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: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
  • Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 18:43:14 +0200

Fred, the answer to your questions are much simpler than you seem to think.
Remember that most Bibles are printed primarily for an audience of synagogue
and church-going readers, and what they are interested in is what their
tradition considers to be the "authoritative" text. For Jews, this is
unquestionably the MT - the Septuagint has no authority whatsoever. While it
is true that the Septuagint was a Jewish translation, after the demise of
the Greek-speaking diaspora, it was shunted aside and all but ignored. For
Christians, the story is a little more complicated. The Septuagint was the
Old Testament of the early church, and is still that of most Eastern
churches. In the West, it was Jerome who basically decided NOT to use the
Septuagint as the basis for his Vulgate, which does make sense if one
considers the Septuagint to be "just" a translation. So he used the Hebrew
text that Jews of his day were using, and considering the very few
differences between the Vulgate and the MT, what he used was basically the
forerunner of what became the MT (call it the "proto-MT - of course it did
not include the vowel points or cantilation marks, and the chapter and verse
divisions were slightly different). He did consult the Septuagint is many
places, but the main text is that of the "proto-MT". Since the Vulgate
became the authoritative text of the Catholic church, once again the
Septuagint became irrelevant in the West. Later, post-reformation
translations into other Western languages follow the same tradition - to
translate the OT from what is seen as the "authoritative" Hebrew text - the
MT - and the NT from the "authoritative" Greek text - the Septuagint.



Despite all this, many modern translations DO take some Septuagint readings
into account, where they seem to provide a more "logical" text than the MT.
Whether this is done without comment, or in a footnote, or as a suggested
alternative reading, depends on what the publisher feels his intended
readers would be comfortable with. So your no. 1 below is not entirely
correct. Your no. 2 below is correct linguistically, but as I've already
commented, the Septuagint can certainly be a useful witness of: a.
alternative text-traditions, and b. the way in which 3-2nd century Jews
understood the biblical text.



I partially agree with your no. 3.



Yigal Levin



From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 7:46 PM
To: Yigal Levin
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet



Hello Yigal:



Thanks for your clear and helpful explanation. Please allow me to respond in
inverse order, with my understanding of your remarks.



1. The septuagint language relates to the masoretic text ("MT") language,
but only in an approximate "rosetta stone" fashion. I still do not
understand however, why modern english bible publishers (and their scholar
consultants) unanimously (in my un-scientific experience), accept the MT
rendering and reject the corresponding septuagint rendering (in the case of
differing words or meanings).



2. Comparative linguistics identifies sufficient closeness between aramaic
and MT languages (by way of example, and not limitation), for the one to
explain the other, to a degree. No such proximity exists between septuagint
greek and MT hebrew.



3. My reaction to "2" above mirrors my response to fred putnam's comments
(in a separate post). I don't see the linguistic distinction between:



a. vertical; and



b. horizontal,



languages; or, why does ancient aramaic inform understanding of MT, but not
mishnaic hebrew? It seems to me a distinction without difference; that
laterally related languages enjoy more closeness than vertically related
languages. Perhaps this conclusion represents ignorance on my part.



regards,



fred burlingame





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page