mid 10th century BC, making Moses mid 15th century BC. Further, the tradition of ?Moses? Torah? is recorded in the Bible as being as early as during the bronze age. That, plus the notes in the Torah itself that Moses wrote it, pretty much establish Mosaic authorship to the Torah, according to Biblical sources. You can disagree with these claims, but not deny that they are made. For matter of argument, taking the Biblical picture as accurate, that means that there was a body of literature that was taken as sacred dating from the 15th century BC. Seeing as it was sacred, care was taken to make copies accurate to the original. Seeing as later copies all had a 22 letter alphabet, that would indicate that the original also had a 22 letter alphabet. However, that does not extend to font faces. Taking the argument a step further, you admit that the Phoenicians adopted the 22 letter alphabet during the iron age. But the Hebrews had a body of sacred literature that dates from centuries before the iron age written in that same 22 letter alphabet. Therefore, if we take the Biblical picture as being accurate, then the Hebrews had the alphabet centuries before the Phoenicians adopted it. How long before Moses was the 22 letter alphabet used? How many prior languages adopted it, some adding some extensions in the same way as many modern languages using the ?Latin? alphabet add extensions to fit their usage? Here the picture gets rather murky because of the paucity of surviving examples. All of the above is based on the assumption that the Biblical dates are accurate. If one doesn?t accept those dates, then all of it is moot. I give them merely to say that they do exist in the text of Tanakh. Both the decision to accept them as accurate, and the one to reject them, are philosophical decisions outside the scope of this list. Further, there is no evidence that can either corroborate or falsify the Biblical dates, nor the scholarly dates. I personally accept the Biblical dates as accurate, whether you do or not is your choice. Karl W. Randolph. On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Yigal Levin wrote: > Karl, > > As you know, the Bible DOES NOT state that Abraham lived in the Early > Bronze > Age or that Moses lived in the 15th century. You may disagree with the > commonly accepted dates, but your dates are just as conjectural. The Bible > also does not state that Moses wrote Genesis. This is a long-standing > tradition, but not stated specifically in the Bible. > As far as the second part of your post below, even assuming that "Hebrews" > were writing before "Phoenicians" were: > 1. How do you know what alphabet they were using? > 2. When you write "Phoenicians", do you mean Canaanites in general, or > specifically the Iron-Age inhabitants of the Lebanese coast (the Bible's > "Sidonians")? If the former, the Canaanites were developing their > "proto-Canaanite" alphabet as far back as the 16th century if not earlier. > If the latter, the Iron Age "Phoenicians" adopted the old Canaanite > alphabet > about the same time as the Iron Age "Hebrews" did. > > Yigal Levin > From kwrandolph at gmail.com Tue Nov 10 12:08:34 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:08:34 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: References: <5f1984b20911091757g753342cq60a5370db60cb29c@mail.gmail.com> <5f1984b20911091858mad8066djbd3551d5812aad4c@mail.gmail.com> <5f1984b20911091937t48328421y72afb01ef50ad7f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Gerry: There are two areas where I think you have it wrong. First of all, I agree with Yigal that you apply a different way of thinking to the text than what the original author used, and as such you misunderstand the text. Secondly, the use of the word ??? is not limited to dry, loose dust. It is used in Leviticus 14 to refer to the dried, hard mud that was (and in some places still) used as mortar between stones in construction. In 1 Kings 18:38 for dirt that had just been soaked with water. Many times it is used synonymous with ?dirt? that could be either wet or dry, most likely damp. Its use in Genesis 2 therefore can refer to damp soil that can be formed, just not burned and made into pottery as can clay. Karl W. Randolph. On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Gerry Folbre wrote: > In Gen. 2:7 the author could have used the feminine noun terminology > ???????? {from the ground}, as used in Gen. 2:19 and there would be no > contextual anomaly. But that terminology was not used in Gen. 2:7. Or, in > Gen. 2:7 the author could have used the masculine noun ??? {clay} and again > there would be no contextual anomaly. In stead, however, the author > specifically used the masculine noun ??? {dry, loose earth} thus creating > the contextual anomaly. > > > > Did the author intend to create this anomaly? And, if the author did > intentionally create this anomaly; why? > > > > Gerry Folbre > > > From gfolbreiii at gmail.com Tue Nov 10 13:37:12 2009 From: gfolbreiii at gmail.com (Gerry Folbre) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:37:12 -0700 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: References: <5f1984b20911091757g753342cq60a5370db60cb29c@mail.gmail.com> <5f1984b20911091858mad8066djbd3551d5812aad4c@mail.gmail.com> <5f1984b20911091937t48328421y72afb01ef50ad7f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: K Randolph: With all due respect, Karl, how do you know with any certainty the thinking the original author used when composing these lines? The original author may have been composing a creation narrative unlike any other throughout the ancient Near & Middle East. The author may have been striving to insure that the Deity would not be anthropomorphized?thus, ???{dry, loose dust} is a natural substance of the earth that does not lend itself to being formed by human or human-like hands. As to your second point: Gen. 2:7 specifically states, ??? ???????? {dust from the ground}. This context tends to weed out the idea of ?dried mortar or dried plaster? of a human dwelling (Lev. 14). The ?dust? that was consumed by the Deity?s fire was ?dry? because of the Deity?s fire; all the water had been consumed. Consequently, ??? ???????? {dry, loose, dust from the ground} is only used to describe ?dry, loose dirt?. When this dirt becomes wet, the Hebrews called that ?wet dirt? by a completely different term. I look forward to your response. Gerry Folbre On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:08 AM, K Randolph wrote: > Gerry: > > There are two areas where I think you have it wrong. > > First of all, I agree with Yigal that you apply a different way of thinking > to the text than what the original author used, and as such you > misunderstand the text. > > Secondly, the use of the word ??? is not limited to dry, loose dust. It is > used in Leviticus 14 to refer to the dried, hard mud that was (and in some > places still) used as mortar between stones in construction. In 1 Kings > 18:38 for dirt that had just been soaked with water. Many times it is used > synonymous with ?dirt? that could be either wet or dry, most likely damp. > Its use in Genesis 2 therefore can refer to damp soil that can be formed, > just not burned and made into pottery as can clay. > > Karl W. Randolph. > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Gerry Folbre wrote: > > > In Gen. 2:7 the author could have used the feminine noun terminology > > ???????? {from the ground}, as used in Gen. 2:19 and there would be no > > contextual anomaly. But that terminology was not used in Gen. 2:7. Or, > in > > Gen. 2:7 the author could have used the masculine noun ??? {clay} and > again > > there would be no contextual anomaly. In stead, however, the author > > specifically used the masculine noun ??? {dry, loose earth} thus creating > > the contextual anomaly. > > > > > > > > Did the author intend to create this anomaly? And, if the author did > > intentionally create this anomaly; why? > > > > > > > > Gerry Folbre > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > From nxzaha at wm.edu Tue Nov 10 14:44:30 2009 From: nxzaha at wm.edu (Naama Zahavi-Ely) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:44:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20091110144430.DIX35883@mailstore.wm.edu> Shalom! The problem is that you are dealing through English with something for which there is no good English term. I run into this problem every year as I read the text of Genesis 1-3 with intermediate Hebrew students. "Afar," which is translated as "dust," is actually not (dry, wind-blown) dust but rather earth/soil as material -- that is, the collective term for particles of earth that one can pick up and pinch between one's fingers. It can be dry or moist, and it can be formed. I have not been able to find a better English word -- every possibility I can think of has other connotations that are misleading (ground? earth? soil?). I also agree with Yigal's reasoning -- you can't apply Aristotelian logic to the Hebrew Bible (or for that matter to most usage of any language). But in this case, the argument is not necessary. Best wishes Naama Zahavi-Ely College of William and Mary >Message: 3 >Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:59:46 -0700 >From: Gerry Folbre >Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust >To: B-Hebrew >Message-ID: > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >I would like to discuss what I perceive as incongruent anomalies composed >within Gen. 2:6b & 2:7a. > >Gen. 2:6b ????? ???????????????? ... {and irrigated [watered/made wet] the >whole face of the ground). > >Gen. 2:7a ... ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? {and it formed the >human archetype of dust from the ground ...) > > > >Gen. 2:6b states that the entire face (surface) of the ground is irrigated. >But then Gen. 2:7a not only describes ?dry, loose earth (or dust)? being >found upon the newly irrigated surface of the ground, Gen. 2:7a also >apparently stats that somehow this ?dry, loose earth (dust)? can somehow be >?formed?. However, ?dust (dry, loose earth) from the ground? is not an >earthly substance that lends itself to being ?formed {like a potter forms a >vessel)?. > > > >If there is anyone who may have some constructive insight into these >contextual anomalies, I look forward to discussing these subjects with you. > > > >Gerry Folbre > > From if at math.bu.edu Tue Nov 10 16:05:15 2009 From: if at math.bu.edu (Isaac Fried) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:05:15 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: <20091110144430.DIX35883@mailstore.wm.edu> References: <20091110144430.DIX35883@mailstore.wm.edu> Message-ID: <6E805223-2778-4402-ABC4-1D92FF07A906@math.bu.edu> Naama, Ground sounds good. Compare the root ??? with the roots ???, ???, ???, ???, ???, ???. Isaac Fried Boston University On Nov 10, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Naama Zahavi-Ely wrote: > Shalom! > > The problem is that you are dealing through English with something > for which there is no good English term. I run into this problem > every year as I read the text of Genesis 1-3 with intermediate > Hebrew students. "Afar," which is translated as "dust," is > actually not (dry, wind-blown) dust but rather earth/soil as > material -- that is, the collective term for particles of earth > that one can pick up and pinch between one's fingers. It can be > dry or moist, and it can be formed. I have not been able to find a > better English word -- every possibility I can think of has other > connotations that are misleading (ground? earth? soil?). > > I also agree with Yigal's reasoning -- you can't apply Aristotelian > logic to the Hebrew Bible (or for that matter to most usage of any > language). But in this case, the argument is not necessary. > > Best wishes > > Naama Zahavi-Ely > College of William and Mary > >> Message: 3 >> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:59:46 -0700 >> From: Gerry Folbre >> Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust >> To: B-Hebrew >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> I would like to discuss what I perceive as incongruent anomalies >> composed >> within Gen. 2:6b & 2:7a. >> >> Gen. 2:6b ????? ???????????????? ... {and irrigated [watered/made >> wet] the >> whole face of the ground). >> >> Gen. 2:7a ... ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? {and it >> formed the >> human archetype of dust from the ground ...) >> >> >> >> Gen. 2:6b states that the entire face (surface) of the ground is >> irrigated. >> But then Gen. 2:7a not only describes ?dry, loose earth (or dust)? >> being >> found upon the newly irrigated surface of the ground, Gen. 2:7a also >> apparently stats that somehow this ?dry, loose earth (dust)? can >> somehow be >> ?formed?. However, ?dust (dry, loose earth) from the ground? is >> not an >> earthly substance that lends itself to being ?formed {like a >> potter forms a >> vessel)?. >> >> >> >> If there is anyone who may have some constructive insight into these >> contextual anomalies, I look forward to discussing these subjects >> with you. >> >> >> >> Gerry Folbre >> >> > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew From gfolbreiii at gmail.com Tue Nov 10 16:06:47 2009 From: gfolbreiii at gmail.com (Gerry Folbre) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:06:47 -0700 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: <20091110144430.DIX35883@mailstore.wm.edu> References: <20091110144430.DIX35883@mailstore.wm.edu> Message-ID: Shalom, Naama: I fully realize that most if not all of you here will be unreceptive to the idea(s) I am hoping to discuss. These idea(s) are not what you have been taught and therefore are not what is commonly construed from this particular Hebrew narrative. Naama: I comprehend what you, K Randolph, and Yigal are sharing with me. I have read E.A. Speiser?s Genesis commentary, as well as Nahum M. Sarna?s Genesis commentary and both convey similar ideas to what I am hearing from the three of you. I am not looking for an ?argument?, only a fair discussion of idea(s). Naama, you state above that ??? ???????? ?can be dry or moist, and it can be formed.? I cannot find anywhere in the Hebrew Tanakh where ??? ???????? is specifically designated as ?moist? or where it is used as a material of the earth that is used for ?forming? vessels. I am fully aware that ??? is used to describe the ?surface of the ground?, and that it can also be understood as ?soil.? I have not found where ??? is used to describe ?wet, irrigated soil on the surface of the ground? or where ??? is used in a ?forming process.? The Gesenius O.T. Lexicon and the BDB O.T. Lexicon both describe ???employed in Gen. 2:7 as, ?dust, dry earth?; ?dry earth, dust?. Furthermore, if ??? is what all three of you are suggesting, then why is ???not used in Gen. 2:19? All the best, Gerry Folbre On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Naama Zahavi-Ely wrote: > Shalom! > > The problem is that you are dealing through English with something for > which there is no good English term. I run into this problem every year as > I read the text of Genesis 1-3 with intermediate Hebrew students. "Afar," > which is translated as "dust," is actually not (dry, wind-blown) dust but > rather earth/soil as material -- that is, the collective term for particles > of earth that one can pick up and pinch between one's fingers. It can be > dry or moist, and it can be formed. I have not been able to find a better > English word -- every possibility I can think of has other connotations that > are misleading (ground? earth? soil?). > > I also agree with Yigal's reasoning -- you can't apply Aristotelian logic > to the Hebrew Bible (or for that matter to most usage of any language). But > in this case, the argument is not necessary. > > Best wishes > > Naama Zahavi-Ely > College of William and Mary > > >Message: 3 > >Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:59:46 -0700 > >From: Gerry Folbre > >Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust > >To: B-Hebrew > >Message-ID: > > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > >I would like to discuss what I perceive as incongruent anomalies composed > >within Gen. 2:6b & 2:7a. > > > >Gen. 2:6b ????? ???????????????? ... {and irrigated [watered/made wet] > the > >whole face of the ground). > > > >Gen. 2:7a ... ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? {and it formed the > >human archetype of dust from the ground ...) > > > > > > > >Gen. 2:6b states that the entire face (surface) of the ground is > irrigated. > >But then Gen. 2:7a not only describes ?dry, loose earth (or dust)? being > >found upon the newly irrigated surface of the ground, Gen. 2:7a also > >apparently stats that somehow this ?dry, loose earth (dust)? can somehow > be > >?formed?. However, ?dust (dry, loose earth) from the ground? is not an > >earthly substance that lends itself to being ?formed {like a potter forms > a > >vessel)?. > > > > > > > >If there is anyone who may have some constructive insight into these > >contextual anomalies, I look forward to discussing these subjects with > you. > > > > > > > >Gerry Folbre > > > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > From dwashbur at nyx.net Tue Nov 10 19:29:30 2009 From: dwashbur at nyx.net (dwashbur at nyx.net) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:29:30 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: References: , <20091110144430.DIX35883@mailstore.wm.edu>, Message-ID: <4AF994EA.30258.908DFF@dwashbur.nyx.net> Gerry, On 10 Nov 2009 at 14:06, Gerry Folbre wrote: > Shalom, Naama: > > I fully realize that most if not all of you here will be unreceptive > to the > idea(s) I am hoping to discuss. These idea(s) are not what you have > been > taught and therefore are not what is commonly construed from this > particular > Hebrew narrative. In most cases here, my own included, it has nothing to do with what we've been taught. It has to do with what we've observed in the language. There's a wide range of grammatical and lexicological viewpoints on this list, so it might be a good idea to listen when they all agree on something. > Naama: I comprehend what you, K Randolph, and Yigal are sharing > with me. I > have read E.A. Speiser?s Genesis commentary, as well as Nahum M. > Sarna?s > Genesis commentary and both convey similar ideas to what I am > hearing from > the three of you. > > I am not looking for an "argument", only a fair discussion of > idea(s). Please define what you consider "a fair discussion." > Naama, you state above that "can be dry or > moist, and it can be > formed." I cannot find anywhere in the Hebrew Tanakh where > is > specifically designated as "moist" or where it is used as a > material of the > earth that is used for `forming? vessels. I am fully aware that > is used > to describe the "surface of the ground", and that it can also be > understood > as "soil." I have not found where is used to describe > "wet, irrigated > soil on the surface of the ground" or where is used in a > "forming > process." As I recall, someone gave you at least two specific examples. But even supposing there aren't any other examples in the corpus we have, you're looking at one, and that's enough to establish such a usage. Words aren't like numbers, where a 2 is a 2 is a 2 and always will be. Words mean what they mean because a society chooses to use them that way. In that sense, (PR doesn't have any inherent meaning, it's nothing but a string of sounds. What gives it meaning is how people used it. You have here at least one example of it being used for soil that could be formed into something, because the context won't allow any other sense. It's as if a bowler reads in the paper that the major league pitcher threw strikes. To a bowler, throwing a strike means something very different than it does to a baseball pitcher. So the bowler has to realize that, in his sport, "strike" means "hit," i.e. knock all the pins down, but in baseball it means "miss," i.e. the batter didn't hit the ball. Context is everything, especially in the word biz. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur From joelcsalomon at gmail.com Tue Nov 10 23:32:16 2009 From: joelcsalomon at gmail.com (Joel C. Salomon) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:32:16 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] WHAT LANGUAGE DID ABRAHAM, FATHER OF ISHMAEL AND ISAAC, SPEAK? In-Reply-To: <75D7544828B74725823A1221EFAD1AD1@KarimaPC> References: <75D7544828B74725823A1221EFAD1AD1@KarimaPC> Message-ID: <4AFA3E50.5080407@gmail.com> On 11/9/2009 12:45 AM, Ishinan wrote: > SCENARIO #1 -- In Genesis, Abraham appears as a Hebrew speaker?. > > PROBLEM: If Abraham spoke Hebrew and he was also father to Ishmael, the > progenitor of the Arabs, then this would imply that the Arabic language is a > dialect of the Hebrew language. The assumption that Ishmael is ?the progenitor of the Arabs? may not be warranted. Ishmael (along with Abraham?s children by Ketura) was sent away and likely joined the already-existing Arab people, possibly becoming a chieftain there. (All this according to my reading of the Biblical text ?? or at least, not inconsistent with the Biblical text.) Is there any source for Arab descent from Ishmael other than the Koran? ?Joel C. Salomon From joelcsalomon at gmail.com Tue Nov 10 23:42:17 2009 From: joelcsalomon at gmail.com (Joel C. Salomon) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:42:17 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: <2DCD234140B84F21A5F6426D6183B523@usere5c2048031> References: <2DCD234140B84F21A5F6426D6183B523@usere5c2048031> Message-ID: <4AFA40A9.5050003@gmail.com> On 11/10/2009 12:45 AM, Yigal Levin wrote: > I think that the problem is that you insist on using Aristotelian logic on an Ancient Near Eastern text. When the Bible says that God caused water to irrigate "all" of the land, the ancient readers understood that "all" means "all of the land that it would be appropriate to irrigate". The fact that the very next verse implies that there was still "dry dust" around is proof of this. It may be appropos to note that S. R. Hirsch interprets ?????? as ?land suitable for work by Man? (actually reversing the common ???-???? etymology). ?Joel C. Salomon From if at math.bu.edu Wed Nov 11 00:35:11 2009 From: if at math.bu.edu (Isaac Fried) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:35:11 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust In-Reply-To: <20091110165107.DIY28966@mailstore.wm.edu> References: <20091110144430.DIX35883@mailstore.wm.edu> <6E805223-2778-4402-ABC4-1D92FF07A906@math.bu.edu> <20091110165107.DIY28966@mailstore.wm.edu> Message-ID: <86E81AB3-4944-4AC2-8020-D9A80BFD836D@math.bu.edu> Naama, It appears to me that ???? is solid, ????, ????, while ??? like ??? is powder. Isaac Fried, Boston University On Nov 10, 2009, at 4:51 PM, Naama Zahavi-Ely wrote: > Yes -- except that the word "ground" is usually used for an expanse > of material, not for the material it is made of. You don't usually > pick up a pinch of ground; you can definitely do that with ???. > A closer equivalent to the English word "ground" is ????. But > languages do not match in word boundaries as a rule. That's why > translating is such a fascinating task. > > Best > > Naama > > ---- Original message ---- >> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:05:15 -0500 >> From: Isaac Fried >> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust >> To: nxzaha at wm.edu >> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org >> >> Naama, >> >> Ground sounds good. Compare the root ??? with the roots ???, >> ???, ???, ???, ???, ???. >> >> Isaac Fried >> Boston University >> >> On Nov 10, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Naama Zahavi-Ely wrote: >> >>> Shalom! >>> >>> The problem is that you are dealing through English with something >>> for which there is no good English term. I run into this problem >>> every year as I read the text of Genesis 1-3 with intermediate >>> Hebrew students. "Afar," which is translated as "dust," is >>> actually not (dry, wind-blown) dust but rather earth/soil as >>> material -- that is, the collective term for particles of earth >>> that one can pick up and pinch between one's fingers. It can be >>> dry or moist, and it can be formed. I have not been able to find a >>> better English word -- every possibility I can think of has other >>> connotations that are misleading (ground? earth? soil?). >>> >>> I also agree with Yigal's reasoning -- you can't apply Aristotelian >>> logic to the Hebrew Bible (or for that matter to most usage of any >>> language). But in this case, the argument is not necessary. >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Naama Zahavi-Ely >>> College of William and Mary >>> >>>> Message: 3 >>>> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:59:46 -0700 >>>> From: Gerry Folbre >>>> Subject: [b-hebrew] watered ground & forming dust >>>> To: B-Hebrew >>>> Message-ID: >>>> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >>>> >>>> I would like to discuss what I perceive as incongruent anomalies >>>> composed >>>> within Gen. 2:6b & 2:7a. >>>> >>>> Gen. 2:6b ????? ???????????????? ... {and irrigated [watered/made >>>> wet] the >>>> whole face of the ground). >>>> >>>> Gen. 2:7a ... ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? {and it >>>> formed the >>>> human archetype of dust from the ground ...) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Gen. 2:6b states that the entire face (surface) of the ground is >>>> irrigated. >>>> But then Gen. 2:7a not only describes ?dry, loose earth (or dust)? >>>> being >>>> found upon the newly irrigated surface of the ground, Gen. 2:7a >>>> also >>>> apparently stats that somehow this ?dry, loose earth (dust)? can >>>> somehow be >>>> ?formed?. However, ?dust (dry, loose earth) from the ground? is >>>> not an >>>> earthly substance that lends itself to being ?formed {like a >>>> potter forms a >>>> vessel)?. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If there is anyone who may have some constructive insight into >>>> these >>>> contextual anomalies, I look forward to discussing these subjects >>>> with you. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Gerry Folbre >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> b-hebrew mailing list >>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew >> From pbekins at fuse.net Thu Nov 12 07:28:39 2009 From: pbekins at fuse.net (Peter Bekins) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:28:39 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] BH and Modern Approaches to Case Message-ID: <3F6B96B8-91A4-45BB-9F98-69AAF05A7F5E@fuse.net> Dear list, Is anyone aware of treatments of Biblical Hebrew "case" relations from modern (ie post-Fillmore) approaches? Muraoka has a short article on verb complementation in which he notes that direct objects and prepositional phrases can alternate for some verbs with no apparent difference in meaning, but he does not interact with the discussion of case in linguistics. His student Malessa briefly discusses case in his dissertation on verbal valence, but he only outlines his theoretical framework without any discussion of the broader issues and his bibliography only has references to general works on case. This is a sub-topic of my dissertation so I would rather not spend alot of time on it, but if nobody has done much with it yet then I may have to. Thanks, Pete Bekins From garyh at cjfm.org Thu Nov 12 14:24:41 2009 From: garyh at cjfm.org (Gary Hedrick) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:24:41 -0600 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> Message-ID: Yes, Jim, this is interesting. Remember, too, that Hebrews 1:6 in the NT quotes an OT passage that doesn't appear in the MT ("And let all the angels of Elohim bow down to Him"). However, it IS in the Qumran version of Deut. 32:43, and also in the LXX rendering of that same verse. (You'll find earlier discussions about this on B-Hebrew in the archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2009-February/037203.html where Bryant Williams quotes from Beale and Carson on this question.) So this sort of puts textual criticism on its ear because the Greek NT is, in effect, correcting the Hebrew MT. As Spock might say: "Fascinating." More info here: www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf I like the way BibSac puts the three primary sources side by side for easier comparison. Gary Hedrick San Antonio, TX USA On 5/6/09 3:35 AM, "leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il" wrote: > Dear James, > > There is really nothing new in what you have apparently just "discovered". > We've been discussing these issues on and off for years. What you really > should do is to read a few basic books on the formation and canonization > of > the text of the Bible. Obviously, there are different opinions, else there > would be nothing to debate (and then what would we do?). > > Please note, however: co-modirator George Athas has already called your > attention to the rule that requires all messages to be signed by the > writer's full name. He has also hinted that some of your recent posts are > not really on topic. If you do wish to engage this list in discussion of > Biblical Hebrew, please abide by the list rules. > > Thank you > > Yigal Levin > co-moderator, b-hebrew > > Original Message: > ----------------- > From: James Read J.Read-2 at sms.ed.ac.uk > Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 00:42:06 +0100 > To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? > > > > Hi, > > I've been doing a lot of reading and a lot of thinking in the past few > months and one of the things I've been interested in was finding out > more about alternative readings. Now I was brought up and fed with > stories that the OT was originally written in Hebrew and so the > massoretic text is our most reliable source for its original shape. > But recent lines of research have been causing me seriously question > that kind of reasoning. Does the fact that the massoretic is in Hebrew > really make it a superior source? > > Some of the lines of evidence I've been looking at are > > 1) The age of extant manuscripts of the Massoretic text > 2) Greek translations of the OT > 3) The dead sea scrolls > 4) The Samaritan pentateuch > > Now, I was also brought up on stories of how the LXX has been proven > to be a 'bad translation' because of X, Y and Z with only the Torah > part of it being of decent enough quality. Now, the information that > has come to light to me in recent months are the following factors: > > 1) The oldest manuscripts of the Massoretic text are post 9th century > (not that old in the big scheme of things) > 2) Qere and ketib such as the common he/she confusion show that the > Massoretic text was only sanctified as a holy order of consonants > which must be copied in that sequence no matter what *after* > considerable error had been introduced into it > 3) There is more agreement between the variant readings of the > Samaritan Pentateuch, the extant Greek versions of the torah such as > those found in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and the torah > fragments in the dead sea scrolls than there is between any of them > and the Massoretic text. > 4) The dead sea scrolls may be as old as 2nd century B.C.E > 5) Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both 4th century codices > 6) This shows that both the dead sea scrolls and the Greek versions > predate extant MT codices such as Aleppo and Leningrad considerably > 7) The MT is the product of years of Rabbinical debate who may have > had an agenda influenced by the ever growing division between > themselves and the Christians > 8) Jerome (4th century) claims to have based his Vulgate translation > on the Hebrew text yet there is more agreement with derivative > manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate with the aforementioned dead sea > scroll texts, the Greek versions and the Samaritan Pentateuch than > with the MT > > All of these factors have caused me recently to call into question > just how reliable a source the Aleppo and Leningrad codices are and > whether a reconstruction of the original Hebrew text from these other > sources would be a more reliable indicator of an older form of the > Hebrew text of the books we consider to be part of the Tanakh. > > Any thoughts? > > James > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft? Windows? and Linux web and application > hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.320 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2079 - Release Date: 05/06/09 > 17:58:00 From jlitteral5 at roadrunner.com Thu Nov 12 21:08:07 2009 From: jlitteral5 at roadrunner.com (jlitteral5 at roadrunner.com) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:08:07 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] Need help with this one Message-ID: <20091113020808.6PWO0.511343.root@cdptpa-web25-z01> I am looking for the meaning of this word ?????? It is found in the Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew in 5:29 and apparently it means offend, but I would like to know the root of it. Any help would be greatly appreciated! John Litteral jlitteral5 at roadrunner.com From leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il Thu Nov 12 22:58:39 2009 From: leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il (Yigal Levin) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:58:39 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Need help with this one In-Reply-To: <20091113020808.6PWO0.511343.root@cdptpa-web25-z01> References: <20091113020808.6PWO0.511343.root@cdptpa-web25-z01> Message-ID: Hi John, The root K$L means "to fail": "If your right eye should fail you, poke it out and throw it away". I haven't looked up what the Greek is, but it may be that the English "offend" is a faulty translation! Yigal Levin -----Original Message----- From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of jlitteral5 at roadrunner.com Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 4:08 AM To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: [b-hebrew] Need help with this one I am looking for the meaning of this word ?????? It is found in the Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew in 5:29 and apparently it means offend, but I would like to know the root of it. Any help would be greatly appreciated! John Litteral jlitteral5 at roadrunner.com _______________________________________________ From garyh at cjfm.org Fri Nov 13 13:19:59 2009 From: garyh at cjfm.org (Gary Hedrick) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:19:59 -0600 Subject: [b-hebrew] Need help with this one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In Greek, the word is skandalizei--literally, "if your right eye should scandalize you." The import of the word is to cause one to stumble or to create a hindrance. "Offend" may have been a good translation in 1611 but it isn't today. On 11/12/09 9:58 PM, "Yigal Levin" wrote: > Hi John, The root K$L means "to fail": "If your right eye should fail you, > poke it out and throw it away". I haven't looked up what the Greek is, but it > may be that the English "offend" is a faulty translation! Yigal > Levin -----Original Message----- From: > b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] > On Behalf Of jlitteral5 at roadrunner.com Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 4:08 > AM To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: [b-hebrew] Need help with this > one I am looking for the meaning of this word ?????? It is found in the > Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew in 5:29 and apparently it means > offend, but I would like to know the root of it. Any help would be greatly > appreciated! John > Litteral jlitteral5 at roadrunner.com __________________________________________ > _____ _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing > list b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-he > brew From garyh at cjfm.org Fri Nov 13 13:30:30 2009 From: garyh at cjfm.org (Gary Hedrick) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:30:30 -0600 Subject: [b-hebrew] Need help with this one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Oops, forgot to sign. Sorry, moderators! Gary Hedrick San Antonio, Texas USA On 11/13/09 12:19 PM, "Gary Hedrick" wrote: > In Greek, the word is skandalizei--literally, "if your right eye > should scandalize you." The import of the word is to cause one to stumble or > to create a hindrance. "Offend" may have been a good translation in 1611 but > it isn't today. On 11/12/09 9:58 PM, "Yigal Levin" > wrote: > Hi John, The root K$L means "to fail": "If your right eye should > fail you, > poke it out and throw it away". I haven't looked up what the Greek > is, but it > may be that the English "offend" is a faulty > translation! From leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il Sat Nov 14 18:55:01 2009 From: leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il (Yigal Levin) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 01:55:01 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] SBL e-list meeting Message-ID: I'm forwarding this for Jeffrey Gibson, who is not a member of B-Hebrew but does feel that some members of our list may be interested. Personally, I will be attending SBL this year and would love to get to meet some of you in person, so if anyone else who will be there wishes to, please feel free to contact me off-list and we can arrange a meeting, either with or without Jeffrey Gibson. Yigal Levin ************************************ With apologies for cross posting. It's that time of year again when the Society of Biblical Literature's Annual Meeting is just around the corner (Nov. 21st - Nov. 24th in New Orleans) and I begin to arrange the now traditional (13th annual!) gathering of all those NT and Biblical and Biblically related e-list members (i.e. XTalkers, B-Greeks, and members of Corpus Paulinum, John-Lit, Kata Markon, Biblical Studies, T-C List, Ioudaios, Synoptic-L, Aramaic, ANE-2, etc. ) who will be going to New Orleans for the SBL conference. [For those of you who do not know what the Society of Biblical Literature is and/or are unfamiliar with the SBL Annual Meeting, go first to http://www.sbl- site.org/ and then to http://www.sbl- site.org/congresses/Congresses_AnnualMeeting.aspx]. The informal E-Listers' meeting is planned for Saturday, Nov. 21st at 11:30 a.m. the Eisenbrauns Press booth (# 704) in the the New Orleans Marriott Exhibit Hall. As attendees of previous meetings know, this gathering is a great opportunity to place a face to an one hitherto known only as an electronic personality and/or to renew acquaintances made at previous SBLs. As I've done in the past 12 years in arranging this meeting, I'd like to get an advance head count of those of you who are intending to attend this year's SBL. I'd also like to know who among the intended attendees is presenting a paper during the conference (and at what time and place and within what SBL group or section and under what title). So this is the first call to write me OFF LIST at jgibson000 at comcast.net and let me know the following: (a) if you will be attending; (b) if and when and under what aegis (i.e., SBLSection and Session #) you are presenting a paper, (c) your paper title, AND (d) what you consider to be your "home" E-List. I'll keep everyone updated as the info comes in to me. Again, write to me OFF LIST (jgibson000 at comcast. net) and please use a header that says something like "SBL e-listers' meeting". May I ask that if you are letting me know that you are giving a paper, that you adhere as closely as possible to the SBL/AAR Program Book Format when you do so. That is to say, I'd be grateful if you'd compose your information according to this formula: Name and Institution Section # Title of Section Date Time Room Paper title For example: Stephen C. Carlson, Duke University SBL 24-112 Function of Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings in Early Judaism and Early Christianity Section Tuesday, 11/24 11/24/2009 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM Room: Bayside A - SH Origen's Use of the Gospel of Thomas Looking forward to seeing you in New Orleans! Yours, Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. Chicago, Illinois e-mail jgibson000 at comcast. net From greifer at hotmail.com Sun Nov 15 18:39:28 2009 From: greifer at hotmail.com (kenneth greifer) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:39:28 +0000 Subject: [b-hebrew] Psalm 2:11-12 Message-ID: I know how much people on B-Hebrew like my idea of regrouping the Hebrew letters of controversial quotes, so here is one of my ideas for Psalm 2:11-12 which some people translate as "kiss the son", etcetera. Maybe it says "serve the L-rd in fear and joy and innocence (bet resh), while (until) (ayin dalet) His being set on fire (hay) (nun sin koof) (vav) is innocent (bet resh), lest He will become angry and you will perish stepping forth. When will burn almost (a little?) His anger, marching (alef shin resh) will complete (kaf lamed lamed ??? as kaf lamed ??) (yud kaf lamed) (geminate verb) my pitying by Him." Maybe the nations are planning to attack, so he is saying that G-d is a little angry right now, but He will become very angry if they actually start to march toward Israel. The verb spelled (kaf lamed lamed) is used in EZEKIEL 27:4 and 11. It's a wild guess, but sometimes wild guesses are fun. Kenneth Greifer _________________________________________________________________ Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen:112009v2 From muzhogg at netspace.net.au Mon Nov 16 02:10:49 2009 From: muzhogg at netspace.net.au (Murray Hogg) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:10:49 +1100 Subject: [b-hebrew] Why "Random" in 2 Chron 18:33? Message-ID: <4B00FAF9.8030407@netspace.net.au> Hi Folks, A question has arisen on another list of which I am part as to the translation of ???? (from ???) in 2 Chron 18:33. Most English translations give "at random" or "at a venture" - but the idea of randomness or chance doesn't occur in my rather limited references. Nor am I able to get to a library for the next few days. Could some kind soul please offer a couple of remarks as to why it is the translators might have chosen "at random/at a venture" in this place when the lexicon entry seems to centre upon notions of fullness or completeness? Thanks in advance, Murray Hogg Melbourne, Australia From kgraham0938 at comcast.net Mon Nov 16 07:54:47 2009 From: kgraham0938 at comcast.net (kgraham0938 at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:54:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [b-hebrew] Why "Random" in 2 Chron 18:33? In-Reply-To: <4B00FAF9.8030407@netspace.net.au> Message-ID: <1115907198.3384941258376087961.JavaMail.root@sz0053a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> Hey Murry, I think the idea here of TOM is "to his innocence." Which is connoting the idea that the man did not have a specific target in mind. He really did not know that he was shooting at the king of Israel. He did it "Unknowingly." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Murray Hogg" To: "B-Hebrew List" Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 2:10:49 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [b-hebrew] Why "Random" in 2 Chron 18:33? Hi Folks, A question has arisen on another list of which I am part as to the translation of ???? (from ???) in 2 Chron 18:33. Most English translations give "at random" or "at a venture" - but the idea of randomness or chance doesn't occur in my rather limited references. Nor am I able to get to a library for the next few days. Could some kind soul please offer a couple of remarks as to why it is the translators might have chosen "at random/at a venture" in this place when the lexicon entry seems to centre upon notions of fullness or completeness? Thanks in advance, Murray Hogg Melbourne, Australia _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew From kwrandolph at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 11:55:34 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:55:34 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Why "Random" in 2 Chron 18:33? In-Reply-To: <4B00FAF9.8030407@netspace.net.au> References: <4B00FAF9.8030407@netspace.net.au> Message-ID: Murray: One idea is as kgraham mentioned, in his innocence. Another possibility is that this is a use from the same root as TMH used with the idea of not knowing what to do, so the archer was shooting at random without specifically targeting the king. Karl W. Randolph. On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Murray Hogg wrote: > Hi Folks, > > A question has arisen on another list of which I am part as to the > translation of ???? (from ???) in 2 Chron 18:33. > > Most English translations give "at random" or "at a venture" - but the idea > of randomness or chance doesn't occur in my rather limited references. > > Murray Hogg > Melbourne, Australia > From kwrandolph at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 13:14:30 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:14:30 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> Message-ID: Gary: Are there online sources for textual criticism, or do we still have to buy the information either in dead trees or paid for software? I know that in well over 90% of the Kethib/Qere examples, I find the Kethib is the preferred according to context and meaning. I also have a list of 17 verses where the Masoretes admit to changing the verses, but only the verses are listed without noting which changes were made. I also have a .pdf with the Nahal Heber photo of Psalm 22:16?18 in which I noted two variants from the Masoretic text, both of which I anticipated because of grammar and context. How many other variants are readily available? And where? Karl W. Randolph. On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Gary Hedrick wrote: > Yes, Jim, this is interesting. Remember, too, that Hebrews 1:6 in the NT > quotes an OT passage that doesn't appear in the MT ("And let all the angels > of Elohim bow down to Him"). However, it IS in the Qumran version of Deut. > 32:43, and also in the LXX rendering of that same verse. (You'll find > earlier discussions about this on B-Hebrew in the archives at > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2009-February/037203.htmlwhere > Bryant Williams quotes from Beale and Carson on this question.) So this > sort > of puts textual criticism on its ear because the Greek NT is, in effect, > correcting the Hebrew MT. As Spock might say: "Fascinating." > > More info here: www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf I like the way > BibSac puts the three primary sources side by side for easier comparison. > > Gary Hedrick > San Antonio, TX USA > From tomasek at etf.cuni.cz Mon Nov 16 16:57:55 2009 From: tomasek at etf.cuni.cz (Petr Tomasek) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:57:55 +0100 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20091116215755.GB8991@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:14:30AM -0800, K Randolph wrote: > Gary: > > Are there online sources for textual criticism, or do we still have to buy > the information either in dead trees or paid for software? > > I know that in well over 90% of the Kethib/Qere examples, I find the Kethib > is the preferred according to context and meaning. I also have a list of 17 > verses where the Masoretes admit to changing the verses, but only the verses which list exactly do you mean? > are listed without noting which changes were made. I also have a .pdf with > the Nahal Heber photo of Psalm 22:16?18 in which I noted two variants from > the Masoretic text, both of which I anticipated because of grammar and > context. How many other variants are readily available? And where? > > Karl W. Randolph. -- Petr Tomasek Jabber: butrus at jabbim.cz SIP: butrus at ekiga.net From leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il Mon Nov 16 17:12:00 2009 From: leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il (Yigal Levin) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:12:00 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Why "Random" in 2 Chron 18:33? In-Reply-To: <1115907198.3384941258376087961.JavaMail.root@sz0053a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> References: <4B00FAF9.8030407@netspace.net.au> <1115907198.3384941258376087961.JavaMail.root@sz0053a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <8F956BBAC0014254B76E5C7C2FDE6EEB@usere5c2048031> Dear All, Please remember to sign your posts with your full name. Thank you, Yigal Levin Co-moderator, B-Hebrew -----Original Message----- From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of kgraham0938 at comcast.net Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 2:55 PM To: Murray Hogg Cc: B-Hebrew List Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why "Random" in 2 Chron 18:33? Hey Murry, I think the idea here of TOM is "to his innocence." Which is connoting the idea that the man did not have a specific target in mind. He really did not know that he was shooting at the king of Israel. He did it "Unknowingly." From kwrandolph at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 20:23:39 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:23:39 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <20091116215755.GB8991@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> References: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> <20091116215755.GB8991@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> Message-ID: Petr: On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Petr Tomasek wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:14:30AM -0800, K Randolph wrote: > >. I also have a list of 17 > > verses where the Masoretes admit to changing the verses, ? > > which list exactly do you mean? > > Gen 18:22 Num 11:15 Num 12:12 1 Sam 3:13 2 Sam 16:12 2 Sam 20:1 1 Kgs 12:16 Jer 2:11 Ezek 8:17 Hos 4:7 Hab 1:12 Zech 2:12 Mal 1:13 Job 7:20 Job 32:3 Lam 3:20 2 Chron 10:16 Now that I look at it again, I realize that I excerpted it from somewhere, but I don?t remember where. And this is where they admit to it. Karl W. Randolph. From davedonnelly1 at juno.com Tue Nov 17 08:09:56 2009 From: davedonnelly1 at juno.com (davedonnelly1) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:09:56 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Masoretic Text reliable? Message-ID: <20091117.051056.6722.16922@mailpop04.dca.untd.com> K. Randolph wrote I also have a list of 17 verses where the Masoretes admit to changing the verses, which list exactly do you mean? _________________________________________________________________________ _________ Christian Ginsburg wrote that there were 17 theophoric names starting with "Yeho" which were shortened to theophoric names starting with"Yo": Christian Ginsburg, Introduction To the Massoretico-Critical Edition Of The Hebrew Bible, p 369. "There are, however, a number of compound names in the Bible into the composition of which three out of the four letters of the Incommunicable Name have entered. Moreover, these letters which begin the names in question are actually pointed Jeho, as the Tetragrammaton itself and hence in a pause at the reading of the first part of the name it sounded as if the reader was pronouncing the Ineffable Name. To guard against it an attempt was made by a certain school of redactors of the text to omit the letter He so that the first part of the names in question has been altered from Jeho into Jo ." Of course Christian Ginsburg believed that God's name was actually "(Y)Jehovah" and that this change was made so that the Jewish reader would not accidentally pronounce the name "(Y)Jehovah". And he believed this change took place before the Masoretes wrote their texts. The Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D. lists 6 different variants of YHWH, only one of which was "Yehovah". but Hebrew Scholars do not believe that God's name is Yehovah. David P. Donnelly ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=-pk_WVzopmuu7B-5xNJexAAAJ1BVGyITH_OGb159rldJgo3SAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA= From tomasek at etf.cuni.cz Tue Nov 17 10:54:19 2009 From: tomasek at etf.cuni.cz (Petr Tomasek) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:54:19 +0100 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> <20091116215755.GB8991@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> Message-ID: <20091117155419.GA9950@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 05:23:39PM -0800, K Randolph wrote: > Petr: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Petr Tomasek wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:14:30AM -0800, K Randolph wrote: > > >. I also have a list of 17 > > > verses where the Masoretes admit to changing the verses, ? > > > > which list exactly do you mean? > > > > > Gen 18:22 > Num 11:15 > Num 12:12 > 1 Sam 3:13 > 2 Sam 16:12 > 2 Sam 20:1 > 1 Kgs 12:16 > Jer 2:11 > Ezek 8:17 > Hos 4:7 > Hab 1:12 > Zech 2:12 > Mal 1:13 > Job 7:20 > Job 32:3 > Lam 3:20 > 2 Chron 10:16 OK, so you mean the "Tiqqunei sopherim" which are mentioned not only by massoretes, but in the rabbinic litterature as well (there do exist several versions with different number of biblical passages). They are mentioned in (according to E. Tov): 1)?Sifre 84 (Num 10:35) - 8 passages 2) Mekhilta d' r. Jishmael 6 (Ex 15:7) - 11 passages 3) Tanhuma Beshallakh 16 (Ex 15:7) - 18 passages 4)?Okhla we-Okhla nr. 168 - 18 passages It is however questionable if those lists are real "textual witnesses" or whether they are rather of midrashic nature... > Now that I look at it again, I realize that I excerpted it from somewhere, > but I don?t remember where. And this is where they admit to it. > > Karl W. Randolph. -- Petr Tomasek Jabber: butrus at jabbim.cz SIP: butrus at ekiga.net From kwrandolph at gmail.com Tue Nov 17 13:20:24 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:20:24 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <20091117155419.GA9950@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> References: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> <20091116215755.GB8991@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <20091117155419.GA9950@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> Message-ID: Thanks, Petr: It is my understanding that these are textual witnesses. I did see a discussion of the first one, Genesis 18:22, where the change was noted and why: the original had the Lord standing before Abraham. But the Masoretes concluded that the inferior stands before the superior, that it?s not merely a spacial statement, therefore they changed the verse to say that Abraham stood before the Lord. But I don?t have any information about the other passages. Karl W. Randolph. On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Petr Tomasek wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 05:23:39PM -0800, K Randolph wrote: > > Petr: > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Petr Tomasek > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:14:30AM -0800, K Randolph wrote: > > > >. I also have a list of 17 > > > > verses where the Masoretes admit to changing the verses, ? > > > > > > which list exactly do you mean? > > > > > > > > Gen 18:22 > ? > > OK, so you mean the "Tiqqunei sopherim" which are mentioned not only by > massoretes, > but in the rabbinic litterature as well (there do exist several versions > with > different number of biblical passages). > > They are mentioned in (according to E. Tov): > 1) Sifre 84 (Num 10:35) - 8 passages > 2) Mekhilta d' r. Jishmael 6 (Ex 15:7) - 11 passages > 3) Tanhuma Beshallakh 16 (Ex 15:7) - 18 passages > 4) Okhla we-Okhla nr. 168 - 18 passages > > It is however questionable if those lists are real "textual witnesses" or > whether > they are rather of midrashic nature... > > From tomasek at etf.cuni.cz Tue Nov 17 13:50:34 2009 From: tomasek at etf.cuni.cz (Petr Tomasek) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:50:34 +0100 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> <20091116215755.GB8991@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <20091117155419.GA9950@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> Message-ID: <20091117185033.GA6782@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:20:24AM -0800, K Randolph wrote: > Thanks, Petr: > > It is my understanding that these are textual witnesses. Some scholars won't agree. See e.g. W. Emery Barnes. Ancient Corrections in the Text of the Old Testament (Ti??un Sopherim), JThS 1 (1899-1900) 387-414. > I did see a discussion of the first one, Genesis 18:22, where the change was > noted and why: the original had the Lord standing before Abraham. But the > Masoretes concluded that the inferior stands before the superior, that it?s > not merely a spacial statement, therefore they changed the verse to say that > Abraham stood before the Lord. But I don?t have any information about the > other passages. > > Karl W. Randolph. > -- Petr Tomasek Jabber: butrus at jabbim.cz SIP: butrus at ekiga.net From randallbuth at gmail.com Wed Nov 18 11:11:15 2009 From: randallbuth at gmail.com (Randall Buth) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:11:15 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? Message-ID: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> >Gen 18:22 >Num 11:15 . . . > 2 Chron 10:16 think of how wonderful this testimony is. If a witness records testimony against themselves where they are embarrassed, then qal vaHomer they are reliable where they are not embarrassed. for example, the spelling he-vav-alef for the word [hi] "she" throughout the torah. they would not change the text even though they all knew that their best copies had incorporated an orthographical error. [[the theory (Rendsberg) that Ancient Hebrew did not distinguish [hu] from [hi] is linguistically next to impossible. it is clear within the language and orthorgraphy that third person pronoun distinctions were part of the fabric of the language [-eha vs. -ehu], as well as historical linguistic arguments. Incidentally, I have had contact with a marginal semitic language where the m/f pronoun distinction was neutralized, southern sudanese 'Juba' arabic, because of the substrate language influence of NiloSaharan languages, one of which I also speak. the Semitic languages and Hebrew show no signs of a common-gender language that would be necessary to produce [hu]="he/she".]] Basically, the MT takes one back to the Second Temple in terms of reliability and tradition. This reverses much that was written about the text of the Hebrew Bible in pre-Qumran times. I would recommend that one start reading with Immanuel Tov on the Hebrew Bible. the LXX represents a slightly different textual base than the MT, but not necessarily better. the trend in BHK2, BHK3, and BHS has been to reject emendations and to accept the MT in the majority of cases as the 'best recoverable text'. In Jeremiah the Greek and MT are separate recensions. We can't really penetrate the second century BCE on a textual basis for the Hebrew Bible. Overall, the MT is our most conservative witness. It's a tradition that looks back through a first century canonization and textual process to the best recoverable text at that time. and as mentioned above that was fastidious, preserving [h.w.'="she"] and things like the 'removal dots' of Ps 27:13 despite accepting the vocalization for this word for the 'canon'. So is it reliable? Remarkably. that's a yes, even if not absolutely absolute. -- Randall Buth, PhD www.biblicalulpan.org randallbuth at gmail.com Biblical Language Center Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life From joelcsalomon at gmail.com Wed Nov 18 15:33:43 2009 From: joelcsalomon at gmail.com (Joel C. Salomon) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:33:43 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] Qatal following Vayiqtol Message-ID: <4B045A27.2050803@gmail.com> Rabbi S. R. Hirsch on Genesis 25:34 says (roughly) that a Qatal form following a Vayiqtol form? is a past perfect, i.e., the translation should be And Jacob _had given_ Esau bread and pottage of lentils? with a fairly different view of what transpired than traditional translations suggest. Is this grammatical feature otherwise attested to? Is it widely accepted? 1. I?m using terminology I picked up from this list; if there?s a more standard naming scheme would someone please correct me? ?Joel C. Salomon From kwrandolph at gmail.com Wed Nov 18 17:23:29 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:23:29 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Qatal following Vayiqtol In-Reply-To: <4B045A27.2050803@gmail.com> References: <4B045A27.2050803@gmail.com> Message-ID: Joel: Rabbi Hirsch is treating the verbal forms as having temporal import, whereas I, and I think a majority on this list, do not believe that the yiqtol and qatal forms indicate temporality. Here I think the sequence of events, as in most Biblical narratives, is indicated by the sequence in which they are recorded. As for the nomenclature, it is probably the most accurate as the forms do not relate to grammatical ideas found grammaticalized in Indo-European languages. Karl W. Randolph. On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Joel C. Salomon wrote: > Rabbi S. R. Hirsch on Genesis 25:34 says (roughly) that a Qatal form > following a Vayiqtol form? is a past perfect, i.e., the translation > should be > And Jacob _had given_ Esau bread and pottage of lentils? > with a fairly different view of what transpired than traditional > translations suggest. > > Is this grammatical feature otherwise attested to? Is it widely accepted? > > 1. I?m using terminology I picked up from this list; if there?s a more > standard naming scheme would someone please correct me? > > ?Joel C. Salomon From kwrandolph at gmail.com Wed Nov 18 19:34:55 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:34:55 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Randall has a point here: that despite all its warts and a few places where we have evidence where it is wrong (e.g. Nahal Heber scrap of Psalm 22 backed up by context and grammar), it is still the best witness to the text that we have. Of course, some of us want better, but ? hey! ? let?s be thankful for what we have, and on the whole it?s pretty good. Karl W. Randolph. On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Randall Buth wrote: > If a witness records testimony against themselves where they > are embarrassed, then qal vaHomer they are reliable where > they are not embarrassed. > ? > Basically, the MT takes one back to the Second Temple in terms of > reliability and tradition? > We can't really penetrate the second century BCE on a textual basis for > the Hebrew Bible. Overall, the MT is our most conservative witness.? > So is it reliable? Remarkably. that's a yes, even if not absolutely > absolute. > > -- > Randall Buth, PhD > www.biblicalulpan.org > randallbuth at gmail.com > Biblical Language Center > Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life From randallbuth at gmail.com Wed Nov 18 19:44:01 2009 From: randallbuth at gmail.com (Randall Buth) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:44:01 -0600 Subject: [b-hebrew] Qatal following Vayiqtol Message-ID: <5680d1940911181644o6b929136hcee1e82cada5b70a@mail.gmail.com> vayyixtov Yoel >Rabbi S. R. Hirsch on Genesis 25:34 says (roughly) that a Qatal form following a Vayiqtol form? is a past perfect, i.e., the translation should be > And Jacob _had given_ Esau bread and pottage of lentils? with a fairly different view of what transpired than traditional translations suggest. > >Is this grammatical feature otherwise attested to? Is it widely accepted? > >1. I?m using terminology I picked up from this list; if there?s a more standard naming scheme would someone please correct me? > >?Joel C. Salomon shalom Yoel, qatal and vayyiqtol work fine as names. Traditional Hebrew calls them `avar and vav hahippux (le`avar). On your question, it relates to something already discussed by Rash"i almost a millenium ago. Rashi was aware that [noun]+qatal structures often reset a unit in a different time frame. See his commentary at Gen 4:1 where he argues that the Man knew Havva his wife 'in the garden'. This was based on this same structure. Some moderns refer to this as X-qatal structure. However, it is probably better to see the structure as more generically "breaking the narrative continuity". this might be for something that had already happened, or for something the was simultaneous, or for marking the beginning or end of a narrative unit (paragraph), or simply a break for rhetorical effect. the last two functions would not pause or back-reference the real time reference, they would continue the forward progress of the time. that is how I read Gen 4:1, too. the structure begins a new unit, but does not reset the time frame in the garden. Here Gen 25:34, I would read this verse as a separate little unit from verses 31-33, and marked as 'separate' by the "[something]+qatal structure". Yaacov gave the bread and lentils "after" the sale and oath. braxot Randall Buth -- Randall Buth, PhD www.biblicalulpan.org randallbuth at gmail.com Biblical Language Center Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life From d.roe at t-online.de Wed Nov 18 20:42:26 2009 From: d.roe at t-online.de (Roe) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:42:26 +0100 Subject: [b-hebrew] waw "conseq" series -- chronological and logical Message-ID: <4B04A282.70501@t-online.de> Hello, If the answer to my question is too complex for an email response, please refer me to helpful literature -- if it's too simple, my apologies... Within a single waw series of perfect followed by imperfects, is it possible (or even frequent) that the imperfect waw relatives shift from chronological succession to logical succession (and vice versa)? Or must all imperfects in the series be either chronological or logical? Thanks so much, David D.W. Roe Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany From mike.sperling at att.net Wed Nov 18 21:12:23 2009 From: mike.sperling at att.net (mike.sperling at att.net) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:12:23 +0000 Subject: [b-hebrew] Where does the current masoretic text come from? Message-ID: <111920090212.25966.4B04A987000CEC280000656E22218801869B0A02D29B9B0EBF090207049D0A9F9CD20A050703@att.net> I am getting into Biblical Textual Criticism. I have read Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Tov, Textual Criticism of the Bible by Wegner, and several articles online including those by Menachem Cohen. What I am somehow missing, however, is where the text from which Ashkenazic Torahs are currently written comes from. I imagine this is also the text in the Artscroll bibles and the tikkun. I assume (wrongly, perhaps?) that it is not the Koren, Breuer, or Mikraot Gedolot Haketer editions. It is definitely not the text of the Second Rabbinic Bible. When and from where did this text become standardized? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Michael Sperling From dwashbur at nyx.net Wed Nov 18 21:51:43 2009 From: dwashbur at nyx.net (dwashbur at nyx.net) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:51:43 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] waw "conseq" series -- chronological and logical In-Reply-To: <4B04A282.70501@t-online.de> References: <4B04A282.70501@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4B04423F.3587.C1BDB31@dwashbur.nyx.net> On 19 Nov 2009 at 2:42, Roe wrote: > Hello, > > If the answer to my question is too complex for an email response, > please refer me to helpful literature -- if it's too simple, my > apologies... > > Within a single waw series of perfect followed by imperfects, is it > possible (or even frequent) that the imperfect waw relatives shift > from > chronological succession to logical succession (and vice versa)? Or > must > all imperfects in the series be either chronological or logical? There is no "succession," whether chronological or logical, encoded in the so-called "waw consecutive." It's a simple statement, which is why it works well for narrative prose. Succession is actually encoded in the meanings of the statements being made. "He went before the king. He pleaded his case." There's succession here, but it doesn't come from the verb forms; it comes from the fact that it's difficult to plead one's case with the king if one has not come before him first. Logical succession follows the same pattern: it results from what is being said/done, not the verb form being used to say it. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur From d.roe at t-online.de Wed Nov 18 22:29:21 2009 From: d.roe at t-online.de (Roe) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:29:21 +0100 Subject: [b-hebrew] waw "conseq" series -- chronological and logical In-Reply-To: <4B04423F.3587.C1BDB31@dwashbur.nyx.net> References: <4B04A282.70501@t-online.de> <4B04423F.3587.C1BDB31@dwashbur.nyx.net> Message-ID: <4B04BB91.2070500@t-online.de> Hi Dave, Thanks. Please pardon the term "succession." Can there be shifts from chronological to logical within a singular series? E.g., "he entered the city, [and] he found the court (chronological), [and] he went before the king (chronological), [and] he pleaded his case (chronological), so that the king would pardon him (logical)"? Thanks again, David D.W. Roe Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany dwashbur at nyx.net schrieb: > On 19 Nov 2009 at 2:42, Roe wrote: > > >> Hello, >> >> If the answer to my question is too complex for an email response, >> please refer me to helpful literature -- if it's too simple, my >> apologies... >> >> Within a single waw series of perfect followed by imperfects, is it >> possible (or even frequent) that the imperfect waw relatives shift >> from >> chronological succession to logical succession (and vice versa)? Or >> must >> all imperfects in the series be either chronological or logical? >> > > There is no "succession," whether chronological or logical, encoded in the so-called "waw > consecutive." It's a simple statement, which is why it works well for narrative prose. > Succession is actually encoded in the meanings of the statements being made. "He went > before the king. He pleaded his case." There's succession here, but it doesn't come from > the verb forms; it comes from the fact that it's difficult to plead one's case with the king if one > has not come before him first. Logical succession follows the same pattern: it results from > what is being said/done, not the verb form being used to say it. > > Dave Washburn > > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4621 (20091119) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > From jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com Thu Nov 19 05:07:09 2009 From: jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com (James Christian) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:07:09 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> <20091116215755.GB8991@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <20091117155419.GA9950@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> Message-ID: <4f3a6170911190207w5e14b571m813448aca86f934c@mail.gmail.com> In such cases of this type I would be suspicious of the change. The basis of the change is that it conflicts with their theology and should probably be better viewed as a corruption rather than a correction. If some were to get their way they would alter verses referring to God's 'hands', 'feet' etc as it conflicts with their idea of God. Obviously, God doesn't have physical hands and feet as we think of them and it is unlikely that the original authors believed he did but yet didn't have a theological problem with referring to them. James Christian 2009/11/17 K Randolph > Thanks, Petr: > > It is my understanding that these are textual witnesses. > > I did see a discussion of the first one, Genesis 18:22, where the change > was > noted and why: the original had the Lord standing before Abraham. But the > Masoretes concluded that the inferior stands before the superior, that it?s > not merely a spacial statement, therefore they changed the verse to say > that > Abraham stood before the Lord. But I don?t have any information about the > other passages. > > Karl W. Randolph. > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Petr Tomasek wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 05:23:39PM -0800, K Randolph wrote: > > > Petr: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Petr Tomasek > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:14:30AM -0800, K Randolph wrote: > > > > >. I also have a list of 17 > > > > > verses where the Masoretes admit to changing the verses, ? > > > > > > > > which list exactly do you mean? > > > > > > > > > > > Gen 18:22 > > ? > > > > OK, so you mean the "Tiqqunei sopherim" which are mentioned not only by > > massoretes, > > but in the rabbinic litterature as well (there do exist several versions > > with > > different number of biblical passages). > > > > They are mentioned in (according to E. Tov): > > 1) Sifre 84 (Num 10:35) - 8 passages > > 2) Mekhilta d' r. Jishmael 6 (Ex 15:7) - 11 passages > > 3) Tanhuma Beshallakh 16 (Ex 15:7) - 18 passages > > 4) Okhla we-Okhla nr. 168 - 18 passages > > > > It is however questionable if those lists are real "textual witnesses" or > > whether > > they are rather of midrashic nature... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > From jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com Thu Nov 19 05:18:01 2009 From: jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com (James Christian) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:18:01 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> Perhaps one thing we often overlook is that for at least 4 centuries it was the Greek text that was considered superior by practically all of the Christian world (with the exception of the Patriarchate of Antioch who supported Aramaic primacy with versions of the gospels in Syriac). In fact, to this day most Orthodox patriarchates view the Greek text as superior. In fact, it was only the Roman patriarchate which later broke union from the Orthodox churches to become the Catholic church that, under the influence of Jerome who was in turn was influenced by a Jewish Christian who believed the Hebrew text to be superior, that the revolution began of viewing the Hebrew text as superior. Perhaps the Hebrew text of that day was superior in many respects but how close that text was to the MT is a different question entirely. The DSS scrolls give us reason to believe that in parts it was slightly different. James Christian 2009/11/19 K Randolph > Randall has a point here: that despite all its warts and a few places where > we have evidence where it is wrong (e.g. Nahal Heber scrap of Psalm 22 > backed up by context and grammar), it is still the best witness to the text > that we have. Of course, some of us want better, but ? hey! ? let?s be > thankful for what we have, and on the whole it?s pretty good. > > Karl W. Randolph. > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Randall Buth > wrote: > > > If a witness records testimony against themselves where they > > are embarrassed, then qal vaHomer they are reliable where > > they are not embarrassed. > > ? > > Basically, the MT takes one back to the Second Temple in terms of > > reliability and tradition? > > We can't really penetrate the second century BCE on a textual basis for > > the Hebrew Bible. Overall, the MT is our most conservative witness.? > > So is it reliable? Remarkably. that's a yes, even if not absolutely > > absolute. > > > > -- > > Randall Buth, PhD > > www.biblicalulpan.org > > randallbuth at gmail.com > > Biblical Language Center > > Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > From kwrandolph at gmail.com Thu Nov 19 10:12:59 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:12:59 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: James: My understanding of the first century Christian attitude is taken from the New Testament, where the question was not which was superior, rather which was more accessible? The fact that some of the passages quoted in the New Testament were translated from the Hebrew into Greek, rather than quoting the LXX, shows that at least for the authors of the New Testament, the Hebrew text of their time was considered superior to the Greek. Greek was used merely because only a small minority of even Jewish Christians knew Hebrew, therefore a Greek text was better than none. In this way, Jerome followed New Testament precedent as well. Now our reference is today, and while we recognize that in places the MT may have been corrupted by copyist errors, and possibly a few deliberate changes, that on the whole it is the best complete text that we have. Karl W. Randolph. On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:18 AM, James Christian wrote: > Perhaps one thing we often overlook is that for at least 4 centuries it was > the Greek text that was considered superior by practically all of the > Christian world (with the exception of the Patriarchate of Antioch who > supported Aramaic primacy with versions of the gospels in Syriac). In fact, > to this day most Orthodox patriarchates view the Greek text as superior. In > fact, it was only the Roman patriarchate which later broke union from the > Orthodox churches to become the Catholic church that, under the influence of > Jerome who was in turn was influenced by a Jewish Christian who believed the > Hebrew text to be superior, that the revolution began of viewing the Hebrew > text as superior. > > Perhaps the Hebrew text of that day was superior in many respects but how > close that text was to the MT is a different question entirely. The DSS > scrolls give us reason to believe that in parts it was slightly different. > > James Christian > > 2009/11/19 K Randolph > >> Randall has a point here: that despite all its warts and a few places >> where >> we have evidence where it is wrong (e.g. Nahal Heber scrap of Psalm 22 >> backed up by context and grammar), it is still the best witness to the >> text >> that we have. Of course, some of us want better, but ? hey! ? let?s be >> thankful for what we have, and on the whole it?s pretty good. >> >> Karl W. Randolph. >> >> From kwrandolph at gmail.com Thu Nov 19 10:23:42 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:23:42 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <4f3a6170911190207w5e14b571m813448aca86f934c@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> <20091116215755.GB8991@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <20091117155419.GA9950@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <4f3a6170911190207w5e14b571m813448aca86f934c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: James: I would like to see the details before making a decision. The first one sounds plausible. Is there any evidence from other MSS to back it up? Anything from the DSS? As for the anthropomorphisms of God, I don?t know of anyone who considered them to be a description of physical attributes. Therefore they didn?t cause a problem. Karl W. Randolph. On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:07 AM, James Christian wrote: > In such cases of this type I would be suspicious of the change. The basis > of the change is that it conflicts with their theology and should probably > be better viewed as a corruption rather than a correction. If some were to > get their way they would alter verses referring to God's 'hands', 'feet' etc > as it conflicts with their idea of God. Obviously, God doesn't have physical > hands and feet as we think of them and it is unlikely that the original > authors believed he did but yet didn't have a theological problem with > referring to them. > > James Christian > > 2009/11/17 K Randolph > >> Thanks, Petr: >> >> It is my understanding that these are textual witnesses. >> >> I did see a discussion of the first one, Genesis 18:22, where the change >> was >> noted and why: the original had the Lord standing before Abraham. But the >> Masoretes concluded that the inferior stands before the superior, that >> it?s >> not merely a spacial statement, therefore they changed the verse to say >> that >> Abraham stood before the Lord. But I don?t have any information about the >> other passages. >> >> Karl W. Randolph. >> > From jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com Thu Nov 19 13:02:21 2009 From: jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com (James Christian) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:02:21 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> <20091116215755.GB8991@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <20091117155419.GA9950@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <4f3a6170911190207w5e14b571m813448aca86f934c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4f3a6170911191002i7026fffat9390c647b7f52ff6@mail.gmail.com> I suppose we could better liken this correction to the 'correction' of removing YHWH. Also largely inspired by a theology which the original authors evidently didn't share. James Christian 2009/11/19 K Randolph > James: > > I would like to see the details before making a decision. The first one > sounds plausible. Is there any evidence from other MSS to back it up? > Anything from the DSS? > > As for the anthropomorphisms of God, I don?t know of anyone who considered > them to be a description of physical attributes. Therefore they didn?t > cause > a problem. > > Karl W. Randolph. > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:07 AM, James Christian > wrote: > > > In such cases of this type I would be suspicious of the change. The basis > > of the change is that it conflicts with their theology and should > probably > > be better viewed as a corruption rather than a correction. If some were > to > > get their way they would alter verses referring to God's 'hands', 'feet' > etc > > as it conflicts with their idea of God. Obviously, God doesn't have > physical > > hands and feet as we think of them and it is unlikely that the original > > authors believed he did but yet didn't have a theological problem with > > referring to them. > > > > James Christian > > > > 2009/11/17 K Randolph > > > >> Thanks, Petr: > >> > >> It is my understanding that these are textual witnesses. > >> > >> I did see a discussion of the first one, Genesis 18:22, where the change > >> was > >> noted and why: the original had the Lord standing before Abraham. But > the > >> Masoretes concluded that the inferior stands before the superior, that > >> it?s > >> not merely a spacial statement, therefore they changed the verse to say > >> that > >> Abraham stood before the Lord. But I don?t have any information about > the > >> other passages. > >> > >> Karl W. Randolph. > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > From jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com Thu Nov 19 13:09:17 2009 From: jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com (James Christian) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:09:17 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> In many respects I agree with your sentiments. Obviously, as a Christian, I have more respect for the opinions of the original authors of the NT than for anything else but there are still too many variables to make a decisive decision: 1) What language was the NT written in? Syriac or Greek or both? There are good arguments for both camps. 2) Given the above how sure can we be of the original state of the NT documents? e.g. absence of YHWH in MSS makes me suspicious. 3) How close is the Hebrew text of NT author's day to that of the MT (centuries later)? 4) Scenario gets even worse because Jerome was much later than MT authors. All in all, given the above factors (and any others I have forgotten to mention) I feel that both positions are extreme. i.e. to assert Greek or Hebrew primacy of the various text traditions. There seems to be evidence that both are corrupt and that careful analysis of all traditions should be taken without ascribing any primacy to any particular tradition. I feel that a much more balanced position is that neither are absolutely superior and that both traditions have pros and cons. James Christian 2009/11/19 K Randolph > James: > > My understanding of the first century Christian attitude is taken from the > New Testament, where the question was not which was superior, rather which > was more accessible? The fact that some of the passages quoted in the New > Testament were translated from the Hebrew into Greek, rather than quoting > the LXX, shows that at least for the authors of the New Testament, the > Hebrew text of their time was considered superior to the Greek. Greek was > used merely because only a small minority of even Jewish Christians knew > Hebrew, therefore a Greek text was better than none. In this way, Jerome > followed New Testament precedent as well. > > Now our reference is today, and while we recognize that in places the MT > may > have been corrupted by copyist errors, and possibly a few deliberate > changes, that on the whole it is the best complete text that we have. > > Karl W. Randolph. > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:18 AM, James Christian > wrote: > > > Perhaps one thing we often overlook is that for at least 4 centuries it > was > > the Greek text that was considered superior by practically all of the > > Christian world (with the exception of the Patriarchate of Antioch who > > supported Aramaic primacy with versions of the gospels in Syriac). In > fact, > > to this day most Orthodox patriarchates view the Greek text as superior. > In > > fact, it was only the Roman patriarchate which later broke union from the > > Orthodox churches to become the Catholic church that, under the influence > of > > Jerome who was in turn was influenced by a Jewish Christian who believed > the > > Hebrew text to be superior, that the revolution began of viewing the > Hebrew > > text as superior. > > > > Perhaps the Hebrew text of that day was superior in many respects but how > > close that text was to the MT is a different question entirely. The DSS > > scrolls give us reason to believe that in parts it was slightly > different. > > > > James Christian > > > > 2009/11/19 K Randolph > > > >> Randall has a point here: that despite all its warts and a few places > >> where > >> we have evidence where it is wrong (e.g. Nahal Heber scrap of Psalm 22 > >> backed up by context and grammar), it is still the best witness to the > >> text > >> that we have. Of course, some of us want better, but ? hey! ? let?s be > >> thankful for what we have, and on the whole it?s pretty good. > >> > >> Karl W. Randolph. > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > From kwrandolph at gmail.com Thu Nov 19 15:28:41 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:28:41 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: James: I bring up the New Testament only as a witness to the MT and Hebrew text. On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:09 AM, James Christian wrote: > In many respects I agree with your sentiments. Obviously, as a Christian, I > have more respect for the opinions of the original authors of the NT than > for anything else but there are still too many variables to make a decisive > decision: > > 1) What language was the NT written in? Syriac or Greek or both? There are > good arguments for both camps. > Among ancient books, there is none as well attested as the New Testament. Not only in surviving comments about it, but in actual surviving manuscripts. That it was written in Greek (with the exception of Matthew) is attested to in both, with the oldest predating the Syriac translation. As far as how accurately we know it, to me it appears that the Byzantine tradition may reflect the oldest and most accurate texts, in other words, more accurate copies. One reason I say that is because in the Gospels, it appears to reflect even slight dialectal differences in its transcribed names between Judea and Galilee, distinctions lost in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and similar texts. > 2) Given the above how sure can we be of the original state of the NT > documents? e.g. absence of YHWH in MSS makes me suspicious. > As for not using YHWH in the Greek text, remember, these were Jews, writing in a Jewish religious milieu, in which ?????? had been the accepted way of referring to YHWH in Greek for a couple of centuries already, why should they be different? > 3) How close is the Hebrew text of NT author's day to that of the MT > (centuries later)? > There was an article I read a while back, I don?t remember where, where it was pointed out that there seemed to be an attempt at textual criticism as early as about 100 BC, so that the texts of the late Second Temple period tend to be closer to the MT than the earlier ones. But even then there are still changes, probably mostly connected with copyist errors, such as the two differences I noted in the Nahal Heber fragment on Psalm 22. It could be that, like the Byzantine tradition apparently reflecting an older tradition, so the MT reflects an older tradition that, on the whole, is close to the original. > 4) Scenario gets even worse because Jerome was much later than MT authors. > Why even bring in Jerome? > > All in all, given the above factors (and any others I have forgotten to > mention) I feel that both positions are extreme. i.e. to assert Greek or > Hebrew primacy of the various text traditions. There seems to be evidence > that both are corrupt and that careful analysis of all traditions should be > taken without ascribing any primacy to any particular tradition. I feel that > a much more balanced position is that neither are absolutely superior and > that both traditions have pros and cons. > > James Christian > > The question is not which position is more extreme, rather which position, if any, has the most historical evidence to back it up? For the record, I am not a textual critic, but those who are tell me that they consider the LXX as a legitimate source when looking at the MT, particularly on verses that are difficult to understand. There are times that they accept that as the preferred text, though that is not common. A final note: as a person who has written translations, no translation is ever as good as the original in trying to convey its message. The LXX is a translation. As long as the MT has shown itself to be pretty close to the original (at least the consonantal text), there is no reason not to accept it as the main working text when looking for its message. Karl W. Randolph. From tomasek at etf.cuni.cz Thu Nov 19 17:42:59 2009 From: tomasek at etf.cuni.cz (Petr Tomasek) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:42:59 +0100 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> <20091116215755.GB8991@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <20091117155419.GA9950@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <4f3a6170911190207w5e14b571m813448aca86f934c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091119224259.GA17826@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:23:42AM -0800, K Randolph wrote: > James: > > I would like to see the details before making a decision. The first one > sounds plausible. Is there any evidence from other MSS to back it up? > Anything from the DSS? > > As for the anthropomorphisms of God, I don?t know of anyone who considered > them to be a description of physical attributes. Therefore they didn?t cause > a problem. You are very wrong! The anthropomorphisms posed a big problem for the translators of the Septuagint and to yet larger extent to the translators of the Targum Onkelos where such a biblical passages are transleted consistently in a way to avoid them (e.g. replacing "God" with "God's glory", "God's presence", "God's word", etc.). > Karl W. Randolph. > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:07 AM, James Christian > wrote: > > > In such cases of this type I would be suspicious of the change. The basis > > of the change is that it conflicts with their theology and should probably > > be better viewed as a corruption rather than a correction. If some were to > > get their way they would alter verses referring to God's 'hands', 'feet' etc > > as it conflicts with their idea of God. Obviously, God doesn't have physical > > hands and feet as we think of them and it is unlikely that the original > > authors believed he did but yet didn't have a theological problem with > > referring to them. > > > > James Christian > > > > 2009/11/17 K Randolph > > > >> Thanks, Petr: > >> > >> It is my understanding that these are textual witnesses. > >> > >> I did see a discussion of the first one, Genesis 18:22, where the change > >> was > >> noted and why: the original had the Lord standing before Abraham. But the > >> Masoretes concluded that the inferior stands before the superior, that > >> it?s > >> not merely a spacial statement, therefore they changed the verse to say > >> that > >> Abraham stood before the Lord. But I don?t have any information about the > >> other passages. > >> > >> Karl W. Randolph. > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew -- Petr Tomasek Jabber: butrus at jabbim.cz SIP: butrus at ekiga.net From jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com Fri Nov 20 07:27:45 2009 From: jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com (James Christian) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:27:45 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <20091119224259.GA17826@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> References: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> <20091116215755.GB8991@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <20091117155419.GA9950@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <4f3a6170911190207w5e14b571m813448aca86f934c@mail.gmail.com> <20091119224259.GA17826@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> Message-ID: <4f3a6170911200427hb6a6fcbu88112245be79a089@mail.gmail.com> Offlist I was asked: wasn't the Septuagint written with LORD where the yhwh was Onlist, for the benefit of those who also may have this same misunderstanding and while preserving the anonymity of the original enquirere, I reply: No! The oldest fragments of the LXX show that the tetragammaton was preserved. Does anybody have a link to photographs of the relevant fragments? James Christian 2009/11/20 Petr Tomasek > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:23:42AM -0800, K Randolph wrote: > > James: > > > > I would like to see the details before making a decision. The first one > > sounds plausible. Is there any evidence from other MSS to back it up? > > Anything from the DSS? > > > > As for the anthropomorphisms of God, I don?t know of anyone who > considered > > them to be a description of physical attributes. Therefore they didn?t > cause > > a problem. > > You are very wrong! The anthropomorphisms posed a big problem for the > translators > of the Septuagint and to yet larger extent to the translators of the Targum > Onkelos where such a biblical passages are transleted consistently in a way > to avoid them (e.g. replacing "God" with "God's glory", "God's presence", > "God's word", etc.). > > > Karl W. Randolph. > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:07 AM, James Christian > > wrote: > > > > > In such cases of this type I would be suspicious of the change. The > basis > > > of the change is that it conflicts with their theology and should > probably > > > be better viewed as a corruption rather than a correction. If some were > to > > > get their way they would alter verses referring to God's 'hands', > 'feet' etc > > > as it conflicts with their idea of God. Obviously, God doesn't have > physical > > > hands and feet as we think of them and it is unlikely that the original > > > authors believed he did but yet didn't have a theological problem with > > > referring to them. > > > > > > James Christian > > > > > > 2009/11/17 K Randolph > > > > > >> Thanks, Petr: > > >> > > >> It is my understanding that these are textual witnesses. > > >> > > >> I did see a discussion of the first one, Genesis 18:22, where the > change > > >> was > > >> noted and why: the original had the Lord standing before Abraham. But > the > > >> Masoretes concluded that the inferior stands before the superior, that > > >> it?s > > >> not merely a spacial statement, therefore they changed the verse to > say > > >> that > > >> Abraham stood before the Lord. But I don?t have any information about > the > > >> other passages. > > >> > > >> Karl W. Randolph. > > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > b-hebrew mailing list > > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > -- > Petr Tomasek > Jabber: butrus at jabbim.cz > SIP: butrus at ekiga.net > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > From jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com Fri Nov 20 07:44:17 2009 From: jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com (James Christian) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:44:17 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> Hi, 2009/11/19 K Randolph > James: > > I bring up the New Testament only as a witness to the MT and Hebrew text. > Of course. Me too. > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:09 AM, James Christian < > jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com > > wrote: > > > In many respects I agree with your sentiments. Obviously, as a Christian, > I > > have more respect for the opinions of the original authors of the NT than > > for anything else but there are still too many variables to make a > decisive > > decision: > > > > 1) What language was the NT written in? Syriac or Greek or both? There > are > > good arguments for both camps. > > > > Among ancient books, there is none as well attested as the New Testament. > Not only in surviving comments about it, but in actual surviving > manuscripts. That it was written in Greek (with the exception of Matthew) > is > attested to in both, with the oldest predating the Syriac translation. > It is far from clear whether the Syriac was a translation. There are strong arguments for Syriac being the original language just as there are strong arguments for Greek being the original language. 1) The patriarchate of Antioch (the base of early Christian missionary work) to this very day maintains a strong tradition of Syriac primacy. 2) There are linguistic arguments that imply Syriac primacy to be believable. e.g. A camel through the eye of a needle in the Syriac is a rope through the eye of a needle. The words for camel and rope are similar in Syriac and supporters of Syriac primacy hold that Greek was a translation and 'Camel' was mistranslated. The illustration of a rope through the eye of a needle rather that thread makes more sense. 3) We have reference to an original 'Hebrew' gospel of Matthew but what exactly was meant by Hebrew? 4) The language spoken in Antioch (the base or early Christianity) was Syriac and not Greek. Please note that I am not arguing for Syriac primacy. Where I see two conflicting traditions my instinct is that there is some truth in both and some falsehood in both. My gut feeling is that as both Syriac and Greek were common languages and, if we are to believe the testimony of the gift of tongues, the authors were polyglots it may well be that the Greek and Syriac were both original and that neither is a translation of the other. > > As far as how accurately we know it, to me it appears that the Byzantine > tradition may reflect the oldest and most accurate texts, in other words, > more accurate copies. One reason I say that is because in the Gospels, it > appears to reflect even slight dialectal differences in its transcribed > names between Judea and Galilee, distinctions lost in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus > and similar texts. > > > You've lost me here. The sinaiticus and the vaticanus are the major basis of the Byzantine tradition. What do you mean by 'Byzantine tradition'? > > > 2) Given the above how sure can we be of the original state of the NT > > documents? e.g. absence of YHWH in MSS makes me suspicious. > > > > As for not using YHWH in the Greek text, remember, these were Jews, writing > in a Jewish religious milieu, in which ?????? had been the accepted way of > referring to YHWH in Greek for a couple of centuries already, why should > they be different? > > > Actually, fragments of the LXX which predate the vaticanus and the sinaiticus show the tetragrammaton in all its glory in its rightful places. The NT present a prophet named Jesus who actively opposed the traditions of men. The idea that such a man would support the superstition which the original authors of the hebrew books evidently did not share seems, at least to me, to be a complete contradiction in terms. >From everything I've seen it would appear to me that the removal of the name from YHWH Greek traditions is not testified before the 4th century (the time of great reforms under Constantine's rule) and this makes me suspicious. > > > 3) How close is the Hebrew text of NT author's day to that of the MT > > (centuries later)? > > > > There was an article I read a while back, I don?t remember where, where it > was pointed out that there seemed to be an attempt at textual criticism as > early as about 100 BC, so that the texts of the late Second Temple period > tend to be closer to the MT than the earlier ones. But even then there are > still changes, probably mostly connected with copyist errors, such as the > two differences I noted in the Nahal Heber fragment on Psalm 22. It could > be > that, like the Byzantine tradition apparently reflecting an older > tradition, > so the MT reflects an older tradition that, on the whole, is close to the > original. > > > > > 4) Scenario gets even worse because Jerome was much later than MT > authors. > > > > Why even bring in Jerome? > > > > > > All in all, given the above factors (and any others I have forgotten to > > mention) I feel that both positions are extreme. i.e. to assert Greek or > > Hebrew primacy of the various text traditions. There seems to be evidence > > that both are corrupt and that careful analysis of all traditions should > be > > taken without ascribing any primacy to any particular tradition. I feel > that > > a much more balanced position is that neither are absolutely superior and > > that both traditions have pros and cons. > > > > James Christian > > > > The question is not which position is more extreme, rather which > position, > if any, has the most historical evidence to back it up? For the record, I > am > not a textual critic, but those who are tell me that they consider the LXX > as a legitimate source when looking at the MT, particularly on verses that > are difficult to understand. There are times that they accept that as the > preferred text, though that is not common. > > A final note: as a person who has written translations, no translation is > ever as good as the original in trying to convey its message. The LXX is a > translation. Agreed. > As long as the MT has shown itself to be pretty close to the > original (at least the consonantal text), there is no reason not to accept > it as the main working text when looking for its message. > I would feel more comfortable making a critical reference to all the sources available. Differences in the Greek tradition are suspicious because well intentioned Christians may have felt they were making justifiable changes. In the same was differences in the MT are suspicious because well intentioned defenders of Judaism may have felt they were making justifiable changes. James Christian > > Karl W. Randolph. > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > From jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com Fri Nov 20 12:03:35 2009 From: jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com (James Christian) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:03:35 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] waw "conseq" series -- chronological and logical In-Reply-To: <4B04BB91.2070500@t-online.de> References: <4B04A282.70501@t-online.de> <4B04423F.3587.C1BDB31@dwashbur.nyx.net> <4B04BB91.2070500@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4f3a6170911200903m6e3d8addq9f1481bed7ebe1a1@mail.gmail.com> Hi, to be honest I really don't see your distinction between logical and chronological. In the English example you gave everything seems to be in chronological succession with the last being a hypothetical event yet all the same chronologically afterwards. James Christian 2009/11/19, Roe : > Hi Dave, > > Thanks. Please pardon the term "succession." > > Can there be shifts from chronological to logical within a singular > series? E.g., "he entered the city, [and] he found the court > (chronological), [and] he went before the king (chronological), [and] he > pleaded his case (chronological), so that the king would pardon him > (logical)"? > > Thanks again, > David > > D.W. Roe > Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany > > > dwashbur at nyx.net schrieb: >> On 19 Nov 2009 at 2:42, Roe wrote: >> >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> If the answer to my question is too complex for an email response, >>> please refer me to helpful literature -- if it's too simple, my >>> apologies... >>> >>> Within a single waw series of perfect followed by imperfects, is it >>> possible (or even frequent) that the imperfect waw relatives shift >>> from >>> chronological succession to logical succession (and vice versa)? Or >>> must >>> all imperfects in the series be either chronological or logical? >>> >> >> There is no "succession," whether chronological or logical, encoded in the >> so-called "waw >> consecutive." It's a simple statement, which is why it works well for >> narrative prose. >> Succession is actually encoded in the meanings of the statements being >> made. "He went >> before the king. He pleaded his case." There's succession here, but it >> doesn't come from >> the verb forms; it comes from the fact that it's difficult to plead one's >> case with the king if one >> has not come before him first. Logical succession follows the same >> pattern: it results from >> what is being said/done, not the verb form being used to say it. >> >> Dave Washburn >> >> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur >> _______________________________________________ >> b-hebrew mailing list >> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature database 4621 (20091119) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > From GaryH at cjfm.org Fri Nov 20 12:49:28 2009 From: GaryH at cjfm.org (Gary Hedrick) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:49:28 -0600 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002501ca6a09$cfab4b40$6f01e1c0$@org> Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are generally regarded to be representative of the Alexandrian tradition. They are not Byzantine. Byzantine text types are the later witnesses upon which older English translations like the KJV were based. I think this is what Karl is talking about. Some scholars prefer the Byzantine texts, even though they are later than the Alexandrians. Their assumption, I guess, is that they are copies of earlier texts that were much older than the Alexandrians. One important problem with the Alexandrians is that they disagree so much among themselves. This is one reason the "older is better" doctrine is being called into question by some TC experts. And yes, these texts are absolutely germane to any discussion of reliability of the MT because there are so many quotations of the OT/LXX in the NT. -----Original Message----- From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Christian Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 6:44 AM To: K Randolph Cc: Hebrew Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? Hi, 2009/11/19 K Randolph > James: > > I bring up the New Testament only as a witness to the MT and Hebrew text. > Of course. Me too. > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:09 AM, James Christian < > jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com > > wrote: > > > In many respects I agree with your sentiments. Obviously, as a Christian, > I > > have more respect for the opinions of the original authors of the NT than > > for anything else but there are still too many variables to make a > decisive > > decision: > > > > 1) What language was the NT written in? Syriac or Greek or both? There > are > > good arguments for both camps. > > > > Among ancient books, there is none as well attested as the New Testament. > Not only in surviving comments about it, but in actual surviving > manuscripts. That it was written in Greek (with the exception of Matthew) > is > attested to in both, with the oldest predating the Syriac translation. > It is far from clear whether the Syriac was a translation. There are strong arguments for Syriac being the original language just as there are strong arguments for Greek being the original language. 1) The patriarchate of Antioch (the base of early Christian missionary work) to this very day maintains a strong tradition of Syriac primacy. 2) There are linguistic arguments that imply Syriac primacy to be believable. e.g. A camel through the eye of a needle in the Syriac is a rope through the eye of a needle. The words for camel and rope are similar in Syriac and supporters of Syriac primacy hold that Greek was a translation and 'Camel' was mistranslated. The illustration of a rope through the eye of a needle rather that thread makes more sense. 3) We have reference to an original 'Hebrew' gospel of Matthew but what exactly was meant by Hebrew? 4) The language spoken in Antioch (the base or early Christianity) was Syriac and not Greek. Please note that I am not arguing for Syriac primacy. Where I see two conflicting traditions my instinct is that there is some truth in both and some falsehood in both. My gut feeling is that as both Syriac and Greek were common languages and, if we are to believe the testimony of the gift of tongues, the authors were polyglots it may well be that the Greek and Syriac were both original and that neither is a translation of the other. > > As far as how accurately we know it, to me it appears that the Byzantine > tradition may reflect the oldest and most accurate texts, in other words, > more accurate copies. One reason I say that is because in the Gospels, it > appears to reflect even slight dialectal differences in its transcribed > names between Judea and Galilee, distinctions lost in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus > and similar texts. > > > You've lost me here. The sinaiticus and the vaticanus are the major basis of the Byzantine tradition. What do you mean by 'Byzantine tradition'? > > > 2) Given the above how sure can we be of the original state of the NT > > documents? e.g. absence of YHWH in MSS makes me suspicious. > > > > As for not using YHWH in the Greek text, remember, these were Jews, writing > in a Jewish religious milieu, in which ?????? had been the accepted way of > referring to YHWH in Greek for a couple of centuries already, why should > they be different? > > > Actually, fragments of the LXX which predate the vaticanus and the sinaiticus show the tetragrammaton in all its glory in its rightful places. The NT present a prophet named Jesus who actively opposed the traditions of men. The idea that such a man would support the superstition which the original authors of the hebrew books evidently did not share seems, at least to me, to be a complete contradiction in terms. >From everything I've seen it would appear to me that the removal of the name from YHWH Greek traditions is not testified before the 4th century (the time of great reforms under Constantine's rule) and this makes me suspicious. > > > 3) How close is the Hebrew text of NT author's day to that of the MT > > (centuries later)? > > > > There was an article I read a while back, I don?t remember where, where it > was pointed out that there seemed to be an attempt at textual criticism as > early as about 100 BC, so that the texts of the late Second Temple period > tend to be closer to the MT than the earlier ones. But even then there are > still changes, probably mostly connected with copyist errors, such as the > two differences I noted in the Nahal Heber fragment on Psalm 22. It could > be > that, like the Byzantine tradition apparently reflecting an older > tradition, > so the MT reflects an older tradition that, on the whole, is close to the > original. > > > > > 4) Scenario gets even worse because Jerome was much later than MT > authors. > > > > Why even bring in Jerome? > > > > > > All in all, given the above factors (and any others I have forgotten to > > mention) I feel that both positions are extreme. i.e. to assert Greek or > > Hebrew primacy of the various text traditions. There seems to be evidence > > that both are corrupt and that careful analysis of all traditions should > be > > taken without ascribing any primacy to any particular tradition. I feel > that > > a much more balanced position is that neither are absolutely superior and > > that both traditions have pros and cons. > > > > James Christian > > > > The question is not which position is more extreme, rather which > position, > if any, has the most historical evidence to back it up? For the record, I > am > not a textual critic, but those who are tell me that they consider the LXX > as a legitimate source when looking at the MT, particularly on verses that > are difficult to understand. There are times that they accept that as the > preferred text, though that is not common. > > A final note: as a person who has written translations, no translation is > ever as good as the original in trying to convey its message. The LXX is a > translation. Agreed. > As long as the MT has shown itself to be pretty close to the > original (at least the consonantal text), there is no reason not to accept > it as the main working text when looking for its message. > I would feel more comfortable making a critical reference to all the sources available. Differences in the Greek tradition are suspicious because well intentioned Christians may have felt they were making justifiable changes. In the same was differences in the MT are suspicious because well intentioned defenders of Judaism may have felt they were making justifiable changes. James Christian > > Karl W. Randolph. > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.73/2513 - Release Date: 11/19/09 07:51:00 From kwrandolph at gmail.com Fri Nov 20 14:05:03 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:05:03 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: James: 2009/11/20 James Christian > Hi, > > 2009/11/19 K Randolph > >> James: >> >> >> I bring up the New Testament only as a witness to the MT and Hebrew text. >> > > Of course. Me too. > > >> >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:09 AM, James Christian < >> jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com >> > wrote: >> >> > In many respects I agree with your sentiments. Obviously, as a >> Christian, I >> > have more respect for the opinions of the original authors of the NT >> than >> > for anything else but there are still too many variables to make a >> decisive >> > decision: >> > >> > 1) What language was the NT written in? Syriac or Greek or both? There >> are >> > good arguments for both camps. >> > >> >> Among ancient books, there is none as well attested as the New Testament. >> Not only in surviving comments about it, but in actual surviving >> manuscripts. That it was written in Greek (with the exception of Matthew) >> is >> attested to in both, with the oldest predating the Syriac translation. >> > > It is far from clear whether the Syriac was a translation. There are strong > arguments for Syriac being the original language just as there are strong > arguments for Greek being the original language. > > 1) The patriarchate of Antioch (the base of early Christian missionary > work) to this very day maintains a strong tradition of Syriac primacy. > This is a modern tradition, similar to the Eastern Orthodox tradition that puts the LXX as primary over the original Hebrew. Was there any book of the New Testament written in Antioch? Matthew most likely wrote while still in Judea or Galilee, being a government official most likely learned Mishnaic Hebrew, so either wrote in that or Galilean Aramaic. Mark was a translator to Greek for Peter, so Greek would be his language. Luke wrote his three books most likely in Rome in the lingua franca of his day, namely Greek. John was living in Hellenized Asia Minor when he wrote his books, Paul wrote from where ever, none addressed to speakers of Syriac so would not have used Syriac, James and Jude wrote from Jerusalem. Peter went to Babylon, which had been Hellenized. The evidence for Syriac is very weak, at best. > 2) There are linguistic arguments that imply Syriac primacy to be > believable. e.g. A camel through the eye of a needle in the Syriac is a rope > through the eye of a needle. The words for camel and rope are similar in > Syriac and supporters of Syriac primacy hold that Greek was a translation > and 'Camel' was mistranslated. The illustration of a rope through the eye of > a needle rather that thread makes more sense. > This ignores the fact that Syriac was a local dialect of Aramaic. Aramaic was the language of the streets in Galilee where Jesus did most his preaching, but it was not the same as Syriac. Of course there would be similarities, but that still is not evidence of Syriac being the original. > 3) We have reference to an original 'Hebrew' gospel of Matthew but what > exactly was meant by Hebrew? > Addressed above. > 4) The language spoken in Antioch (the base or early Christianity) was > Syriac and not Greek. > The base of early Christianity was Jerusalem, not Antioch, during the time that most of the books of the New Testament were written. This is the picture given in Acts. > > Please note that I am not arguing for Syriac primacy. Where I see two > conflicting traditions my instinct is that there is some truth in both and > some falsehood in both. My gut feeling is that as both Syriac and Greek were > common languages and, if we are to believe the testimony of the gift of > tongues, the authors were polyglots it may well be that the Greek and Syriac > were both original and that neither is a translation of the other. > We need to go not from gut feelings, but solid scholarship. > > >> >> As far as how accurately we know it, to me it appears that the Byzantine >> tradition may reflect the oldest and most accurate texts, in other words, >> more accurate copies. One reason I say that is because in the Gospels, it >> appears to reflect even slight dialectal differences in its transcribed >> names between Judea and Galilee, distinctions lost in Sinaiticus, >> Vaticanus >> and similar texts. >> >> >> > You've lost me here. The sinaiticus and the vaticanus are the major basis > of the Byzantine tradition. What do you mean by 'Byzantine tradition'? > Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are of the ?Alexandrian text type?, not Byzantine. They are the basis of modern ?critical? editions of the New Testament. > > >> >> > 2) Given the above how sure can we be of the original state of the NT >> > documents? e.g. absence of YHWH in MSS makes me suspicious. >> > >> >> As for not using YHWH in the Greek text, remember, these were Jews, >> writing >> in a Jewish religious milieu, in which ?????? had been the accepted way of >> referring to YHWH in Greek for a couple of centuries already, why should >> they be different? >> >> >> > Actually, fragments of the LXX which predate the vaticanus and the > sinaiticus show the tetragrammaton in all its glory in its rightful places. > The NT present a prophet named Jesus who actively opposed the traditions of > men. The idea that such a man would support the superstition which the > original authors of the hebrew books evidently did not share seems, at least > to me, to be a complete contradiction in terms. > That the Tetragrammaton is written instead of a translation or transliteration shows already the traditions of men, in this case that the name should not be pronounced. Apparently not even in Greek. This is an indication of how old is that tradition. In fact, the use of the Greek ?????? is consistent with that Jewish tradition. > >> As long as the MT has shown itself to be pretty close to the >> original (at least the consonantal text), there is no reason not to accept >> it as the main working text when looking for its message. >> > > I would feel more comfortable making a critical reference to all the > sources available. Differences in the Greek tradition are suspicious because > well intentioned Christians may have felt they were making justifiable > changes. In the same was differences in the MT are suspicious because well > intentioned defenders of Judaism may have felt they were making justifiable > changes. > No two manuscripts are exactly the same, and the reason is simply?copyist errors. This applies to all ancient works that have survived to modernity. Some of those ?errors? actually weren?t, just thought were errors by later copyists. And sometimes corrected. Among those ?corrected? errors would be the transliterations of Galilean names ?corrected? in the Alexandrian New Testament text tradition. > > James Christian > > It is possible that well-intentioned Masoretes ?corrected? what they thought were errors due to their theological leanings, there are lists that make that claim. I would like to see more details to see how accurate are those claims. But as of yet I have seen no details, nor do I know where to look. Is it possible that those details don?t exist? On the whole, I have been told that there are remarkably few changes between the DSS and the MT, fewer on an order of magnitude or more when compared with other literature from the same period. As a result, I can be pretty sure that when I read MT that on the whole I?m getting an accurate rendition of the original. But if more accurate is possible, that is preferred. I wish there were a critical edition that corrects some of the obvious errors of the MT instead of mechanically following the MT exactly. Corrections recognized by DSS and other MSS findings, backed up by translations found in LXX, NT, Vulgate and others. Karl W. Randolph. From d.roe at t-online.de Fri Nov 20 17:22:46 2009 From: d.roe at t-online.de (Roe) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:22:46 +0100 Subject: [b-hebrew] waw "conseq" series -- chronological and logical In-Reply-To: <4f3a6170911200903m6e3d8addq9f1481bed7ebe1a1@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B04A282.70501@t-online.de> <4B04423F.3587.C1BDB31@dwashbur.nyx.net> <4B04BB91.2070500@t-online.de> <4f3a6170911200903m6e3d8addq9f1481bed7ebe1a1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B0716B6.4080004@t-online.de> Hi James, Thanks for your response. The answer to my question might be so obvious that it is not clear what my question is. And mine wasn't a good example sentence for, as you point out, there is also a chronological aspect to the last event. In a single series of perf. - impf. - impf. - impf. - impf., is a mixture of chronological and logical waw imperfects possible? Thanks again, David D.W. Roe Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany James Christian schrieb: > Hi, > > to be honest I really don't see your distinction between logical and > chronological. In the English example you gave everything seems to be > in chronological succession with the last being a hypothetical event > yet all the same chronologically afterwards. > > James Christian > > 2009/11/19, Roe : > >> Hi Dave, >> >> Thanks. Please pardon the term "succession." >> >> Can there be shifts from chronological to logical within a singular >> series? E.g., "he entered the city, [and] he found the court >> (chronological), [and] he went before the king (chronological), [and] he >> pleaded his case (chronological), so that the king would pardon him >> (logical)"? >> >> Thanks again, >> David >> >> D.W. Roe >> Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany >> >> >> dwashbur at nyx.net schrieb: >> >>> On 19 Nov 2009 at 2:42, Roe wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> If the answer to my question is too complex for an email response, >>>> please refer me to helpful literature -- if it's too simple, my >>>> apologies... >>>> >>>> Within a single waw series of perfect followed by imperfects, is it >>>> possible (or even frequent) that the imperfect waw relatives shift >>>> from >>>> chronological succession to logical succession (and vice versa)? Or >>>> must >>>> all imperfects in the series be either chronological or logical? >>>> >>>> >>> There is no "succession," whether chronological or logical, encoded in the >>> so-called "waw >>> consecutive." It's a simple statement, which is why it works well for >>> narrative prose. >>> Succession is actually encoded in the meanings of the statements being >>> made. "He went >>> before the king. He pleaded his case." There's succession here, but it >>> doesn't come from >>> the verb forms; it comes from the fact that it's difficult to plead one's >>> case with the king if one >>> has not come before him first. Logical succession follows the same >>> pattern: it results from >>> what is being said/done, not the verb form being used to say it. >>> >>> Dave Washburn >>> >>> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur >>> _______________________________________________ >>> b-hebrew mailing list >>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew >>> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>> signature database 4621 (20091119) __________ >>> >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>> >>> http://www.eset.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> b-hebrew mailing list >> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew >> >> > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4625 (20091120) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > From tomasek at etf.cuni.cz Sat Nov 21 03:07:22 2009 From: tomasek at etf.cuni.cz (Petr Tomasek) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:07:22 +0100 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091121080722.GA25776@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> > It is possible that well-intentioned Masoretes ?corrected? what they thought > were errors due to their theological leanings, there are lists that make Please don't mix scribes and masoretes. > that claim. I would like to see more details to see how accurate are those > claims. But as of yet I have seen no details, nor do I know where to look. > Is it possible that those details don?t exist? > > On the whole, I have been told that there are remarkably few changes between > the DSS and the MT, fewer on an order of magnitude or more when compared > with other literature from the same period. As a result, I can be pretty > sure that when I read MT that on the whole I?m getting an accurate rendition > of the original. But if more accurate is possible, that is preferred. > > I wish there were a critical edition that corrects some of the obvious > errors of the MT instead of mechanically following the MT exactly. > Corrections recognized by DSS and other MSS findings, backed up by > translations found in LXX, NT, Vulgate and others. There are such attempts, see http://ohb.berkeley.edu/ However I would argue that it is hard to tell what an "obvious error" is. Many times they prove to be not the case... P.T. -- Petr Tomasek Jabber: butrus at jabbim.cz SIP: butrus at ekiga.net From davedonnelly1 at juno.com Sat Nov 21 09:30:46 2009 From: davedonnelly1 at juno.com (davedonnelly1) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:30:46 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? Message-ID: <20091121.063128.938.5776@mailpop10.dca.untd.com> Petr Tomasek writes: "However I would argue that it is hard to tell what an "obvious error" is. Many times they prove to be not the case... P.T. " Would any of the six different variants of YHWH found in the Leningrad Codex, be considered "obvious errors". Has anyone ever done a detailed study of what each of these six variants of YHWH were meant to indicate to the Hebrew reader? It appears that one variant would clearly indicate that the Hebrew reader should read "Elohiym", as that particular variant has the precise same vowel points as does "Elohiym", and appears to be an accurate example of Qere Perptuum. http://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml#Judg16:28-16:28 However the variant that many scholars believe was meant to indicate to the Hebrew reader, that he or she was to read "Adonay or Adonai" , does not have the precise same vowel points as does "Adonay or Adonai" This particular variant does not seem to be an accurate example of Qere Perpeuum. http://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml#Gen3:14-3:14 Does it matter? Dave Donnelly ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=dFon8BSn0u8heGcCmd75NAAAJ1BVGyITH_OGb159rldJgo3SAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA= From jlitteral5 at roadrunner.com Sat Nov 21 16:35:37 2009 From: jlitteral5 at roadrunner.com (jlitteral5 at roadrunner.com) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:35:37 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] Complutensian Polyglot Message-ID: <20091121213537.ZKOER.61291.root@cdptpa-web05-z02> I have just got the Polyglot from a download, and was wondering if anyone knew if there was a page index that someone has put together for it. Thanks! John Litteral jlitteral5 at roadrunner.com From ted at reactor-core.org Sat Nov 21 18:02:02 2009 From: ted at reactor-core.org (Ted Walther) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:02:02 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] update to the neo-Paleo standard (interesting for all Hebraists) Message-ID: <20091121230202.GA18523@reactor-core.org> I have updated the neo-Paleo standard. Now it should be even EASIER to communicate Hebrew words and concepts between and to non-Hebrew speakers. URL: http://reactor-core.org/neopaleo.html In addition it shows the strong link between modern alphabets and the Israelite writing system. Please look it over and get back to me. Ted -- There's a party in your skull. And you're invited! Name: Ted Walther Phone: 208-310-7032 Skype: tederific Email: ted at reactor-core.org Address: #225 17700 58 Ave, Surrey, BC V3S1L6 From richardgg at hotmail.com Sat Nov 21 21:03:27 2009 From: richardgg at hotmail.com (Richard Green) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:03:27 +1300 Subject: [b-hebrew] update to the neo-Paleo standard (interesting for all Hebraists) In-Reply-To: <20091121230202.GA18523@reactor-core.org> References: <20091121230202.GA18523@reactor-core.org> Message-ID: HI I was teaching someone is Synagogue Hebrew letters and they said I kept pronoucing 'h' wrong and many other letters 'h' and 'y' was really 'e'. She (http://yehspace.ning.com/) said that i was using modern letters and square script was not right according to 'http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/' Jeff Brenner. I noticed the link on your page. http://reactor-core.org/ Even Today all i could see was she had mixed up Paleo Greek pronunciation over Hebrew and was thinking they was both pronounced the same. I was told as a child square script was not modern it is at least a few thousand years old, Paleo does not have many Torah scrolls on earth, i personally have never seen one complete scroll. Also thet Greek paleo and Hebrew paleo are pronounced diffrent. Have I got any of this wrong? Richard > Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:02:02 -0800 > From: ted at reactor-core.org > To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > Subject: [b-hebrew] update to the neo-Paleo standard (interesting for all Hebraists) > > I have updated the neo-Paleo standard. Now it should be even EASIER to > communicate Hebrew words and concepts between and to non-Hebrew > speakers. > > URL: http://reactor-core.org/neopaleo.html > > In addition it shows the strong link between modern alphabets and the > Israelite writing system. > > Please look it over and get back to me. > > Ted > > -- > There's a party in your skull. And you're invited! > > Name: Ted Walther > Phone: 208-310-7032 > Skype: tederific > Email: ted at reactor-core.org > Address: #225 17700 58 Ave, Surrey, BC V3S1L6 > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew _________________________________________________________________ New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more. http://windows.microsoft.com/shop From jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com Sun Nov 22 09:15:21 2009 From: jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com (James Christian) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:15:21 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <4f3a6170911200427hb6a6fcbu88112245be79a089@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> <20091116215755.GB8991@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <20091117155419.GA9950@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <4f3a6170911190207w5e14b571m813448aca86f934c@mail.gmail.com> <20091119224259.GA17826@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <4f3a6170911200427hb6a6fcbu88112245be79a089@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4f3a6170911220615h6166445dg9719afac1427f6c1@mail.gmail.com> Off list I was given this link: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/religious_studies/rak/earlypap.html which in turn links to this fragment among others: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//lxxmprssm.jpg As can be seen the tetragrammaton is inline with the Greek text in paleo-Hebrew characters. James Christian 2009/11/20 James Christian > Offlist I was asked: > > wasn't the Septuagint written with LORD where the yhwh was > > Onlist, for the benefit of those who also may have this same > misunderstanding and while preserving the anonymity of the original > enquirere, I reply: > > No! The oldest fragments of the LXX show that the tetragammaton was > preserved. Does anybody have a link to photographs of the relevant > fragments? > > James Christian > > 2009/11/20 Petr Tomasek > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:23:42AM -0800, K Randolph wrote: >> > James: >> > >> > I would like to see the details before making a decision. The first one >> > sounds plausible. Is there any evidence from other MSS to back it up? >> > Anything from the DSS? >> > >> > As for the anthropomorphisms of God, I don?t know of anyone who >> considered >> > them to be a description of physical attributes. Therefore they didn?t >> cause >> > a problem. >> >> You are very wrong! The anthropomorphisms posed a big problem for the >> translators >> of the Septuagint and to yet larger extent to the translators of the >> Targum >> Onkelos where such a biblical passages are transleted consistently in a >> way >> to avoid them (e.g. replacing "God" with "God's glory", "God's presence", >> "God's word", etc.). >> >> > Karl W. Randolph. >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:07 AM, James Christian >> > wrote: >> > >> > > In such cases of this type I would be suspicious of the change. The >> basis >> > > of the change is that it conflicts with their theology and should >> probably >> > > be better viewed as a corruption rather than a correction. If some >> were to >> > > get their way they would alter verses referring to God's 'hands', >> 'feet' etc >> > > as it conflicts with their idea of God. Obviously, God doesn't have >> physical >> > > hands and feet as we think of them and it is unlikely that the >> original >> > > authors believed he did but yet didn't have a theological problem with >> > > referring to them. >> > > >> > > James Christian >> > > >> > > 2009/11/17 K Randolph >> > > >> > >> Thanks, Petr: >> > >> >> > >> It is my understanding that these are textual witnesses. >> > >> >> > >> I did see a discussion of the first one, Genesis 18:22, where the >> change >> > >> was >> > >> noted and why: the original had the Lord standing before Abraham. But >> the >> > >> Masoretes concluded that the inferior stands before the superior, >> that >> > >> it?s >> > >> not merely a spacial statement, therefore they changed the verse to >> say >> > >> that >> > >> Abraham stood before the Lord. But I don?t have any information about >> the >> > >> other passages. >> > >> >> > >> Karl W. Randolph. >> > >> >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > b-hebrew mailing list >> > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org >> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew >> >> -- >> Petr Tomasek >> Jabber: butrus at jabbim.cz >> SIP: butrus at ekiga.net >> _______________________________________________ >> b-hebrew mailing list >> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew >> > > From jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com Sun Nov 22 09:38:57 2009 From: jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com (James Christian) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:38:57 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4f3a6170911220638k75a93edbn1bb228627670e08f@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > It is far from clear whether the Syriac was a translation. There are > strong > > arguments for Syriac being the original language just as there are strong > > arguments for Greek being the original language. > > > > 1) The patriarchate of Antioch (the base of early Christian missionary > > work) to this very day maintains a strong tradition of Syriac primacy. > > > > This is a modern tradition, similar to the Eastern Orthodox tradition that > puts the LXX as primary over the original Hebrew. > > I don't know what you mean by modern tradition. Do you mean recently introduced to the English speaking world? The Orthodox patriarchate have maintained this tradition since time immemorial. > Was there any book of the New Testament written in Antioch? > > Not that I know of but my understanding is that Syriac was also a bit of a lingua franca in the near east even if not as prevalent as Greek. > Matthew most likely wrote while still in Judea or Galilee, being a > government official most likely learned Mishnaic Hebrew, so either wrote in > that or Galilean Aramaic. Mark was a translator to Greek for Peter, so > Greek > would be his language. Luke wrote his three books most likely in Rome in > the > lingua franca of his day, namely Greek. John was living in Hellenized Asia > Minor when he wrote his books, Paul wrote from where ever, none addressed > to > speakers of Syriac so would not have used Syriac, James and Jude wrote from > Jerusalem. Peter went to Babylon, which had been Hellenized. > > A lot of what you just wrote has been handed down to us through Orthodox tradition. > The evidence for Syriac is very weak, at best. > > Again, I'm not arguing for Syriac primacy. I'm just noting that one of the main patriarchates of Orthodoxy has maintained this tradition for some time and there must be a reason why. However, having said that, I often find people here in Ukraine who believe that the bible was originally written in the Slavonic of the liturgy of the Russian Orthodox church. We may be looking at a similar phenomenon. In the Alexandrian patriarchate Coptic texts were in heavy use but I haven't seen any claims of Coptic primacy. > > 4) The language spoken in Antioch (the base or early Christianity) was > > Syriac and not Greek. > > > > The base of early Christianity was Jerusalem, not Antioch, during the time > that most of the books of the New Testament were written. This is the > picture given in Acts. > > Sorry. I should have said one of the bases of early Christianity. The Catholic Orthodox church had five patriarchates before the schism: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome. It is quite clear for each of these five why they became patriarchates and it is also clear that both Jerusalem and Antioch where before the other three and that Jerusalem was a base of Christianity before Antioch. However, internal evidence from the documents of the NT clearly show that Antioch was a significant and organised base of missionary work. > > You've lost me here. The sinaiticus and the vaticanus are the major basis > > of the Byzantine tradition. What do you mean by 'Byzantine tradition'? > > > > Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are of the "Alexandrian text type", not Byzantine. > They are the basis of modern "critical" editions of the New Testament. > > Ok. I'm now clear on what you mean. The later Byzantine traditions are characterised by their use of minuscule script and punctuation not present in the older traditions. > > > > > >> > >> > 2) Given the above how sure can we be of the original state of the NT > >> > documents? e.g. absence of YHWH in MSS makes me suspicious. > >> > > >> > >> As for not using YHWH in the Greek text, remember, these were Jews, > >> writing > >> in a Jewish religious milieu, in which ?????? had been the accepted way > of > >> referring to YHWH in Greek for a couple of centuries already, why should > >> they be different? > >> > >> > >> > > Actually, fragments of the LXX which predate the vaticanus and the > > sinaiticus show the tetragrammaton in all its glory in its rightful > places. > > The NT present a prophet named Jesus who actively opposed the traditions > of > > men. The idea that such a man would support the superstition which the > > original authors of the hebrew books evidently did not share seems, at > least > > to me, to be a complete contradiction in terms. > > > > That the Tetragrammaton is written instead of a translation or > transliteration shows already the traditions of men, in this case that the > name should not be pronounced. This is far from conclusive. We have no explicit testimony to this. James Christian From kwrandolph at gmail.com Sun Nov 22 18:51:33 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:51:33 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <4f3a6170911220615h6166445dg9719afac1427f6c1@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-2200953683514923@M2W022.mail2web.com> <20091116215755.GB8991@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <20091117155419.GA9950@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <4f3a6170911190207w5e14b571m813448aca86f934c@mail.gmail.com> <20091119224259.GA17826@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> <4f3a6170911200427hb6a6fcbu88112245be79a089@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911220615h6166445dg9719afac1427f6c1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: James: One of the documents in the traveling Dead Seas Scrolls display was in Greek with YHWH in paleo-Hebrew script, so I am not arguing that those do not exist. But that is not the only way it was written, other documents have ??????. Karl W. Randolph. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 6:15 AM, James Christian wrote: > Off list I was given this link: > > http://www.sas.upenn.edu/religious_studies/rak/earlypap.html > > which in > turn links to this fragment among others: > > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//lxxmprssm.jpg > > As can be seen the > tetragrammaton is inline with the Greek text in paleo-Hebrew characters. > > James Christian > > > From kwrandolph at gmail.com Sun Nov 22 20:34:03 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:34:03 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <4f3a6170911220638k75a93edbn1bb228627670e08f@mail.gmail.com> References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911220638k75a93edbn1bb228627670e08f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: James: 2009/11/22 James Christian > Hi, > > This is a modern tradition, similar to the Eastern Orthodox tradition that >> puts the LXX as primary over the original Hebrew. >> >> > I don't know what you mean by modern tradition. Do you mean recently > introduced to the English speaking world? The Orthodox patriarchate have > maintained this tradition since time immemorial. > ?Modern? in this context refers to beliefs, traditions, etc. that postdate the texts they talk about by centuries. History does not back up this tradition. > > >> >> > You've lost me here. The sinaiticus and the vaticanus are the major >> basis >> > of the Byzantine tradition. What do you mean by 'Byzantine tradition'? >> > >> >> Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are of the ?Alexandrian text type?, not >> Byzantine. >> They are the basis of modern ?critical? editions of the New Testament. >> >> > Ok. I'm now clear on what you mean. The later Byzantine traditions are > characterised by their use of minuscule script and punctuation not present > in the older traditions. > No, not at all. The Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions are based on the words used, not the use of miniscule and punctuation. You should have known that. > > >> >> James Christian > When looking at textual criticism, this applies to Hebrew as well as Greek, what is important is not necessarily the script used (the Jehoash forgery used paleo-Hebrew script), rather the words. The scripts can often give us a ballpark figure as to when a particular document was written, however, it is the words that tell us whether or not it is a good manuscript, important for textual critical uses. Some of those who favor the Byzantine tradition of New Testament manuscripts make the argument that the good copies wore out faster, because they were more often read and copied. The bad copies ended up tucked away in a back shelf, hence survived. How many texts of the DSS ended up the same way? Karl W. Randolph. From sesamox at hotmail.com Mon Nov 23 03:57:27 2009 From: sesamox at hotmail.com (Sesamo m.) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:57:27 +0100 Subject: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 83, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Karl and all, > As far as how accurately we know it, to me it appears that the Byzantine > tradition may reflect the oldest and most accurate texts, in other words, > more accurate copies. One reason I say that is because in the Gospels, it > appears to reflect even slight dialectal differences in its transcribed > names between Judea and Galilee, distinctions lost in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus > and similar texts. I didn't know this and find it very interesting. Could you please provide some examples of these names with dialectal differences? Thanks, Sergio Saavedra, Madrid _________________________________________________________________ Deja que Sietes te ense?e todo los secretos de Windows http://www.sietesunpueblodeexpertos.com/ From kwrandolph at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 06:29:40 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:29:40 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 83, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sergio: I noticed that some, by no means all, of the BGD KPT letters were hard in Galilean accent, e.g. ???????, ?????????, ????????, while ????????? had no Judean equivalent, ??????? and ???????? are found in the Alexandrian tradition texts. >From examples like these, I suspect that the Galilean accent had slightly fewer soft pronunciations for BGD KPT letters than did Judean accent, but that it was noticeable to first century speakers. I first noticed this because I believe that the Hebrew letters originally had only one pronunciation each letter. The reason the BGD KPT and Sin/Shin have more than one pronunciation is because of the influence of Aramaic and other languages on the pronunciation of Hebrew. Thus these represent late pronunciations that are not original to Biblical Hebrew. Karl W. Randolph. On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Sesamo m. wrote: > > Hi Karl and all, > > > As far as how accurately we know it, to me it appears that the Byzantine > > tradition may reflect the oldest and most accurate texts, in other words, > > more accurate copies. One reason I say that is because in the Gospels, it > > appears to reflect even slight dialectal differences in its transcribed > > names between Judea and Galilee, distinctions lost in Sinaiticus, > Vaticanus > > and similar texts. > > I didn't know this and find it very interesting. Could you please provide > some examples of these names with dialectal differences? > > Thanks, > Sergio Saavedra, Madrid > > From jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com Mon Nov 23 08:14:56 2009 From: jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com (James Christian) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:14:56 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911220638k75a93edbn1bb228627670e08f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4f3a6170911230514v2d52b061nd40366258f24aa94@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > > > > > >> > >> > You've lost me here. The sinaiticus and the vaticanus are the major > >> basis > >> > of the Byzantine tradition. What do you mean by 'Byzantine tradition'? > >> > > >> > >> Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are of the ?Alexandrian text type?, not > >> Byzantine. > >> They are the basis of modern ?critical? editions of the New Testament. > >> > >> > > Ok. I'm now clear on what you mean. The later Byzantine traditions are > > characterised by their use of minuscule script and punctuation not > present > > in the older traditions. > > > > No, not at all. The Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions are based on the > words used, not the use of miniscule and punctuation. You should have known > that. > > I've seen both the Codex Alexandrinus and the major section of the Codex Sinaiticus in the British Library in London and the few pages that remain of Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai. I've also seen a great deal of later manuscripts and I can say that the most striking visual difference is that the older manuscripts use maiuscule script with no spaces between words while the later use minuscule with punctuation, aspirations, accents and spaces between words. As for the words used I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Evidently, we are seeing some form of standardisation in the history of the transmission of manuscripts where a particular tradition has gained dominance over another and we have a received text. This has happened both in the Hebrew and the Greek and yet where they intersect (the old testament) we nonetheless see differences. I would strongly suspect that there are doctrinal issues which have been a major force in the standardisation of texts. See for example the NT verse 'there are three witnesses on earth... and there are three witnesses in heaven...' which is not attested in any of the older Greek manuscripts. After hearing from an Orthodox monk that there are uncatalogued old manuscripts stashed away in the monasteries on Athos I spent some time meeting the patriarchs who live at Athos to gain access to their libraries and to this day nobody has been able to produce a single manuscript which confirms the authenticity of this verse. In fact, to the contrary, all those with authority I have gained access to have admitted that no such manuscripts exist in any of their libraries. Some Orthodox monks (like Justin the librarian at the St Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai) entertain the possibility that the Codex Sinaiticus was one of the first 50 codices hand written under the order of Constantine through Eusebius and yet even though Constantine was a major player in the establishment of the Nicene creed this verse is not present in the Codex Sinaiticus. These factors only call into question the process which the received Greek text went through before it reached its final state. James Christian From kwrandolph at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 14:05:57 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:05:57 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <4f3a6170911230514v2d52b061nd40366258f24aa94@mail.gmail.com> References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911220638k75a93edbn1bb228627670e08f@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911230514v2d52b061nd40366258f24aa94@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: James: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:14 AM, James Christian wrote: > Hi, > > I've seen both the Codex Alexandrinus and the major section of the Codex > Sinaiticus in the British Library in London and the few pages that remain of > Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai. > I've also seen a great deal of later manuscripts and I can say that the most > striking visual difference is that the older manuscripts use maiuscule > script with no spaces between words while the later use minuscule with > punctuation, aspirations, accents and spaces between words. > That?s visual only, and not counted in textual criticism. To give a counter example, I went to the Accordance booth at a MacWorld convention, and asked about my dictionary. They freaked out when they saw that I was using a paleo-Hebrew font. They thought the visual was so different that they couldn?t handle it. What they didn?t recognize was that under the font, the words were exactly the same. Likewise, a textual critic ignores the font to look at the words, their spelling, contexts and the text in general apart from the font. This applies to all languages. > > As for the words used I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Evidently, we > are seeing some form of standardisation in the history of the transmission > of manuscripts where a particular tradition has gained dominance over > another and we have a received text. This has happened both in the Hebrew > and the Greek and yet where they intersect (the old testament) we > nonetheless see differences. > We see differences in all manuscript traditions, and the reason is copyist errors, mostly. Then some later copyists tried to correct errors, only sometimes to make it further from the original. In the case of the New Testament witnesses to readings in Tanakh, some of the differences can be laid to translation, some to copyist errors. How much of which is often hard to determine. > > I would strongly suspect that there are doctrinal issues which have been a > major force in the standardisation of texts. See for example the NT verse > 'there are three witnesses on earth... and there are three witnesses in > heaven...' which is not attested in any of the older Greek manuscripts. > After hearing from an Orthodox monk that there are uncatalogued old > manuscripts stashed away in the monasteries on Athos I spent some time > meeting the patriarchs who live at Athos to gain access to their libraries > and to this day nobody has been able to produce a single manuscript which > confirms the authenticity of this verse. In fact, to the contrary, all those > with authority I have gained access to have admitted that no such > manuscripts exist in any of their libraries. > That verse, 1 John 5:7, comes from the Latin, later than Jerome. I think there are one, maybe two very late Greek manuscripts that have that verse. It got included in the Erasmus edition, which was widely used because it was relatively cheap, hence into many translations. That Erasmus ?Textus Receptus? was not a good, critical edition. Good critical editions do not include it. > > These factors only call into question the process which the received Greek > text went through before it reached its final state. > You need to learn more about textual criticism. That would answer some of your questions. > > James Christian > > Karl W. Randolph. From jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com Mon Nov 23 16:21:49 2009 From: jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com (James Christian) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:21:49 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911220638k75a93edbn1bb228627670e08f@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911230514v2d52b061nd40366258f24aa94@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4f3a6170911231321pbd78d40p7571847cbd649159@mail.gmail.com> I would like to believe that all the differences can be ascribed to copyist errors and attempts to correct errors but I am strongly suspicious of doctrinal forces which influenced those 'copyist errors' and 'corrections'. Not too long ago we had a discussion about the different traditions of the ages of our ancestors as listed in Genesis. This discussion had bearing on your understanding of the organisation of the documents in Genesis and we saw that the LXX tradition and *not* the MT tradition better supported your position because the maths of the MT tradition made a part of your position impossible. It was also brought to the fore that the figures in the MT tradition may have been tampered with for heretical reasons which involved stealing the throne of David and the position of High Priest. This strongly throws into conjecture that all these differences can be attributed to innocent 'copyist errors' and 'corrections'. James Christian From kwrandolph at gmail.com Mon Nov 23 16:56:27 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:56:27 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <4f3a6170911231321pbd78d40p7571847cbd649159@mail.gmail.com> References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911220638k75a93edbn1bb228627670e08f@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911230514v2d52b061nd40366258f24aa94@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911231321pbd78d40p7571847cbd649159@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: James: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM, James Christian wrote: > I would like to believe that all the differences can be ascribed to copyist > errors and attempts to correct errors but I am strongly suspicious of > doctrinal forces which influenced those 'copyist errors' and 'corrections'. > Not too long ago we had a discussion about the different traditions of the > ages of our ancestors as listed in Genesis. This discussion had bearing on > your understanding of the organisation of the documents in Genesis and we > saw that the LXX tradition and *not* the MT tradition better supported your > position because the maths of the MT tradition made a part of your position > impossible. Even in this example, it is understandable as copyist errors. What do the DSS say in this question? Apparently this section was missing in the DSS? > It was also brought to the fore that the figures in the MT tradition may > have been tampered with for heretical reasons which involved stealing the > throne of David and the position of High Priest. This strongly throws into > conjecture that all these differences can be attributed to innocent 'copyist > errors' and 'corrections'. > I don?t know any of these examples. Where are they? > > James Christian > > > Karl W. Randolph. From George.Athas at moore.edu.au Tue Nov 24 03:04:48 2009 From: George.Athas at moore.edu.au (George Athas) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:04:48 +1100 Subject: [b-hebrew] Subject lines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just a reminder folks that, if you receive the digest edition of b-hebrew, you should change the subject line to reflect the thread you are commenting on. It makes it much easier for people to follow the conversation. Thanks. Regards, GEORGE ATHAS Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew From kwrandolph at gmail.com Tue Nov 24 15:40:00 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:40:00 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <20091121080722.GA25776@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911190218q432aaae4ga907303f4924900e@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911191009i34073f38rfee6182b19a2f901@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> <20091121080722.GA25776@ebed.etf.cuni.cz> Message-ID: Petr: Thanks for the link to the OHB site. However, upon reading the method used for the editor of Proverbs, I wonder how much of the text is truly critical based on extant texts, and how much on conjecture? When I think of an obvious error, I think of examples like Psalm 22 where the Nahal Heber scrap has one word in one verse ending in a waw where the MT has a yod, and in the next verse a word ending in a yod where the MT has a waw. I had already anticipated that those were errors in the MT because of context and grammatical rules, but I would not change it without an actual text to back me up. But when I read Michael V. Fox?s description on how he is editing Proverbs, he is making changes for which he has no Hebrew texts to substantiate those changes. For example, he makes the claim in Proverbs 5:22a that ?? ???? is a gloss based on a mistranslation on his part and in spite of that it fits the cadence of the verse, so he removes it with no textual support to back himself up. Another example is his treatment of Proverbs 21:20 where he makes a change based on his presuppositions with no Hebrew text to back himself up. With such changes, how can I trust that text? I want a critical text that fixes obvious errors like Psalm 22 above, but a good critical text needs to have Hebrew examples to back up any corrections, not be based on presuppositions. Karl W. Randolph. On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Petr Tomasek wrote: > > > > I wish there were a critical edition that corrects some of the obvious > > errors of the MT instead of mechanically following the MT exactly. > > Corrections recognized by DSS and other MSS findings, backed up by > > translations found in LXX, NT, Vulgate and others. > > There are such attempts, see http://ohb.berkeley.edu/ > > However I would argue that it is hard to tell what an "obvious error" > is. Many times they prove to be not the case... > > P.T. > > -- > Petr Tomasek > Jabber: butrus at jabbim.cz > SIP: butrus at ekiga.net > From jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com Wed Nov 25 14:27:25 2009 From: jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com (James Christian) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:27:25 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911220638k75a93edbn1bb228627670e08f@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911230514v2d52b061nd40366258f24aa94@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911231321pbd78d40p7571847cbd649159@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4f3a6170911251127i764a2495g3450a7634a97c805@mail.gmail.com> Hi, 2009/11/23 K Randolph > James: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM, James Christian > wrote: > > > I would like to believe that all the differences can be ascribed to > copyist > > errors and attempts to correct errors but I am strongly suspicious of > > doctrinal forces which influenced those 'copyist errors' and > 'corrections'. > > Not too long ago we had a discussion about the different traditions of > the > > ages of our ancestors as listed in Genesis. This discussion had bearing > on > > your understanding of the organisation of the documents in Genesis and we > > saw that the LXX tradition and *not* the MT tradition better supported > your > > position because the maths of the MT tradition made a part of your > position > > impossible. > > > Even in this example, it is understandable as copyist errors. > > I really don't see how this could be a copyist error. Can you suggest the copy logic that could have led to such an error? James Christian From George.Athas at moore.edu.au Wed Nov 25 16:32:01 2009 From: George.Athas at moore.edu.au (George Athas) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:32:01 +1100 Subject: [b-hebrew] When replying... (FROM THE MODERATORS) In-Reply-To: <4f3a6170911251127i764a2495g3450a7634a97c805@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Would list members responding to posts please take an extra few seconds to crop the message they are replying to. If you feel you must include something from the previous message, then please only include the portion immediately relevant to your reply. Otherwise, it can become quite tedious sorting through your reply to find your response. Furthermore, the entire previous message has already been sent through and is also archived, mitigating the need for wholesale quotation. Thanks. Regards, GEORGE ATHAS Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew (in transit) From kwrandolph at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 06:29:03 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:29:03 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: <4f3a6170911251127i764a2495g3450a7634a97c805@mail.gmail.com> References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911200444v772429f5y654dca6f8db6868c@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911220638k75a93edbn1bb228627670e08f@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911230514v2d52b061nd40366258f24aa94@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911231321pbd78d40p7571847cbd649159@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911251127i764a2495g3450a7634a97c805@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: James: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:27 AM, James Christian wrote: > Hi, > > 2009/11/23 K Randolph > > James: >> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM, James Christian >> wrote: >> >> > Not too long ago we had a discussion about the different traditions of >> the >> > ages of our ancestors as listed in Genesis.? and we >> > saw that the LXX tradition and *not* the MT tradition better supported >> your >> > position? >> >> >> Even in this example, it is understandable as copyist errors. >> >> > I really don't see how this could be a copyist error. Can you suggest the > copy logic that could have led to such an error? > > James Christian > Ever tried copying a long list of numbers? It?s a lot harder than text to get it correct, therefore more likely to have errors if done quickly. Karl W. Randolph. > > From leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il Thu Nov 26 08:05:16 2009 From: leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il (Yigal Levin) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:05:16 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] "Paleo" and other Hebrew scripts In-Reply-To: References: <20091121230202.GA18523@reactor-core.org> Message-ID: Dear Richard, First of all, please remember that the list rules state that you must sign each message with both your first and last name, preferably also with some additional information such as place of residence or academic affiliation. As to your questions, and I left part of Ted Walther's post as well, since your post was in reaction to his: 1. I obviously can't know by email what your pronunciation of various Hebrew letters is, so I can't comment on whether it's correct or not. However, since you refer to "Synagogue Hebrew", you should be aware that historically, different Jewish communities (Ashkenaz, Sepharad, Yemen and others) have pronounced their Hebrew differently, so what is "correct" pronunciation in one community may be "incorrect" in another. 2. The various websites that you referenced in your post advocate very "unique" ideas about Hebrew. To say the least, they are not the standard that one encounters in academic circles. 3. Since there is some confusion between the terms that are used for the various stages of the Hebrew alphabet, let me briefly summarize the standard academic view: a. The earliest stage in the development of what we call the Hebrew alphabet occurred in Canaan (Israel, Palestine, the southern Levant, use whatever term you wish) during the Middle and Late Bronze Age (roughly 2000-1200 BCE). This type of writing is often called "Proto-Canaanite", but also "Proto-Sinaitic". This writing was based roughly on Egyptian Hieroglyphs, so that each sign looked like a "picture" and was named after that picture, such as "Bet" - "house", "yod" - "hand", and so on. In the "yehspace" site you listed, it's the form that's called "Ancient Hebrew", although there are lots of variants to this form. Remember that the Bronze Age is before there was a "nation" of Israel, so whether one can speak of "Hebrew" at this stage as a separate language is a matter of debate. b. Around 1200 BCE, at the beginning of the Iron Age, the Israelites, Phoenicians, Arameans and others began adopting and adapting the "Proto-Canaanite" script. Scholars of Hebrew usually call this the "Paleo-Hebrew" or "Old Hebrew" script, although others call it "Phoenician". c. For the first couple of centuries of the Iron Age, the scripts used by Israelites, Phoenicians, Arameans etc. were practically identical, but eventually individual "national" scribal traditions began taking hold. Even so, the differences are so small that it takes an expert to tell them apart, and since we really don't have all that many inscriptions in any of these languages, it's sometimes hard to tell if slight differences in the way a letter is written are really a matter of different national traditions, or simply of style and of the individual scribe or engraver. d. After the conquest of the Aramean kingdoms by the Assyrians in the late 8th century, many Aramean scribes were employed by the Assyrian government. These scribes, influenced by their new environment and cut off from their Iron Age traditions, began writing Aramaic in a new style, which eventually became the "square" script. During the Persian Period this script became the official script for Aramaic, which was one of the official languages of imperial administration. As such, it was also adopted by the Jews in Babylonian exile, eventually replacing the "Old Hebrew" script, becoming the script commonly used by Jews during the Second Temple Period and to this day. Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, are in the square script. In some, the Tetragrammaton (the name of God - YHWH) is in the "Old Hebrew" script, perhaps because it was considered to be more sacred. In Jewish coins of the Second Temple Period and the revolts against the Romans, the "Old Hebrew" script was used, probably for "nationalistic" purposes. It also appears on some of modern Israel's coins, for the same reason. e. Following all of this, it seems reasonable to assume that whatever sacred Hebrew texts existed in the pre-exilic period (i.e. the Iron Age) were written in "Paleo-Hebrew" or "Old Hebrew" script. However, NO such texts have survived, except for two small silver amulets that were unearthed in Jerusalem and contain what looks like a form of a few verses from Numbers and Deuteronomy, and these are indeed in "Paleo/Old-Hebrew" script. h. However, once the "square" script was finally adopted, all sacred writings are written in this script. As I wrote above, most of the DDS, and all of the Hebrew manuscripts that we have from later periods, and all of the Torah scrolls that now exist, are in the square script. The Rabbis of the Talmud credited Ezra with "changing" the script from Old to New, and once that was done, a Torah scroll written in the Old script is invalid for ritual purposes. i. Yes, the "Paleo-Greek" alphabet, from which the Classical Greek alphabet evolved, does look like the "Paleo-Hebrew"/"Phoenician" script, and was probably adopted from the Phoenicians, replacing the older Greek scripts. Both the Latin (probably via Etruscan) and later the Cyrillic alphabets are descended from this Old Greek alphabet. The Syriac, Nabatean and eventually classical and modern Arabic are derived from the later Aramaic "square" script. j. But remember - all of this has been about ALPHABETS, not LANGUAGES. While Canaanite, Hebrew, Phoenician and Aramaic are all related (but NOT identical) Northwestern Semitic languages, Greek is not. A writing system can be borrowed and adapted across linguistic families. When the central Asian Turks came to the Middle East and adopted Islam, they also adopted the Arabic alphabet and adapted it to write their own language. In 1918 they replaced it with the Latin alphabet. English, German, French, Spanish and others all use the Latin alphabet, but many of the letters are pronounced differently by different languages. For that matter, there are differences between British and American English, between Castilian and Latin American Spanish and between French and Quebecois French. Which makes it very difficult to say anything about the precise pronunciation of a ancient languages, short of using a time machine to go back and record. Hope all that helps, Yigal Levin -----Original Message----- HI I was teaching someone is Synagogue Hebrew letters and they said I kept pronoucing 'h' wrong and many other letters 'h' and 'y' was really 'e'. She (http://yehspace.ning.com/) said that i was using modern letters and square script was not right according to 'http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/' Jeff Brenner. I noticed the link on your page. http://reactor-core.org/ Even Today all i could see was she had mixed up Paleo Greek pronunciation over Hebrew and was thinking they was both pronounced the same. I was told as a child square script was not modern it is at least a few thousand years old, Paleo does not have many Torah scrolls on earth, i personally have never seen one complete scroll. Also thet Greek paleo and Hebrew paleo are pronounced diffrent. Have I got any of this wrong? Richard > Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:02:02 -0800 > From: ted at reactor-core.org > To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > Subject: [b-hebrew] update to the neo-Paleo standard (interesting for all Hebraists) > > I have updated the neo-Paleo standard. Now it should be even EASIER to > communicate Hebrew words and concepts between and to non-Hebrew > speakers. > > URL: http://reactor-core.org/neopaleo.html > > In addition it shows the strong link between modern alphabets and the > Israelite writing system. > > Please look it over and get back to me. > > Ted > > -- > There's a party in your skull. And you're invited! > > Name: Ted Walther > From jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com Thu Nov 26 12:03:41 2009 From: jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com (James Christian) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:03:41 +0200 Subject: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text reliable? In-Reply-To: References: <5680d1940911180811j7c28b42g360e692efc7b3846@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911220638k75a93edbn1bb228627670e08f@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911230514v2d52b061nd40366258f24aa94@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911231321pbd78d40p7571847cbd649159@mail.gmail.com> <4f3a6170911251127i764a2495g3450a7634a97c805@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4f3a6170911260903o28f19a82hccb8041e3aa36aaa@mail.gmail.com> Hi, 2009/11/26 K Randolph > James: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:27 AM, James Christian < > jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > 2009/11/23 K Randolph > > > > James: > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM, James Christian > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Not too long ago we had a discussion about the different traditions of > >> the > >> > ages of our ancestors as listed in Genesis.? and we > >> > saw that the LXX tradition and *not* the MT tradition better supported > >> your > >> > position? > >> > >> > >> Even in this example, it is understandable as copyist errors. > >> > >> > > I really don't see how this could be a copyist error. Can you suggest the > > copy logic that could have led to such an error? > > > > James Christian > > > > Ever tried copying a long list of numbers? It?s a lot harder than text to > get it correct, therefore more likely to have errors if done quickly. > > But usually a copy error is one of several well known types. For example, we are copying a number and memorise a section of that number. Then we write the section we memorised. Then we look back to what we are copying from and start copying from the wrong place because a similar number sequence to what we just wrote exists in more than one place in the source text. I really can't see how we could reconstruct this sequence of events given the two competing traditions we have. James Christian > Karl W. Randolph. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > From TedBro at aol.com Fri Nov 27 09:21:03 2009 From: TedBro at aol.com (TedBro at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:21:03 EST Subject: [b-hebrew] "Paleo" and other Hebrew scripts Message-ID: Yigal: Thanks for the thorough summary of Hebrew scripts. Aren't there also some DSS items in paleo-Hebrew, including a large fragment of Leviticus? Thanks, Ted Brownstein ==================== In a message dated 11/26/2009 8:35:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il writes: e. Following all of this, it seems reasonable to assume that whatever sacred Hebrew texts existed in the pre-exilic period (i.e. the Iron Age) were written in "Paleo-Hebrew" or "Old Hebrew" script. However, NO such texts have survived, except for two small silver amulets that were unearthed in Jerusalem and contain what looks like a form of a few verses from Numbers and Deuteronomy, and these are indeed in "Paleo/Old-Hebrew" script. From thebodyofjesusthenazoraion at juno.com Fri Nov 27 17:10:56 2009 From: thebodyofjesusthenazoraion at juno.com (thebodyofjesusthenazoraion at juno.com) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:10:56 GMT Subject: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest,worship serve Message-ID: <20091127.161056.7995.1@webmail02.dca.untd.com> what do you think? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgEDDpLxpWo ---------- Original Message ---------- From: b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 83, Issue 23 Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:20:10 -0500 Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org You can reach the person managing the list at b-hebrew-owner at lists.ibiblio.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..." ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=sJ2Fn4X-ciBIKXcwo3atNwAAJz1VGyITH_OGb159rldJgo3SAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA= From kwrandolph at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 20:03:56 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:03:56 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest,worship serve In-Reply-To: <20091127.161056.7995.1@webmail02.dca.untd.com> References: <20091127.161056.7995.1@webmail02.dca.untd.com> Message-ID: Dear You Forgot to Sign Your Name: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:10 PM, thebodyofjesusthenazoraion at juno.com < thebodyofjesusthenazoraion at juno.com> wrote: > > what do you think? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgEDDpLxpWo > > This is a good example of what I call ?sloppy lexicography?. The Hebrew term had a singular meaning of ?to prostrate (when one prostrates oneself, he does so for the purpose of honoring another) with forehead to the ground, hands outstretched?. This action was used for both honoring (worshipping) God and honoring (giving honor) to other people. Then the video ends with something completely false, namely that one can only ?serve? God, when service is also to other people. I do not recommend anything from that site. Karl W. Randolph. From dwashbur at nyx.net Fri Nov 27 20:14:21 2009 From: dwashbur at nyx.net (dwashbur at nyx.net) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:14:21 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest,worship serve In-Reply-To: References: <20091127.161056.7995.1@webmail02.dca.untd.com>, Message-ID: <4B1008ED.29064.FBE8641@dwashbur.nyx.net> Agreed. Plus, he's a bit out of date; we now know from Ugaritic that the root is XWH, not $XH. On 27 Nov 2009 at 17:03, K Randolph wrote: > Dear You Forgot to Sign Your Name: > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:10 PM, thebodyofjesusthenazoraion at juno.com > < > thebodyofjesusthenazoraion at juno.com> wrote: > > > > > what do you think? > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgEDDpLxpWo > > > > This is a good example of what I call "sloppy lexicography". > The Hebrew > term had a singular meaning of "to prostrate (when one prostrates > oneself, > he does so for the purpose of honoring another) with forehead to the > ground, > hands outstretched". This action was used for both honoring > (worshipping) > God and honoring (giving honor) to other people. > > Then the video ends with something completely false, namely that one > can > only "serve" God, when service is also to other people. > > I do not recommend anything from that site. > > Karl W. Randolph. > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur From if at math.bu.edu Fri Nov 27 20:41:31 2009 From: if at math.bu.edu (Isaac Fried) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:41:31 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest,worship serve In-Reply-To: <20091127.161056.7995.1@webmail02.dca.untd.com> References: <20091127.161056.7995.1@webmail02.dca.untd.com> Message-ID: To just remain within Hebrew, the root ??? (to float) is between ??? and ???, and is related to ???, as evidenced by ?????, actually a ?????. Isaac Fried, Boston University On Nov 27, 2009, at 10:10 PM, thebodyofjesusthenazoraion at juno.com wrote: > > what do you think? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgEDDpLxpWo > > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org > To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 83, Issue 23 > Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:20:10 -0500 > > Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > b-hebrew-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..." > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Weight Loss Program > Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=sJ2Fn4X- > ciBIKXcwo3atNwAAJz1VGyITH_OGb159rldJgo3SAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA= > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew From if at math.bu.edu Fri Nov 27 20:44:23 2009 From: if at math.bu.edu (Isaac Fried) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:44:23 -0500 Subject: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest,worship serve In-Reply-To: <20091127.161056.7995.1@webmail02.dca.untd.com> References: <20091127.161056.7995.1@webmail02.dca.untd.com> Message-ID: <460F2381-9B48-4DB2-B875-BD4FF7DB4150@math.bu.edu> I am trying once more. To just remain within Hebrew, the root ??? (to float) is between ??? and ???, and is related to ???, as evidenced by ?????, actually a ?????. Isaac Fried, Boston University On Nov 27, 2009, at 10:10 PM, thebodyofjesusthenazoraion at juno.com wrote: > > what do you think? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgEDDpLxpWo > > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org > To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 83, Issue 23 > Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:20:10 -0500 > > Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > b-hebrew-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..." > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Weight Loss Program > Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=sJ2Fn4X- > ciBIKXcwo3atNwAAJz1VGyITH_OGb159rldJgo3SAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA= > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew From kwrandolph at gmail.com Fri Nov 27 21:03:44 2009 From: kwrandolph at gmail.com (K Randolph) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:03:44 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest,worship serve In-Reply-To: <4B1008ED.29064.FBE8641@dwashbur.nyx.net> References: <20091127.161056.7995.1@webmail02.dca.untd.com> <4B1008ED.29064.FBE8641@dwashbur.nyx.net> Message-ID: Dave: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:14 PM, wrote: > Agreed. Plus, he's a bit out of date; we now know from Ugaritic that the > root is XWH, not > $XH. > > XWH is Hebrew for ?to declare?. Anyway, while the findings at Ugarit are good for describing the pagan culture of the Iron Age ANE, it is only of peripheral use for the study of Biblical Hebrew language. Karl W. Randolph. > > From dwashbur at nyx.net Fri Nov 27 21:53:49 2009 From: dwashbur at nyx.net (dwashbur at nyx.net) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:53:49 -0800 Subject: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest,worship serve In-Reply-To: References: <20091127.161056.7995.1@webmail02.dca.untd.com>, <4B1008ED.29064.FBE8641@dwashbur.nyx.net>, Message-ID: <4B10203D.9552.101996A7@dwashbur.nyx.net> On 27 Nov 2009 at 18:03, K Randolph wrote: > Dave: > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:14 PM, wrote: > > > Agreed. Plus, he's a bit out of date; we now know from Ugaritic > that the > > root is XWH, not > > $XH. > > > > XWH is Hebrew for "to declare". Anyway, while the findings at > Ugarit are > good for describing the pagan culture of the Iron Age ANE, it is > only of > peripheral use for the study of Biblical Hebrew language. Actually, the biggest problem with the word for "worship" that this guy is talking about has always been the infixed shin and tau, but the very same word in the same root appears with the same meaning in Ugaritic, which would seem to show that there's another root XWH that appears in this "hishtaph`el" stem with the meaning "bow down" etc. See e.g. Holladay's lexicon and most of the literature on Ugaritic. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur