Rutherford: רבּים אֹמְים

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Rutherford's preface to Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience has some Hebrew below. I attempted to type Hebrew which I do not know and came up with a phrase that google actually could translate as many nations. Have I typed this correctly. Also, any guesses as to the Greek of Aristotle. The bar is throwing me.
רבּים אֹמְים
1661207905013.png
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Junior
Psalm 3:2; 4:6: "Many are saying..." (rabbim 'omerim)

This way brings in...the world's "Many are saying..." (that is, trying to discourage David)
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
It looks like the Aristotle is δόκει δέ, which seems to be what Rutherford’s “I think” (in italics) refers to.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
It looks like the Aristotle is δόκει δέ, which seems to be what Rutherford’s “I think” (in italics) refers to.
So, any ideas what this refers in Aristotle? I don't know enough to find. I can get his on Aristotle "Δοκεί δέ" and "I think" or as Google renders it "it is right". But nothing like a catch phrase to some overall teaching.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
So, any ideas what this refers in Aristotle? I don't know enough to find. I can get his on Aristotle "Δοκεί δέ" and "I think" or as Google renders it "it is right". But nothing like a catch phrase to some overall teaching.
I honestly haven’t the slightest clue. Perhaps someone more familiar with the classics could help—maybe @RamistThomist or @Charles Johnson.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Pardon my ignorance, but in Hebrew are the breathing marks the notations below and the accents above?
There are no breathing marks. Those are all vowel points, which, depending on the vowel, can appear above or below. Most appear below, though.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
There are no breathing marks. Those are all vowel points, which, depending on the vowel, can appear above or below. Most appear below, though.
I was told to strip out the breathing marks on the Hebrew. I assume they mean just render the consonants then.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Junior
The standard simplified transliteration would be rabbim 'omerim. Note that the representation of the first consonant in the second word is ' (a close single quote) rather than ' (an open single quote). I'm not sure if that distinction shows up in this font. I wouldn't simply give the consonants in anything other than a scholarly context since most readers will not be able to point the Hebrew on sight. The simple transliteration is easy to recognize and doesn't require any of the special characters used to distinguish between different vowels in more technical transliteration.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
The standard simplified transliteration would be rabbim 'omerim. Note that the representation of the first consonant in the second word is ' (a close single quote) rather than ' (an open single quote). I'm not sure if that distinction shows up in this font. I wouldn't simply give the consonants in anything other than a scholarly context since most readers will not be able to point the Hebrew on sight. The simple transliteration is easy to recognize and doesn't require any of the special characters used to distinguish between different vowels in more technical transliteration.
Dr. Duguid, This is for Works of Samuel Rutherford for RHB and the style guide given to the editors says I have to give the Hebrew without "breathing marks" or as I say I assume just the consonants. Unfortunately, there is a ton of Hebrew in Rutherford and so far 2 pages in, for 2/3rds of the Hebrew encountered so far I've had to drop a note noting the printer's erroneous text and the correct, both simply the consonants. I'm not even sure if the 17th century marks are all the same as what is used now. I'm seeing strange stuff. Also, the two examples of the work vary. For instance in the two examples of Pretended Liberty of Conscience, you have he below, which I can't tell if someone has marked in the b&w one or not and there are defects or artifacts in the colored one.
ruthHebr1-pag2.png ruthHebr2-pag2.png
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
So, any ideas what this refers in Aristotle?

I'm definitely outside my wheelhouse here, so this is merely the result of doing some technical searching, but maybe it can be useful...

Searching δόκει δέ in the Greek text of some of Aristotle's works brings up dozens of hits, but none seem to be a heading, maxim, or summation of a particular theory. Rather, they appear to simply be the innocuous employment of general Geek vocabulary to express the basic ideas of thought, perception, seemingness. etc. in numerous contexts.

So, I wonder if δόκει δέ might just be Rutherford's way of generally denominating Artistotle's view on liberty of conscience based on personal perception, which seems to fit the broader context of his introduction pretty well. Here is an extract from an article I found online that summarizes Aristotle's philosophy and influence on the matter from his best-known work on ethics.

Etymologically, the word “conscience” is derived from the Latin, con and scientia, which literally means “with knowledge.” Thus, conscience was seen as an entity that could be right or wrong, and therefore only a “correct conscience” or a knowledgeable person’s conviction, would be respected up until the eighteenth century.
One of the first known instances of the idea of freedom of conscience makes its debut in the writings of Aristotle in the 300s BC. Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, one of his two great works on ethics, details the moral questions of life, including that the goal of human life as eudaimonia or in the Greek, εὐδαιμονία, which translates to happiness. However, Aristotle used this term in a broad sense, to refer to human flourishing as the highest attainable goal, which was reached by the use of reason.​
He argues in Nichomachean Ethics that virtue and intelligence should be “yoked together” and therefore, for example, animals do not share in this kind of happiness because they are unable to reason. Thus, he writes that the truth about action is judged by how one lives; that is to say, the person is in control of living out the truth, and if one’s actions do not “harmonize” with what one thinks, then human flourishing cannot be achieved.​
Furthermore, Aristotle surmises, “the person whose activity expresses understanding and who takes care of understanding would seem to be in the best condition, and most loved by the gods.” In other words, those whose thought and understanding complement each other are the ones who must be the most favored by the divine. While Aristotle is pagan in his ways, his writings set up a framework that was used by later thinkers regarding human liberty of conscience. Indeed, he asserts that virtue and intelligence are intertwined, and further, this means that reason is a tool of Man alone. Thus, since human flourishing is the highest goal of humanity reason must be used by humankind so that understanding and action match. Put another way, Aristotle is advocating that people flourish the most when they are able to act on their conviction—on their understanding. It is by acting on personal conviction, Aristotle argues, that the gods are most pleased.
(Blackburn, Bessie S. (2020) "De Libero Conscientia: Martin Luther’s Rediscovery of Liberty of Conscience and its Synthesis of the Ancients and the Influence of the Moderns," Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy: Vol. 1 : Iss. 1 , Article 11.)​
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I'm definitely outside my wheelhouse here, so this is merely the result of doing some technical searching, but maybe it can be useful...

Searching δόκει δέ in the Greek text of some of Aristotle's works brings up dozens of hits, but none seem to be a heading, maxim, or summation of a particular theory. Rather, they appear to simply be the innocuous employment of general Geek vocabulary to express the basic ideas of thought, perception, seemingness. etc. in numerous contexts.

So, I wonder if δόκει δέ might just be Rutherford's way of generally denominating Artistotle's view on liberty of conscience based on personal perception, which seems to fit the broader context of his introduction pretty well. Here is an extract from an article I found online that summarizes Aristotle's philosophy and influence on the matter from his best-known work on ethics.

Etymologically, the word “conscience” is derived from the Latin, con and scientia, which literally means “with knowledge.” Thus, conscience was seen as an entity that could be right or wrong, and therefore only a “correct conscience” or a knowledgeable person’s conviction, would be respected up until the eighteenth century.
One of the first known instances of the idea of freedom of conscience makes its debut in the writings of Aristotle in the 300s BC. Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, one of his two great works on ethics, details the moral questions of life, including that the goal of human life as eudaimonia or in the Greek, εὐδαιμονία, which translates to happiness. However, Aristotle used this term in a broad sense, to refer to human flourishing as the highest attainable goal, which was reached by the use of reason.​
He argues in Nichomachean Ethics that virtue and intelligence should be “yoked together” and therefore, for example, animals do not share in this kind of happiness because they are unable to reason. Thus, he writes that the truth about action is judged by how one lives; that is to say, the person is in control of living out the truth, and if one’s actions do not “harmonize” with what one thinks, then human flourishing cannot be achieved.​
Furthermore, Aristotle surmises, “the person whose activity expresses understanding and who takes care of understanding would seem to be in the best condition, and most loved by the gods.” In other words, those whose thought and understanding complement each other are the ones who must be the most favored by the divine. While Aristotle is pagan in his ways, his writings set up a framework that was used by later thinkers regarding human liberty of conscience. Indeed, he asserts that virtue and intelligence are intertwined, and further, this means that reason is a tool of Man alone. Thus, since human flourishing is the highest goal of humanity reason must be used by humankind so that understanding and action match. Put another way, Aristotle is advocating that people flourish the most when they are able to act on their conviction—on their understanding. It is by acting on personal conviction, Aristotle argues, that the gods are most pleased.
(Blackburn, Bessie S. (2020) "De Libero Conscientia: Martin Luther’s Rediscovery of Liberty of Conscience and its Synthesis of the Ancients and the Influence of the Moderns," Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy: Vol. 1 : Iss. 1 , Article 11.)​
If I were doing this for Naphtali Press I would run with this till I got as close as I could, but all the stipulation is minimal notes (ha; the errors alone are already multiply on just two pages) and interpretation is left to the guy doing the introduction to the volume (which thankfully is not me!).
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Junior
Dr. Duguid, This is for Works of Samuel Rutherford for RHB and the style guide given to the editors says I have to give the Hebrew without "breathing marks" or as I say I assume just the consonants. Unfortunately, there is a ton of Hebrew in Rutherford and so far 2 pages in, for 2/3rds of the Hebrew encountered so far I've had to drop a note noting the printer's erroneous text and the correct, both simply the consonants. I'm not even sure if the 17th century marks are all the same as what is used now. I'm seeing strange stuff. Also, the two examples of the work vary. For instance in the two examples of Pretended Liberty of Conscience, you have he below, which I can't tell if someone has marked in the b&w one or not and there are defects or artifacts in the colored one.
View attachment 9428View attachment 9429
I'd confirm with RHB to be sure. "Breathing marks" are more of a Greek than Hebrew thing. And I'd be surprised if they simply want the Hebrew consonants, rather than simplified transliteration. Either way you are going to need someone who reads Hebrew to help you. In this case, the colored copy has lost part of the second Hebrew letter: it should be lebab ("heart"). But the vowels Rutherford has put in (tsere and a smudged qamets in the colored copy; tsere and patach? with an extraneous holem [the dot between the first and second letter] in the black and white) are those that go with the pausal form, not the lexical form. Fortunately, the simplified transliteration doesn't distinguish between these, but this is not a project that should be undertaken without the help of someone with a good grasp of Hebrew. Otherwise, there are likely to be lots of errors.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I'd confirm with RHB to be sure. "Breathing marks" are more of a Greek than Hebrew thing. And I'd be surprised if they simply want the Hebrew consonants, rather than simplified transliteration. Either way you are going to need someone who reads Hebrew to help you. In this case, the colored copy has lost part of the second Hebrew letter: it should be lebab ("heart"). But the vowels Rutherford has put in (tsere and a smudged qamets in the colored copy; tsere and patach? with an extraneous holem [the dot between the first and second letter] in the black and white) are those that go with the pausal form, not the lexical form. Fortunately, the simplified transliteration doesn't distinguish between these, but this is not a project that should be undertaken without the help of someone with a good grasp of Hebrew. Otherwise, there are likely to be lots of errors.
Thanks Dr. Duguid. In this instance I just checked the errata and this was corrected to לבב but I'm not sure that is correct. I have the editors instructions drawn up by Dr. Van Dixhoorn and they don't want transliteration (as of now), but I will relay this instance and see if they do any adjusting or if they will have, since Rutherford is heavy in it at times, a Hebrew check editor since the editors of the many works (I've got 5 to do in two 1000 page volumes) are from all different backgrounds; and I sure wasn't begged to be a part for my knowledge of Hebrew! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top