b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
- To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:29:47 -0500
Peter:
When I studied in college, there was one time that I had two different books,
one printed in 1965, the other in 1967. However the 1967 book was a reprint
of a book from 1902, printed from the same plates as the original printing.
So which was the older book?
Harstad et al claim that the Byzantine tradition represents an older
tradition than Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and others of the "Coptic" tradition.
They say that accident of preservation does not necessarily mean older
tradition.
Of interest to the B-Hebrew subject, the Byzantine tradition preserves more
hard consonants than the Nestlé text, e.g. Nazaret instead of Nazareth,
Matthaion instead of Maththaion, Kaparnaum instead of Kafarnaum (modern
Kfarnahum) (e.g. Matt. 4:13). However most hard consonants had turned to soft
(t -> th, p -> f, etc.) by that time, even in the Byzantine tradition.
So which is older, the Coptic tradition as in Nestlé, or the Byzantine
tradition that preserves what are apparently a few older traditions
concerning Hebrew pronunciation?
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
>
> On 17/11/2004 19:49, Karl Randolph wrote:
>
> >...
> >
> >As for evidence of pronunciation shift, I noticed that the Byzantine
> >tradition of texts of the New Testament preserved some indications in the
> >transliterations of names that a shift in pronunciation had occured and
> >come almost to completion. By the time of the texts that Nestlé is based
> >on, that pronunciation shift was finished and those NT texts were cleaned
> >up to reflect that.
> >
> >
>
> Hold on a minute. The Byzantine MSS are *LATER* than "the texts that
> Nestlé is based on", and so if reason for the differences is a
> pronunciation shift, this shift is from the "Nestlé" pronunciation to
> the Byzantine one. The shift must also be dated after the 4th century CE
> and so outside the time period we are discussing.
>
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
>
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/
, (continued)
- Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/, Karl Randolph, 11/17/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/,
gfsomsel, 11/17/2004
- Date of Moses, was: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/, Peter Kirk, 11/17/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/,
Karl Randolph, 11/17/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/, Yitzhak Sapir, 11/17/2004
-
RE: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/,
Karl Randolph, 11/17/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/, Peter Kirk, 11/17/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/, Karl Randolph, 11/17/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/, MarianneLuban, 11/17/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/, MarianneLuban, 11/17/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/,
Karl Randolph, 11/17/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/, Peter Kirk, 11/17/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/,
Karl Randolph, 11/17/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/, Peter Kirk, 11/18/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/, gfsomsel, 11/17/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/, Karl Randolph, 11/17/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/,
gfsomsel, 11/17/2004
-
[b-hebrew] Byzantine Text,
Kevin Riley, 11/17/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Byzantine Text,
Peter Kirk, 11/18/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] Byzantine Text, Peter Kirk, 11/18/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Byzantine Text,
Peter Kirk, 11/18/2004
-
[b-hebrew] Byzantine Text,
Kevin Riley, 11/17/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] Re: PS /g/, MarianneLuban, 11/17/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.