Biblical Hebrew Forum

["George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

I would hardly say that a student of the eminent Gamaliel did not know
Tanak (BTW:  the author of Acts where the Stephen quotation appears was a
companion of this same student of Gamaliel, the Apostle Paul).  As
regards the "garbled quotations" you might consult Philo regarding his
understanding of Tanak.  Take but a small example:  Gen 6.2.  Here the MT
and the LXX have "Sons of God" but Philo says

"And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were
beautiful, they took unto themselves wives of all of them whom they
chose.” Those beings, whom other philosophers call demons, Moses usually
calls angels; and they are souls hovering in the air. 

Obviously they are not called AGGELOI [LXX] or MaL:)fKiYM [MT] but
B:N"Y_Hf)e:LoHiYM.

I hardly think that the LXX which was the Bible of the early church was a
product of Romans or Chinese but of Greek-speaking Jews.  If the passage
is "garbled", it hardly falls to the account of Christians.  I would say
that you apparently have about as much antipathy to Christianity as some
who are considered anti-Semitic have toward Jews -- and about as much
knowledge of those you excoriate as the anti-Semitic have (or should I
say "about as little knowledge"?).  The method employed in understanding
the text within the church was about the same as that employed in the
synagogue which is quite different from that which would be used today in
academic circles.  It is this type of interpretation which has evolved
the kashrut rule for the separation of meat and dairy from the
prohibition to "seeth a kid in its mother's milk."  This has become a
part of the observant Jew's practice.  I am not going to beat them over
the head and say that they shouldn't be doing that, but I think they
themselves realize that it was not the intention of the text in its
origin but a development in the history of their faith.  As such their
practice is beyond any criticism.

gfsomsel
_________

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:21:20 +0300 "VC" <vadim_lv AT center-tv.net> writes:
> 
> >>I may understand when the earliest Christians, not well-acquianted 
> with
> the
> >>Tanakh, put much stock in the title messiah. But I'm puzzled why 
> this
> title
> >>is of importance to you.
> >You seem to have a misunderstanding about who the earliest 
> Christians were.
> The earliest Christians were Jews.  Gentiles were not initially 
> included in
> the membership of the church. While it is true that some of them may 
> not
> have been well versed in the scripture, some of them were very well
> educated.<
> 
> Surely, very odd Jews those have been. They did not know Tanakh, 
> cited
> garbled quotations of the verses the should have studied in 
> childhood (if
> you know about bar Sheta reforms) and were unobservant. Wishful 
> thinking
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Vadim Cherny
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> Michael Abernathy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
>From hholmyard AT ont.com  Tue Jun  8 10:45:39 2004
Return-Path: <hholmyard AT ont.com>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from online.OnlineToday.Com (online.OnlineToday.Com [204.181.200.2])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71FA20032
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue,  8 Jun 2004 10:45:38 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [205.242.61.44] (na113.OnlineToday.Com [205.242.61.113])
        by online.OnlineToday.Com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 
i58EjaeB021223
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:45:37 -0500 (CDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: hholmyard AT mail.ont.com
Message-Id: <a06020404bceb7f016cb5@[205.242.61.44]>
In-Reply-To: <023201c44d62$3d710f90$411ea8c0@Vadim>
References: 
<007e01c44d2c$59882190$6702a8c0@UBSLAPTOP><018001c44d2f$f00704d0$411ea8c0@
        Vadim>  <a06020402bceb5cbc28ff@[205.242.61.44]>
        <023201c44d62$3d710f90$411ea8c0@Vadim>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:42:53 -0500
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The islands
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 14:45:39 -0000

Dear Vadim,

>  > >The translation of "coastland" is perfectly reasonable. However, can we
>>  >disregard the established meaning of the word and attach it the sense,
>which
>>  >we think suits it better? This approach can lead as far away.
>>
>>  HH: "Coastland" is a well-established meaning for the word.
>
>Not in the conventional Hebrew dictionaries

HH: I don't know what Hebrew dictionaries you use, but the meaning of 
coastland for )Y is certainly in major lexicons. In 
Brown-Driver-Briggs the first meaning given for )Y is "coast, 
region." Also "border," "islands," "coasts," and "banks" is given. 
The lexicon for )YY  HYM gives "coastlands and islands." In the 
_Dictionary of Classical Hebrew_ the first meaning given for )Y is 
"island." The second meaning is "coast, coastland."

>  > >Besides, the Tanakhic authors had pretty good grasp on geography. They
>>  >probably could distinguish between an island and a coastland, even more
>so
>>  >since a large part of their country was a coastland or very close to it.
>>
>>  HH: Yes, but if the Hebrew word could emphasize land that is in
>>  contact with water, then the distinction between island and coastland
>>  would be immaterial.
>
>Conjecture, again. If you like conjectures, I'll venture another one: why im
>is not jackal? Isaiah calls his enemies dogs, so why not jackals?

HH: The lexicons give "island" and "coastland" as the meaning for 
this word, and the meanings share the fact that the land is bounded 
by water.

                                        Yours,
                                        Harold Holmyard