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: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:14:20 +0200

Hi Fred,



Please note, that in the interlinear translation that you cite, the words
"with walls" are in italics. This is the translators way of indicating that
they are not in the original. So I repeat, the Greek says "surrounded". It
makes sense that this means "surrounded with walls", but this is an
interpretation, not a translation.



As for the word "shem", I do not know why the Greek ignores it. It may not
have been in the Hebrew test that was translated, or the translator may have
not understood it and so simply ignored it.



But I must confess, that I fail to see why you consider this to be so
significant. So we have seen that there are two different interpretations of
the same text, maybe caused by a very slight textual variation. This is
nothing that scholars of the biblical text don't deal with every day.



Yigal Levin



From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 1:47 AM
To: Yigal Levin
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet



Hello Yigal:



I would ordinarily defer to your explanation.



I note however, in this particular instance, the word שם succeeds the hebrew
verb מוסבת . The corresponding greek word for "name" does not appear adjacent
to the corresponding greek verb for surround.



Hence, in the link, the translation changes to "being surrounded by walls."



http://apostolic.interlinearbible.org/numbers/32.htm



Permit me to suggest that the omission of a greek word for "name" from the
septuagint, becomes a significant difference here.



regards,



fred burlingame

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:

Fred,



The consonantal MT text of Num. 32:38 says MWSBT $M ($=Shin). The MT
vocalization is "musabot shem", a strange phrase, which is usually understood
as "of changed names". The Septuagint says "perikekuklomenas", which simply
means "encircled" or "surrounded", which is a possible translation of MWSBT.
Your understanding of "perikekuklomenas" as "fortified" is a matter of
interpretation, not what the Septuagint actually says.



So in this case, the Septuagint does show us that the Hebrew text from which
it was translated was very similar, if not identical, to the Hebrew text
which eventually became the MT. That text includes a rather unusual phrase,
which apparently the 3rd century Alexandrian Jews understood one way, and
others understood another way. The latter interpretation was preferred by
Jerome, incorporated in the Vugate, and became standard in Western
translations. It would be interesting to see how the Russian Orthodox, or the
Coptic, or any other translation that is based on the Septuagint, handles
this phrase. Anyone?




Yigal Levin



From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 11:36 PM

To: Yigal Levin
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet



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



_______________________________________________
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