Extant Greek inscriptions are written in every direction but up
(bottom-to-top), including spirals and boustrephedon (one line L-R, the next
R-L: "as the ox turns [when plowing]").
There is a helpful little book from the British Museum/U. of California
Press on "Greek Inscriptions", by B. F. Cook (the entire series, "Reading
the Past" includes volumes on "The Early Alphabet", "Cuneiform", "Runes",
"Egyptian Hieroglyphs", "Linear B and Related Scripts", "Etruscan", &c.).
These seem to have been conceived and published primarily sale in museum
gift/souvenir stores, but are heavily illustrated, excellent, brief
introductions to these topics.
Peace.
Fred Putnam ("Fredp", to reduce confusion)
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Richard <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
--
--)---------------
"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
