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: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:02:45 -0600

Hello Fred:

The big ticket question is not whether the script moves up or down ....; but
rather whether language represents an entirely subjective experience,
insusceptible of objective measurement? In other words, does the language
of the masoretic text ("MT"), or any language for that matter, require
subjective agreement on grammar, semantics, etc., etc., between at least
two speakers or consumers, and in order for the language to perform as a
tool of communication?

The speakers in the link below obviously employed both masoretic text
language and modern hebrew with some degree of facility; ....; and yet they
failed to communicate.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3990306,00.html

So, the question becomes. Can we know what the authors of MT mansucript
intended as language in that document? Can we know what the immediate (in
time) consumers of that document intended as language. Or does the language
use depend entirely upon the meaning ascribed it by any two users of the
language at any time?
regards,

fred burlingame

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:54 AM, fred putnam <fred.putnam AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Extant Greek inscriptions are written in every direction but up
> (bottom-to-top), including spirals and boustrephedon (one line L-R, the
> next
> R-L: "as the ox turns [when plowing]").
>
> There is a helpful little book from the British Museum/U. of California
> Press on "Greek Inscriptions", by B. F. Cook (the entire series, "Reading
> the Past" includes volumes on "The Early Alphabet", "Cuneiform", "Runes",
> "Egyptian Hieroglyphs", "Linear B and Related Scripts", "Etruscan", &c.).
> These seem to have been conceived and published primarily sale in museum
> gift/souvenir stores, but are heavily illustrated, excellent, brief
> introductions to these topics.
>
> Peace.
>
> Fred Putnam ("Fredp", to reduce confusion)
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Richard <aaa AT endlyss.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --)---------------
> "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
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page