Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] FW: 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: [b-hebrew] FW: cognate alphabet
  • Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 00:40:46 +0200

Doug,

I agree with you here in part. Yes, the Septuagint usually translates YHWH
as Kurios, and Jerome followed with Dominus. IMO, both are a translation of
Adonai, which is how Jews were vocalizing YHWH, even at the time of the
Septuagint, certainly by Jerome's time. Since YHWH does not have a clear and
obvious meaning, the only other way to do it would be to transliterate, and
since Jewish tradition by this time was that God's name is too holy to
pronounce, that was not the way it was done.

Yigal Levin

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Belot [mailto:dbelot AT bigpond.net.au]
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 11:59 PM
To: Yigal Levin
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet

Hi Yigal , Sir if what you say is coreect about the Vulgate , then we would
have had a name of God translated into lating , but we do not , dominous ,
as with Kupious , is what that name is always translated as , and there is
not higher point than Gods name , the Vulgate must have followed the
Septuagint in choosing to name God , how can that be argued against .

doug belot


----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet


> 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


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3282 - Release Date: 11/27/10
05:34:00





  • [b-hebrew] FW: cognate alphabet, Yigal Levin, 11/27/2010

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page