biblical hebrew language word meanings represent part and parcel of this forum.
if tradition, rather than factual transmission, dictate word meanings for the masoretic text, that becomes a signficant event. regards, fred burlingame On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Paul Zellmer <[email protected]> wrote: > Seems like a psychological or philosophical question to me. What makes it > Hebrew specific, other than the obvious fact that you want to discuss it on > this list? > > Paul Zellmer > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of fred burlingame > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 11:03 AM > To: fred putnam > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet > > Hello Fred: > > The big ticket question is not whether the script moves up or down ....; > but > rather whether language represents an entirely subjective experience, > insusceptible of objective measurement? In other words, does the language > of the masoretic text ("MT"), or any language for that matter, require > subjective agreement on grammar, semantics, etc., etc., between at least > two speakers or consumers, and in order for the language to perform as a > tool of communication? > > The speakers in the link below obviously employed both masoretic text > language and modern hebrew with some degree of facility; ....; and yet they > failed to communicate. > > http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3990306,00.html > > So, the question becomes. Can we know what the authors of MT mansucript > intended as language in that document? Can we know what the immediate (in > time) consumers of that document intended as language. Or does the language > use depend entirely upon the meaning ascribed it by any two users of the > language at any time? > regards, > > fred burlingame > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:54 AM, fred putnam <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
