Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

the answers to your questions, in reverse order:

1.  nothing;

2.  nothing;

3.  we cannot;

4.  we should not;

5.  because, the two documents purport to be the same document, albeit in
different languages. and in my un-scientific experience, the substance of
the two differs materially.
regards,

fred burlingame
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>wrote:

> Why?  They may be simply 2 recensions of the one text.  If they convey
> essentially the same message, why should we consider one has 'failed'?
>  Unless we know what the original said, how can we compare the two in terms
> of accuracy to the original?  If we discover (or come to believe) neither is
> exactly as originally written, what have we lost?  And more importantly,
> what could we do about it?
>
> Kevin Riley
>
>
> On 28/11/2010 12:21 PM, fred burlingame wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>