Calling Hebrew experts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarcoPolo

Guest
The first image is a partial screenshot of the Hebrew text of Proverbs 16:5 at biblios.com from the Westminster Leningrad Codex. The second is a screenshot of the Hebrew text of that passage from the Codex Sinaiaticus.



Two things.
  1. I can’t read Hebrew, but they do not appear to be the same words. Why would that be?
  2. In the Codex Sinaiaticus, where is Proverbs 16:3-4 or 16:6 for instance?
 
Codex Sinaiticus is Greek, the Westminster Leningrad Codex is Hebrew. I think Codex Sinaiticus is using the LXX of the OT.
 
I’m not a Hebrew expert, but I know enough to see that the passage on the right is Greek. The OT text is a copy from the Septuagint, a Greek translation from the Hebrew a couple of centuries BC.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Two things.
  1. I can’t read Hebrew, but they do not appear to be the same words. Why would that be?
Click to expand...
…Because the Greek translation is somewhat more of a loose paraphrase?
  1. In the Codex Sinaiaticus, where is Proverbs 16:3-4 or 16:6 for instance?
Click to expand...
Proverbs 16:1 and 3 are absent in the Greek Septuagint, while verses 4 and 6 are transposed.

I quote:
  1. Major differences between the two texts [ed.: the Masoretic and the Septuagint] are visible in the transpositions of verses and groups of verses. Rahlfs denoted these verses as supernumerary pluses (‘12a’, etc.), as in the preceding examples, but actually they represent transpositions, often coupled with pluses and minuses. The numbering in the edition of Rahlfs thus creates a misleading tool for its investigation.
    a. The main example of this phenomenon is found in the verses at the end of chapter 15 and the beginning of chapter 16. The sequence of the verses in the LXX is as follows according to the numbers of MT:
15:1–27
16:6 (Rahlfs: ‘15:27a’)15:28
16:7 (Rahlfs: ‘15:28a’)15:2916:8 (Rahlfs: ‘15:29a’)
16:9 (Rahlfs: ‘15:29b’)15:30
15:32, 33 (note omission of v. 31)
16:2 (?) [It is not certain that the verse which is denoted by Rahlfs as 16:2 indeed represents 16:2 of MT, as it also presents elements that could be taken as reflecting 16:4.] (note omission of v. 1)
16:5 (note omission of v. 3 and transposition of v. 4)
‘16:7’ first stich of the LXX (note omission of v. 6)
16:7 first stich, represented as the second stich of 16:7
in the LXX
16:8 (differing from v. 8 of MT)—in other words, the greater part of vv. 7–8 of MT lacks in the LXX
16:4 (Rahlfs: 9)
16:10 ff.​
The reason for these major changes is not connected with the textual transmission, as suggested by Lagarde [Lagarde, Proverbien, 51 suggested that the text of chapters 15 and 16 was written in adjacent columns and that the translator wrongly read the text horizontally rather than vertically. However, de Lagarde took into consideration only the transposition of the verses from chapter 16 to chapter 15, and not the other phenomena in the translation (omissions, additions), and therefore his solution is less plausible.] nor with the disorderly status of the manuscript(s) from which the translation was made. [Thus Baumgartner, *Étude critique, 149 (cf. n. 4 above).] Rather, the two texts represent recensionally different editions. The sequence of most sayings in these chapters is loose, and as each one is more or less independent, two different editorial traditions could have existed concerning their sequence. One notes especially the transposition of several verses of what is now chapter 16 to what is now the end of chapter 15; one also notes the change of position of 16:4. These phenomena are coupled with the omission of 15:31; 16:1,3, and the replacement of 16:6–8 of MT with two different Greek verses (numbered 16:7-8 by Rahlfs). Further, 15:31 ('אזן שמעת וגו), lacking in the LXX, could have been added secondarily in the edition of MT as an appendix to the previous verse dealing with מאור עינים and שמועה טובה. The first eleven verses of chapter 16 in MT display a certain principle (occurrence of the name of God in all verses except for vv. 8 and 10), but this situation does not necessarily render that version preferable to that of the LXX, where such an editorial principle is not visible. Furthermore, the type of parallelism of the verses in the arrangement of MT does not make it a more coherent unit than that of the LXX.​
 
Thanks. I thought it might have been Greek on the right, but for some reason I had it in my head that it was a Hebrew codex so I assumed it was just a goofy font. 😛
 
MarcoPolo said:
So for instance, this is saying that Prov. 16:6 doesn’t exist in the Septuagint but it does in the Masoretic?
Click to expand...
It also exists in the Septuagint, albeit transposed in between verses 27 and 28 of the preceding chapter (chapter 15). Very often you can find the verse marked as 27a.

LXX, 15:27a Ἐλεημοσύναις καὶ πίστεσιν ἀποκαθαίρονται ἁμαρτίαι, τῷ δὲ φόβῳ Κυρίου ἐκκλίνει πᾶς ἀπὸ κακοῦ.

By acts of mercy and by faithfulness sins are purged,
but by the fear of the Lord everyone turns away from evil. (NETS)

Hebrew, 16:6 בְּחֶ֣סֶד וֶ֭אֱמֶת יְכֻפַּ֣ר עָוֹ֑ן וּבְיִרְאַ֥ת יְ֝הוָ֗ה ס֣וּר מֵרָֽע׃

By lovingkindness (ḥeseḏ ‘(covenant) mercy’, ‘(steadfast) love’, ‘compassion’, etc.) and fidelity ('ĕmeṯ ‘truth’, ‘faithfulness’, ‘firmness’) atoned for is iniquity,
And by fear of YHWH, a turning away from evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top