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: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
  • Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:36:09 -0600

Hello Yigal:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your clear explanation.
It sounds reasonable and historically accurate.

But permit me to suggest that the consequences of what you state are a lot
larger than the print on this page.
Let me see if I understand you.

Returning to the original example in my initial post in this thread (numbers
32:38 and the word מוסנת ) :

a. the Jewish community generally accepts the "exchanging names" rendering
of the phrase based on the masoretic text ("MT");

b. the Eastern Orthodox church community generally accepts the "fortified or
walled cities" rendering of the phrase based on the septuagint;

c. the Western Christian community generally accepts the MT version of the
phrase for their old testament; and the septuagint rendering for their new
testament; and

d. various traditions, rather than a factual line of transmission, dictate
the choices in "a" - "c."

Please forgive me; but I am constrained to say again; that is a profound
statement, about the biggest selling book yesterday, today and tomorrow ...
and in the history of the human species; .... especially since the process
described in respect of numbers 32:38 is frequently repeated throughout old
and new testaments.

regards,

fred burlingame




On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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