Dear Fred B., The LXX is the Bible of the Jewish Diaspora. It is no accident that the authors of the NT would have used it. The majority of the quotes and allusions to the Tanakh in the NT are from the LXX (See the introduction to ***Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament***, G. K. Beale and C. A. Carson, editors, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007: www.bakeracademic.com; Nottingham, England: Apollos (an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press), 2007: www.ivybooks.com. If I remember correctly, Emanuel Tov co-authored a work on the Septuagint. I would check him out also.
True, a conscious decision to use the Hebrew MT by those publishing the Tanakh into English and other languages does not mean that the LXX failed as a translation, but the determination to go back to the original languages of the Tanakh, Hebrew and Aramaic. This decision would also apply to the Vulgate since it was the primary translation of the Western Church for well over 1300 years; even when attempts to translate the Tanakh into English, German, etc. had occurred. One still has to remember that the Hebrew and Greek are from two separate families: Semitic versus Indo-European. Too often the similarities are emphasized over against the differences, e.g. the alphabet and left to right reading and writing versus right to left reading and writing and different worldviews and presuppositions (these are important but beyond this lists guidelines). Rev. Bryant J. Williams III ----- Original Message ----- From: fred burlingame To: Bryant J. Williams III Cc: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet Hello Bryant: Happy Thanksgiving. Thanks for your comments. I agree; and modern day publishers (and their academic consultants) of english language bibles, agree also as to the big difference between: a. tanakh; and b. septuagint. These publishers' apparent, uniform rejection of the septuagint, and uniform acceptance of numerous, corresponding, but differing, renderings in the tanakh, argues strongly in favor of the conclusion that the septuagint has failed ... as a translation. regards, fred burlingame On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Bryant J. Williams III <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Fred B., One has to distinguish from Hebrew Tanakh and Greek LXX. The Tanakh was written primarily in Hebrew with portions of Daniel, Ezra and a verse in Jeremiah in Aramaic of the 6th - 5th Centuries BC. The LXX is Greek from the 3rd Century (ca. 250) - 1st Century BC. There are some later editors, e.g. Theodotion, etc., from about the 1st - 3rd Century AD. Of course, the Great Codices, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are from the 4th Century AD (ca. 320) have the LXX and the NT. Now that the DSS Biblical MSS have been open to all scholars they will now be included in any text-critical problems in translating the Tanakh into English. TNIV or NIV 2011, and possibly others, was supposed to use the DSS for this purpose (?). The use of the LXX can possibly help in some of the hapax legomena, but not always. The Pentateuch, or Law of Moses, is fairly consistent in its translation method, but the rest of the Tanakh is not so consistent. See the NETS translation of the LXX for further information (1) The print version is available: Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright are the editors and the publisher is Oxford University Press (Oxford) www.oup.com/us ISBN (9780195289756); (2) An electronic version (PDFs viewable online or downloadable) is accessible online at: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/. I am giving a general overview of the situation, but not too general. BTW, Happy Thanksgiving to all Rev. Bryant J. Williams III ----- Original Message ----- From: "fred burlingame" <[email protected]> To: "fred putnam" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet > Hello Fred: > > I am not sure of the boundaries of these two professions: textual criticism; > and comparative linguistics. > > You may well be correct that my original post in this thread addresses > matters more within the former versus the latter profession. After all has > been said in this thread to date however, I am not entirely convinced of the > wholly alien nature of ancient greek to masoretic text ("MT") hebrew. If > cuneiform can inform MT, why not septuagint greek, from a comparative > linguistic standpoint? > > Be that as it may, my un-scientific experience with modern english bible > publishers, unanimously accepting the MT rendering and correspondingly > rejecting a competing and differing septuagint greek rendering ... discloses > to me that this phenomenon occurs frequently and not "in a relatively few" > occasions. Such circumstance implies to me one of two conclusions: > > a. the failure of one language to achieve translation of the other; or > > b. the two languages addressed two different subjects and stories. > > Either way, the situation becomes remarkable .... in my humble opinion. > > regards, > > fred burlingame > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:36 PM, fred putnam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007 3:19 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007 3:19 PM _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
