Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Initial "Beged Kefet" consonants always have a...

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Initial "Beged Kefet" consonants always have a...
  • Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:11:43 +0100

On 11/10/2005 16:33, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:

[re LXX confirmation for Masoretic work]

NYU Press had kindly granted me persmission to put Table 6.4 from _In
The Beginning: A Short History of the Hebrew Language_ on-line:

http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman/Excerpts/ITB-p95.pdf

It contains a list of some names with their Masoretic pointing and LXX
spelling; the Hebrew and Greek are both transliterated.

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


I am at last able to get back to this after a week busy with other things.

Thank you for this list. There are of course much longer and more complete lists in dictionaries like BDB.

It seems that your list is almost consistent in transcribing כ kaf as χ chi and ק qof as κ kappa, also פ pe as φ phi, and ת tav as θ theta, ט tet as τ tau - all irrespective of dagesh. The only exception in this small list is the initial chi in the LXX form of Keturah, but this could be influenced by a Greek phonological rule which tends to avoid successive unaspirated plosives (as in the paradigm θριξ - τριχος). But this rule is not good evidence that Hebrew kaf, pe and tav (with or without dagesh) were fricatives, because according to most scholars (whether or not you agree, Joel) Greek kappa, phi and theta were originally not fricatives but aspirated plosives, although the date of the shift is debatable.

If we put forward the hypothesis that for the LXX translators every Hebrew consonant was pronounced according to the standard reconstruction of Masoretic pronunciation, and the LXX translators rendered every consonant as best they can in a form of Greek in which kappa, phi and theta are aspirated plosives, then the expected results would be much as found, with a few exceptions like Keturah which don't fit any rule. The implication of this is that there is no evidence here that the LXX translators heard anything different from the Masoretic pronunciation. This does not of course prove that that is what they heard - only that if there was a change in pronunciation of Hebrew consonants over this period, there is no evidence for it in the LXX forms.

There is much less consistency in vocalisation between the Hebrew and Greek forms. There could be a number of reasons for this, not least that the LXX translators were working from an unvowelled text and in a location remote from Jerusalem where the pronunciation tradition may not have been well preserved, and so they simply may not have known the correct vocalisation. This might sound unlikely with a well known name like Rebekka, but nevertheless variant pronunication traditions may well have grown up already by the time of the LXX translators. It is also worth remembering a widely recognised phonological rule that Hebrew short vowels in word initial syllables have often changed from "a" sounds to hiriq since the LXX translators' times, cf. LXX Samson and Hebrew Shimshon - so this might explain the hiriq in Rivka (and in Milcah and Bil`am), and some other vocalisation anomalies.

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page