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."
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
>