Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [lxx] Isa. 40:20

Expand Messages
  • andrew fincke
    To: lxx@yahoogroups.com From: finckea@hotmail.com Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:18:36 +0000 Subject: [lxx] Isa. 40:20 Never cease to be amazed at how the
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 31, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
      From: finckea@...
      Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:18:36 +0000
      Subject: [lxx] Isa. 40:20






      Never cease to be amazed at how the Septuagint people loved to play with the Hebrew letter samek. At Isa. 61:1 is the classic example, where "captives" (Heb. 'asurim with samek) becomes "blind men" (Heb. 'ivvarim with ayin+vav for samek) in LXX and Luke 4:18. (Note that the aleph exhanged with the Hebrew definite article, he, as it so often does - thus 'asurim became ha-'ivvarim "the blind" with samek+vav becoming ayin+vav+vav.) Since 'ivvarim and 'ivrim "Hebrews" - i..e. "Jews" - are homonynms - we have one more evidence of Isaiah's antisemitic tendency. Anyway, I ordered J. F. Mozley's "Tyndale's Knowledge of Hebrew" through ILL, since Oxford U. Press wants $25 for the five pages online from Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935), 392-396. It came attached to an email from Tyndale House in Cambridge, and since 396 is an even page the scan included a bit of the following article by G.R. Driver on Isa. 40:20. There he agonizes over the Hebrew word hamesukkan and says (p. 397): "It cannot be 'he who sets up', as the LXX's kateskeuazen suggests, as it is difficult to find a root skn." But kateskeuazen "he set up (an idol)" - which is at the end of verse 19 and not at the begin of verse 20 - is exactly what the context requires in view of "he stood up (LXX: sthsei) an image" at 20b. Hamesukkan "?" is an error - so LXX - for hamekonen "he who sets up" with samek the misreading of the ligature kof+vav, what anyone with an eye for the Hebrew alphabet spots at once. Kittel proposed just that in his Isaiah fascicle (1937) for Biblia Hebraica, whose reprint in 1952 includes the IQIsa-a variants in a third apparatus added at page-bottom; but Winton Thomas in his 1968 edition of Isaiah for BHS rejected the conjecture. That the kof of hamesukan lost its upper horizontal to become the nun of hemekonen is understandable from Herodian script, whose kof - and this is supported by the photo of 1QISa-a to the verse - and nun are difficult to distinguish from each other. That's progress for you! I guess in the sixties there were bigger issues than correctly understanding Isa. 40:19-20. The translations all have "poor man" for hamesukkan, but that has little to offer other than the weak support of Eccl. 10:9, as Driver, note 4 explains. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Brill, 2010, 408 to the effect that hamesukkan teruma is a "second-hand" addition to IQIsa-a is not supported by the photo in Perry/Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll, Brill, 1999, 66.
      Andrew Fincke
      PS This is a resubmit of a message which I forgot to sign. I made a number of corrections to the original and added the bit about the Kittel conjecture from the Isaiah fascicle which somehow got into my library. I thank the list for granting me this, my first look into the Kittel's edition, which is a wealth of information and breathes the excitement of the discovery of IQIsa-a. The Thomas thing for BHS is a mere shadow of its predecessor - has nothing from Qumran and little else of use.





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Drew Longacre
      I haven t had a chance to look at the examples in detail, but one alternate possibility struck me for Isa 61:1. Ayin - waw in the Qumran scrolls are often
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I haven't had a chance to look at the examples in detail, but one alternate possibility struck me for Isa 61:1. Ayin - waw in the Qumran scrolls are often written together so as to be almost indistinguishable from the letter shin. It is probably not a coincidence then, that the letter shin/sin is a common alternative spelling for "asurim" = "captives". The aleph is a little more difficult to account for (perhaps omitted by quiessence "la'`ivirim" > "la`ivirim), but it appears at face value we may have an instance of simple misreading.
         
        -Drew Longacre

        From: finckean <finckea@...>
        To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:18 AM
        Subject: [lxx] Isa. 40:20


         

        Never ceased to be amazed at how the Septuagint people loved to play with the Hebrew letter samek. At Isa. 61:1 is the classic example, where "captives" (Heb. asurim with samek) becomes "blind men" (with ayin+vav for samek) in LXX and Luke 4:18. (Note that the aleph exhanged with the Hebrew definite article he as it so often does - thus asurim became ha-'ivvarim "the blind" with samek+vav becoming '+vav+vav.) Since 'ivvarim and 'ivrim "Hebrews" are homonynms - well you can draw your own conclusions. Anyway, I ordered J. L. Mozley's "Tyndale's Knowledge of Hebrew" through ILL, since Oxford U. Press wants $25 for the five pages online from Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935), 392-396. It came attached to an email from Tyndale House in Cambridge, and since 396 is an even page the scan included a bit of the following article by G.R. Driver on Isa. 40:20. There he agonizes over the Hebrew word hamesukkan and says (p. 397): "It cannot be 'he who
        sets up', as the LXX's êáôåóêåύáæåí (kateskeuazen) suggests, as it is difficult to find a root skn." But kateskeuazen "he set up (an idol)" - which is at the end of verse 19, b.t.w, and not at the begin of verse 20 - is exactly what the context requires in view of "he stood up (LXX: sthsei, óôήóåé) an image" at 20b. Hamesukkan "?" is an error - so LXX - for hamekonen "he who sets up" with samek the misreading of the ligature kof+vav, what anyone with an eye for the Hebrew alphabet spots at once. That the kof of hamesukan lost its upper horizontal to become the nun of hemekonen is understandable from Herodian script, whose kof - and this is supported by the photo of 1QISa-a to the verse - and nun are quite indestinguishable. The translations "poor man" for hamesukkan has little to offer other than the weak support of Eccl. 10:9, as Driver, note 4 explains. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Brill, 2010, 408 to the effect
        that hamesukkan teruma is a "second-hand" addition to IQIsa-a is not supported by the photo in Perry/Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll, Brill, 1999, 66.




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • andrew fincke
        Dear Drew, I m unclear what you mean by It is probably not a coincidence then, that the letter shin/sin is a common alternative spelling for asurim =
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Drew,
          I'm unclear what you mean by
          It is probably not a coincidence then, that the letter shin/sin is a common alternative spelling for "asurim" = "captives".
          Also vague is
          but it appears at face value we may have an instance of simple misreading.
          Great is that you see shin - with its 3 prongs - as mirrror image of ayin+vav, which also has three prongs. I like "simple misreading." The whole New Testament, whose thematic shrivels down to the healing of blind people - is the result of a scribal error at Isa. 61:1!
          Andrew Fincke




          To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
          From: drewlongacre@...
          Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 07:37:29 -0700
          Subject: Re: [lxx] Isa. 40:20






          I haven't had a chance to look at the examples in detail, but one alternate possibility struck me for Isa 61:1. Ayin - waw in the Qumran scrolls are often written together so as to be almost indistinguishable from the letter shin. It is probably not a coincidence then, that the letter shin/sin is a common alternative spelling for "asurim" = "captives". The aleph is a little more difficult to account for (perhaps omitted by quiessence "la'`ivirim" > "la`ivirim), but it appears at face value we may have an instance of simple misreading.

          -Drew Longacre

          From: finckean <finckea@...>
          To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:18 AM
          Subject: [lxx] Isa. 40:20



          Never ceased to be amazed at how the Septuagint people loved to play with the Hebrew letter samek. At Isa. 61:1 is the classic example, where "captives" (Heb. asurim with samek) becomes "blind men" (with ayin+vav for samek) in LXX and Luke 4:18. (Note that the aleph exhanged with the Hebrew definite article he as it so often does - thus asurim became ha-'ivvarim "the blind" with samek+vav becoming '+vav+vav.) Since 'ivvarim and 'ivrim "Hebrews" are homonynms - well you can draw your own conclusions. Anyway, I ordered J. L. Mozley's "Tyndale's Knowledge of Hebrew" through ILL, since Oxford U. Press wants $25 for the five pages online from Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935), 392-396. It came attached to an email from Tyndale House in Cambridge, and since 396 is an even page the scan included a bit of the following article by G.R. Driver on Isa. 40:20. There he agonizes over the Hebrew word hamesukkan and says (p. 397): "It cannot be 'he who
          sets up', as the LXX's �������ύ���� (kateskeuazen) suggests, as it is difficult to find a root skn." But kateskeuazen "he set up (an idol)" - which is at the end of verse 19, b.t.w, and not at the begin of verse 20 - is exactly what the context requires in view of "he stood up (LXX: sthsei, ��ή���) an image" at 20b. Hamesukkan "?" is an error - so LXX - for hamekonen "he who sets up" with samek the misreading of the ligature kof+vav, what anyone with an eye for the Hebrew alphabet spots at once. That the kof of hamesukan lost its upper horizontal to become the nun of hemekonen is understandable from Herodian script, whose kof - and this is supported by the photo of 1QISa-a to the verse - and nun are quite indestinguishable. The translations "poor man" for hamesukkan has little to offer other than the weak support of Eccl. 10:9, as Driver, note 4 explains. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Brill, 2010, 408 to the effect
          that hamesukkan teruma is a "second-hand" addition to IQIsa-a is not supported by the photo in Perry/Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll, Brill, 1999, 66.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ken Penner
          A few cautionary notes on the captives blind men change in Isa 61:1: 1. Samek was not commonly misread from ayin+waw. The letter samek was most
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            A few cautionary notes on the "captives>blind men" change in Isa 61:1:

            1. Samek was not commonly misread from ayin+waw. The letter samek was most commonly visually confused with in Greek Isaiah was mem, according to Scholz (section 12).

            2. In Greek Isaiah, aleph did sometimes interchange with he (5:15), but more commonly with ayin (Scholz section 11).

            3. Bet and waw were not confused in spelling at this early date; they did not yet sound alike.

            4. The translator of Isaiah was not at all adverse to adding or omitting words to fit the context as he understood it. In the case of Isa 61:1, the contextual element influencing the choice of tuphloi is the verb PQX, which he consistently translates as opening eyes (in 35:5, 37:17, and 42:7), except for the one time in 42:20, where it is opening ears instead.
            And a note on the unexpected rendering of Isa 40:19-20:

            5. Ottley points out Skinner's suggestion that TRWMH was read as TMWNH, but prefers hOMOIOMA as a guess for the obscure word HMSKN and KATESHEUASEN for TRWMH, read as HRYMW "set up".
            So in summary, the Greek translator often did make visual mistakes, but I doubt they are what you propose here, Andy. Isa 61:1 is not likely a visual mistake; an easier explanation is that the translator more likely understood those "bound" in a metaphorical sense: their eyes were bound shut. Greek Isa 40:19-20 is easy to explain as the result of more commonly attested visual mistakes as well as guesswork regarding a word that was just as obscure to him as it is to us.

            By the way, for those interested in such things, I am leading a series on Greek Isaiah at the Biblical Greek forum, at http://www-test.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewforum.php?f=51

            Ken

            Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
            Assistant Professor, Religious Studies
            St. Francis Xavier University
            902-867-2265
            kpenner@...




            From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of finckean
            Sent: August-31-11 11:19 AM
            To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [SPAM] [lxx] Isa. 40:20
            Importance: Low



            Never ceased to be amazed at how the Septuagint people loved to play with the Hebrew letter samek. At Isa. 61:1 is the classic example, where "captives" (Heb. asurim with samek) becomes "blind men" (with ayin+vav for samek) in LXX and Luke 4:18. (Note that the aleph exhanged with the Hebrew definite article he as it so often does - thus asurim became ha-'ivvarim "the blind" with samek+vav becoming '+vav+vav.) Since 'ivvarim and 'ivrim "Hebrews" are homonynms - well you can draw your own conclusions. Anyway, I ordered J. L. Mozley's "Tyndale's Knowledge of Hebrew" through ILL, since Oxford U. Press wants $25 for the five pages online from Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935), 392-396. It came attached to an email from Tyndale House in Cambridge, and since 396 is an even page the scan included a bit of the following article by G.R. Driver on Isa. 40:20. There he agonizes over the Hebrew word hamesukkan and says (p. 397): "It cannot be 'he who sets up', as the LXX's êáôåóêåύáæåí (kateskeuazen) suggests, as it is difficult to find a root skn." But kateskeuazen "he set up (an idol)" - which is at the end of verse 19, b.t.w, and not at the begin of verse 20 - is exactly what the context requires in view of "he stood up (LXX: sthsei, óôήóåé) an image" at 20b. Hamesukkan "?" is an error - so LXX - for hamekonen "he who sets up" with samek the misreading of the ligature kof+vav, what anyone with an eye for the Hebrew alphabet spots at once. That the kof of hamesukan lost its upper horizontal to become the nun of hemekonen is understandable from Herodian script, whose kof - and this is supported by the photo of 1QISa-a to the verse - and nun are quite indestinguishable. The translations "poor man" for hamesukkan has little to offer other than the weak support of Eccl. 10:9, as Driver, note 4 explains. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Brill, 2010, 408 to the effect that hamesukkan teruma is a "second-hand" addition to IQIsa-a is not supported by the photo in Perry/Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll, Brill, 1999, 66.



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Peter Papoutsis
            I am very interested in your speech. Should I just follow your link? Let me know. Thanks. Peter A. Papoutsis From: Ken Penner To:
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 2, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I am very interested in your speech. Should I just follow your link?
              Let me know. Thanks.

              Peter A. Papoutsis

              From: Ken Penner <kpenner@...>
              To: "lxx@yahoogroups.com" <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 7:30 AM
              Subject: [lxx] Isa. 40:20


               
              A few cautionary notes on the "captives>blind men" change in Isa 61:1:

              1. Samek was not commonly misread from ayin+waw. The letter samek was most commonly visually confused with in Greek Isaiah was mem, according to Scholz (section 12).

              2. In Greek Isaiah, aleph did sometimes interchange with he (5:15), but more commonly with ayin (Scholz section 11).

              3. Bet and waw were not confused in spelling at this early date; they did not yet sound alike.

              4. The translator of Isaiah was not at all adverse to adding or omitting words to fit the context as he understood it. In the case of Isa 61:1, the contextual element influencing the choice of tuphloi is the verb PQX, which he consistently translates as opening eyes (in 35:5, 37:17, and 42:7), except for the one time in 42:20, where it is opening ears instead.
              And a note on the unexpected rendering of Isa 40:19-20:

              5. Ottley points out Skinner's suggestion that TRWMH was read as TMWNH, but prefers hOMOIOMA as a guess for the obscure word HMSKN and KATESHEUASEN for TRWMH, read as HRYMW "set up".
              So in summary, the Greek translator often did make visual mistakes, but I doubt they are what you propose here, Andy. Isa 61:1 is not likely a visual mistake; an easier explanation is that the translator more likely understood those "bound" in a metaphorical sense: their eyes were bound shut. Greek Isa 40:19-20 is easy to explain as the result of more commonly attested visual mistakes as well as guesswork regarding a word that was just as obscure to him as it is to us.

              By the way, for those interested in such things, I am leading a series on Greek Isaiah at the Biblical Greek forum, at http://www-test.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewforum.php?f=51

              Ken

              Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
              Assistant Professor, Religious Studies
              St. Francis Xavier University
              902-867-2265
              kpenner@...

              From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of finckean
              Sent: August-31-11 11:19 AM
              To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [SPAM] [lxx] Isa. 40:20
              Importance: Low

              Never ceased to be amazed at how the Septuagint people loved to play with the Hebrew letter samek. At Isa. 61:1 is the classic example, where "captives" (Heb. asurim with samek) becomes "blind men" (with ayin+vav for samek) in LXX and Luke 4:18. (Note that the aleph exhanged with the Hebrew definite article he as it so often does - thus asurim became ha-'ivvarim "the blind" with samek+vav becoming '+vav+vav.) Since 'ivvarim and 'ivrim "Hebrews" are homonynms - well you can draw your own conclusions. Anyway, I ordered J. L. Mozley's "Tyndale's Knowledge of Hebrew" through ILL, since Oxford U. Press wants $25 for the five pages online from Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935), 392-396. It came attached to an email from Tyndale House in Cambridge, and since 396 is an even page the scan included a bit of the following article by G.R. Driver on Isa. 40:20. There he agonizes over the Hebrew word hamesukkan and says (p. 397): "It cannot be 'he who sets up',
              as the LXX's êáôåóêåύáæåí (kateskeuazen) suggests, as it is difficult to find a root skn." But kateskeuazen "he set up (an idol)" - which is at the end of verse 19, b.t.w, and not at the begin of verse 20 - is exactly what the context requires in view of "he stood up (LXX: sthsei, óôήóåé) an image" at 20b. Hamesukkan "?" is an error - so LXX - for hamekonen "he who sets up" with samek the misreading of the ligature kof+vav, what anyone with an eye for the Hebrew alphabet spots at once. That the kof of hamesukan lost its upper horizontal to become the nun of hemekonen is understandable from Herodian script, whose kof - and this is supported by the photo of 1QISa-a to the verse - and nun are quite indestinguishable. The translations "poor man" for hamesukkan has little to offer other than the weak support of Eccl. 10:9, as Driver, note 4 explains. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Brill, 2010, 408 to the effect that
              hamesukkan teruma is a "second-hand" addition to IQIsa-a is not supported by the photo in Perry/Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll, Brill, 1999, 66.

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • andrew fincke
              Ken, I d love to be your roommate at SBL in San Francisco. There over Perrier water in the coffee shop I could draw Hebrew letters on napkin shreds and
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 3, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Ken,
                I'd love to be your roommate at SBL in San Francisco. There over Perrier water in the coffee shop I could draw Hebrew letters on napkin shreds and convince you. But in this lamentable medium called the LXX list you'll jhave to learn from the following examples. I attack your arguments in the order listed:
                1) "Samek was not commonly misread from ayin+waw" 1 Sam. 28:4: Γελβους (Gelbous) for Heb. Gilboa ending in ayin; 2 Sam. 5:6: ἀντέστησαν (antesthsan) "they stirred up" i.e. Heb. he'iru with ' = ayin for Heb. hesirka ("that you put aside"); 2 Sam. 10:8: Μασχα (Maska) for Heb. Ma'aka with ' = ayin; 2 Sam. 13:23: Βασελλασωρ ( basellasor) for Heb. ba'al chazor with ' = ayin; 2 Sam 21:18: Οεβοχα (Oebocha) i.e. Heb. 'obka with ' = ayin for Heb. sibkay.
                2) "Bet and waw were not confused in spelling at this early date" Look at 2 Sam. 5:6 cited above! "The blind" are ha'ivrim. Now look at 1 Sam 4:6, 13:3, 13:19 and 29:3. "The Hebrews" (i.e. "the Jews") is the same thing phonetically, ha'ivrim. Greek doesn't have the vav sound, so they wrote Εβραιος (Ebraios) for Heb. 'ivri.
                3) To 40:19-20: In a second edition of my initial post I edited out some mistakes and added some things, the most important of which is that in Kittel's edition of Isaiah for Biblia Hebraica 3 (1937), he said just what I said - hamiskan "?" is a blunder for hamekonen "sets up (an idol)." For post-war reprints of Biblia Hebraica, Kittel adorned the Isaiah pages with a third apparatus giving the 1QIsa-a variants from the photos published by Trever. See you in Frisco! (Leave the key under the mat if I get there late!)
                Andrew Fincke



                To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                From: kpenner@...
                Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 09:30:26 -0300
                Subject: [lxx] Isa. 40:20






                A few cautionary notes on the "captives>blind men" change in Isa 61:1:

                1. Samek was not commonly misread from ayin+waw. The letter samek was most commonly visually confused with in Greek Isaiah was mem, according to Scholz (section 12).

                2. In Greek Isaiah, aleph did sometimes interchange with he (5:15), but more commonly with ayin (Scholz section 11).

                3. Bet and waw were not confused in spelling at this early date; they did not yet sound alike.

                4. The translator of Isaiah was not at all adverse to adding or omitting words to fit the context as he understood it. In the case of Isa 61:1, the contextual element influencing the choice of tuphloi is the verb PQX, which he consistently translates as opening eyes (in 35:5, 37:17, and 42:7), except for the one time in 42:20, where it is opening ears instead.
                And a note on the unexpected rendering of Isa 40:19-20:

                5. Ottley points out Skinner's suggestion that TRWMH was read as TMWNH, but prefers hOMOIOMA as a guess for the obscure word HMSKN and KATESHEUASEN for TRWMH, read as HRYMW "set up".
                So in summary, the Greek translator often did make visual mistakes, but I doubt they are what you propose here, Andy. Isa 61:1 is not likely a visual mistake; an easier explanation is that the translator more likely understood those "bound" in a metaphorical sense: their eyes were bound shut. Greek Isa 40:19-20 is easy to explain as the result of more commonly attested visual mistakes as well as guesswork regarding a word that was just as obscure to him as it is to us.

                By the way, for those interested in such things, I am leading a series on Greek Isaiah at the Biblical Greek forum, at http://www-test.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewforum.php?f=51

                Ken

                Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
                Assistant Professor, Religious Studies
                St. Francis Xavier University
                902-867-2265
                kpenner@...

                From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of finckean
                Sent: August-31-11 11:19 AM
                To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [SPAM] [lxx] Isa. 40:20
                Importance: Low

                Never ceased to be amazed at how the Septuagint people loved to play with the Hebrew letter samek. At Isa. 61:1 is the classic example, where "captives" (Heb. asurim with samek) becomes "blind men" (with ayin+vav for samek) in LXX and Luke 4:18. (Note that the aleph exhanged with the Hebrew definite article he as it so often does - thus asurim became ha-'ivvarim "the blind" with samek+vav becoming '+vav+vav.) Since 'ivvarim and 'ivrim "Hebrews" are homonynms - well you can draw your own conclusions. Anyway, I ordered J. L. Mozley's "Tyndale's Knowledge of Hebrew" through ILL, since Oxford U. Press wants $25 for the five pages online from Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935), 392-396. It came attached to an email from Tyndale House in Cambridge, and since 396 is an even page the scan included a bit of the following article by G.R. Driver on Isa. 40:20. There he agonizes over the Hebrew word hamesukkan and says (p. 397): "It cannot be 'he who sets up', as the LXX's êáôåóêåύáæåí (kateskeuazen) suggests, as it is difficult to find a root skn." But kateskeuazen "he set up (an idol)" - which is at the end of verse 19, b.t.w, and not at the begin of verse 20 - is exactly what the context requires in view of "he stood up (LXX: sthsei, óôήóåé) an image" at 20b. Hamesukkan "?" is an error - so LXX - for hamekonen "he who sets up" with samek the misreading of the ligature kof+vav, what anyone with an eye for the Hebrew alphabet spots at once. That the kof of hamesukan lost its upper horizontal to become the nun of hemekonen is understandable from Herodian script, whose kof - and this is supported by the photo of 1QISa-a to the verse - and nun are quite indestinguishable. The translations "poor man" for hamesukkan has little to offer other than the weak support of Eccl. 10:9, as Driver, note 4 explains. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Brill, 2010, 408 to the effect that hamesukkan teruma is a "second-hand" addition to IQIsa-a is not supported by the photo in Perry/Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll, Brill, 1999, 66.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • andrew fincke
                You got me, Ken. What is Scholz? Since Kittel s apparatus to Biblia Hebraica has prps HAMEKONEN TEMUNA I assumed he got the MEKONEN set up from that
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 6, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  You got me, Ken. What is "Scholz?" Since Kittel's apparatus to Biblia Hebraica has "prps HAMEKONEN TEMUNA" I assumed he got the MEKONEN "set up" from that source along with the TEMUNA. "Skinner" is John Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Chapters I-XXXIX, Cambridge, 1896 and (same) Chapters XL-LXVI - which is available at mynook.barnesandnoble.com for free when you open an account - Cambridge, 1898. Volume 2 of the set is somewhat legible on the computer without the nook reading apparatus, but the transcriptions are off. Anyway, Skinner doesn't have MEKONEN and rather accepts Jerome's interpretation of MISKAN as a type of wood.
                  Andrew Fincke




                  To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                  From: kpenner@...
                  Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 09:30:26 -0300
                  Subject: [lxx] Isa. 40:20






                  A few cautionary notes on the "captives>blind men" change in Isa 61:1:

                  1. Samek was not commonly misread from ayin+waw. The letter samek was most commonly visually confused with in Greek Isaiah was mem, according to Scholz (section 12).

                  2. In Greek Isaiah, aleph did sometimes interchange with he (5:15), but more commonly with ayin (Scholz section 11).

                  3. Bet and waw were not confused in spelling at this early date; they did not yet sound alike.

                  4. The translator of Isaiah was not at all adverse to adding or omitting words to fit the context as he understood it. In the case of Isa 61:1, the contextual element influencing the choice of tuphloi is the verb PQX, which he consistently translates as opening eyes (in 35:5, 37:17, and 42:7), except for the one time in 42:20, where it is opening ears instead.
                  And a note on the unexpected rendering of Isa 40:19-20:

                  5. Ottley points out Skinner's suggestion that TRWMH was read as TMWNH, but prefers hOMOIOMA as a guess for the obscure word HMSKN and KATESHEUASEN for TRWMH, read as HRYMW "set up".
                  So in summary, the Greek translator often did make visual mistakes, but I doubt they are what you propose here, Andy. Isa 61:1 is not likely a visual mistake; an easier explanation is that the translator more likely understood those "bound" in a metaphorical sense: their eyes were bound shut. Greek Isa 40:19-20 is easy to explain as the result of more commonly attested visual mistakes as well as guesswork regarding a word that was just as obscure to him as it is to us.

                  By the way, for those interested in such things, I am leading a series on Greek Isaiah at the Biblical Greek forum, at http://www-test.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewforum.php?f=51

                  Ken

                  Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
                  Assistant Professor, Religious Studies
                  St. Francis Xavier University
                  902-867-2265
                  kpenner@...

                  From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of finckean
                  Sent: August-31-11 11:19 AM
                  To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [SPAM] [lxx] Isa. 40:20
                  Importance: Low

                  Never ceased to be amazed at how the Septuagint people loved to play with the Hebrew letter samek. At Isa. 61:1 is the classic example, where "captives" (Heb. asurim with samek) becomes "blind men" (with ayin+vav for samek) in LXX and Luke 4:18. (Note that the aleph exhanged with the Hebrew definite article he as it so often does - thus asurim became ha-'ivvarim "the blind" with samek+vav becoming '+vav+vav.) Since 'ivvarim and 'ivrim "Hebrews" are homonynms - well you can draw your own conclusions. Anyway, I ordered J. L. Mozley's "Tyndale's Knowledge of Hebrew" through ILL, since Oxford U. Press wants $25 for the five pages online from Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935), 392-396. It came attached to an email from Tyndale House in Cambridge, and since 396 is an even page the scan included a bit of the following article by G.R. Driver on Isa. 40:20. There he agonizes over the Hebrew word hamesukkan and says (p. 397): "It cannot be 'he who sets up', as the LXX's �������ύ���� (kateskeuazen) suggests, as it is difficult to find a root skn." But kateskeuazen "he set up (an idol)" - which is at the end of verse 19, b.t.w, and not at the begin of verse 20 - is exactly what the context requires in view of "he stood up (LXX: sthsei, ��ή���) an image" at 20b. Hamesukkan "?" is an error - so LXX - for hamekonen "he who sets up" with samek the misreading of the ligature kof+vav, what anyone with an eye for the Hebrew alphabet spots at once. That the kof of hamesukan lost its upper horizontal to become the nun of hemekonen is understandable from Herodian script, whose kof - and this is supported by the photo of 1QISa-a to the verse - and nun are quite indestinguishable. The translations "poor man" for hamesukkan has little to offer other than the weak support of Eccl. 10:9, as Driver, note 4 explains. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Brill, 2010, 408 to the effect that hamesukkan teruma is a "second-hand" addition to IQIsa-a is not supported by the photo in Perry/Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll, Brill, 1999, 66.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • andrew fincke
                  Boy, it s hard to admit you re wrong! Driver s note 4 about the lack of support for MISKEN = poor man refers to Accadian, which reserves the root ShKN for
                  Message 8 of 10 , Sep 13, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Boy, it's hard to admit you're wrong!
                    Driver's note 4 about the lack of support for MISKEN = "poor man" refers to Accadian, which reserves the root ShKN for SHAKIN "was put." The relevant note for MISKEN "poor man" is the next one, note 5, which heartily supports "poor man" with good evidence from Ben Sira. But Driver goes too far with the importation of 41:6-7 to betweeen verse 19 and 20 to make sense of the passage. What we've got here - if you don't want Kittel's MEKONEN - is a crucifixion prophecy: the "poor man" = "offering" TERUMA, the wood that doesn't rot, for "he chose" YIBCHAR read BACHUR "hero," For CHARASH "craftsman" read CHERESH "dumb" ("He didn't open His mouth"), wise, and finally "it doesn't move (YAMUT with tet)" read "And He didn't die (YAMUT with tav). Problem with that is the penumltimate clause: "He sought to set up an image (PESEL)," which the change of PESEL to SEFEL to get "He sought to set up a (drinking) vessel" (cf. "I thirst") is weak. You don't "set up" a drinking vessel. So if "He sought to set up an image" is fixed, then "setting up (MEKONEN) an offering (TERUMA)" is the most sensible way out, and Driver's appeal to Accadian TARIMTU, which is something of silver (see Driver's citations and Black/George/Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Accadian, 400), is helpful.
                    Andrew Fincke




                    To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                    From: finckea@...
                    Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:16:30 -0400
                    Subject: RE: [lxx] Isa. 40:20








                    To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                    From: finckea@...
                    Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:18:36 +0000
                    Subject: [lxx] Isa. 40:20

                    Never cease to be amazed at how the Septuagint people loved to play with the Hebrew letter samek. At Isa. 61:1 is the classic example, where "captives" (Heb. 'asurim with samek) becomes "blind men" (Heb. 'ivvarim with ayin+vav for samek) in LXX and Luke 4:18. (Note that the aleph exhanged with the Hebrew definite article, he, as it so often does - thus 'asurim became ha-'ivvarim "the blind" with samek+vav becoming ayin+vav+vav.) Since 'ivvarim and 'ivrim "Hebrews" - i..e. "Jews" - are homonynms - we have one more evidence of Isaiah's antisemitic tendency. Anyway, I ordered J. F. Mozley's "Tyndale's Knowledge of Hebrew" through ILL, since Oxford U. Press wants $25 for the five pages online from Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935), 392-396. It came attached to an email from Tyndale House in Cambridge, and since 396 is an even page the scan included a bit of the following article by G.R. Driver on Isa. 40:20. There he agonizes over the Hebrew word hamesukkan and says (p. 397): "It cannot be 'he who sets up', as the LXX's kateskeuazen suggests, as it is difficult to find a root skn." But kateskeuazen "he set up (an idol)" - which is at the end of verse 19 and not at the begin of verse 20 - is exactly what the context requires in view of "he stood up (LXX: sthsei) an image" at 20b. Hamesukkan "?" is an error - so LXX - for hamekonen "he who sets up" with samek the misreading of the ligature kof+vav, what anyone with an eye for the Hebrew alphabet spots at once. Kittel proposed just that in his Isaiah fascicle (1937) for Biblia Hebraica, whose reprint in 1952 includes the IQIsa-a variants in a third apparatus added at page-bottom; but Winton Thomas in his 1968 edition of Isaiah for BHS rejected the conjecture. That the kof of hamesukan lost its upper horizontal to become the nun of hemekonen is understandable from Herodian script, whose kof - and this is supported by the photo of 1QISa-a to the verse - and nun are difficult to distinguish from each other. That's progress for you! I guess in the sixties there were bigger issues than correctly understanding Isa. 40:19-20. The translations all have "poor man" for hamesukkan, but that has little to offer other than the weak support of Eccl. 10:9, as Driver, note 4 explains. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Brill, 2010, 408 to the effect that hamesukkan teruma is a "second-hand" addition to IQIsa-a is not supported by the photo in Perry/Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll, Brill, 1999, 66.
                    Andrew Fincke
                    PS This is a resubmit of a message which I forgot to sign. I made a number of corrections to the original and added the bit about the Kittel conjecture from the Isaiah fascicle which somehow got into my library. I thank the list for granting me this, my first look into the Kittel's edition, which is a wealth of information and breathes the excitement of the discovery of IQIsa-a. The Thomas thing for BHS is a mere shadow of its predecessor - has nothing from Qumran and little else of use.



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • andrew fincke
                    At the risk of being kicked out of the list and being condemned by my Creator, I offer the following: PESEL at Isa. 40:20 is the abbreviation of pedestal,
                    Message 9 of 10 , Sep 14, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At the risk of being kicked out of the list and being condemned by my Creator, I offer the following:
                      PESEL at Isa. 40:20 is the abbreviation of pedestal, something to stand on. The crucified person's intent - His obsession - is to "establish a pedestal" to relieve the pressure. Keep MISKEN, the wretched "poor man" on the cross, and marvel how Isaiah saw all these things 600 years before the fact! And you don't have to change "And he didn't totter (YAMUT with tet)" to "And he didn't die (YAMUT with tav)" as I earlier suggested. The Crucified finds a fulcrum to prevent "tottering" and establishes a foothold from which to continue His existence. After three days He emerges from the tomb intact. Now let the etymologists out of their cages to attack me for putting "pedestal" in Isaiah's vocabulary! Not only did he prophecy the crucifixion but also words that had not yet come into existence!
                      Andrew Fincke




                      To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                      From: finckea@...
                      Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:15:11 -0400
                      Subject: RE: [lxx] Isa. 40:20







                      Boy, it's hard to admit you're wrong!
                      Driver's note 4 about the lack of support for MISKEN = "poor man" refers to Accadian, which reserves the root ShKN for SHAKIN "was put." The relevant note for MISKEN "poor man" is the next one, note 5, which heartily supports "poor man" with good evidence from Ben Sira. But Driver goes too far with the importation of 41:6-7 to betweeen verse 19 and 20 to make sense of the passage. What we've got here - if you don't want Kittel's MEKONEN - is a crucifixion prophecy: the "poor man" = "offering" TERUMA, the wood that doesn't rot, for "he chose" YIBCHAR read BACHUR "hero," For CHARASH "craftsman" read CHERESH "dumb" ("He didn't open His mouth"), wise, and finally "it doesn't move (YAMUT with tet)" read "And He didn't die (YAMUT with tav). Problem with that is the penumltimate clause: "He sought to set up an image (PESEL)," which the change of PESEL to SEFEL to get "He sought to set up a (drinking) vessel" (cf. "I thirst") is weak. You don't "set up" a drinking vessel. So if "He sought to set up an image" is fixed, then "setting up (MEKONEN) an offering (TERUMA)" is the most sensible way out, and Driver's appeal to Accadian TARIMTU, which is something of silver (see Driver's citations and Black/George/Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Accadian, 400), is helpful.
                      Andrew Fincke


                      To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                      From: finckea@...
                      Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:16:30 -0400
                      Subject: RE: [lxx] Isa. 40:20

                      To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                      From: finckea@...
                      Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:18:36 +0000
                      Subject: [lxx] Isa. 40:20

                      Never cease to be amazed at how the Septuagint people loved to play with the Hebrew letter samek. At Isa. 61:1 is the classic example, where "captives" (Heb. 'asurim with samek) becomes "blind men" (Heb. 'ivvarim with ayin+vav for samek) in LXX and Luke 4:18. (Note that the aleph exhanged with the Hebrew definite article, he, as it so often does - thus 'asurim became ha-'ivvarim "the blind" with samek+vav becoming ayin+vav+vav.) Since 'ivvarim and 'ivrim "Hebrews" - i..e. "Jews" - are homonynms - we have one more evidence of Isaiah's antisemitic tendency. Anyway, I ordered J. F. Mozley's "Tyndale's Knowledge of Hebrew" through ILL, since Oxford U. Press wants $25 for the five pages online from Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935), 392-396. It came attached to an email from Tyndale House in Cambridge, and since 396 is an even page the scan included a bit of the following article by G.R. Driver on Isa. 40:20. There he agonizes over the Hebrew word hamesukkan and says (p. 397): "It cannot be 'he who sets up', as the LXX's kateskeuazen suggests, as it is difficult to find a root skn." But kateskeuazen "he set up (an idol)" - which is at the end of verse 19 and not at the begin of verse 20 - is exactly what the context requires in view of "he stood up (LXX: sthsei) an image" at 20b. Hamesukkan "?" is an error - so LXX - for hamekonen "he who sets up" with samek the misreading of the ligature kof+vav, what anyone with an eye for the Hebrew alphabet spots at once. Kittel proposed just that in his Isaiah fascicle (1937) for Biblia Hebraica, whose reprint in 1952 includes the IQIsa-a variants in a third apparatus added at page-bottom; but Winton Thomas in his 1968 edition of Isaiah for BHS rejected the conjecture. That the kof of hamesukan lost its upper horizontal to become the nun of hemekonen is understandable from Herodian script, whose kof - and this is supported by the photo of 1QISa-a to the verse - and nun are difficult to distinguish from each other. That's progress for you! I guess in the sixties there were bigger issues than correctly understanding Isa. 40:19-20. The translations all have "poor man" for hamesukkan, but that has little to offer other than the weak support of Eccl. 10:9, as Driver, note 4 explains. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Brill, 2010, 408 to the effect that hamesukkan teruma is a "second-hand" addition to IQIsa-a is not supported by the photo in Perry/Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll, Brill, 1999, 66.
                      Andrew Fincke
                      PS This is a resubmit of a message which I forgot to sign. I made a number of corrections to the original and added the bit about the Kittel conjecture from the Isaiah fascicle which somehow got into my library. I thank the list for granting me this, my first look into the Kittel's edition, which is a wealth of information and breathes the excitement of the discovery of IQIsa-a. The Thomas thing for BHS is a mere shadow of its predecessor - has nothing from Qumran and little else of use.

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.