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: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
  • To: "Richard" <aaa AT endlyss.com>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
  • Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 09:37:37 -0800

Dear Richard,

True, all I was making a comment about are the differences between the Semitic
(Hebrew/Aramaic) and Indo-European languages (Greek).

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard" <aaa AT endlyss.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet


> >>>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<<<
>
> I have no opinion on this matter one way or the other but find it a very
> interesting discussion.
>
> But as for the Greek Left to Right thinking, Greek originally read right to
> left according to my information up to this point.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Richard Conaway
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
> To: "fred burlingame" <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
> Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
>
>
> > 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
> > To: Bryant J. Williams III
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 426/3275 - Release Date: 11/23/10
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page