Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>]

>>  http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman/Excerpts/ITB-p95.pdf
>>
>> The Masoretes record RIVKAH and ZILPAH, but the LXX gives us REBEKKA
>> and ZILFA.  Either the LXX transliteration is inconsistent or the
>> Masoretic rendering is inaccurate.
>
>Joel, you are not right. There are simple phonetical differences between
>Rivkah and Zilpah, which account for the LXX difference.
>
>Kaf in Ribkah is plosive. Pey in Zilpah could be aspirated.
>Bet in Ribkah is plosive. Lamed in Zilpah is not.

Do you mean "Koof" in Ribkah?

According to the LXX, Koof *could* be aspirated, as it is in Xettoura
(from Hebrew Ktura).

>First, let us deal with the difference in the first vowel. Both names have
>hirek in Hebrew. In Greek, hirek in open syllable became e (R/e/bekka),
>while hirek in closed syllable remain i (Zil.pha).

Again, that doesn't work.  You have to look at *all* of the data in
the table.  We have Masoretic Zilpah and Milcah, but LXX Zilfa and
Melxa.  In both words the first syllable ends in Lamed.  In both words
the second syllable stards with a Beged Kefet letter that is recorded
in the LXX with the non-dagesh variety of the Masoretic system.  But
they do not have the same vowel in the LXX.  (And let us not forget
Masoretic Yitro with becomes Yothor in the LXX.)


>(A note for Peter: Joel's examples show that as early as the LXX, begedkefet
>were aspirated. In a discussion about schwa some time ago you preferred the
>view, if I recall correctly, that the aspiration is a late phenomenon.)

No they do not.  I fear you have misunderstood the examples.


-Joel M. Hoffman
 http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman