Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

Saying that someone must have been married already by the age of 40 is 
very shakey ground to base assumptions on. In Italy it is difficult to 
find anybody who is married that is under 40 and most people I know in 
Italy would not even begin to start thinking of marriage before this age.

The whole story would make no sense whatsoever if we impose your claims 
on it. Isaac felt comfort over the death of his mother. Why would he 
feel the need to replace this female companionship if he already had his 
full of it? 

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Vadim Cherny
Sent: Sun 10/16/2005 8:40 AM
To: Michael Abernathy; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] leviral marriage
 

> "I do think that 'verb lo l'isha' etymologically means something like
>
> concubine, or property-wise lighter than marriage."
>
> Just to make sure that I understand you. You believe that Sarah was not 
> Abram's wife (Gen. 20:12), nor was Rebekah Isaac's wife (Genesis 24:67), 
> nor was Rachel Jacob's wife (Gen. 29:28), nor was Jochebed Amram's wife 
> (Ex. 6:20), etc. Does the Scripture name a wife for any of these men?
> I don't believe that the Scripture ever calls Leah Jacob's wife? What was 
> her relationship to Jacob?

To begin with, I only present an opinion about 'verb lo l'isha,' not state a 
hypothesis or assert anything. The issue seems curious to me, that's it.

Now back to your examples.

In Gen20:12, Abraham is decidedly evasive. He explains why he told that 
Sarah is not his wife. It is only reasonable that he employs weasel phrase 
"like a wife." In other places, Sarah is his isha without l.

For Gen24:67, see my answers to Yigal. Though not entirely persuasive, they 
rise certain doubts. In the age of forty, Isaac must have been married 
already. He took Rivkah specifically to his mother's tent - not to his or 
his father's. Nothing indicates even a bit of ceremony. Note the sequence: 
he first took Rivkah to the tent, and only then he fall in love with her.
Another possibility is that archaic idiom acquired ceremonial sense. I 
compared that to Russian, "to take in the wives."

In Gen29:28 Rachel, of course, was Jacob's second wife, and thus 
"less-than-a-wife" sense is entirely plausible. I would say, 'verb lo 
l'isha' denotes a kind of marital inferiority, often associated with having 
several wives. Let us test the negation: is isha without l normally employed 
for a single wife?

In Ex6:20, the case is clear: Jochebed was Amram's aunt. There is a 
tradition that patriarchs and important figures followed the law even before 
it was given. Marrying one's aunt is, of course, a violation, and the writer 
consciously or not noted it.

On strictly linguistical grounds, note that l'isha is encountered with lo, 
thus seemingly forming an idiom which must have a certain shade of meaning. 
"Similar to a wife" meaning is both plausible, more or less consistent with 
lo l'isha contexts, and is consistent with l'noun usage as dative or (the 
related) comparative elsewhere.

Vadim Cherny 

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From VadimCherny AT mail.ru  Sun Oct 16 16:38:14 2005
Return-Path: <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mx2.mail.ru (mx2.mail.ru [194.67.23.122])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27E74C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:38:14 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [80.255.78.4] (port064 helo=athlon64x2)
        by mx2.mail.ru with smtp
        id 1ERFGj-00058E-00; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:38:12 +0400
Message-ID: <002f01c5d291$877af3c0$0b64a8c0@athlon64x2>
From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
To: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>
References: 
<m1EQVFj-000GhjC AT exc.com><001c01c5d24f$2d75c770$0b64a8c0@athlon64x2>
        <m1ER8B5-000GhjC AT exc.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:37:54 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="koi8-r"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] LXX transliterations
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 20:38:14 -0000

>>> 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).

Good point.
a. Kof in Ribkah is in accented syllable, thus resistant to aspiration,
unlike in Hetturah
b. At any rate, the difference between plosive bet and elongateable lamed
seems to me more important.

>>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.)

Yothor is the simplest: a transposition, like in drachma - darkemonim.
About Zilpah and Milcah. The initial hirek is somewhat doubtful in the
Masoretic system. The sound is something like short unaccented e, basically,
the modern vocal schwa sound (I assume Zilpah and Milcah are segholate, thus
the Masoretic hirek is actually the first of two schwas, M'l'cah). Why not
mark it with segol? Because, IMO, segol is reserved for
one-vowel-split-into-two situations, like cotevt - cotevet, calb - celev.
Perhaps that schwa-like sound is closer to i after voiced consonant.

Vadim Cherny