A translation of a translation

[Xeno.of.athens]

When you read Genesis and some other old testament books do you think the original documents were written in Hebrew letters and in the Hebrew Language? Some say it is so. Yet archaeology suggests that at the time of the Exodus there were, as yet, no Hebrew letters and that implies that the original documents, if they truly were written at about the time of the Exodus from Egypt (some say around 1450 BC others around 1200 BC) then the letters could not have been Hebrew. Perhaps they were some form of Hieroglyphics? And this implies that the Hebrew letter text is a translation from the original documents. Perhaps a translation from Hebrew written in Hieroglyphics to Hebrew written in Hebrew letters, or perhaps something else was used as the original language. No one knows, I think, because no original document has been found.

So, are we reading a translation into English of a translation into Hebrew letters when we read Genesis and some other books?

 

[BobRyan]

When you read Genesis and some other old testament books do you think the original documents were written in Hebrew letters and in the Hebrew Language? Some say it is so. Yet archaeology suggests that at the time of the Exodus there were, as yet, no Hebrew letters and that implies that the original documents, if they truly were written at about the time of the Exodus from Egypt (some say around 1450 BC others around 1200 BC) then the letters could not have been Hebrew. Perhaps they were some form of Hieroglyphics? And this implies that the Hebrew letter text is a translation from the original documents. Perhaps a translation from Hebrew written in Hieroglyphics to Hebrew written in Hebrew letters, or perhaps something else was used as the original language. No one knows, I think, because no original document has been found.

So, are we reading a translation into English of a translation into Hebrew letters when we read Genesis and some other books?

They may be guessing wrong to claim "at the time of the Exodus there were, as yet, no Hebrew letters"

 

[HTacianas]

When you read Genesis and some other old testament books do you think the original documents were written in Hebrew letters and in the Hebrew Language? Some say it is so. Yet archaeology suggests that at the time of the Exodus there were, as yet, no Hebrew letters and that implies that the original documents, if they truly were written at about the time of the Exodus from Egypt (some say around 1450 BC others around 1200 BC) then the letters could not have been Hebrew. Perhaps they were some form of Hieroglyphics? And this implies that the Hebrew letter text is a translation from the original documents. Perhaps a translation from Hebrew written in Hieroglyphics to Hebrew written in Hebrew letters, or perhaps something else was used as the original language. No one knows, I think, because no original document has been found.

So, are we reading a translation into English of a translation into Hebrew letters when we read Genesis and some other books?

If you look at types of Hebrew scripts you'll find that the oldest ones are in fact near Hieroglyphics. You can see some of them here:

A Brief History of the Hebrew Language

A brief overview of the history of the Hebrew language.

www.hebrew4christians.com

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

They may be guessing wrong to claim "at the time of the Exodus there were, as yet, no Hebrew letters"

Maybe, yet the earliest discovered Hebrew letters are from around 1000 BC; that would be between 450 and 250 years after the Exodus. That is a long time.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

The form of the Hebrew letters certainly changed over time, but that doesn't mean it was a different language Here an example:

This is how we used to write in Germany. Can you read that?

You see, it looks weird, but this is still German. In the same way the Hebrew letters used to look different in the past, but it was still the same language. It wouldn't require a translation to write this in today's letters, it would just take a transliteration. An S remains an S, but it looks different. Does that make sense?

 

[bling]

When you read Genesis and some other old testament books do you think the original documents were written in Hebrew letters and in the Hebrew Language? Some say it is so. Yet archaeology suggests that at the time of the Exodus there were, as yet, no Hebrew letters and that implies that the original documents, if they truly were written at about the time of the Exodus from Egypt (some say around 1450 BC others around 1200 BC) then the letters could not have been Hebrew. Perhaps they were some form of Hieroglyphics? And this implies that the Hebrew letter text is a translation from the original documents. Perhaps a translation from Hebrew written in Hieroglyphics to Hebrew written in Hebrew letters, or perhaps something else was used as the original language. No one knows, I think, because no original document has been found.

So, are we reading a translation into English of a translation into Hebrew letters when we read Genesis and some other books?

Most likely what was past down was an oral text, but that does not really matter. The "written" text was recorded by some inspirited editor and writer. That inspirited person got it right and was not really translating it. My guess is Jerimiah.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Most likely what was past down was an oral text, but that does not really matter. The "written" text was recorded by some inspirited editor and writer. That inspirited person got it right and was not really translating it. My guess is Jerimiah.

Interesting; the guess about Jeremiah implies that Genesis wasn't written until around 590 BC, which would be around nine hundred years after the events that the Pentateuch reports.

 

[bling]

Interesting; the guess about Jeremiah implies that Genesis wasn't written until around 590 BC, which would be around nine hundred years after the events that the Pentateuch reports.

Yes, they would be oral or written as separate stories. put not officially put together. The Northern Kingdom could have had different stories than the Southern kingdom, so Jeremiah use both Gen. 1 and Gen. 2

 

[ViaCrucis]

When you read Genesis and some other old testament books do you think the original documents were written in Hebrew letters and in the Hebrew Language? Some say it is so. Yet archaeology suggests that at the time of the Exodus there were, as yet, no Hebrew letters and that implies that the original documents, if they truly were written at about the time of the Exodus from Egypt (some say around 1450 BC others around 1200 BC) then the letters could not have been Hebrew. Perhaps they were some form of Hieroglyphics? And this implies that the Hebrew letter text is a translation from the original documents. Perhaps a translation from Hebrew written in Hieroglyphics to Hebrew written in Hebrew letters, or perhaps something else was used as the original language. No one knows, I think, because no original document has been found.

So, are we reading a translation into English of a translation into Hebrew letters when we read Genesis and some other books?

The Pentateuch, as we have it, was written centuries after the Exodus, probably around the time of the Return from Exile. Mosaic authorship is a traditional view, but a view that is probably untenable. Rather, the Pentateuch appears to be comprised of several interwoven document sources. There are a number of examples of this the internal nature of the text. For example the two creation stories in Genesis, or some of the oddities when reading the story of Joseph's betrayal and being sold to Egypt. The Documentary Hypothesis presents the mainstream view, though it's not the only hypothesis.

I think we can conclude that the Pentateuch was written in Hebrew. Based on earlier text-sources and oral traditions that go back to Moses. But the present text in its current shape and form is post-Exile.

Some might think that rejecting Mosaic authorship is calling the divine inspiration of the Pentateuch into question. It's not. The Bible, regardless of the pathways of how we have acquired the texts, remains the divinely inspired and infallible word of God. The word of God is true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Interesting; the guess about Jeremiah implies that Genesis wasn't written until around 590 BC, which would be around nine hundred years after the events that the Pentateuch reports.

Which shouldn't be considered problematic. Considering, also, that it's distinctly possible that even several of the books of the New Testament are pseudonymous, (e.g. 2 Peter), and yet are still true and truly the word of God. Remembering that in antiquity writing in the name of another wasn't always considered deceitful or bad, but was intended as a way of honoring someone. This is incredibly common, take for example a number of patristic works which, or even the Athanasian Creed, which we all know wasn't written by the great St. Athanasius, but bears his name and done so to honor Athanasius' legacy as Defender of the Faith.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Yekcidmij]

Interesting; the guess about Jeremiah implies that Genesis wasn't written until around 590 BC, which would be around nine hundred years after the events that the Pentateuch reports.

Michael Fishbane (link below, but also available free on archive.org) suggests that interpretation of the Pentateuch already takes place within the Pentateuch itself, which suggests layers of composition to the text where earlier texts and sources are interwoven with later interpretation and application. It's not that Genesis was written ex nihilo around 590 (or whatever the preferred date is), but that the text was composed and integrated over an extended period of time with repeated interpretation and application. The Documentary Hypothesis is standard fare in introductory classes, but I suspect the standard story of the DH is not correct (Umberto Cassuto or Joshua Berman offer some good scholarly critiques). The DH's prime insight is that the text is composed and integrated over an extended period of time, which I think is correct.

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/biblical-interpretation-in-ancient-israel-9780198266990?cc=us&lang=en&

 

[Bob Crowley]

As a side note, hieroglyphics were usually written right to left as Hebrew is. Apparently as most people are right handed, it's easier to chisel away at the rock face without damaging previous work by moving from right to left (holding chisel in right hand and belting away with the hammer in the left hand).

Assuming the stone tablets with the ten tablets were real, then they were most likely hieroglyphic in form. Moses had an Egyptian background as well as Hebrew, and the Egyptians were masters of the art of hieroglyphic writing.

But by the time Greek, Latin and (much later) English came about, scribes were writting on papyrus, vellum, paper or other similar products and it was easier to write left to right as the author was less likely to smudge the text when using ink or a similar product.

Right to Left Languages | Why are they written this way | Pangeanic

Arabic, Hebrew, Farsi, Urdu, Sindhi and other ancient languages have a common denominator: they are right-to-left languages.

blog.pangeanic.com

Now that we're using computers it would be easier and more efficient to be ambidextrous! Just kidding.

I sometimes wonder if with the advent of AI the art of literature will be forgotten since we will tell the electronics what we want to write and it will do it all for us.

PS - After I'd written the paragraphs above I started to wonder about the fact some Asian languages are or were written top to bottom, and usually right to left. It seems this also had to do with the writing medium, since they used brush strokes and each letter or item was in a "box" of its own.

Horizontal and vertical writing in East Asian scripts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If Moses had been Japanese the ten commandments would have run down the stone tablets.