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: fred putnam <fred.putnam AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
  • Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:00:52 -0600

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!
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page