Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 15/03/2006 11:17, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
> The Psalm text of Origen's Hexapla is found in Mercati, G (1958 and 
> 1965) "Psalterii Hexapli Reliqviae". A detailed study of the vowels used 
> by Origen is found in Brönno, E. (1943) "Studien über hebräische 
> Morphologie and Vokalismus" Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 
> xxvii.
>
> Brönno lists 99 examples of gemination in the second column, and he says 
> that after the article the following consonant is always geminated when 
> that is possible (p. 204). ...

Thank you. Is that true, and is gemination considered possible, when the 
"consonant" is a consonantal iota representing Hebrew yod? If doubling 
of yod is not considered possible, that would be sufficient to explain 
the lack of gemination in Psalm 18:48.

> ... However, there is no example of gemination in 
> any of the WAYYIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs.
>
> The WEYIQTOL of Psalm 18:47 is written as OUIAROUM and the WAYYIQTOL  of 
> 18:48 as OUIEDABBER (note the gemination of the second radical).  This 
> means that the two basic differences between WAYYIQTOL  and WEYIQTOL 
> (gemination and patah) either did not exist in Origen's Vorlage, or he 
> ignored them.
>   

Clearly in these forms OU represents consonantal vav, iota represents 
yod, and the intervening vowel has disappeared. Perhaps it stuck in 
Origen's hands to write OUAIIEDABBER, starting formally with six vowels! 
I note also that Origen's vocalisation of this word is quite different 
from the Masoretic vocalisation, suggesting that Origen misread this 
unusual form WAYYADBER as the very common WAYYEDABBER (however it might 
have been pronounced at the time), or perhaps as the WEYIQTOL form 
WIYDABBER with the second sheva not completely lost. The parellel in 2 
Samuel 22:48 shows that there is textual uncertainty here.

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