[b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/

Karl Randolph kwrandolph at email.com
Tue Nov 16 23:19:50 EST 2004


Yitzhak:

Ezra 4:7 looks like it was originally written by someone who did not know Hebrew very well, therefore used Aramaic loan words as well as Aramaic spelling for the name. Ezra, the educated one, did not arrive on the scene until chapter 7. 

You are right, Ezra continued to use the samekh even in his Aramaic sections.

Nehemiah knew the king personally, and so used the transliteration consistantly. And it looks as if Ezra had direct communications with the king as well, so he was consistant as well.

But that still gives the picture that Aramaic lost the distinction between samekh and sin before Hebrew did, though the case is not as strong.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com>
> 
> Karl Randolph wrote:
> > I first noticed it with the transliteration of Artaxerxes: the first Xi in the name 
> > corrosponds to the Hebrew and Aramaic X$, which to the Greek ear 
> > probably sounded like an /x/, but the second one in Hebrew, such as all the 
> > times in Nehemiah and in Ezra 7:7, 11 were written with a samekh, while 
> > Ezra in his Aramaic portions, e.g. Ezra 4:4, 7:21 transliterated the /x/ with 
> > a sin/shin.
> 
> Hi.  Interesting examples, but please note:
> Ezra 4:7 - Hebrew, spelling with sin
> Ezra 4:8,11,23 - Aramaic, spelling with sin
> Ezra 7:7,11 - Hebrew, spelling with samekh
> Ezra 7:12,21 - Aramaic, spelling with samekh
> 
> What you see is that Ezra 4 spells it with sin and Ezra 7 spells it with
> samekh, regardless of language.  I think it rather seems to suggest 
> conclusions regarding the edition of Ezra 7 as opposed to Ezra 4, in that Ezra 
> 7 is perhaps based on a later copy of Ezra that converted original sin's to 
> samekh's.
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir
> 


-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list