Biblical Hebrew Forum

["JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk>]

For what it's worth I just thought I'd through the LXX 
tradition into the debate. According to the text 
presented at 
http://septuagint.org/LXX/Proverbs/Proverbs13.html
the traditional understanding of the LXX translators was 
υιος πανουργος υπηκοος πατρι υιος δε ανηκοος εν απωλεια  
or in plain English that the son was the object of the 
contrast.

Also the Vulgate translation offers Filius sapiens 
doctrina patris; qui autem illusor est non audit cum
arguitur. This can be seen online at 
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/pro013.htm
Again, as can be seen, the same tradition of the son 
being the object of the contrast is evident.

Also the pointing tradition at the time of the Masoretes 
also favours the object of contrast being the son as can 
be seen by using Chris's online pointed Leningrad 
Codex http://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml#Prov13:1-13:1

I'm not saying that either the Vulgate, the LXX or the 
Masoretic traditions are infallible but I don't see any
compelling reasons to stray from these traditions as a
result of reading the text unpointed.

James Christian Read - BSc Computer Science 
http://www.lamie.org/hebrew       -  thesis1: concept driven machine 
translation using the Aleppo codex 
http://www.lamie.org/lad-sim.doc  -  thesis2: language acquisition simulation
http://www.lamie.org/ngelta

















































































not saying that either the Vulgate, the LXX or the 
Masoretic traditions are infallible but I don't see any
compelling reasons to stray from these traditions as a
result of reading the text unpointed.

James Christian Read - BSc Computer Science 
http://www.lamie.org/hebrew       -  thesis1: concept driven machine 
translation using the Aleppo codex 
http://www.lamie.org/lad-sim.doc  -  thesis2: language acquisition simulation
http://www.lamie.org/ngelta