Fred, It seems that your question has more to do with textual criticism--why relatively few LXX/MT differences are decided "in favour of" LXX. Is this right?
You might find Emanuel Tov, *Textual Criticism*, helpful, or his earlier work on the Septuagint (1980?). Sorry, I'm doing this from home, and most of my books are at school. Also, no English version that I know footnotes every time the translators or editors decide to accept a particular reading of LXX. This is, again, a matter of textual criticism (above). Fred Putnam On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:54 PM, fred burlingame <[email protected]>wrote: > Hello Kevin: > > Thanks for your comments. > > I can appreciate your distinction between alphabet and language. > > The tie that binds greek and hebrew, phoenician alphabet, appears to me, > however, more than a matter of form. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Greek_alphabet > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hebrew_alphabet > > I just don't see why (cognate to hebrew) ugarit language (for example, but > without limitation) instructs the understanding of biblical hebrew; whereas > ancient greek does not do so. > > regards, > > fred burlingame > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Kevin Riley <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Yes - the sequences are similar because the sequence was borrowed with > the > > alphabet. No one is questioning the borrowing of the alphabet. But > sharing > > an alphabet does not make two languages 'cognate' - at least, not as that > > term is usually used. > > > > Kevi Riley > > > > > > On 25/11/2010 9:45 AM, Hedrick Gary wrote: > > > >> Not to add fuel to the fire here, but one cannot help being struck by > some > >> of the similarities in sequences, even between Hebrew, English, and > Greek. > >> > >> qof, resh, shin, tav > >> p, q, r, s, t > >> pi, rho, sigma, tau > >> > >> Gary Hedrick > >> San Antonio, Texas USA > >> > >> On Nov 24, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Kevin Riley wrote: > >> > >> The *alphabets* have a common ancestor. That is not the same as the > >>> *languages* being cognate. As far back as there is reliable evidence, > Greek > >>> and Hebrew are not cognate languages. In terms of language, if there > was a > >>> 'proto-Canaanite', then it is the mother of Hebrew, Phoenician, > Moabite, > >>> Ammonite, etc, but not of Greek. > >>> > >>> Kevin Riley > >>> > >>> On 25/11/2010 4:41 AM, fred burlingame wrote: > >>> > >>>> affirmative; the common parent = proto-canaanite. > >>>> > >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_alphabet > >>>> > >>>> regards, > >>>> > >>>> fred burlingame > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Christopher Kimball< > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> Is Greek usually considered a cognate language of Hebrew? > >>>>> > >>>>> Chris Kimball > >>>>> West Redding, CT > >>>>> USA > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> b-hebrew mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >> b-hebrew mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > > b-hebrew mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > -- --)--------------- "We are not yet what we already are" (J. Pieper). Frederic Clarke Putnam, Ph.D. | Professor of Biblical Studies Philadelphia Biblical University | 200 Manor Avenue | Langhorne, PA 19047-2990 http://pbu.edu | 1215-702-4502 | Fax: 1-215-702-4533 | www.fredputnam.org Before printing this email, think green! _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
