Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

Then, in light of your first 4 answers, why does 5 matter?  If you look 
at most ancient texts, there is usually no definitive copy unless only 
one survives (which is unfortunately too often the case).  People who 
collect folklore and folk songs would be ecstatic if they found sources 
that differ as little as the various texts of the Bible do.

Kevin Riley

On 28/11/2010 3:26 PM, fred burlingame wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>>
>          wrote:
>
>             I ask again,
>
>
>
>             So what?
>
>
>
>
>
>             Yigal Levin
>
>
>
>             From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com
>             <mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com>]
>             Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 2:31 AM
>              To: Yigal Levin
>             Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>             <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>             <mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com>]
>
>             Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 1:47 AM
>
>             To: Yigal Levin
>             Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>             <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>             <mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com>]
>
>             Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 11:36 PM
>
>             To: Yigal Levin
>             Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>             <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>             <mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com>]
>             Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 7:46 PM
>             To: Yigal Levin
>
>             Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>             <mailto: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 <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>             http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             b-hebrew mailing list
>             b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>             http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             b-hebrew mailing list
>             b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>             http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             b-hebrew mailing list
>             b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>             http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         b-hebrew mailing list
>         b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>         http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     b-hebrew mailing list
>     b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>     http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew