Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
  • To: Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
  • Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:05:17 -0600

biblical hebrew language word meanings represent part and parcel of this
forum.

if tradition, rather than factual transmission, dictate word meanings for
the masoretic text, that becomes a signficant event.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com> wrote:

> Seems like a psychological or philosophical question to me. What makes it
> Hebrew specific, other than the obvious fact that you want to discuss it on
> this list?
>
> Paul Zellmer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:
> b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of fred burlingame
> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 11:03 AM
> To: fred putnam
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
>
> Hello Fred:
>
> The big ticket question is not whether the script moves up or down ....;
> but
> rather whether language represents an entirely subjective experience,
> insusceptible of objective measurement? In other words, does the language
> of the masoretic text ("MT"), or any language for that matter, require
> subjective agreement on grammar, semantics, etc., etc., between at least
> two speakers or consumers, and in order for the language to perform as a
> tool of communication?
>
> The speakers in the link below obviously employed both masoretic text
> language and modern hebrew with some degree of facility; ....; and yet they
> failed to communicate.
>
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3990306,00.html
>
> So, the question becomes. Can we know what the authors of MT mansucript
> intended as language in that document? Can we know what the immediate (in
> time) consumers of that document intended as language. Or does the language
> use depend entirely upon the meaning ascribed it by any two users of the
> language at any time?
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame
>
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:54 AM, fred putnam <fred.putnam AT gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Extant Greek inscriptions are written in every direction but up
> > (bottom-to-top), including spirals and boustrephedon (one line L-R, the
> > next
> > R-L: "as the ox turns [when plowing]").
> >
> > There is a helpful little book from the British Museum/U. of California
> > Press on "Greek Inscriptions", by B. F. Cook (the entire series, "Reading
> > the Past" includes volumes on "The Early Alphabet", "Cuneiform", "Runes",
> > "Egyptian Hieroglyphs", "Linear B and Related Scripts", "Etruscan", &c.).
> > These seem to have been conceived and published primarily sale in museum
> > gift/souvenir stores, but are heavily illustrated, excellent, brief
> > introductions to these topics.
> >
> > Peace.
> >
> > Fred Putnam ("Fredp", to reduce confusion)
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Richard <aaa AT endlyss.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Too often the similarities are emphasized over against the differences,
> > >>>> e.g. the alphabet and left to right reading and writing versus right
> > to left
> > >>>> reading<<<
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > > I have no opinion on this matter one way or the other but find it a
> very
> > > interesting discussion.
> > >
> > > But as for the Greek Left to Right thinking, Greek originally read
> right
> > to
> > > left according to my information up to this point.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Richard Conaway
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryant J. Williams III" <
> > > bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
> > > To: "fred burlingame" <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
> > >
> > > Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:41 PM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Fred B.,
> > >>
> > >> The LXX is the Bible of the Jewish Diaspora. It is no accident that
> the
> > >> authors of the NT would have used it. The majority of the quotes and
> > >> allusions to the Tanakh in the NT are from the LXX (See the
> introduction
> > to
> > >> ***Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament***, G. K.
> > Beale
> > >> and C. A. Carson, editors, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007:
> > >> www.bakeracademic.com; Nottingham, England: Apollos (an imprint of
> > >> Inter-Varsity Press), 2007: www.ivybooks.com. If I remember
> correctly,
> > >> Emanuel Tov co-authored a work on the Septuagint. I would check him
> out
> > >> also.
> > >>
> > >> True, a conscious decision to use the Hebrew MT by those publishing
> the
> > >> Tanakh into English and other languages does not mean that the LXX
> > failed as
> > >> a translation, but the determination to go back to the original
> > languages of
> > >> the Tanakh, Hebrew and Aramaic. This decision would also apply to the
> > >> Vulgate since it was the primary translation of the Western Church for
> > well
> > >> over 1300 years; even when attempts to translate the Tanakh into
> > English,
> > >> German, etc. had occurred.
> > >>
> > >> One still has to remember that the Hebrew and Greek are from two
> > separate
> > >> families: Semitic versus Indo-European. Too often the similarities are
> > >> emphasized over against the differences, e.g. the alphabet and left to
> > right
> > >> reading and writing versus right to left reading and writing and
> > different
> > >> worldviews and presuppositions (these are important but beyond this
> > lists
> > >> guidelines).
> > >>
> > >> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: fred burlingame
> > >> To: Bryant J. Williams III
> > >> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > >> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:23 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hello Bryant:
> > >>
> > >> Happy Thanksgiving.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for your comments.
> > >>
> > >> I agree; and modern day publishers (and their academic consultants)
> of
> > >> english language bibles, agree also as to the big difference between:
> > >>
> > >> a. tanakh; and
> > >>
> > >> b. septuagint.
> > >>
> > >> These publishers' apparent, uniform rejection of the septuagint, and
> > >> uniform acceptance of numerous, corresponding, but differing,
> renderings
> > in
> > >> the tanakh, argues strongly in favor of the conclusion that the
> > septuagint
> > >> has failed ... as a translation.
> > >>
> > >> regards,
> > >>
> > >> fred burlingame
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Bryant J. Williams III <
> > >> bjwvmw AT com-pair.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dear Fred B.,
> > >>
> > >> One has to distinguish from Hebrew Tanakh and Greek LXX. The Tanakh
> > was
> > >> written
> > >> primarily in Hebrew with portions of Daniel, Ezra and a verse in
> > >> Jeremiah in
> > >> Aramaic of the 6th - 5th Centuries BC. The LXX is Greek from the 3rd
> > >> Century
> > >> (ca. 250) - 1st Century BC. There are some later editors, e.g.
> > >> Theodotion, etc.,
> > >> from about the 1st - 3rd Century AD. Of course, the Great Codices,
> > >> Alexandrinus,
> > >> Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are from the 4th Century AD (ca. 320) have
> > the
> > >> LXX and
> > >> the NT.
> > >>
> > >> Now that the DSS Biblical MSS have been open to all scholars they
> will
> > >> now be
> > >> included in any text-critical problems in translating the Tanakh
> into
> > >> English.
> > >> TNIV or NIV 2011, and possibly others, was supposed to use the DSS
> for
> > >> this
> > >> purpose (?).
> > >>
> > >> The use of the LXX can possibly help in some of the hapax legomena,
> > but
> > >> not
> > >> always. The Pentateuch, or Law of Moses, is fairly consistent in its
> > >> translation
> > >> method, but the rest of the Tanakh is not so consistent. See the
> NETS
> > >> translation of the LXX for further information
> > >> (1) The print version is available: Albert Pietersma and Benjamin
> > G.
> > >> Wright
> > >> are the editors and the publisher is Oxford University Press
> (Oxford)
> > >> www.oup.com/us ISBN (9780195289756);
> > >>
> > >> (2) An electronic version (PDFs viewable online or downloadable) is
> > >> accessible
> > >> online at: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/.
> > >>
> > >> I am giving a general overview of the situation, but not too
> general.
> > >>
> > >> BTW, Happy Thanksgiving to all
> > >>
> > >> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "fred burlingame" <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
> > >> To: "fred putnam" <fred.putnam AT gmail.com>
> > >> Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:00 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > Hello Fred:
> > >> >
> > >> > I am not sure of the boundaries of these two professions: textual
> > >> criticism;
> > >> > and comparative linguistics.
> > >> >
> > >> > You may well be correct that my original post in this thread
> > addresses
> > >> > matters more within the former versus the latter profession. After
> > all
> > >> has
> > >> > been said in this thread to date however, I am not entirely
> > convinced
> > >> of the
> > >> > wholly alien nature of ancient greek to masoretic text ("MT")
> > hebrew.
> > >> If
> > >> > cuneiform can inform MT, why not septuagint greek, from a
> > comparative
> > >> > linguistic standpoint?
> > >> >
> > >> > Be that as it may, my un-scientific experience with modern english
> > >> bible
> > >> > publishers, unanimously accepting the MT rendering and
> > correspondingly
> > >> > rejecting a competing and differing septuagint greek rendering ...
> > >> discloses
> > >> > to me that this phenomenon occurs frequently and not "in a
> > relatively
> > >> few"
> > >> > occasions. Such circumstance implies to me one of two conclusions:
> > >> >
> > >> > a. the failure of one language to achieve translation of the
> other;
> > or
> > >> >
> > >> > b. the two languages addressed two different subjects and stories.
> > >> >
> > >> > Either way, the situation becomes remarkable .... in my humble
> > >> opinion.
> > >> >
> > >> > regards,
> > >> >
> > >> > fred burlingame
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:36 PM, fred putnam <
> > fred.putnam AT gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Fred,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It seems that your question has more to do with textual
> > >> criticism--why
> > >> > > relatively few LXX/MT differences are decided "in favour of"
> LXX.
> > Is
> > >> this
> > >> > > right?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > You might find Emanuel Tov, *Textual Criticism*, helpful, or his
> > >> earlier
> > >> > > work on the Septuagint (1980?). Sorry, I'm doing this from home,
> > and
> > >> most of
> > >> > > my books are at school.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Also, no English version that I know footnotes every time the
> > >> translators
> > >> > > or editors decide to accept a particular reading of LXX. This
> is,
> > >> again, a
> > >> > > matter of textual criticism (above).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Fred Putnam
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:54 PM, fred burlingame
> > >> <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Hello Kevin:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Thanks for your comments.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> I can appreciate your distinction between alphabet and
> language.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The tie that binds greek and hebrew, phoenician alphabet,
> appears
> > >> to me,
> > >> > >> however, more than a matter of form.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Greek_alphabet
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hebrew_alphabet
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> I just don't see why (cognate to hebrew) ugarit language (for
> > >> example, but
> > >> > >> without limitation) instructs the understanding of biblical
> > hebrew;
> > >> > >> whereas
> > >> > >> ancient greek does not do so.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> regards,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> fred burlingame
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Kevin Riley <
> > >> klriley AT alphalink.com.au
> > >> > >> >wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > Yes - the sequences are similar because the sequence was
> > borrowed
> > >> with
> > >> > >> the
> > >> > >> > alphabet. No one is questioning the borrowing of the
> alphabet.
> > >> But
> > >> > >> sharing
> > >> > >> > an alphabet does not make two languages 'cognate' - at least,
> > not
> > >> as
> > >> > >> that
> > >> > >> > term is usually used.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Kevi Riley
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > On 25/11/2010 9:45 AM, Hedrick Gary wrote:
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >> Not to add fuel to the fire here, but one cannot help being
> > >> struck by
> > >> > >> some
> > >> > >> >> of the similarities in sequences, even between Hebrew,
> > English,
> > >> and
> > >> > >> Greek.
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> qof, resh, shin, tav
> > >> > >> >> p, q, r, s, t
> > >> > >> >> pi, rho, sigma, tau
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> Gary Hedrick
> > >> > >> >> San Antonio, Texas USA
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> On Nov 24, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Kevin Riley wrote:
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> The *alphabets* have a common ancestor. That is not the
> same
> > as
> > >> the
> > >> > >> >>> *languages* being cognate. As far back as there is
> reliable
> > >> evidence,
> > >> > >> Greek
> > >> > >> >>> and Hebrew are not cognate languages. In terms of
> language,
> > if
> > >> there
> > >> > >> was a
> > >> > >> >>> 'proto-Canaanite', then it is the mother of Hebrew,
> > Phoenician,
> > >> > >> Moabite,
> > >> > >> >>> Ammonite, etc, but not of Greek.
> > >> > >> >>>
> > >> > >> >>> Kevin Riley
> > >> > >> >>>
> > >> > >> >>> On 25/11/2010 4:41 AM, fred burlingame wrote:
> > >> > >> >>>
> > >> > >> >>>> affirmative; the common parent = proto-canaanite.
> > >> > >> >>>>
> > >> > >> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_alphabet
> > >> > >> >>>>
> > >> > >> >>>> regards,
> > >> > >> >>>>
> > >> > >> >>>> fred burlingame
> > >> > >> >>>>
> > >> > >> >>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Christopher Kimball<
> > >> > >> >>>> transcriber AT tanach.us
> > >> > >> >>>>
> > >> > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > >> >>>>> Is Greek usually considered a cognate language of Hebrew?
> > >> > >> >>>>>
> > >> > >> >>>>> Chris Kimball
> > >> > >> >>>>> West Redding, CT
> > >> > >> >>>>> USA
> > >> > >> >>>>>
> > >> > >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >> > >> >>> 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
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > >> > >> > 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
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > --)---------------
> > >> > > "We are not yet what we already are" (J. Pieper).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Frederic Clarke Putnam, Ph.D. | Professor of Biblical Studies
> > >> > > Philadelphia Biblical University | 200 Manor Avenue | Langhorne,
> > PA
> > >> > > 19047-2990
> > >> > > http://pbu.edu | 1215-702-4502 | Fax: 1-215-702-4533 |
> > >> www.fredputnam.org
> > >> > >
> > >> > >  Before printing this email, think green!
> > >> > >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > >> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > >> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > >> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date:
> > >> 02/21/2007 3:19
> > >> PM
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > >> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date:
> > >> 02/21/2007 3:19 PM
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> b-hebrew mailing list
> > >> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----
> > >> No virus found in this message.
> > >>
> > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > >> Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 426/3275 - Release Date: 11/23/10
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --)---------------
> > "We are not yet what we already are" (J. Pieper).
> >
> > Frederic Clarke Putnam, Ph.D. | Professor of Biblical Studies
> > Philadelphia Biblical University | 200 Manor Avenue | Langhorne, PA
> > 19047-2990
> > http://pbu.edu | 1215-702-4502 | Fax: 1-215-702-4533 |
> www.fredputnam.org
> >
> >  Before printing this email, think green!
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page