Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<yudickya AT bgu.ac.il>]

Dear Rolf,

I had an opportunity to check the original manuscript at Milano at 09/2004 by 
permission of Mons. Dr. C. Pasini. I hope to publish a paper regarding 
improved reading of the second column of the palimpsest. Actually, the 
manuscript waits to be photographed in UV waves but talking about this word 
I'm sure that it is written with double theta, and Mercati's reading has to 
be updated.
All the best
Alexey 

----- Original Message -----
From: Rolf Furuli 
Date: Friday, March 17, 2006 13:06
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] shwa
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

> 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
> >  
> >
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>