Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 23/10/2005 16:54, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:

> > ...
>
>
> I don't make that assumption at all, and, in fact, that's the
> viewpoint I'm arguing *against*.  I assume that the Tiberian forms *do
> not* capture the more ancient forms.  It is others on this list who
> think that they do.
>
> I pointed out that the evidence from the LXX is in general
> inconclusive, but it *does not* support the view that the Tiberian
> forms correctly capture the ancient Biblical sounds of Hebrew.
>
> I'm actually shocked that people do believe that the Tiberian forms
> (which, we have seen, do not match the LXX forms or the other
> Masoretic forms) reflect pronunciation from 1,000 years earlier.
>
>  
In case you think that this is something I have said, I have not. I have 
simply stated that as far as I can see LXX does not provide evidence 
against this possibility. You admit that "I assume that the Tiberian 
forms *do not* capture the more ancient forms." You are probably right 
because languages change over 1000+ years, but I am asking you not to 
simply assume this, but to present some evidence for it - and I don't 
think that evidence is in LXX, at least certainly not in a conclusive 
way; for I agree with you that:

> ... the most likely
> is that the LXX does such a poor job recording transliterations that
> we should not draw any conclusions from it. ...
>  

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