Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David P Donnelly <davedonnelly1 AT juno.com>]

Will Parsons wbparsons at alum.mit.edu 
Wed Apr 27 16:19:58 EDT 2011 
Previous message: [b-hebrew] All OT Texts from Either LXX or MT? 
Next message: [b-hebrew] Why not ")ULBAN"? 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 


On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:24:04 -0700 (PDT), Philip <philipengmann at
yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Listees,
> 
> I wish to make a statement that I would need confirmation of--in other
> words, a statement which I am not totally sure of, and it is this:
> 
> All complete Old Testament texts that exist in the world today are
derived
> either from the MT or the LXX.
> 
> Could this be a true statement?

Dave Donnelly comments:

It is my understanding that the Ben Chayim Hebrew text of 1525 A.D. was
basically derived from the Leningrad Codex of  1008-1010 A.D. yet in the
Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D. 
6518 occurrences of Hebrew Word # 3068 exist [yod-shewa-heh-defective
holem-waw-qamets-heh].

It appears to me that the authors involved in creating the Ben Chayyim
Hebrew text just might have been trying to push the translation "Jehovah"
 as an accurate translation of  [yod-shewa-heh-defective
holem-waw-qamets-heh] a.k.a. Strongs Hebrew Word #3068.

Can any one who posts here provide some reason why so many occurrence of
[yod-shewa-heh-defective holem-waw-qamets-heh] occur in the Ben Chayyim
Hebrew text of 1525 :A.D. while possibly less than 500 occurrences of 
[yod-shewa-heh-defective holem-waw-qamets-heh] occurs in the Leningrad
Codex. 

Of course the editors of Codex L. placed 6 different variants of YHWH in
the Leningrad Codex.

Dave Donnelly



5
____________________________________________________________
Groupon.com Official Site
1 huge daily deal on the best stuff to do in your city. Try it today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4db88a1c2cb5e130dbast06duc
>From if AT math.bu.edu  Wed Apr 27 19:47:14 2011
Return-Path: <if AT math.bu.edu>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 20217)
        id C0738E934C; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:47:14 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on 
mailman1.ibiblio.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
        MIME_QP_LONG_LINE autolearn=no version=3.2.5
Received: from smtp03.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.lnh.mail.rcn.net
        [207.172.157.103])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7E6E9342
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:47:13 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.36])
        by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2011 19:47:15 -0400
Received: from smtp04.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.lnh.mail.rcn.net
        [207.172.157.104]) by mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 4.2.3-GA)
        with ESMTP id BAW29763; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:47:13 -0400
Received: from 146-115-31-220.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO
        [192.168.2.4]) ([146.115.31.220])
        by smtp04.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2011 19:47:12 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20110427.171026.149164066.wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>
References: <BANLkTikn0vXCiWQTMHpu6x=JJtKK1-TmZw AT mail.gmail.com>
        <7E70D53F-7409-4E68-A22E-F17078BB3494 AT math.bu.edu>
        <20110427.171026.149164066.wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
Message-Id: <BEB32003-57B6-49C7-A9DD-86B12F2641A1 AT math.bu.edu>
From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:47:11 -0400
To: Will Parsons <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=UTF-8;
        delsp=yes;
        format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Cc: Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] dagesh, gemination, Hannah [was: dagesh in hebrew]
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 23:47:14 -0000

Considering the mess they usually do of Hebrew names it is possible =20
that the LXX saw XANAH as HANAH, and that the double N in their =20
=CE=91=CE=BD=CE=BD=CE=B1 of 1Sam.1:2 is a result of a struggle to adapt =
the Greek =20
spelling to the sound of the Hebrew.
I notice there that for

=D7=95=D7=99=D7=94=D7=99 =D7=90=D7=99=D7=A9 =D7=90=D7=97=D7=93 =D7=9E=D7=9F=
 =D7=94=D7=A8=D7=9E=D7=AA=D7=99=D7=9D =D7=A6=D7=95=D7=A4=D7=99=D7=9D =
=D7=9E=D7=94=D7=A8 =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9D =20
=D7=95=D7=A9=D7=9E=D7=95 =D7=90=D7=9C=D7=A7=D7=A0=D7=94 =D7=91=D7=9F =
=D7=99=D7=A8=D7=97=D7=9D =D7=91=D7=9F =D7=90=D7=9C=D7=99=D7=94=D7=95=D7=90=
 =D7=91=D7=9F =D7=AA=D7=97=D7=95 =D7=91=D7=9F =20
=D7=A6=D7=95=D7=A3 =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=AA=D7=99 =D7=95=D7=9C=D7=95 =
=D7=A9=D7=AA=D7=99 =D7=A0=D7=A9=D7=99=D7=9D =D7=A9=D7=9D =D7=90=D7=97=D7=AA=
 =D7=97=D7=A0=D7=94 =D7=95=D7=A9=D7=9D =20
=D7=94=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=99=D7=AA =D7=A4=D7=A0=D7=A0=D7=94 =D7=95=D7=99=D7=94=
=D7=99 =D7=9C=D7=A4=D7=A0=D7=A0=D7=94 =D7=99=D7=9C=D7=93=D7=99=D7=9D =
=D7=95=D7=9C=D7=97=D7=A0=D7=94 =D7=90=D7=99=D7=9F =20
=D7=99=D7=9C=D7=93=D7=99=D7=9D

they have

1.  =E1=BF=8E=CE=91=CE=BD=CF=91=CF=81=CF=89=CF=80=CE=BF=CF=82 =E1=BC=A6=CE=
=BD =E1=BC=90=CE=BE =CE=91=CF=81=CE=BC=CE=B1=CF=91=CE=B1=CE=B9=CE=BC =
=CE=A3=CE=B9=CF=95=CE=B1 =E1=BC=90=CE=BE =20
=E1=BD=84=CF=81=CE=BF=CF=85=CF=82 =CE=95=CF=95=CF=81=CE=B1=CE=B9=CE=BC, =
=CE=BA=CE=B1=E1=BD=B6 =E1=BD=84=CE=BD=CE=BF=CE=BC=CE=B1 =CE=B1=E1=BD=90=CF=
=84=E1=BF=B7 =CE=95=CE=BB=CE=BA=CE=B1=CE=BD=CE=B1 =20
=CF=85=E1=BC=B1=E1=BD=B8=CF=82 =CE=99=CE=B5=CF=81=CE=B5=CE=BC=CE=B5=CE=B7=CE=
=BB =CF=85=E1=BC=B1=CE=BF=E1=BF=A6 =CE=97=CE=BB=CE=B9=CE=BF=CF=85 =
=CF=85=E1=BC=B1=CE=BF=E1=BF=A6 =20
=CE=98=CE=BF=CE=BA=CE=B5 =E1=BC=90=CE=BD =CE=9D=CE=B1=CF=83=CE=B9=CE=B2 =
=CE=95=CF=95=CF=81=CE=B1=CE=B9=CE=BC.
2.    =CE=BA=CE=B1=E1=BD=B6 =CF=84=CE=BF=CF=8D=CF=84=E1=BF=B3 =CE=B4=CF=8D=
=CE=BF =CE=B3=CF=85=CE=BD=CE=B1=E1=BF=96=CE=BA=CE=B5=CF=82=C2=B7 =
=E1=BD=84=CE=BD=CE=BF=CE=BC=CE=B1 =20
=CF=84=E1=BF=87 =CE=BC=CE=B9=E1=BE=B7 =CE=91=CE=BD=CE=BD=CE=B1, =CE=BA=CE=B1=
=E1=BD=B6 =E1=BD=84=CE=BD=CE=BF=CE=BC=CE=B1 =CF=84=E1=BF=87 =
=CE=B4=CE=B5=CF=85=CF=84=CE=AD=CF=81=E1=BE=B3 =20
=CE=A6=CE=B5=CE=BD=CE=BD=CE=B1=CE=BD=CE=B1=C2=B7 =CE=BA=CE=B1=E1=BD=B6 =
=E1=BC=A6=CE=BD =CF=84=E1=BF=87 =CE=A6=CE=B5=CE=BD=CE=BD=CE=B1=CE=BD=CE=B1=
 =CF=80=CE=B1=CE=B9=CE=B4=CE=AF=CE=B1, =20
=CE=BA=CE=B1=E1=BD=B6 =CF=84=E1=BF=87 =CE=91=CE=BD=CE=BD=CE=B1 =CE=BF=E1=BD=
=90=CE=BA =E1=BC=A6=CE=BD =CF=80=CE=B1=CE=B9=CE=B4=CE=AF=CE=BF=CE=BD

with PNINAH (dagesh in the second N as expected after a xirik) =20
curiously rendered =CE=A6=CE=B5=CE=BD=CE=BD=CE=B1=CE=BD=CE=B1

Spoken Hebrew did not "lose" anything. Spoken Hebrew has no "long" =20
and "short" vowels, no schwa "NA" and no schwa "NAX", and no =20
"gemination" (in spite of all the baloney "traditional grammar" =20
taught in Hebrew schools) precisely because it is all unnecessary. =20
Hebrew functions perfectly well without these theoretical fantasies. =20
And if all this is redundant now, it stands to reason that it never =20
existed in the past.

The dagesh, in my opinion, is but an ancient diacritical reading cue =20
independent of the NIKUD. You may remove all dgeshim from any Hebrew =20
text and you will not miss them.  In fact, that is what they did in =20
the Oxford English-Hebrew dictionary.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Apr 27, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Will Parsons wrote:
>
> Languages that use a Semitic type alphabet either don't indicate =20
> lengthened
> consonants at all, or indicate them by an optional auxiliarly =20
> diacritical
> mark on the consonantal letter, as in the case of Arabic.  This is =20
> perhaps
> expected, since a repeated consonant letter would naturally suggest =20=

> an extra
> syllable.
>
> As for modern Hebrew not having phonemically lengthened consonants, =20=

> note that
> the loss of phonemic consonantal length is quite common in languages.
>
> The history of the Hebrew name "Hannah" in various European =20
> languages is
> illuminating:
>
> -  Hebrew =D7=97=D7=A0=D7=94 is transcribed as =CE=91=CE=BD=CE=BD=CE=B1/=
Anna in the LXX.  =20
> Ancient Greek had
>    long (or geminated) consonants, so this spelling indicates they =20
> heard
>    a "doubled" consonant in the Hebrew name.
>
> -  Latin transcribed Greek =CE=91=CE=BD=CE=BD=CE=B1 as Anna.  Latin =
also had =20
> geminated consonants,
>    and this spelling indicates they heard the doubled consonant in =20
> the Greek
>    form.
>
> -  The Latin "Anna" has come down to Italian essentially unchanged =20
> in the
>    form "Anna".  Italian maintains phonemic consonantal length; the =20=

> spelling
>    indicates this for [an:a] (or equivalently, [anna]).
>
> -  Spanish does *not* maintain the consonantal length of Latin.  =20
> So, it's no
>    suprise that the name is pronounced [ana], spelled appropriately =20=

> as "Ana".
>
> -  Just as Spanish does not maintain the original Latin geminated =20
> consonants,
>    so also has Modern Greek not maintained the original Ancient Greek
>    geminated consonants.  So, the Modern Greek pronunciation is =20
> [ana], though
>    this is still spelled conservatively as =CE=91=CE=BD=CE=BD=CE=B1/Anna=
.
>
> Aside from internal evidence within Hebrew, bolstered by =20
> comparisons with
> cognate languages such as Arabic, the Greek transcriptions such as =20
> "Anna"
> show pretty conclusively in my view (and most others' view), that =20
> Hebrew had
> long ("geminated") consonants at the time of the LXX translations =20
> (and no
> doubt before).  That this distinction was maintained up through =20
> mediaeval
> times is the most natural explanation for the use of daghesh =20
> (forte) in the
> Massoretic pointing.
>
> Modern Hebrew would seem to be in a similar situation to Modern Greek,
> where the phonemic distinction has been lost but the spelling (or =20
> in the
> case of Hebrew, pointing) reflects an earlier state of things.
>
> --=20
> William Parsons