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: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
  • Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:45:44 -0600

Hello Yigal:

Thanks for your clear and helpful explanation. Please allow me to respond in
inverse order, with my understanding of your remarks.

1. The septuagint language relates to the masoretic text ("MT") language,
but only in an approximate "rosetta stone" fashion. I still do not
understand however, why modern english bible publishers (and their scholar
consultants) unanimously (in my un-scientific experience), accept the MT
rendering and reject the corresponding septuagint rendering (in the case
of differing words or meanings).

2. Comparative linguistics identifies sufficient closeness between aramaic
and MT languages (by way of example, and not limitation), for the one to
explain the other, to a degree. No such proximity exists between septuagint
greek and MT hebrew.

3. My reaction to "2" above mirrors my response to fred putnam's comments
(in a separate post). I don't see the linguistic distinction between:

a. vertical; and

b. horizontal,

languages; or, why does ancient aramaic inform understanding of MT, but not
mishnaic hebrew? It seems to me a distinction without difference; that
laterally related languages enjoy more closeness than vertically related
languages. Perhaps this conclusion represents ignorance on my part.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:

> Dear Fred,
>
>
>
> First of all, Fred Putnam has already posted several relevant answers to
> your questions. I'll add briefly:
>
>
>
> Part of the theoretical basis behind comparative linguistics is that all
> humans are ultimately descended from one original group of humans (this is
> consistent with both what the Bible says and with present anthropological
> and genetic theory). As these humans multiplied and spread over the earth,
> they split into different groups. Since, in the ancient world, geographic
> separation also means linguistic separation, as the different groups
> diverged, so did their languages, both by internal development and by being
> influenced by their different neighbors. This means, in theory, that the
> more similar languages are, the more recently their speakers diverged. Most
> of this process, of course, occurred over tens of thousands of years before
> we have written documents, but it can also be seen in recorded history, for
> example, in the development of Romance Languages from Latin.
>
>
>
> By "similar", linguists look for similarity in grammar, in basic lexemes
> (taking into account that words are borrowed across languages) and in
> phonology. In the Middle Ages, people were already making comparisons
> between Hebrew and Arabic and Aramaic. As the languages of the Ancient Near
> East were deciphered, it became clear that many of them share the same
> traits, and that even within the Semitic languages there are sub-groups,
> often classified as Eastern, Western (or Northwestern) and Southern. The
> Wiki article seems like a fairly good summary:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages.
>
>
>
> When "doing" comparative linguistics, one should always look for
> comparisons
> in languages that are as close as possible both geographically and
> chronologically. Thus, for example, the closest thing to Biblical Hebrew
> would be Moabite and Ammonite, but since we have so few inscriptions in
> those languages, they are of little use. So we go farther afield, to
> Aramaic, then Ugaritic, which is close geographically but less so
> chronologically, to Akkadian which is in a different branch of Semitic
> languages, to Arabic which is not only in a different branch, but is also
> only known in writing from much later.
>
>
>
> Greek, as a non-Semitic language, does not even come close. As I wrote
> before, the Septuagint can be used as a witness to the text and its
> interpretation, but not as a "cognate".
>
>
>
> Yigal Levin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 12:10 AM
> To: Yigal Levin
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
>
>
>
> Hello Yigal:
>
>
>
> Thanks for your explanatory and clear comments.
>
>
>
> I am happy to accept the differences that you identify between ancient
> greek
> and biblical hebrew. But ..... then what confers on ugarit, arabic,
> hurrian,
> etc., the "blood relation" with biblical hebrew (missing from the greek)?
>
>
>
> And if the septuagint does form a basis for interpreting biblical hebrew
> language, why does academia today generally reject in english translations,
> all renderings of the greek septuagint that differ from the hebrew
> masoretic
> text? That's a fairly profound, implicit and unanimous pronouncement by the
> publishers and their academic consultants; to wit: the greek septuagint old
> testament inaccurate and the greek septuagint new testament accurate.
>
> I have no problem with the relevancy or irrelevancy of other languages to
> biblical hebrew. But it would be nice to know what other languages are
> generally accepted as relevant and as irrelevant to the interpretation of
> biblical hebrew.
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> fred burlingame
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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