the answers to your questions, in reverse order: 1. nothing;
2. nothing; 3. we cannot; 4. we should not; 5. because, the two documents purport to be the same document, albeit in different languages. and in my un-scientific experience, the substance of the two differs materially. regards, fred burlingame On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Kevin Riley <[email protected]>wrote: > Why? They may be simply 2 recensions of the one text. If they convey > essentially the same message, why should we consider one has 'failed'? > Unless we know what the original said, how can we compare the two in terms > of accuracy to the original? If we discover (or come to believe) neither is > exactly as originally written, what have we lost? And more importantly, > what could we do about it? > > Kevin Riley > > > On 28/11/2010 12:21 PM, fred burlingame wrote: > >> well ... >> >> 1. if the masoretic text ("MT") and the septuagint remain unrelated; like >> *gone >> with the wind*; and tolstoy's *war and peace; *then there is no "what." >> >> 2. but .... if MT and septuagint = two translations and/or renderings of >> the >> same book *war and peace*, then at least one errs and fails. that is the >> "what." >> >> >> regards, >> >> fred burlingame >> >> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Yigal Levin<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I ask again, >>> >>> >>> >>> So what? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yigal Levin >>> >>> >>> >>> From: fred burlingame [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 2:31 AM >>> To: Yigal Levin >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello Yigal: >>> >>> >>> >>> I suppose that I consider it significant for the following reasons. >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. As you note, this type of event occurs frequently. One occurrence is >>> indeed insignificant. But frequent incidents like this one, becomes >>> significant, because the entire book changes. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. And the hebrew text meaning "changing names;" versus the greek text >>> rendering "cities surrounded," seems substantively different to me. The >>> omission of the שם from the greek text causes the greek verb for >>> "surround" >>> to relate directly back to the named cities, and correspondingly imply >>> the >>> missing object "walls." >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> fred burlingame >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Yigal Levin<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Fred, >>> >>> >>> >>> Please note, that in the interlinear translation that you cite, the words >>> "with walls" are in italics. This is the translators way of indicating >>> that >>> they are not in the original. So I repeat, the Greek says "surrounded". >>> It >>> makes sense that this means "surrounded with walls", but this is an >>> interpretation, not a translation. >>> >>> >>> >>> As for the word "shem", I do not know why the Greek ignores it. It may >>> not >>> have been in the Hebrew test that was translated, or the translator may >>> have >>> not understood it and so simply ignored it. >>> >>> >>> >>> But I must confess, that I fail to see why you consider this to be so >>> significant. So we have seen that there are two different interpretations >>> of >>> the same text, maybe caused by a very slight textual variation. This is >>> nothing that scholars of the biblical text don't deal with every day. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yigal Levin >>> >>> >>> >>> From: fred burlingame [mailto:[email protected]] >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 1:47 AM >>> >>> To: Yigal Levin >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] cognate alphabet >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
