Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Transliterating from Hebrew to Greek

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] Transliterating from Hebrew to Greek
  • Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:37:09 +0100

Dear list-members,

It is very important to distinguish between educated guesses and facts when we discuss the relationship between Hebrew and Greek consonants and vowels. As a matter of fact, we know very little with certainty, and therefore we should not pretend that we know much.

In theory it is important, as Randall has written, to distinguish between different time periods, but in practical work, as far as Hebrew is concerned, we have only one period to deal with, namely, the Masoretic period after 500 C.E. Therefore, when someone discusses how the LXX transcribe Hebrew consonants and vowels, they are not comparing the LXX text with the contemporaneous Hebrew text-because this text we do not have-but they are comparing the LXX with the MT. And how definitive are conclusions based on such a comparison? True, the consonantal MT text is to a great extent confirmed by the DSS, and to some degree this is also the case with the MT vowels witnessed by plene written vowels in the DSS-but there are differences as well. But the timbre of each vowel, which is the real crux of the matter, is not witnessed in the DSS or anywhere else-not even in the MT. For example, it seems that shewa in Masoretic times, was pronounced as an "a"-sound rather than as an "e"-sound.

We should also keep in mind that in addition to the MT vocalization, we also have the Palestinian and the Babylonian pointing, which are different from the MT vocalization. Several Palestinian manuscripts, for example, do not distinguish between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL.

And as far as the Hebrew laryngeals are concerned, please consider all the scholarly discussions of Goshen-Gottstein, Kutcher, and Barr connected with the viewpoints of Paul Kahle. There were no agreements! Moreover, when we look at different transcriptions from Hebrew into Greek, we find great differences regrding some of the vowels.

Many years ago I looked at how Greek authors rendered Hebrew vowels in the first syllable of a word in the MT. Below are some numbers from Origen's Hexapla (ø=zero).

qamets -> alpha (362), epsilon (7), ø (74)
patah -> alpha ( 212), epsilon (86) iota (5), ø (31)
segol-> alpha (42), epsilon (102), ø (39)
sere -> epsilon (34), eta (139), iota (4)
shewa mobile -> alpha (44), epsilon (33), eta (3), iota (1), omikron (5), ø (184)
holem -> omikron (24) omikron+upsilon (5), omega (217)
shureq -> omikron (2), omikron+upsilon (144), omega (3)

Both the LXX, Jerome and Josephus to a great extent follow the same pattern as seen in Origen's Hexapla. So it is very difficult to speak about THE PATTERN of transliterating of transcribing Hebrew letters by Greek letters.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo











Confusion? Greek has it correct.
Hebrew 'p' was probably aspirated, just like English 'p' is aspirated.
For aspiration you may be thinking of modern Greek/Erasmian phi='f'?
Unaspirated Greek pi was like Spanish 'p'. But Hebrew did not have a
phonemic feature aspirated vs. unaspirated stops the way that Greek
and Sanskrit did.









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page