Biblical Translation—Eden, 4

AM sorry for he dealay. (Some introductory remarks)Before we get started on some of the jargon, I thought it would be good if I made a few comments to keep us on track as far as the subject material is concerned. What would exacally be required for God himself to be involved in the process, is it necessary for perfection to exist everywhere and in all of the process for the scriptures to be a result of inspiration.There have been times through the ages where certain books of inspiration were included and excluded in canons of scripture, that we dont even have at present. This however, would not alter or detract from the inspired writings we do have.It seems reasonable to assume that always in the process was included the "law" of God, whether you are talking about the LXX, masoretic text or the DSS. This was always present and in use and understood to be the main information that was recieved and maintained from God himself. While ofcourse there were differences of interpretation, this seemed to always remain in tact, with little or no variations as to its content or teachings. The rest of Prophecy, encouragement and historical information may have been different for different people at numerous times, but they seemed never to be without the "Law"of God, in inspired and written form. This is not, to even mention the inspired teachers and prophets that were always present in conjunction with the writings.As in the NT times, people Knew from the beggining what constituted "inspired" writings and what were not. There was a very definite consensus "overall", with very few exceptions. this was also the reason why most of the spurious writings were immediatley rejected and very few of the early Church fathers used, cited or incooperated them into thier writings. they simply knew and "knew" through inspiration, they were not trustworthy. Much in the same way then the Law in the OT was maintained and treated as sacred in its transmission and acceptance.There will always be perversions and those individuals that resist that which has been generally accepted and treated as Gods word. This simply cannot be the acid test as to whether something should be accepted or rejected. Time tested scripture, with little or no real alteration and its very Content seem to be the starting point in establishing its reliability and source. The Law or Pentatuch seem to pass this test with flying colors. As in the NT, the Gospels and Acts seem to have always been a staple from the beginning, with other books included or excluded at any given time. Having the Law of God is not the always the same as having all the inspired writings ever present in history, nor is it necessary.As I have pointed out before both in argument and in articles, inspiration is not necessary in the complete copying process for his Word to remain in tact.Inspired Writers and Competent Copyists - Apologetics PressAs was stated befrore, it can be demonstrated through time and manuscripts that little or no real changes have been made to its content, as to affect its teachings or doctrine.I wanted to get this out in the open and present as cursory to our discussion upcomingMore in a minute.D Bertot

AM thanks for the websites you provided in your last post. The one regarding the things that need to be changed almost proves my point I was trying to make in my last post. With very little change or alteration from the original, it does not change its content or overall meaning.Now to the topic.If we can put aside the idea that Mr Herrell has some sort of apologetic agenda, he does make some very good points in his article, the least of which is that the Septuagint is much older than any Masoretic text. The general rule is the older the better. As he points out the manuscritps the Septuagint and its scholars used would have been much older than the 2nd or 3rd century individuals that translated them. Also, in this respect is the fact that Jewish historians as Josephus and Philo employed them much more than they did the actual Hebrew scriptures. This lends great credence to the fact that viewed them as inspired and reliable.At an earlier date you stated that Hellenistic and greek scriptures were not found amoung the dead sea scrolls, that the scrolls do not employ the Septuagint and that they were not found in its content. The following quote from a source you provided seem to contradict this fact, unless I was misunderstanding what you said. This should be enough in two post now to get us started.D Bertot

bertot:In my opinion you are trying way too hard to make a point that does not have to be made.The Scriptures we have today are what they are and say what they say. Not everyone agrees as to what the Scriptures convey or imply. Much of the Old Testament Laws are no longer applicable in the twenty-first century CE. Not everyone accepts Jesus as “God in the flesh” or even as the Jewish Messiah. The Hebrew Tanakh is a canon of ancient writing. The Greek New Testament is a canon of ancient writings. Whether any of these ancient writing were directly inspired by a Supreme supernatural being or consciousness cannot be proven one way or the other. If you and others wish to believe that they were; that is your right. Others of us do not wish to believe in that fashion.The one fact that can be proven is that the Hebrew Tanakh forms the foundation of three major religions that exist and influence the existence of many millions of people on planet earth. For this reason alone, the Hebrew Tanakh is an extremely powerful canon of ancient writings.The foundation of the Hebrew Tanakh happens to be the Hebrew Eden Narrative, and to this day human beings do not absolutely agree upon what that ancient Hebrew Narrative is actually conveying. How the rest of the Hebrew Old Testament {as well as the New Testament} are construed depends upon the manner in which the Hebrew Eden Narrative is translated and interpreted. It is natural that the Orthodox Jewish and Christian communities insist that the Orthodox rendition of the Hebrew Eden Text is accurate, but that does not make that Traditional expositor rendition of the Hebrew Eden Text accurate, it only makes it “Traditional.”I would like to move our discussion along and begin “word for word” interpres translating the Hebrew Eden Narrative. It is the foundation of Judaism and Christianity. What if the Hebrew Eden Narrative conveys something quite different than what those two traditional religious doctrines espouse? What if?Let’s interpres translate the Hebrew Eden Narrative and discuss what we find.All the best,
Ger

bertot: The Masoretic Hebrew Text is a copy of the oldest Hebrew Torah known to Man. The Septuagint Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah, Prophesies, and Scriptures is an Alexandrian-Greek translation of the oldest Hebrew Texts known to Man. The Masoretic Hebrew Text is a copy, whereas the Septuagint is a copy of a translation. There is a vast difference between the two.The Samaritan Pentateuch {a.k.a. Torah} is also a copy of the oldest Paleo-Hebrew Torah know to man. I possess a copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch as well as the Masoretic Aramaic-Hebrew Texts. In regard to the Hebrew Eden Narrative, these are the two Hebrew source texts I employ. Neither of these Hebrew source texts agree with the Alexandrian-Greek Septuagint translation. In the “Forward” of The Septuagint that I possess the author of that “Forward” explains the reason for that discrepancy. If you are interested I would be more than happy to share excerpts of that “Forward” with you.You must remember, the Alexandrian-Greek dialect did not even exist until the late 4th and early 3rd centuries BC - after Alexander the Great conquered Persia and Egypt. It is a much younger linguistic dialect that the Aramaic-New Hebrew dialect that developed after the Jewish Exile in Babylon beginning in the late 6th century BC.All the best,
GerEdited by autumnman, : or to of

bertot: You may want to print out the brief history that follows:Judea fell to Babylon in 586 BC. Persia conquered Babylon in 539 BC. Persia conquered Assyrian-Egypt in 525 BC. In 332 Alexander the Great conquered Persian-Egypt. In 30 BC Rome conquered Greek-Egypt.In the late 4th and early 3rd centuries BC the Alexandrian-Greek koine {dialect} was developed. The Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Aramaic-Hebrew Torah, Prophecies, and Scriptures was rendered in Alexandria, Egypt between 284 and 247 BC {the early to mid 3rd century BC).The Exiled Jews returned to Jerusalem after 539 BC. Thus begins the 2nd Temple period. The Jews were “free” but under Persian rule. Aramaic was the written language used throughout the Persian Empire, and extensively used in Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. New-Hebrew a.k.a. Aramaic-Hebrew was used only for copying the consonants of the Torah, Prophesies, & Scriptures {a.k.a. Tanakh} as they became canonized, and Temple ritual. New/Aramaic-Hebrew quickly fell into disuse and became a dead language except for its use in scholarship {scribing} and ritual.The Greek-Seleucid Dynasty began after Alexander The Great died in 323 BC. In 175 BC the Jews won their independence from the Seleucid Dynasty when the Maccabees revolted against the Hellenization of the Holy Land and thus began the Hasmonean era. During the Maccabean/Hasmonean three dominant Jewish sects struggled for prominence: Sadducees {Temple Priests), Pharisees {lay expounders of the Law), Essenes {those who awaited the Jewish Messiahs”2 Jewish Messiahs). The Hasmonean Jewish State fell to Roman general Pompey in 63/2 BC. In 47 BC Julius Caesar appointed Idumean Antipater as regent of Judea, and the Herodian period began in 37 BC and lasted until 4 BC.At no time listed above did the Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures become the “accepted Jewish version” of the Torah, Prophesies, and Scriptures. Although the copies of the Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures were present in the Holy Land during this time, the Alexandrian-Greek koine was not the spoken or literary dialect of the region. Western Aramaic was the spoken and literary medium from the Hasmonean era to the end of the Herodian period: Not New-Hebrew and not Alexandrian-Greek.I hope this brief history lesson will help us continue our discussion with a historical context that we can refer to.All the best,
Ger

bertot: In the “Introduction” of the Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint {LXX}=(Codex Vaticanus 4th century AD) first published in 1851 that I possess, regarding the Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, it states:

quote:

---

The most reasonable conclusion is, that the {LXX} version was executed for the Egyptian king {Ptolemy Philadelphus}; and that the Hellenistic Jews afterwards used it as they became less and less familiar with the language of the original.

​

The variety of the translators is proved by the unequal character of the version: some books show that the translators were by no means competent to the task, while others, on the contrary, exhibit on the whole a careful translation. The Pentateuch is considered to be the part the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the very worst.

​

These remarks are not intended as depreciatory of the Septuagint version: their object is rather to show what difficulties the translators had to encounter, and why in some respects they failed; as well as to meet the thought which has occupied the minds of some, who would extol this version as though it possessed something resembling co-ordinate authority with the Hebrew text itself. (pg. ii, iii)

---

There is considerably more to share, but I will await your reply.All the best,
Ger

AM I will try and extract most of the arguments out of your last posts. I would ask you to stop selecting random items out of my posts and ignoring most of the others. most of my arguments go untouchedAM writes I think you are missing the obvious point here that I was making. The scriptures set themselves apart from any other ancient text if only in the respect that they have existed so long without change to thier teachings and doctrines. They basically have remained as they were from the time they were composed. Your expression "that they are what they are", hardly touches the surface of thier character. It forms the basis of these three religions on more than simply its content. It forms the basis based on its history and supprtability from archeology and other scientific areas. Its suvivabilty as vertually unchanged in nearly 4000 years is one of its greatest attributes. It literally implies intervention and inspiration. I think the tradition as you call it, is based on the most ancient of documents which include the nearly complete story as presented in the DSS, Masoretic, SP and LXX texts.Having been in and retiring from the military, i will have to say, "negative on that noise Mr", at this point. There are still other points, such as the "vowel points", etc that need to be cleared up first. Well will get to your task a soon as possible. I dont really know how to take the expression, "others of us do not wish to believe in that fashion". It seems to shut the door on any possibility of intervention in the process, a closed mind, so to speak.D Bertot

To imply here that a copy of a translation would be less reliable would need to be demonstrated from both a historical standpoint and a textual one. Since we know the septuagint is older than the recieved Masoretic text, this would not initially follow. Aside from this the actual addition of vowel points would need to be discussed in conjuntion with the actual historical and text dating.Mr. Herrells contentions may not be strickly Apologetic in nature as he quotes from several scholars. further, the source I quoted earlier in speaking of the formation of the masoretic text in the eighth to tenth century makes it clear that hey added 'vowel points' to standardize the text.the question remains would these "vowel points" change whole menaings of words, phrases or ideas? Are the discrepencies you mention in connection with these different texts enough to change whole meanings of words and ideas? The forward is fine but actual variances would be better. Your very clear distinctions in language of a time and its usage certainly ignores the fact languages evolve slowly and intertwine themselves with a certain amount of fluidity, especially when the cultures are mixed. There would not have exsited these SHARP distinctions you are reaching for. The translation of a text would have been in exact realtions to the vernacular at the time and sometimes these peoples and languages were simply to close in vacinity and ethnic contact not to have slowly evolved and overlaped. Since all three of the standard texts were in exsistence before and at the time of the dead sea scrolls composition and collection, it would be completley unreasonable to make the above statment. Numeous groups used and employed the LXX, others did not.More in the morning.D BertotEdited by bertot, : No reason given.Edited by bertot, : No reason given.Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

bertot wrote: I am often unclear as to what your “argument” actually is. In my previous posts I was trying to focus our discussion. I will try to touch all of your points from here on.

quote:

---

AM wrote: In my opinion you are trying way too hard to make a point that does not have to be made.The Scriptures we have today are what they are and say what they say. Not everyone agrees as to what the Scriptures convey or imply. Much of the Old Testament Laws are no longer applicable in the twenty-first century CE. Not everyone accepts Jesus as “God in the flesh” or even as the Jewish Messiah. The Hebrew Tanakh is a canon of ancient writing. The Greek New Testament is a canon of ancient writings. Whether any of these ancient writing were directly inspired by a Supreme supernatural being or consciousness cannot be proven one way or the other. If you and others wish to believe that they were; that is your right. Others of us do not wish to believe in that fashion.

---

This and a few other statements you make appear to be incongruent with the idea that the Masoretic Hebrew Text is not a reliable Hebrew Source Text. The Hebrew Torah was originally composed in either whatever written script Moses may have used or was originally composed in the Canaanite dialect Paleo Hebrew {a.k.a. Old Hebrew). After the Exile in 586 BCE the exiled or returning Jews invented the Aramaic dialect New Hebrew {a.k.a. Biblical Hebrew). During the Canonization process, which began around the 4th century BCE, the Old Hebrew Texts were scribed into the New/Biblical Hebrew script. Neither Paleo Hebrew nor New Hebrew employed vowel points or vocalization marks. Not until the sixth to the ninth centuries CE did the Masoretic Jewish Scholars add vowel points to the New Hebrew consonantal {a.k.a. Kethib} Text. By the 4th century BCE the Paleo Hebrew Canaanite dialect had become a dead literary and spoken language, and it was briefly replaced by the New Hebrew Aramaic dialect. By the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 2nd centuries BCE New Aramaic-Hebrew also became a dead literary and spoken language”used only for scholarship and Temple ritual”and Western Aramaic became the written and spoken medium of the Jews in the Holy Land.There are absolutely no Paleo Hebrew, pre-Exilic manuscripts that are still in existence. There are some Paleo Hebrew manuscripts”or parts of manuscripts”among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but these appear to date to the 3rd century BCE. There are also extant copies of the Paleo Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch, which are 13th century CE copies of a 5th century BCE Samaritan Paleo Hebrew Text. There are no vowel points employed in the Dead Sea Scrolls”whether Paleo Hebrew or New Hebrew”and there are no vowel points employed in the Samaritan Paleo Hebrew Pentateuch. The Kethib {a.k.a. consonantal} letter texts that form the base of the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Pentateuch and the Kethib letter texts, which form the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Paleo Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls, and the New Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls, appear to be nearly identical in basic content. There are some differences, but none of these differences are so significant that they alter the basic content of the Kethib Hebrew letter Text.I have pointed this out any number of times in the past and I guess you have forgotten what I had said.

quote:

---

AM wrote: The one fact that can be proven is that the Hebrew Tanakh forms the foundation of three major religions that exist and influence the existence of many millions of people on planet earth. For this reason alone, the Hebrew Tanakh is an extremely powerful canon of ancient writings.

---

I agree with you, for heavens’ sake. I just do not automatically leap to any of these facts as “literally implying supernatural intervention or supernatural inspiration.” Supernatural intervention or supernatural inspiration cannot and will never be able to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Believe whatever fires your rocket, so to speak. There is absolutely no way to be absolutely certain that the New/Biblical Hebrew Tanakh or Pentateuch or the Paleo Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch or any of the Dead Sea Scrolls resemble any of the Paleo Hebrew pre-Exilic Texts since none of the Paleo Hebrew pre-Exilic Texts remain in existence. We have absolutely nothing to compare anything to insofar as pre-Exilic, Paleo Hebrew, First Temple Texts are concerned: They don’t exits!

quote:

---

AM wrote: The foundation of the Hebrew Tanakh happens to be the Hebrew Eden Narrative, and to this day human beings do not absolutely agree upon what that ancient Hebrew Narrative is actually conveying. How the rest of the Hebrew Old Testament {as well as the New Testament} are construed depends upon the manner in which the Hebrew Eden Narrative is translated and interpreted. It is natural that the Orthodox Jewish and Christian communities insist that the Orthodox rendition of the Hebrew Eden Text is accurate, but that does not make that Traditional expositor rendition of the Hebrew Eden Text accurate, it only makes it “Traditional.”

---

The “tradition” is not based on these “documents”; the “tradition” is based on loose translations and even more loose interpretations of these ancient “documents.” When can you possibly comprehend the difference?What I have been trying to get all four of these threads on this forum to focus on is the Kethib, consonantal, letter, Biblical-New Hebrew texts. Take the vowels out of the Masoretic Hebrew text and what is left is the Kethib, consonantal, letter, Biblical-New Hebrew documents. Read my lips: Take the vowels out of the Masoretic Hebrew text and what is left is the Kethib, consonantal, letter, Biblical-New Hebrew documents.

quote:

---

AM wrote: Whether any of these ancient writing were directly inspired by a Supreme supernatural being or consciousness cannot be proven one way or the other. If you and others wish to believe that they were; that is your right. Others of us do not wish to believe in that fashion.

---

The belief in “supernatural intervention” is not a necessary component in translating the Biblical-New Hebrew Kethib, consonantal, letter text of any part of the Hebrew Tanakh. There is no “door” to open or close. Let’s focus on what is written in black and white right in front of us. Let’s see what the Hebrew Eden Narrative might be saying.

quote:

---

AM wrote: The Masoretic Hebrew Text is a copy of the oldest Hebrew Torah known to Man. The Septuagint Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah, Prophesies, and Scriptures is an Alexandrian-Greek translation of the oldest Hebrew Texts known to Man. The Masoretic Hebrew Text is a copy, whereas the Septuagint is a copy of a translation. There is a vast difference between the two.

---

The Septuagint is not older than the Biblical-New Hebrew Kethib, letter, consonants which comprise the Masoretic Hebrew Tanakh! The Masoretic Hebrew scholars added vowel points to the ancient 4th century BCE Biblical-New Hebrew Kethib, letter, consonantal text. The Masoretic Hebrew scholars did not change any of the Kethib, letter, consonants of any of the Hebrew canon. This has been confirmed through the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Kethib, letter, consonantal text of the Masoretic Hebrew Tanakh are essentially identical”for the most part”to the Biblical-New Hebrew Texts that were in circulation Before the Common {or Christian} era. The Alexandrian-Greek Septuagint translation of these Biblical-New Hebrew Kethib, letter, consonantal Scriptures is a translation not a copy! Do you see the difference?

quote:

---

Adam Clark's CommentaryAdam Clarke, an 18th Century Anglican Scholar, makes it clear that the work of the Masoretes is, in reality, a commentary which has been integrated into the body of Scripture. However, Clarke points out that the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text (Masoretic Hebrew) is quite different from the Hebrew of the Patriarchs, (Ancient Hebrew) in which Old Covenant Scripture was originally written. In the General Preface of his commentary on the Scripture, published in 1810, Clarke writes: "The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. This school is supposed to have commenced about 450 years before our Lord, and to have extended down to AD1030. Some think it did not commence before the 5th century A.D." Even without adding to, deleting from, or changing a single letter of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture, pointing gave the Masorete power to dramatically change the meaning of almost any given passage of Scripture, for the prerogative of selecting vowels, is, to a large extent, the prerogative of selecting words! As a crude example, consider how the meaning of an English sentence might be changed by substitution of the word "poor" for the word "pure" - a substitution which may be effected by a simple change of vowels. Clarke appears to be one of the few commentators who have seen fully the significance of the Masoretic Text - namely, that it is a new "version" of the Scripture, written in a new language. Obviously, Hebrew Scholars have been aware of this fact. They should have called attention to the difference between Ancient Hebrew and the language of the Masoretes, and should have differentiated the two, by use of names such as Ancient Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew. However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter. Louis Cappel, Hebrew Scholarne of the first scholars to investigate the matter was Louis Cappel, a French Huguenot divine and scholar who lived from 1585 to 1658. Consider the following excerpt from the article, "CAPPEL, LOUIS," found in the 1948 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. "As a Hebrew scholar, he concluded that the vowel points and accents were not an original part of Hebrew, but were inserted by the Masorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier then the 5th Century AD, and that the primitive Hebrew characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the more ancient at the time of the captivity. . . The various readings in the Old Testament Text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Masoretic Text convinced him that the integrity of the Hebrew text as held by Protestants, was untenable. This amounted to an attack upon the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Bitter, however, as was the opposition, it was not long before his results were accepted by scholars." Further study: On this Rock I Stand; The 'Lost' Books of the Old Testament and The Book of Esther. Changing LINKS masorete.htm--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Second Coming of Christ

---

Get rid of the “vowel points” so that all that is left is the Kethib, letter, consonantal Biblical-New Hebrew Text. Then, start translating! Absolutely! When I translate the Masoretic Hebrew Eden Narrative I translate only the Kethib, letter, consonantal Text. I get rid of all of the “vowel points” since they represent a traditional, expositor, sectarian, interpretive translation of the Kethib, letter, consonantal Text

quote:

---

AM wrote: Neither of these Hebrew source texts agree with the Alexandrian-Greek Septuagint translation. In the “Forward” of The Septuagint that I possess the author of that “Forward” explains the reason for that discrepancy. If you are interested I would be more than happy to share excerpts of that “Forward” with you.

---

Yes! The discrepancies change the “whole meaning of the words and ideas”! For example: There is no personal name “Adam” employed anywhere in the Hebrew Eden Narrative. I will explain again, since I have done this before, but not in this rather long post.

quote:

---

AM wrote: You must remember, the Alexandrian-Greek dialect did not even exist until the late 4th and early 3rd centuries BC - after Alexander the Great conquered Persia and Egypt. It is a much younger linguistic dialect that the Aramaic-New Hebrew dialect that developed after the Jewish Exile in Babylon beginning in the late 6th century BC.

---

I am not ignoring anything. What I am saying is that until Alexander the Great of Greece conquered Persian dominated Egypt the Hellenic language of Alexandrian-Greek did not exist in Egypt, nor did the city of Alexandria. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

quote:

---

AM wrote: At no time listed above did the Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures become the “accepted Jewish version” of the Torah, Prophesies, and Scriptures. Although the copies of the Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures were present in the Holy Land during this time, the Alexandrian-Greek koine was not the spoken or literary dialect of the region. Western Aramaic was the spoken and literary medium from the Hasmonean era to the end of the Herodian period: Not New-Hebrew and not Alexandrian-Greek

---

You have got to be kidding! You are not even reading what I am sharing with you! Read what I have said above and try to respond to what I am writing.All the best,
Ger

bertot:This is a quote from Mr. Hurrell’s contention:

quote:

---

Even without adding to, deleting from, or changing a single letter of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture, pointing gave the Masorete power to dramatically change the meaning of almost any given passage of Scripture, for the prerogative of selecting vowels, is, to a large extent, the prerogative of selecting words!

---

This is exactly what I have been telling you in as many different ways as I can think of since we began out four-thread discussions.I am in complete agreement with Mr. Hurrell’s contention and Adam Clark’s Commentary regarding the Masoretic Hebrew qure = ”vocalized’ Hebrew text. The first phrase of the above quote deserves emphasis:

quote:

---

Even without adding to, deleting from, or changing a single letter of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture...

---

The vowel points and vocalization marks added by the Masoretic Hebrew Scholars in the sixth to the ninth centuries of the Common Era amount to an expositor rendition of the Kethib, letter, consonantal Hebrew Text. Do you now see what I was getting at regarding an interpres = “word for word-bound morpheme inclusive” translation of the Kethib, letter, consonantal Hebrew Text?The Alexandrian-Greek Septuagint is in fact adding and taking away consonants from the Kethib, letter, consonantal Hebrew Text, as well as adding vowels and punctuation. If you think the Masoretic scholars were performing an interpretive rendition of the Hebrew, you should be able to imagine what the scholars perfroming the Septuagint rendition of the kethib, letter, consonantal text were doing.Think about it.All the best,
GerEdited by autumnman, : added Septuagint comment

bertot:The following are the first four verses of the Heb. Eden Narrative presented in Kethib, letter, consonantal Biblical-New Hebrew script as found in the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch:Hebrew is read from right to left.

quote:

---

Masoretic Text
— — ‘‘ ‘ — ‘
— ‘ — ‘ — — —
—‘ ‘
— — ‘
— ‘ — ‘

​

I have put in word and verse separation because the context appears to be in accord with both. However, pre-Exilic Paleo Hebrew was originally composed with no word separation {sometimes New Hebrew employs final-forms of certain consonants} and no verse separation.

---

quote:

---

Samaritan Pentateuch
— — ‘‘ ‘ — ‘
— ‘ — ‘ — — — —‘ ‘
— — ‘
— ‘ — ‘

​

There are very subtile differences between the two texts, but none of these differences alter the content or context of these first four verses.

---

I will review the above text in an attempt to weed out any type-related errors I may have made. We can discuss the two Texts after you have had a chance to review the material.I am fully aware of the fact that you do not read Biblical-New Hebrew. I don’t expect you to read the above examples I have shown. Just look at them from right to left and become as familiar as you can with the Kethib, letter, consonants shown.Without adding my own interpretation I can show you what the two texts say; where there are choices that can be made I will give you the opportunity to make those choices yourself.I look forward to the exercise. This exercise will enable us to compare these Biblical-New Hebrew copies of Paleo Hebrew documents to the Alexandrian-Greek expositor = tradition/reader-oriented translation of the same documents.All the best,
Ger

AM I was unable to access the website last night I will get to your last post as soon as I can. Just quickly here though, I have much to say about it. What would be the exact English translation of the below items offered by yourself. What do they say 'EXACALLY' in English and in comparison to the standard Bible we use today. Before we get to the Septuagint, waht would be thier english "exact" equivolent? I was told by a professor that understands Hebrew, after I visited him at the local university here, that the Hebrew word 'Nahash' (serpent) is mentioned in Gen 3:1 in the BHS text. He pulled it off of his shelf and read it in that translation of Hebrew, the one I believe you said you employ. I could be WRONG HERE (DONT GET EXCITED grippy gus), but didnt you say earlier in our discussion that the word serpent is not mentioned in the text. I could be wrong, I was just musing about different things,when I visited him and we were discussing these issues. We were discussing these issues and the BHS text.I will get to the rest of your last posts as soon as possible, have a bunch of things to do today, but I am off so it will afford me the opportunity to respond quicker.D BertotEdited by bertot, : No reason given.

After my initial post this morning I could not get back on again, it has been on and off. I will get to this, this evening, hopefully.I was searching the web and saw you were in this same discussion in 2006 on yahoo "ancient Hebrew" thread. How did that go, it didnt look very extensive.D BertotEdited by bertot, : No reason given.

bertot:Grippy gus, here.You asked Neither Ger, Autumnman, AM, nor any other handle I may have has ever said that the Hebrew word for "serpent" n ch sh was not mentioned in the Heb. Eden Narrative. But Grippy gus forgives you.I have been out putting railroad ties in rock all day and I'm kind of tired--ass whipped, actually. I have a interpres translation of Gen. 2:4 thru 7 ready to go, but I'm not certain how well the EvC Forum will accept it. I'll keep an eye on the computer, and when you come on line this evening we'll give it a go. If it doesn't work well on the Forum I'll send it to you as an Attachment with an Email.Talk to you in a bit. All the best,
GerEdited by autumnman, : No reason given.

AM writes Why would they care about a translation of something.D BertotEdited by bertot, : No reason given.