Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

well ...

1. if the masoretic text ("MT") and the septuagint remain unrelated; like 
*gone
with the wind*; and tolstoy's *war and peace; *then there is no "what."

2. but .... if MT and septuagint = two translations and/or renderings of the
same book *war and peace*, then at least one errs and fails. that is the
"what."


regards,

fred burlingame

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:

> I ask again,
>
>
>
> So what?
>
>
>
>
>
> Yigal Levin
>
>
>
> From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 2:31 AM
>  To: Yigal Levin
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet
>
>
>
> Hello Yigal:
>
>
>
> I suppose that I consider it significant for the following reasons.
>
>
>
> 1. As you note, this type of event occurs frequently. One occurrence is
> indeed insignificant. But frequent incidents like this one, becomes
> significant, because the entire book changes.
>
>
>
> 2. And the hebrew text meaning "changing names;" versus the greek text
> rendering "cities surrounded," seems substantively different to me. The
> omission of the שם from the greek text causes the greek verb for "surround"
> to relate directly back to the named cities, and correspondingly imply the
> missing object "walls."
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> fred burlingame
>
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>