Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Agreed! It is clear that if Yah is to provide laws concerning polygamous 
relationships that he had nothing against them.

________________________________

From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Bill Rea
Sent: Tue 10/18/2005 9:35 PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Leviral marriage



James wrote:-

>Although, if nature is to be taken into account it is clear that a large
>proportion of men would like to have more than one woman. Or at least
>until they find out what that entails (e.g Jacob's little family
>problems).
>
>All in all, it seems that polygamy is not morally wrong from a scriptural
>point of view but rather just ill-advised.

Uh-huh. Again I think you are projecting later views onto the text.
There is nothing ill-advised about polygamous marriages. This thread
started as a discussion of leviral marriage, where, under some
circumstances, a polygamous marriage is almost mandated. If you
believe the Torah represents the expressed will of God rather than
the distilled wisdom of men then you ought not to lightly dismiss
the laws it has regarding polygamous marriages and the children
of those marriages.

Your example of Jacob and his family problems could equally
well be applied to having more than one child. There are a number
of cases in the Hebrew Bible of brothers murdering each other.
For example 1 Kings 2:23-24 where Solomon has his brother Adonijah
executed:-

23.     Then King Solomon swore by the LORD, saying, "May God do so to me
and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life.
24.     "Now therefore, as the LORD lives, who has established me and set
me on the throne of David my father and who has made me a house as He
promised, surely Adonijah shall be put to death today."

And Adonijah was executed the same day.


Bill Rea, IT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz               </   New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332       /)  Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator                   (/'

_______________________________________________
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 joel AT exc.com  Wed Oct 19 08:32:00 2005
Return-Path: <joel AT exc.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.4.198])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBF84C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:32:00 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from exc.com (ool-44c6ce71.dyn.optonline.net [68.198.206.113])
        by mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net
        (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.06 (built May 11 2005))
        with ESMTP id <0IOL00EK4XHBCUG4 AT mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for
        b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:31:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (2758 bytes) by exc.com       via sendmail with 
P:stdio/R:smart_host/T:smtp
        (sender: <joel AT exc.com>)        id <m1ESD6k-000GhjC AT exc.com>    for
        peterkirk AT qaya.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:31:50 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:31:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>
In-reply-to: <005501c5d33d$5e2117a0$0510000a@athlon64x2>
To: VadimCherny AT mail.ru
Message-id: <m1ESD6k-000GhjC AT exc.com>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <m1EPM84-000GhjC AT exc.com> <435386EF.6090206 AT qaya.org>
        <m1ERUMy-000GhjC AT exc.com> <005501c5d33d$5e2117a0$0510000a@athlon64x2>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Initial "Beged Kefet" consonants always have a...
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: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:32:00 -0000

>The point is, however, that the LXX transliterations are reasonably
>consistent with the Masoretes. Dagesh kal is the only difference - that stop

It's getting difficult for me to keep up with the deluge of messages
on this topic, but I'll try to reply briefly at least to this one.

Dagesh Kal is of course not the only difference.  We have already
established that the syllabification differs (e.g., Rikva / Rebekka).
We further find that the LXX has double letters that frequently do not
correspond to anything in the Tiberian version.  Additionally, we find
inconsistent koof/kaf and tet/taf distinctions, as well as
inconsistent chet transliteration.  And the vowels compare very
poorly.

So the differences include:

1. Beged kefet
2. Syllabification
3. Taf/Tet, Kaf/Koof, Chet
4. Vowels

>of begedkefet consonants after that stop. For example, MElha became Mil.ha
>and came to be pronounced as MIl.ca.

As with many of your messages, here you account for one observation in
a way that contradicts your other accounts.  Here you assume that the
LXX forms were the original ones, but for Rebekka you assume that the
TH form was original.

>> 2.  Double letters in the LXX do not match up with anything in TH.  (A
>>    particularly striking example comes from I Chronicles 24:13:
>>    XuPah [TH; P=peh with dagesh] -- Oxxoffa [LXX]).
>
>What is so striking about it? Aspirated pey sounds like ph; post-tonic
>gemination makes it phph. Greeks took a breath before x for o, semi-stressed
>word-initial vowel (much like in French), and it geminated, too.

This is another example.  Your claim that XuPah naturally becomes
Oxxoffa because the Greeks took a breath before x is inconsistent
with, e.g., Xava vs. Eua.  Yet again, look at the table:

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

Your various messages account for single pairs in the table, but not
for the whole table.

Those interersted in the LXX might be interested in Sturtevant's _The
Pronunciation of Greek and Latin_, which I've added to my reading
list:

   http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman/ReadingList.html

It reviews the evidence about the pronunciation of Greek (and Latin),
though without the benefit of modern linguistics.

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