Dear Richard, True, all I was making a comment about are the differences between the Semitic (Hebrew/Aramaic) and Indo-European languages (Greek).
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 9:01 AM Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet > >>>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<<< > > I have no opinion on this matter one way or the other but find it a very > interesting discussion. > > But as for the Greek Left to Right thinking, Greek originally read right to > left according to my information up to this point. > > Kind regards, > > Richard Conaway > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bryant J. Williams III" <[email protected]> > To: "fred burlingame" <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:41 PM > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet > > > > 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 > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 426/3275 - Release Date: 11/23/10 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
