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

Re: Audio LXX Readings in Greek etc

Expand Messages
  • llsorenson
    Andrew, I keep a rated list of available Greek NT/LXX audio at http://www.letsreadgreek.com/resources/greekntaudio.htm
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 22, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Andrew,

      I keep a rated list of available Greek NT/LXX audio at
      http://www.letsreadgreek.com/resources/greekntaudio.htm
      <http://www.letsreadgreek.com/resources/greekntaudio.htm> .  The
      Psalms (from the Ecumenical version of 1904) has been recorded by the
      Greek Bible Society, specifically by Apostolos Vavilis (Brother
      Raphael).  You can find that at http://www.vivlos.net/psalmoi.html
      <http://www.vivlos.net/psalmoi.html> . 

      Andrew wrote
      > Thanks, Ken!
      > That's LXX being read by a Greek native speaker in Erasmian
      pronunciation. The text is Gen. 1:1-10 followed by Gen. 2:1-10.
      > Andrew Fincke

      Well, that speaker, Kleber Kosta/Kostas Katsouranis, pronounces ει
      as ay [which is Erasmian] but the rest is different: ο = ω,
      υ = ι, ευ = ef / ev, so the pronunciation is mostly
      modern Greek. 
      >

      Louis Sorenson


      >
      >
      > I think Philip was the one who asked about these last year as
      well.
      >
      > There are a few at http://www.letsreadgreek.org/audio/
      >
      > See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKOS-RcnmS0

      >
      >
      > Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
      >

      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • andrew fincke
      Dear Louis, I m just going by the Wiipedia page on modern Greek phonology, which says (in part): Although written with a sequence of vowels, ⟨ευ⟩
      Message 2 of 15 , Dec 22, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Louis,
        I'm just going by the Wiipedia page on modern Greek phonology, which says (in part):
        "Although written with a sequence of vowels, ⟨ευ⟩ represents /ev/, a vowel and a consonant (the /v/ is devoiced to [f] when another voiceless consonant follows.) Similarly, ⟨αυ⟩ represents /av/ (or /af/ in front of a voiceless consonant). The much rarer ⟨ηυ⟩ represents /iv/ (or /if/)."
        At 2:2 and esp. 2:3 I heard katepausen, not katepafsen and at 3:3 eulogeysen, not iflogeysen. The reader/reciter tends to itacize his vowels: at 1:2 abissou for abussou, at 1:5 nikta for nukta, at 1:6-7 idatos for udatos, at 1:10 sisteymata for susteymata, at 2:7 enefiyeysen for enefueysen and at 2:8 efiteusen for efuteusen.
        Andrew Fincke
        PS I couldn't engage your arguments, since the characters you typed came through in ASCII rather than Greek.





        To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        From: llsorenson@...
        Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:00:56 +0000
        Subject: [lxx] Re: Audio LXX Readings in Greek etc




        Andrew,

        I keep a rated list of available Greek NT/LXX audio at
        http://www.letsreadgreek.com/resources/greekntaudio.htm
        <http://www.letsreadgreek.com/resources/greekntaudio.htm> . The
        Psalms (from the Ecumenical version of 1904) has been recorded by the
        Greek Bible Society, specifically by Apostolos Vavilis (Brother
        Raphael). You can find that at http://www.vivlos.net/psalmoi.html
        <http://www.vivlos.net/psalmoi.html> .

        Andrew wrote
        > Thanks, Ken!
        > That's LXX being read by a Greek native speaker in Erasmian
        pronunciation. The text is Gen. 1:1-10 followed by Gen. 2:1-10.
        > Andrew Fincke

        Well, that speaker, Kleber Kosta/Kostas Katsouranis, pronounces ει
        as ay [which is Erasmian] but the rest is different: ο = ω,
        υ = ι, ευ = ef / ev, so the pronunciation is mostly
        modern Greek.
        >

        Louis Sorenson

        >
        >
        > I think Philip was the one who asked about these last year as
        well.
        >
        > There are a few at http://www.letsreadgreek.org/audio/
        >
        > See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKOS-RcnmS0

        >
        >
        > Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
        >

        >

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







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • MJ
        Hi, Andrew- So is it safe to say, then, that when 2 Samuel 14:4-6 was written, Gen 4:8b had not yet dropped out of the Hebrew text?
        Message 3 of 15 , Dec 22, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi, Andrew-

          So is it safe to say, then, that when 2 Samuel 14:4-6 was written, Gen 4:8b had not yet dropped out of the Hebrew text?

          --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, andrew fincke <finckea@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Dear MJ,
          > See 2 Samuel 14:4-6:
          > "(4) And when the woman of Tekoah spake to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, Help, O king. (5) And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, I am indeed a widow woman, and mine husband is dead. (6) And thy handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but the one smote the other, and slew him." That's the King James, which most translations follow. The first sentence in Hebrew reads, "And the woman of Tekoah said to the king and she fell on her face ..." LXX changes "said" to "came." Note the parallel between verse 6 and Gen 4:8b.
          > Andrew Fincke
          >
          > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
          > From: mej1960@...
          > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 01:10:53 +0000
          > Subject: [lxx] Re: Top Ten List
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > This used to be at least somewhat a scholarly list, and "top ten" lists are not very scholarly. But I will admit to some interest in this list anyway, and make my own small contribution.
          >
          >
          >
          > One of the biggest thing I learned from the LXX that you will never learn from the Hebrew text or a translation that follows it too closely is how to make sense out of Gen 4:8 without forcing an improbable (some would say impossible) meaning on the verb 'aMaR. Read the half-verse included in the LXX that somehow got dropped out of the MT, so that the whole verse reads:
          >
          >
          >
          > And Cain said ('aMaR) to his brother Abel, "Let us go out into the field". And it came to pass that when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him"
          >
          >
          >
          > The MT has to change the meaning of 'aMaR' to 'spoke' to smooth over the missing portion "Let us go out..." reading it as:
          >
          >
          >
          > And Cain spoke to his brother Abel. And it came to pass that when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him"
          >
          >
          >
          > Another candidate for the top ten: the LXX of Job is significantly different from the MT. The single verse that most clearly underscores the different interpretation throughout the whole translation is 40:8:
          >
          >
          >
          > MH APOPOIOU MOU TO KRIMA, OIEI DE ME ALLWS SOI KEXRHMATIKENAI H INA ANAFANHiS DIKAIOS?
          >
          >
          >
          > This explains why 42:7, where it is only Job's 'friends' who are described as having sinned, has been taken in the Russian Orthodox tradition as implying that NOTHING Job said or did in the book, not even his most shocking complaints, are sins.
          >
          >
          >
          > This in turn has strong implications and wide influence in Orthodox theodicy as a whole, and in popular culture as well, explaining the attitude towards suffering.
          >
          >
          >
          > Now that I see this in the LXX of Job, I start to notice reflections of it in Dostoevsky and Tolstoy as well.
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Jon Westcot <westcot@> wrote:
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > Hey all, I thought it might be helpful(as a review if nothing else) for those of us who haven't been on this forum long, and hopefully for everybody else too, to construct a Top Ten List(give or take a few) of the most important truths(and I mean TRUTHS) that we have learned strictly from the LXX itself that could not have been gathered from the Hebrew itself. Of course please tell me if there are any problems with how I just worded that or if you're just simply irritated by the whole idea in the first place.
          >
          > >
          >
          > > I would start with an unfinished concept(but might have the potential for making the list), that of Joshua's name(yod-hey-shin-uau-ayin or yod-hey-uau-shin-uau-ayin) that has been transliterated(please tell me if I'm wrong) in the LXX to iota-eta-sigma-omikron-upsilon-sigma. A side note being that iota-eta-sigma-omikron-upsilon-(sigma) is also found in the Greek manuscripts(?translations) of Mattthew through Revelation for both Joshua's name and Messiah's name. Again, correct me in truth if you are able. An obvious conclusion could be drawn from this if Greek material were to be considered fully authoritative(which those in my camp are nowhere near acceptance of), although other witnesses also support the sameness of their names(Matt. 1:21["HE shall SAVE"] along with Ezra[Aramaic Yeshua vs. Hebrew Yehoshua for the same individual] and of course Yehoshua meaning "Yah saves" or even "yod[the Mighty Hand] hosheas or saves", Nu. 13:16). Throw water on it if you can. The original Hebrew is full of so much beauty and meaning that is wiped out when translated! I'd hate to be the one who's passing off counterfeits.
          >
          > >
          >
          > > Thanks, Jon
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • andrew fincke
          MJ, You mean Gen. 4:8a not 4:8b. When something drops out cleanly - is totally dispensable - like that, it s likely a gloss. That is, it s a cross-reference
          Message 4 of 15 , Dec 23, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            MJ,
            You mean Gen. 4:8a not 4:8b. When something drops out cleanly - is totally dispensable - like that, it's likely a gloss. That is, it's a cross-reference to a similar phenomenon - in this case 2 Sam. 14:4a - in oreder to explain something. There are two problems with the woman's story at 2 Sam. 14: 1) it posits two sons in a situation where there are more than that - David had a lot more sons than just Amnon and Absalom; and 2) Absalom didn't kill Amnon in a field, but rather had his servants execute him at a banquet. So - if not Amnon and Absalom - who are the two brothers in the field of 2 Sam. 14:6? LXX at Gen. 4:8a makes clear that the reference at 2 Sam. 14:6 is to David and Jonathan - the former a shepherd, the latter a worker of the ground (see 1 Sam. 14:14). Jonathan's address to David in the field - 1 Sam. 20:12-17 - led to the former's death in that Jonathan ended up ceding to David his (Jonathan's) soul and royalty. By reminding David of this event allegorically, the Tekoite woman achieved her - or rather Joab's - aim of reconciling the king to his son, the murderer, who then mimicked his father by usurping his throne in the way of David with Jonathan. David, the former shepherd and thus the Abel clone, became the "man of blood" answerable for the Jonathan (Kain) murder/expropriation. See 2 Sam. 16:7-8. So, yes, the masoretic Gen. 4:8a - which can be cleanly excised from the text - postdates 2 Sam. 14:4a - which can't. LXX integrates Gen. 4:8a into the context by adding "Let's go to the field," which replicates Jonathan's words to David at 1 Sam. 20:11.
            Andrew Fincke




            To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
            From: mej1960@...
            Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 04:02:54 +0000
            Subject: [lxx] Re: Top Ten List





            Hi, Andrew-

            So is it safe to say, then, that when 2 Samuel 14:4-6 was written, Gen 4:8b had not yet dropped out of the Hebrew text?

            --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, andrew fincke <finckea@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Dear MJ,
            > See 2 Samuel 14:4-6:
            > "(4) And when the woman of Tekoah spake to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, Help, O king. (5) And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, I am indeed a widow woman, and mine husband is dead. (6) And thy handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but the one smote the other, and slew him." That's the King James, which most translations follow. The first sentence in Hebrew reads, "And the woman of Tekoah said to the king and she fell on her face ..." LXX changes "said" to "came." Note the parallel between verse 6 and Gen 4:8b.
            > Andrew Fincke
            >
            > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
            > From: mej1960@...
            > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 01:10:53 +0000
            > Subject: [lxx] Re: Top Ten List
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > This used to be at least somewhat a scholarly list, and "top ten" lists are not very scholarly. But I will admit to some interest in this list anyway, and make my own small contribution.
            >
            >
            >
            > One of the biggest thing I learned from the LXX that you will never learn from the Hebrew text or a translation that follows it too closely is how to make sense out of Gen 4:8 without forcing an improbable (some would say impossible) meaning on the verb 'aMaR. Read the half-verse included in the LXX that somehow got dropped out of the MT, so that the whole verse reads:
            >
            >
            >
            > And Cain said ('aMaR) to his brother Abel, "Let us go out into the field". And it came to pass that when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him"
            >
            >
            >
            > The MT has to change the meaning of 'aMaR' to 'spoke' to smooth over the missing portion "Let us go out..." reading it as:
            >
            >
            >
            > And Cain spoke to his brother Abel. And it came to pass that when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him"
            >
            >
            >
            > Another candidate for the top ten: the LXX of Job is significantly different from the MT. The single verse that most clearly underscores the different interpretation throughout the whole translation is 40:8:
            >
            >
            >
            > MH APOPOIOU MOU TO KRIMA, OIEI DE ME ALLWS SOI KEXRHMATIKENAI H INA ANAFANHiS DIKAIOS?
            >
            >
            >
            > This explains why 42:7, where it is only Job's 'friends' who are described as having sinned, has been taken in the Russian Orthodox tradition as implying that NOTHING Job said or did in the book, not even his most shocking complaints, are sins.
            >
            >
            >
            > This in turn has strong implications and wide influence in Orthodox theodicy as a whole, and in popular culture as well, explaining the attitude towards suffering.
            >
            >
            >
            > Now that I see this in the LXX of Job, I start to notice reflections of it in Dostoevsky and Tolstoy as well.
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Jon Westcot <westcot@> wrote:
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > > Hey all, I thought it might be helpful(as a review if nothing else) for those of us who haven't been on this forum long, and hopefully for everybody else too, to construct a Top Ten List(give or take a few) of the most important truths(and I mean TRUTHS) that we have learned strictly from the LXX itself that could not have been gathered from the Hebrew itself. Of course please tell me if there are any problems with how I just worded that or if you're just simply irritated by the whole idea in the first place.
            >
            > >
            >
            > > I would start with an unfinished concept(but might have the potential for making the list), that of Joshua's name(yod-hey-shin-uau-ayin or yod-hey-uau-shin-uau-ayin) that has been transliterated(please tell me if I'm wrong) in the LXX to iota-eta-sigma-omikron-upsilon-sigma. A side note being that iota-eta-sigma-omikron-upsilon-(sigma) is also found in the Greek manuscripts(?translations) of Mattthew through Revelation for both Joshua's name and Messiah's name. Again, correct me in truth if you are able. An obvious conclusion could be drawn from this if Greek material were to be considered fully authoritative(which those in my camp are nowhere near acceptance of), although other witnesses also support the sameness of their names(Matt. 1:21["HE shall SAVE"] along with Ezra[Aramaic Yeshua vs. Hebrew Yehoshua for the same individual] and of course Yehoshua meaning "Yah saves" or even "yod[the Mighty Hand] hosheas or saves", Nu. 13:16). Throw water on it if you can. The original Hebrew is full of so much beauty and meaning that is wiped out when translated! I'd hate to be the one who's passing off counterfeits.
            >
            > >
            >
            > > Thanks, Jon
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > > [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]
          • Reader Arsenios George Blaisdell
            Why not just ask Peter Papootsis to do a tape for you? Or any other Greek Church Reader...?? Reader Arsenios [George] Blaisdell Ellensburg, WA To:
            Message 5 of 15 , Dec 23, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Why not just ask Peter Papootsis to do a tape for you? Or any other Greek Church Reader...??

              Reader Arsenios [George] Blaisdell

              Ellensburg, WA


              To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
              From: finckea@...
              Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:15:54 -0500
              Subject: RE: [lxx] Re: Audio LXX Readings in Greek etc





























              Dear Louis,


              I'm just going by the Wiipedia page on modern Greek phonology, which says (in part):


              "Although written with a sequence of vowels, ⟨ευ⟩ represents /ev/, a vowel and a consonant (the /v/ is devoiced to [f] when another voiceless consonant follows.) Similarly, ⟨αυ⟩ represents /av/ (or /af/ in front of a voiceless consonant). The much rarer ⟨ηυ⟩ represents /iv/ (or /if/)."


              At 2:2 and esp. 2:3 I heard katepausen, not katepafsen and at 3:3 eulogeysen, not iflogeysen. The reader/reciter tends to itacize his vowels: at 1:2 abissou for abussou, at 1:5 nikta for nukta, at 1:6-7 idatos for udatos, at 1:10 sisteymata for susteymata, at 2:7 enefiyeysen for enefueysen and at 2:8 efiteusen for efuteusen.


              Andrew Fincke


              PS I couldn't engage your arguments, since the characters you typed came through in ASCII rather than Greek.

















              To: lxx@yahoogroups.com


              From: llsorenson@...


              Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:00:56 +0000


              Subject: [lxx] Re: Audio LXX Readings in Greek etc














              Andrew,





              I keep a rated list of available Greek NT/LXX audio at


              http://www.letsreadgreek.com/resources/greekntaudio.htm


              <http://www.letsreadgreek.com/resources/greekntaudio.htm> . The


              Psalms (from the Ecumenical version of 1904) has been recorded by the


              Greek Bible Society, specifically by Apostolos Vavilis (Brother


              Raphael). You can find that at http://www.vivlos.net/psalmoi.html


              <http://www.vivlos.net/psalmoi.html> .





              Andrew wrote


              > Thanks, Ken!


              > That's LXX being read by a Greek native speaker in Erasmian


              pronunciation. The text is Gen. 1:1-10 followed by Gen. 2:1-10.


              > Andrew Fincke





              Well, that speaker, Kleber Kosta/Kostas Katsouranis, pronounces ει


              as ay [which is Erasmian] but the rest is different: ο = ω,


              υ = ι, ευ = ef / ev, so the pronunciation is mostly


              modern Greek.


              >





              Louis Sorenson





              >


              >


              > I think Philip was the one who asked about these last year as


              well.


              >


              > There are a few at http://www.letsreadgreek.org/audio/


              >


              > See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKOS-RcnmS0





              >


              >


              > Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.


              >





              >





              [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]
            • MJ
              Ah, but in Gen 4:8, it did NOT drop out cleanly . The remaining verb had to be read in an unlikely (some would says impossible , e.g. Gesenius in his
              Message 6 of 15 , Dec 27, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Ah, but in Gen 4:8, it did NOT "drop out cleanly". The remaining verb had to be read in an unlikely (some would says 'impossible', e.g. Gesenius in his Lexicon) sense ('spoke' instead of 'said') after the missing portion dropped out. In addition, there is, in some MT manuscripts (according to the Mp), an extremely rare pasuq (pisqah be'emsa pasuq)in the middle of the verse (it almost always comes at the end). That is why Weingreen (and others: Weingreen is just the name that comes to mind as most familiar to me) believed the LXX preserved the original dropped in the MT. There is no such forced meaning to the verbs in 2 Sam 14:6, and the reasoning that Gen 4:8 was interpolated to match 2 Sam 14:6 is stretched. If that were the case, then what would be the motive for doing this only in the LXX and not the MT?

                Also, there is an important distinguishing feature of a gloss: it has to really BE a gloss, an explanatory note the manuscript owner is likely to write. The explanation may be wrong, or it might not look like an explanation at first glance to a modern reader, but until you can show that it is an explanation (at least for somebody), it is premature to call it a 'gloss'.

                I cannot see the passage in question as a gloss. Rather, it provides a continuity that reads much more naturally than the MT does. That is why I am persuaded Weingreen was right, it really was dropped out in the MT but preserved in the LXX. [Introduction to the Critical Study of the Text of the Hebrew Bible].

                But of course, I do admit there is one big difficulty remaining with this explanation: how could something that reads so naturally drop out so thoroughly? Weingreen did not answer this, he seemed content to assume that strange things happen every now and then, like outliers in statistics.

                Speaking of strange coincidences, I had just read this morning, before reading this post in the LXX group, of how Chatfield describes what is basically the same statistical phenomena in the context of time series: "one of the difficulties of interpreting the correlogram is tht a large number of [auto-correlation] coefficients is likely to contain one or more 'unusual' results" {The Analysis of Time Series p26 1st ed].

                A similar principle must apply to textual criticism, especially when we remember that the "canons of criticism" were elaborated before scholars had as good a grasp of probability, conditional probability and statistics as we do now. So inability to answer the above question is insufficient grounds to reject Weingreen's explanation in favor of another unlikely change.

                --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, andrew fincke <finckea@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > MJ,
                > You mean Gen. 4:8a not 4:8b. When something drops out cleanly - is totally dispensable - like that, it's likely a gloss. That is, it's a cross-reference to a similar phenomenon - in this case 2 Sam. 14:4a - in oreder to explain something. There are two problems with the woman's story at 2 Sam. 14: 1) it posits two sons in a situation where there are more than that - David had a lot more sons than just Amnon and Absalom; and 2) Absalom didn't kill Amnon in a field, but rather had his servants execute him at a banquet. So - if not Amnon and Absalom - who are the two brothers in the field of 2 Sam. 14:6? LXX at Gen. 4:8a makes clear that the reference at 2 Sam. 14:6 is to David and Jonathan - the former a shepherd, the latter a worker of the ground (see 1 Sam. 14:14). Jonathan's address to David in the field - 1 Sam. 20:12-17 - led to the former's death in that Jonathan ended up ceding to David his (Jonathan's) soul and royalty. By reminding David of this event allegorically, the Tekoite woman achieved her - or rather Joab's - aim of reconciling the king to his son, the murderer, who then mimicked his father by usurping his throne in the way of David with Jonathan. David, the former shepherd and thus the Abel clone, became the "man of blood" answerable for the Jonathan (Kain) murder/expropriation. See 2 Sam. 16:7-8. So, yes, the masoretic Gen. 4:8a - which can be cleanly excised from the text - postdates 2 Sam. 14:4a - which can't. LXX integrates Gen. 4:8a into the context by adding "Let's go to the field," which replicates Jonathan's words to David at 1 Sam. 20:11.
                > Andrew Fincke
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                > From: mej1960@...
                > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 04:02:54 +0000
                > Subject: [lxx] Re: Top Ten List
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Hi, Andrew-
                >
                > So is it safe to say, then, that when 2 Samuel 14:4-6 was written, Gen 4:8b had not yet dropped out of the Hebrew text?
                >
                > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, andrew fincke <finckea@> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > Dear MJ,
                > > See 2 Samuel 14:4-6:
                > > "(4) And when the woman of Tekoah spake to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, Help, O king. (5) And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, I am indeed a widow woman, and mine husband is dead. (6) And thy handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but the one smote the other, and slew him." That's the King James, which most translations follow. The first sentence in Hebrew reads, "And the woman of Tekoah said to the king and she fell on her face ..." LXX changes "said" to "came." Note the parallel between verse 6 and Gen 4:8b.
                > > Andrew Fincke
                > >
                > > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                > > From: mej1960@
                > > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 01:10:53 +0000
                > > Subject: [lxx] Re: Top Ten List
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > This used to be at least somewhat a scholarly list, and "top ten" lists are not very scholarly. But I will admit to some interest in this list anyway, and make my own small contribution.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > One of the biggest thing I learned from the LXX that you will never learn from the Hebrew text or a translation that follows it too closely is how to make sense out of Gen 4:8 without forcing an improbable (some would say impossible) meaning on the verb 'aMaR. Read the half-verse included in the LXX that somehow got dropped out of the MT, so that the whole verse reads:
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > And Cain said ('aMaR) to his brother Abel, "Let us go out into the field". And it came to pass that when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him"
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > The MT has to change the meaning of 'aMaR' to 'spoke' to smooth over the missing portion "Let us go out..." reading it as:
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > And Cain spoke to his brother Abel. And it came to pass that when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him"
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Another candidate for the top ten: the LXX of Job is significantly different from the MT. The single verse that most clearly underscores the different interpretation throughout the whole translation is 40:8:
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > MH APOPOIOU MOU TO KRIMA, OIEI DE ME ALLWS SOI KEXRHMATIKENAI H INA ANAFANHiS DIKAIOS?
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > This explains why 42:7, where it is only Job's 'friends' who are described as having sinned, has been taken in the Russian Orthodox tradition as implying that NOTHING Job said or did in the book, not even his most shocking complaints, are sins.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > This in turn has strong implications and wide influence in Orthodox theodicy as a whole, and in popular culture as well, explaining the attitude towards suffering.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Now that I see this in the LXX of Job, I start to notice reflections of it in Dostoevsky and Tolstoy as well.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Jon Westcot <westcot@> wrote:
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > > Hey all, I thought it might be helpful(as a review if nothing else) for those of us who haven't been on this forum long, and hopefully for everybody else too, to construct a Top Ten List(give or take a few) of the most important truths(and I mean TRUTHS) that we have learned strictly from the LXX itself that could not have been gathered from the Hebrew itself. Of course please tell me if there are any problems with how I just worded that or if you're just simply irritated by the whole idea in the first place.
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > > I would start with an unfinished concept(but might have the potential for making the list), that of Joshua's name(yod-hey-shin-uau-ayin or yod-hey-uau-shin-uau-ayin) that has been transliterated(please tell me if I'm wrong) in the LXX to iota-eta-sigma-omikron-upsilon-sigma. A side note being that iota-eta-sigma-omikron-upsilon-(sigma) is also found in the Greek manuscripts(?translations) of Mattthew through Revelation for both Joshua's name and Messiah's name. Again, correct me in truth if you are able. An obvious conclusion could be drawn from this if Greek material were to be considered fully authoritative(which those in my camp are nowhere near acceptance of), although other witnesses also support the sameness of their names(Matt. 1:21["HE shall SAVE"] along with Ezra[Aramaic Yeshua vs. Hebrew Yehoshua for the same individual] and of course Yehoshua meaning "Yah saves" or even "yod[the Mighty Hand] hosheas or saves", Nu. 13:16). Throw water on it if you can. The original Hebrew is full of so much beauty and meaning that is wiped out when translated! I'd hate to be the one who's passing off counterfeits.
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > > Thanks, Jon
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > > [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]
                >
              • andrew fincke
                Dear MJ, In the last sentence, you mean “nonexplanation” not “explanation.” See in the second paragraph above that: “Weingreen did not answer this,
                Message 7 of 15 , Dec 27, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear MJ,
                  In the last sentence, you mean �nonexplanation� not �explanation.� See in the second paragraph above that: �Weingreen did not answer this, he seemed content to assume that strange things happen.� It�s very hard for a modern student of the Bible to understand how people discussed Scripture before the invention of chapter and verse numbers. How could someone say � 2 Sam. 13:28-29 (Amnon�s murder at a banquet) reminds me of Mat. 14:9-10 (John the Baptist�s beheading at Herod�s birthday party), that in turn reminds me of 1 Sam. 20:11-17 (John[athan]�s loss of life and property to David after an engagement in the field). All this cross-referencing was done through the use of orthographical and semantic signals that acted as links to other text. The masoretes registered these � often erroneously - in their parva and magna notes.
                  Here�s Gen. 4:5 and 8 without the gloss (signpost):
                  �But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. [speech of the Lord + gloss] And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.�
                  That�s very smooth. Here�s 2 Sam. 14:3-4 without the gloss-sensor:
                  ��And come to the king, and speak on this manner unto him!� So Joab put the words in her mouth.[gloss-sensor] and she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, Help, O king.�
                  Both Hebrew texts have erroneous sentences with the word �said.� Since Gen. 4:8a: �And Cain said to his brother Abel� can be cleanly excised without harming the sense, it�s a gloss, a masoretic note of some sort about non-sequitur �he/she said�s. Can anyone find another one?. Since 2 Sam. 14:4: �And the Tekoite woman said to the king� cannot be so easily snipped out but rather requires replacement with what LXX has �And the Tekoite woman came to the king,� it is not a gloss but rather a sentence reworked to make sense of the gloss at Gen. 4:8.
                  As I mentioned before, the woman�s story � what Joab put in her mouth to convince David to recall Absalom from exile � doesn�t make sense. How is a tale about two brothers fighting in a field going to convince David to recall Absalom, who had his brother murdered at a banquet? LXX comes to the rescue by moving the note at Gen. 4:8 (assuming the Hebrew gloss was in the margin or between the lines) from the margin into the text and adding the words �Let�s go to the field!� from 1 Sam. 20:11. The linkage is no longer between Gen. 4:8 and 2 Sam. 14:4 (whose LXX version is spotless; see above) but rather between Gen. 4:8 � the murder in the field � and 1 Sam. 20:12-17 - Jonathan�s self-abasing, suicidal oaths and promises to David.
                  You object, �But David and Jonathan weren�t brothers!� See David�s lament at 2 Sam. 1:26: �I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan:� The sentiment could just as well conclude 1 Samuel 20, since there ends Jonathan�s role in the monarchy story. LXX seems to be influenced by the John the Baptist beheading. Just as John�s demise left Herod in the driver�s seat, so Jonathan�s departure from the scene granted Saul breathing room in the vacuum leading up to the ascendancy of the messianic king.
                  Andrew Fincke

                  "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12





                  To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                  From: mej1960@...
                  Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:18:05 +0000
                  Subject: [lxx] Re: Top Ten List





                  Ah, but in Gen 4:8, it did NOT "drop out cleanly". The remaining verb had to be read in an unlikely (some would says 'impossible', e.g. Gesenius in his Lexicon) sense ('spoke' instead of 'said') after the missing portion dropped out. In addition, there is, in some MT manuscripts (according to the Mp), an extremely rare pasuq (pisqah be'emsa pasuq)in the middle of the verse (it almost always comes at the end). That is why Weingreen (and others: Weingreen is just the name that comes to mind as most familiar to me) believed the LXX preserved the original dropped in the MT. There is no such forced meaning to the verbs in 2 Sam 14:6, and the reasoning that Gen 4:8 was interpolated to match 2 Sam 14:6 is stretched. If that were the case, then what would be the motive for doing this only in the LXX and not the MT?

                  Also, there is an important distinguishing feature of a gloss: it has to really BE a gloss, an explanatory note the manuscript owner is likely to write. The explanation may be wrong, or it might not look like an explanation at first glance to a modern reader, but until you can show that it is an explanation (at least for somebody), it is premature to call it a 'gloss'.

                  I cannot see the passage in question as a gloss. Rather, it provides a continuity that reads much more naturally than the MT does. That is why I am persuaded Weingreen was right, it really was dropped out in the MT but preserved in the LXX. [Introduction to the Critical Study of the Text of the Hebrew Bible].

                  But of course, I do admit there is one big difficulty remaining with this explanation: how could something that reads so naturally drop out so thoroughly? Weingreen did not answer this, he seemed content to assume that strange things happen every now and then, like outliers in statistics.

                  Speaking of strange coincidences, I had just read this morning, before reading this post in the LXX group, of how Chatfield describes what is basically the same statistical phenomena in the context of time series: "one of the difficulties of interpreting the correlogram is tht a large number of [auto-correlation] coefficients is likely to contain one or more 'unusual' results" {The Analysis of Time Series p26 1st ed].

                  A similar principle must apply to textual criticism, especially when we remember that the "canons of criticism" were elaborated before scholars had as good a grasp of probability, conditional probability and statistics as we do now. So inability to answer the above question is insufficient grounds to reject Weingreen's explanation in favor of another unlikely change.

                  --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, andrew fincke <finckea@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > MJ,
                  > You mean Gen. 4:8a not 4:8b. When something drops out cleanly - is totally dispensable - like that, it's likely a gloss. That is, it's a cross-reference to a similar phenomenon - in this case 2 Sam. 14:4a - in oreder to explain something. There are two problems with the woman's story at 2 Sam. 14: 1) it posits two sons in a situation where there are more than that - David had a lot more sons than just Amnon and Absalom; and 2) Absalom didn't kill Amnon in a field, but rather had his servants execute him at a banquet. So - if not Amnon and Absalom - who are the two brothers in the field of 2 Sam. 14:6? LXX at Gen. 4:8a makes clear that the reference at 2 Sam. 14:6 is to David and Jonathan - the former a shepherd, the latter a worker of the ground (see 1 Sam. 14:14). Jonathan's address to David in the field - 1 Sam. 20:12-17 - led to the former's death in that Jonathan ended up ceding to David his (Jonathan's) soul and royalty. By reminding David of this event allegorically, the Tekoite woman achieved her - or rather Joab's - aim of reconciling the king to his son, the murderer, who then mimicked his father by usurping his throne in the way of David with Jonathan. David, the former shepherd and thus the Abel clone, became the "man of blood" answerable for the Jonathan (Kain) murder/expropriation. See 2 Sam. 16:7-8. So, yes, the masoretic Gen. 4:8a - which can be cleanly excised from the text - postdates 2 Sam. 14:4a - which can't. LXX integrates Gen. 4:8a into the context by adding "Let's go to the field," which replicates Jonathan's words to David at 1 Sam. 20:11.
                  > Andrew Fincke
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                  > From: mej1960@...
                  > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 04:02:54 +0000
                  > Subject: [lxx] Re: Top Ten List
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Hi, Andrew-
                  >
                  > So is it safe to say, then, that when 2 Samuel 14:4-6 was written, Gen 4:8b had not yet dropped out of the Hebrew text?
                  >
                  > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, andrew fincke <finckea@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Dear MJ,
                  > > See 2 Samuel 14:4-6:
                  > > "(4) And when the woman of Tekoah spake to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, Help, O king. (5) And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, I am indeed a widow woman, and mine husband is dead. (6) And thy handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but the one smote the other, and slew him." That's the King James, which most translations follow. The first sentence in Hebrew reads, "And the woman of Tekoah said to the king and she fell on her face ..." LXX changes "said" to "came." Note the parallel between verse 6 and Gen 4:8b.
                  > > Andrew Fincke
                  > >
                  > > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                  > > From: mej1960@
                  > > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 01:10:53 +0000
                  > > Subject: [lxx] Re: Top Ten List
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > This used to be at least somewhat a scholarly list, and "top ten" lists are not very scholarly. But I will admit to some interest in this list anyway, and make my own small contribution.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > One of the biggest thing I learned from the LXX that you will never learn from the Hebrew text or a translation that follows it too closely is how to make sense out of Gen 4:8 without forcing an improbable (some would say impossible) meaning on the verb 'aMaR. Read the half-verse included in the LXX that somehow got dropped out of the MT, so that the whole verse reads:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > And Cain said ('aMaR) to his brother Abel, "Let us go out into the field". And it came to pass that when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him"
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > The MT has to change the meaning of 'aMaR' to 'spoke' to smooth over the missing portion "Let us go out..." reading it as:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > And Cain spoke to his brother Abel. And it came to pass that when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him"
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Another candidate for the top ten: the LXX of Job is significantly different from the MT. The single verse that most clearly underscores the different interpretation throughout the whole translation is 40:8:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > MH APOPOIOU MOU TO KRIMA, OIEI DE ME ALLWS SOI KEXRHMATIKENAI H INA ANAFANHiS DIKAIOS?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > This explains why 42:7, where it is only Job's 'friends' who are described as having sinned, has been taken in the Russian Orthodox tradition as implying that NOTHING Job said or did in the book, not even his most shocking complaints, are sins.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > This in turn has strong implications and wide influence in Orthodox theodicy as a whole, and in popular culture as well, explaining the attitude towards suffering.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Now that I see this in the LXX of Job, I start to notice reflections of it in Dostoevsky and Tolstoy as well.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Jon Westcot <westcot@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > Hey all, I thought it might be helpful(as a review if nothing else) for those of us who haven't been on this forum long, and hopefully for everybody else too, to construct a Top Ten List(give or take a few) of the most important truths(and I mean TRUTHS) that we have learned strictly from the LXX itself that could not have been gathered from the Hebrew itself. Of course please tell me if there are any problems with how I just worded that or if you're just simply irritated by the whole idea in the first place.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > I would start with an unfinished concept(but might have the potential for making the list), that of Joshua's name(yod-hey-shin-uau-ayin or yod-hey-uau-shin-uau-ayin) that has been transliterated(please tell me if I'm wrong) in the LXX to iota-eta-sigma-omikron-upsilon-sigma. A side note being that iota-eta-sigma-omikron-upsilon-(sigma) is also found in the Greek manuscripts(?translations) of Mattthew through Revelation for both Joshua's name and Messiah's name. Again, correct me in truth if you are able. An obvious conclusion could be drawn from this if Greek material were to be considered fully authoritative(which those in my camp are nowhere near acceptance of), although other witnesses also support the sameness of their names(Matt. 1:21["HE shall SAVE"] along with Ezra[Aramaic Yeshua vs. Hebrew Yehoshua for the same individual] and of course Yehoshua meaning "Yah saves" or even "yod[the Mighty Hand] hosheas or saves", Nu. 13:16). Throw water on it if you can. The original Hebrew is full of so much beauty and meaning that is wiped out when translated! I'd hate to be the one who's passing off counterfeits.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > Thanks, Jon
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > [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]
                  >






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