Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 16/11/2004 23:44, Karl Randolph wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
>
>  
>
> > On 15/11/2004 23:51, Karl Randolph wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > What I noticed is that the uncial Greek forms of sigma and xi are 
> > > recognizably derivitive from the paleo-Hebrew alphabet both in form and 
> > > pronunciation, and that the use of the xi was used mostly in the same places 
> > > as the samekh in Hebrew in the transliteration of Persian names as late as 
> > > Ezra and Nehemiah. ...
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > Interesting. I wonder if the author was somehow transliterating 
> > according to form and perhaps correspondence in alphabetical order 
> > rather than sound. That would suggest that the Greek alphabet was 
> > recognised as a variant of the Semitic one.
> >    
>
> Most likely it was transliterated according to sound. It is very unlikely 
> that the Greeks and Hebrews had contact with each other late fifth 
> century/early fourth century BCE at the time Ezra and Nehemiah were written. 
> This was well before Alexander the Great, how influential were the Greeks in 
> Judea at that time? Probably unheard of.
>
>  
Indeed. I now realise that the transliteration would have been in the 
opposite direction, Greek authors e.g. Herodotus who wrote about these 
Persian kings transliterating the Hebrew or Aramaic version of the name. 
They were likely to have seen the latter, but then it would have been 
more like the modern square shape than the palaeo-Hebrew shape, and 
anyway you said that the Aramaic spelling was different. So probably 
this argument breaks down.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/