Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] shwa

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] shwa
  • Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:06:16 +0100

Dear Alexey,

Thank you for your review of the Greek transcriptions. Could you please check the form ουαθθεμας in
Psalm 89:39? Sperber lists this form with double Theta, and this was evidently based on Mercati's first reading. Bro"nno has double Theta as well, but he indicates that this reading is not certain. In Mercati's edition of 1958 we find βθ instead of double Theta. The Beta does not correspond with a Beth in the Hebrew word, but there are also other examples in the Secunda where letters do not correspond with Hebrew letters. In any case, the text of the manuscript is not easy to read, but you have the opportunity to check the source and tell the list whether you clearly and without doubt see double Theta, to the effect that Mercati's 1958-edition should be corrected.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



yudickya AT bgu.ac.il wrote:

------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:17:20 +0100
From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] shwa
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <44183000.7020102 AT online.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Dear Peter,

Dear Peter,

I do not know whether your claim that the Greeks did not use doble iota as consonants is true or false. But the lack of such in a few texts is not sufficient to make a rule. However, the Greek letter theta can be doubled. In Psalm 18:40 Origen transcribes the WAYYIQTOL as OUQEZORHNI, in 30:12 as OUEQAZERHNI, AND IN 18:36 as OUQEQQEN. Note particularly the epsilon after OU- in 30:12 and the geminated theta in 18:36. These examples suggests that there was no gemination in WAYYIQTOLs in Origen's Vorlage.

Again, if Origen sought to restore the original vowels and consonants, the lack of difference between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL in his writing suggests that there was no "original" diffeerence between the two. In any case, a graphic difference between YIQTOLs with prefixed WAW is not found in Origen, in the LXX, or in the Samaritan tradition. The first time we see such a difference is in the Masoretic text.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


Peter Kirk wrote:


On 15/03/2006 12:37, Rolf Furuli wrote:


Dear Yitzhak,

Origen transcribes WA- and WE- as OU- before nouns particles
and
other words as well as before verbs. It does not appear that
YOD is
ever geminated in the manuscripts that have been found, but
the
material is very small. I am not aware of any instance where
YOD
should have been geminated, but is not.


Except of course for OUIEDABBER in Psalm 18:48, which if you
are
comparing with the Masoretic text certainly "should have been geminated". The absence of any examples of consonantal
geminated iota
in the Hexapla, and for that matter in all of the transcribed
Hebrew
etc names in the LXX and the New Testament (even where the
underlying
Hebrew has geminated yod as in `ayyah, 1 Chronicles 7:28,
where the
Greek is GAIA), clearly demonstrates that Greek simply did not
use
double iota as a consonant. This is sufficient in itself to
explain
the lack of gemination in the Greek form OUIEDABBER, even if
the
underlying Hebrew was in fact geminated.


One can not find double Iota for -yy- in Seconda, only single ι. The question of the proclitic "w-" in the second column of Hexapla is complicated. There about eight examples of ουα-, four of ουε- and more than fifty of ου- without vowel. Before the verb one can find for the waw conversive ουαθθεμας (the only example with gemination) as well as ουαϊαλεζ, ουεϊεριβου, ουεθαζερηνι, but ουϊεθθεν, ουθεζορήνι, ουθεθθεν, ουιεδαββερ. But for the waw consecutive there is only example with the vowel ουεϊεσεμου (my reading, Mercati read ουεϊεσαμου) and about ten attestations without vowel. So although the statement that there was no differnce between the waw conversive and the waw consecutive, seems to be right, I think that you can see the begining of the process of the differentiation between them even in Secunda transcriptions.
All the best Alexey _______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page