Re: Rabbits don't chew cud
- From: "zev" <zev_horn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:32:11 +0200
"Andrew Dalby" <akdalby@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1141131574.939018.113440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
zev_horn@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 mention rabbit
as an animal which chews its cud
and does not have split hooves.
Since rabbits don't seem to chew cud,
there's something wrong someplace.
Thanks for the references. It can hardly be what's known in western
Europe as a rabbit, because that species was native to Spain, and its
gradual migration eastwards in the last 2 or 3 centuries BC can be
traced in Roman sources.
I can't do the Hebrew.
The Greek Septuagint translation is choirogryllion, for which Liddell
and Scott's lexicon offers the scientific Latin translation Hyrax
syriacus. At that period European rabbits would not have been known to
Greeks in Alexandria.
<snipped>
There is a Talmudic story that the Septuagint translators
made changes in their translation to avoid
misunderstandings or trouble with the Greeks.
One of these is a change in the translation of rabbit (arnevet)
because the Egyptian Queen (I presume one of the Cleopatras)
would have complained that the Jews were making fun of her
by putting her name into their Bible,
because her own name meant "rabbit".
If the story is true it would appear that rabbits
*were* known to Greeks in Alexandria, wouldn't it?
The substitution is supposed to be "the light footed".
1) Can "choirogryllion" be understood as "light footed"?
2) Was there an Egyptian 'Queen' whose name meant Rabbit?
Zev
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Rabbits don't chew cud
- From: Andrew Dalby
- Re: Rabbits don't chew cud
- From: izzy
- Re: Rabbits don't chew cud
- Prev by Date: Re: Question about Spanish
- Next by Date: Re: how is time expressed in language
- Previous by thread: Re: Rabbits don't chew cud
- Next by thread: Re: Rabbits don't chew cud
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|