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: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
  • Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:37:46 -0600

Hello Bryant:

Thanks for your comments.

I am expert in these matters, not.

I am happy to accept the general conclusion of the "trained eyes" here
that koine greek and biblical hebrew represent two different languages, the
one entirely alien to the other.

I am also happy to accept that major differences arise when the english
language translates greek septuagint ("Septuagint") and hebrew masoretic
text ("MT"), despite such manuscripts supposedly representing the same
document or story.

Where reason departs however, and arbitrariness arrives, follows.

1. A $billion ($trillion?) dollar industry has arisen selling one book, the
same book, the biggest selling book ("Book") ever, decade in and decade out.

2. Armies of publishers hire the best scholars of koine greek and biblical
hebrew languages to prepare the Book in english language.

3. The process unfolds generally as follows.

a. Begin with codices ("Codices") vaticanus, alexandrinus and
sinaiticus. Each of the Codices comprises a single and the same document,
rendered in koine greek, and manufactured circa 4th century a.d.

b. Substitute MT for the first 2/3's (Septuagint) of the Codices;
and translate MT into english.

c. Retain last 1/3 of the Codices and translate into english.

d. The process sounds somewhat reasonable to this point, aka, choose
greek text as source for the latter 1/3 of the Book and choose hebrew text
as source for first 2/3's of the Book.

e. But then the realization occurs that 50 percent and more of the
latter 1/3 of the Codices consist of and in quotes and paraphrases from the
first 2/3's of the Codices.

f. So, we have the greek text rejected as source for the first 2/3's
of the english translation; and yet much of that very same greek text
becomes accepted as source for the latter 1/3 of the english translation
Book.

g. The publishers and their experts then emboss their creation with
the "imprimatur" of absolute correctness; and the Book flies off the shelves
at big time prices to a people hungry for it.

h. And lost in this process of conflation? .... both greek and
hebrew languages, ancient. Whatever the Book might or might not say, it
represents neither fish or fowl; neither the greek language or the hebrew
language; which languages admittedly here differ greatly in form, in
substance, in story, in translation.

regards,

fred burlingame




On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Bryant J. Williams III <
bjwvmw AT com-pair.net> wrote:

> Dear Fred B.,
>
> The LXX is the Bible of the Jewish Diaspora. It is no accident that the
> authors of the NT would have used it. The majority of the quotes and
> allusions to the Tanakh in the NT are from the LXX (See the introduction to
> ***Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament***, G. K. Beale
> and C. A. Carson, editors, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007:
> www.bakeracademic.com; Nottingham, England: Apollos (an imprint of
> Inter-Varsity Press), 2007: www.ivybooks.com. If I remember correctly,
> Emanuel Tov co-authored a work on the Septuagint. I would check him out
> also.
>
> True, a conscious decision to use the Hebrew MT by those publishing the
> Tanakh into English and other languages does not mean that the LXX failed as
> a translation, but the determination to go back to the original languages of
> the Tanakh, Hebrew and Aramaic. This decision would also apply to the
> Vulgate since it was the primary translation of the Western Church for well
> over 1300 years; even when attempts to translate the Tanakh into English,
> German, etc. had occurred.
>
> One still has to remember that the Hebrew and Greek are from two separate
> families: Semitic versus Indo-European. Too often the similarities are
> emphasized over against the differences, e.g. the alphabet and left to right
> reading and writing versus right to left reading and writing and different
> worldviews and presuppositions (these are important but beyond this lists
> guidelines).
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
> *To:* Bryant J. Williams III <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
> *Cc:* b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:23 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
>
> 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
>>
>>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page