Hello Yigal: I would ordinarily defer to your explanation.
I note however, in this particular instance, the word שם succeeds the hebrew verb מוסבת . The corresponding greek word for "name" does not appear adjacent to the corresponding greek verb for surround. Hence, in the link, the translation changes to "being surrounded by walls." http://apostolic.interlinearbible.org/numbers/32.htm Permit me to suggest that the omission of a greek word for "name" from the septuagint, becomes a significant difference here. regards, fred burlingame On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Yigal Levin <[email protected]> wrote: > Fred, > > > > The consonantal MT text of Num. 32:38 says MWSBT $M ($=Shin). The MT > vocalization is "musabot shem", a strange phrase, which is usually > understood as "of changed names". The Septuagint says "perikekuklomenas", > which simply means "encircled" or "surrounded", which is a possible > translation of MWSBT. Your understanding of "perikekuklomenas" as > "fortified" is a matter of interpretation, not what the Septuagint actually > says. > > > > So in this case, the Septuagint does show us that the Hebrew text from > which it was translated was very similar, if not identical, to the Hebrew > text which eventually became the MT. That text includes a rather unusual > phrase, which apparently the 3rd century Alexandrian Jews understood one > way, and others understood another way. The latter interpretation was > preferred by Jerome, incorporated in the Vugate, and became standard in > Western translations. It would be interesting to see how the Russian > Orthodox, or the Coptic, or any other translation that is based on the > Septuagint, handles this phrase. Anyone? > > > > Yigal Levin > > > > From: fred burlingame [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 11:36 PM > To: Yigal Levin > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet > > > > Hello Yigal: > > > > Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your clear explanation. > It sounds reasonable and historically accurate. > > > > But permit me to suggest that the consequences of what you state are a lot > larger than the print on this page. > > Let me see if I understand you. > > > > Returning to the original example in my initial post in this thread > (numbers 32:38 and the word מוסנת ) : > > > > a. the Jewish community generally accepts the "exchanging names" rendering > of the phrase based on the masoretic text ("MT"); > > > > b. the Eastern Orthodox church community generally accepts the "fortified > or walled cities" rendering of the phrase based on the septuagint; > > > > c. the Western Christian community generally accepts the MT version of the > phrase for their old testament; and the septuagint rendering for their new > testament; and > > > > d. various traditions, rather than a factual line of transmission, dictate > the choices in "a" - "c." > > > > Please forgive me; but I am constrained to say again; that is a profound > statement, about the biggest selling book yesterday, today and tomorrow ... > and in the history of the human species; .... especially since the process > described in respect of numbers 32:38 is frequently repeated throughout old > and new testaments. > > > > regards, > > > > fred burlingame > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Yigal Levin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Fred, the answer to your questions are much simpler than you seem to think. > Remember that most Bibles are printed primarily for an audience of > synagogue > and church-going readers, and what they are interested in is what their > tradition considers to be the "authoritative" text. For Jews, this is > unquestionably the MT - the Septuagint has no authority whatsoever. While > it > is true that the Septuagint was a Jewish translation, after the demise of > the Greek-speaking diaspora, it was shunted aside and all but ignored. For > Christians, the story is a little more complicated. The Septuagint was the > Old Testament of the early church, and is still that of most Eastern > churches. In the West, it was Jerome who basically decided NOT to use the > Septuagint as the basis for his Vulgate, which does make sense if one > considers the Septuagint to be "just" a translation. So he used the Hebrew > text that Jews of his day were using, and considering the very few > differences between the Vulgate and the MT, what he used was basically the > forerunner of what became the MT (call it the "proto-MT - of course it did > not include the vowel points or cantilation marks, and the chapter and > verse > divisions were slightly different). He did consult the Septuagint is many > places, but the main text is that of the "proto-MT". Since the Vulgate > became the authoritative text of the Catholic church, once again the > Septuagint became irrelevant in the West. Later, post-reformation > translations into other Western languages follow the same tradition - to > translate the OT from what is seen as the "authoritative" Hebrew text - the > MT - and the NT from the "authoritative" Greek text - the Septuagint. > > > > Despite all this, many modern translations DO take some Septuagint readings > into account, where they seem to provide a more "logical" text than the MT. > Whether this is done without comment, or in a footnote, or as a suggested > alternative reading, depends on what the publisher feels his intended > readers would be comfortable with. So your no. 1 below is not entirely > correct. Your no. 2 below is correct linguistically, but as I've already > commented, the Septuagint can certainly be a useful witness of: a. > alternative text-traditions, and b. the way in which 3-2nd century Jews > understood the biblical text. > > > > I partially agree with your no. 3. > > > > Yigal Levin > > > > From: fred burlingame [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 7:46 PM > To: Yigal Levin > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet > > > > > Hello Yigal: > > > > Thanks for your clear and helpful explanation. Please allow me to respond > in > inverse order, with my understanding of your remarks. > > > > 1. The septuagint language relates to the masoretic text ("MT") language, > but only in an approximate "rosetta stone" fashion. I still do not > understand however, why modern english bible publishers (and their scholar > consultants) unanimously (in my un-scientific experience), accept the MT > rendering and reject the corresponding septuagint rendering (in the case of > differing words or meanings). > > > > 2. Comparative linguistics identifies sufficient closeness between aramaic > and MT languages (by way of example, and not limitation), for the one to > explain the other, to a degree. No such proximity exists between septuagint > greek and MT hebrew. > > > > 3. My reaction to "2" above mirrors my response to fred putnam's comments > (in a separate post). I don't see the linguistic distinction between: > > > > a. vertical; and > > > > b. horizontal, > > > > languages; or, why does ancient aramaic inform understanding of MT, but not > mishnaic hebrew? It seems to me a distinction without difference; that > laterally related languages enjoy more closeness than vertically related > languages. Perhaps this conclusion represents ignorance on my part. > > > > regards, > > > > fred burlingame > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
