Perhaps the "millions of Christians" to whom you refer include the Orthodox communion, for most of whom the LXX *is* the Bible, so that while I was reading MT (BHS), my grad students in Pikermi, Greece, were reading LXX, which led to some interesting conversations, even though we were reading Gn 37-40, where LXX is relatively "smooth".
Fred On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Kevin Riley <[email protected]>wrote: > Are you aware of why the LXX has historically (in recent centuriess) been > rejected? Most translation committees start with an acceptance of the MT as > 'the' text. Unless the MT fails to make sense, why would they go to the > LXX? After all, it is the MT they are translating, not the LXX. I am not > sure how that leads to the conclusion that the LXX has 'failed' as a > translation. You may also find that the picture is not quite so clear if > you look beyond English language translations. Unless things have changed > recently, there are still millions of Christians who give the LXX primacy > over the MT. Perhaps it would help if you saw it in terms of two different > questions: 1) what did the original author write? and 2) what is the > original reading of the MT tradition? I suspect most translation committees > are (for very good reasons) asking question 2), whereas you seem to be > wanting to ask question 1). How much help the LXX can give in answering > either question will depend to a large degree on your understanding of the > history of the text(s), including all those religious and philosophical > questions we like to pretend don't exist so we can talk about the Hebrew > text without getting side-tracked into interminable arguments over doctrinal > details. > > Kevin Riley > > > On 26/11/2010 9:23 AM, fred burlingame wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> 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
