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 putnam <fred.putnam AT gmail.com>
  • To: Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
  • Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:03:42 -0500

Perhaps the "millions of Christians" to whom you refer include the Orthodox
communion, for most of whom the LXX *is* the Bible, so that while I was
reading MT (BHS), my grad students in Pikermi, Greece, were reading LXX,
which led to some interesting conversations, even though we were reading Gn
37-40, where LXX is relatively "smooth".

Fred

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>wrote:

> Are you aware of why the LXX has historically (in recent centuriess) been
> rejected? Most translation committees start with an acceptance of the MT as
> 'the' text. Unless the MT fails to make sense, why would they go to the
> LXX? After all, it is the MT they are translating, not the LXX. I am not
> sure how that leads to the conclusion that the LXX has 'failed' as a
> translation. You may also find that the picture is not quite so clear if
> you look beyond English language translations. Unless things have changed
> recently, there are still millions of Christians who give the LXX primacy
> over the MT. Perhaps it would help if you saw it in terms of two different
> questions: 1) what did the original author write? and 2) what is the
> original reading of the MT tradition? I suspect most translation committees
> are (for very good reasons) asking question 2), whereas you seem to be
> wanting to ask question 1). How much help the LXX can give in answering
> either question will depend to a large degree on your understanding of the
> history of the text(s), including all those religious and philosophical
> questions we like to pretend don't exist so we can talk about the Hebrew
> text without getting side-tracked into interminable arguments over doctrinal
> details.
>
> Kevin Riley
>
>
> On 26/11/2010 9:23 AM, fred burlingame wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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