Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Philip <philipengmann AT yahoo.com>]

Shalom and good wishes to you all.


There are a few differences between LXX & MT Deuteronomy
32:43.


4 phrases are present in LXX Dt 32:43 which are absent from
MT Dt 32:43.


Please does anyone know how other ancient witnesses/manuscripts
read for Dt 32:43, i.e. the:
 

        
i.           i.
DSS—Dead Sea Scrolls,

       ii.           
SP—Samaritan Pentateuch

      iii.           
Masada Manuscripts

     iv.           
Geniza fragments

       v.           
Etc

 

Many thanks,

Philip Engmann

 

 


>From philipengmann AT yahoo.com  Fri Apr 29 05:42:45 2011
Return-Path: <philipengmann AT yahoo.com>
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 94A30E8B48; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 05:42:45 -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,DKIM_SIGNED,
        DKIM_VERIFIED,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.2.5
Received: from web38502.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web38502.mail.mud.yahoo.com
        [209.191.125.48])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C124E8B40
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 05:42:44 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: (qmail 99357 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Apr 2011 09:42:44 -0000
Message-ID: <509021.98962.qm AT web38502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-YMail-OSG: NRJlpWsVM1mcRbE4MAxpD._Dswx9IWFUm7NTF0iuY93aDYj
        OZBrO3UVPa3qXZfGF3Zv2TttKahDHjFxo4V.mACpnee9qvEABjZ_Ps_6QzVa
        F2FkPc0kf3iWjfj6Pgxld3iL4UmPF.6.uMsqhQWImf4F7Rbdd_BQ_VDV6iF5
        JG2DUuifwC251mVi1Mzcc8V4Ay8BPaAhuWaAOBsvCF3985IIkZ1d2fyQK10a
        bXKFbWZmkgux5hZgWnhRFByfDZGlj7UdWsMHpgTzLHd5Qkt9X27KIgVG_GXC
        dPbV2tLgwRSLfDfRNYdb9scaY4zaON27NNM.oeOvvDJwMjc9b6Pj7xdrETSa
        V25zShHOu5dKhd6cuqsHezX7ntHYRYPIRW.tDm7MiQWHX.vAm.xTQ5A9Q
Received: from [80.87.70.4] by web38502.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP;
        Fri, 29 Apr 2011 02:42:44 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/12.0.2 YahooMailWebService/0.8.110.299900
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 02:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Philip <philipengmann AT yahoo.com>
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: [b-hebrew] DSS, SP, etc, fpr Deuteronomy 32:43?
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: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:42:45 -0000

Shalom and good wishes to you all.

There are a few differences between LXX & MT Deuteronomy
32:43.

4 phrases are present in LXX Dt 32:43 which are absent from
MT Dt 32:43.

Please does anyone know how other ancient witnesses/manuscripts
read for Dt 32:43, i.e. the 

        
i.           
DSS—Dead Sea Scrolls,

       ii.           
SP—Samaritan Pentateuch

      iii.           
Masada Manuscripts

     iv.           
Geniza fragments

       v.           
Etc

 

Many thanks,

Philip Engmann

 

 



--- On Mon, 4/11/11, Philip <philipengmann AT yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Philip <philipengmann AT yahoo.com>
Subject: Differences between LXX & MT texts of Deuteronomy 32:43?
To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Monday, April 11, 2011, 12:23 PM

Dear Listees,

please does anyone know of any studies of differences between the LXX & MT 
texts of Deuteronomy 32: 43? (i.e. the last verse of the last song of Moses)?

Many thanks,

Philip Engmann




>From kwrandolph AT gmail.com  Thu Apr 28 11:24:55 2011
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
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 0C36BE96ED; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:24:55 -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=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
        DKIM_VERIFIED, HTML_MESSAGE,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.2.5
Received: from mail-gw0-f49.google.com (mail-gw0-f49.google.com 
[74.125.83.49])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9195DE96EA
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:24:54 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by gwb1 with SMTP id 1so1151567gwb.36
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:24:54 -0700 
(PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.62.41 with SMTP id p41mr3194408ybk.282.1304004294079; Thu,
        28 Apr 2011 08:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.84.10 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
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>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:24:54 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTikoVmi3ave4z4hmLSgB2SM2jGJxWQ AT mail.gmail.com>
From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: Will Parsons <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 05:43:54 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Cc: B-Hebrew <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: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:24:55 -0000

Will:

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Will Parsons <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>wrote:

>
> Distinguishing lengthened from non-lengthened consonants is quite common in
> a
> wide variety of languages.  How this is indicated (if at all) depends on
> the
> type of script employed.  Alphabetic scripts generally fall into three
> categories:
>
> 1) Semitic type scripts, in which ordinarily vowels are either not
> indicated
>   or indicated in certain circumstances by consonantal letters.
>
> 2) Greek type scripts, in which vowel letters are full citizens along with
>   consonantal letters.
>
> 3) Indic type scripts, in which vowels are indicated by symbols that serve
>   as adjuncts to the accompanying consonants.
>

Was Hebrew originally a syllabery, with each letter standing for a syllable?
The structure of Hebrew poetry seems to indicate that this was the case.

Then when the Phoenicians and Arameans adopted the Hebrew script, did they
change it to a consonantal alphabet?

>
> In languages that use either a Greek or Indic type alphabet, a lengthened
> consonant is regularly indicated by the doubling the consonantal letter.
> …
>
> Languages that use a Semitic type alphabet either don't indicate lengthened
> consonants at all, or indicate them by an optional auxiliarly diacritical
> mark on the consonantal letter, as in the case of Arabic.  This is perhaps
> expected, since a repeated consonant letter would naturally suggest an
> extra
> syllable.
>
> As for modern Hebrew not having phonemically lengthened consonants, note
> that
> the loss of phonemic consonantal length is quite common in languages.
>

Modern Hebrew pronunciation is irrelevant to a study of Biblidal Hebrew. I
don’t want to get into all the reasons at this time. That’s where Isaac’s
argument falls apart.

>
> …
>
> Aside from internal evidence within Hebrew, bolstered by comparisons with
> cognate languages such as Arabic, the Greek transcriptions such as "Anna"
> show pretty conclusively in my view (and most others' view), that Hebrew
> had
> long ("geminated") consonants at the time of the LXX translations (and no
> doubt before).  That this distinction was maintained up through mediaeval
> times is the most natural explanation for the use of daghesh (forte) in the
> Massoretic pointing.
>

“At the time of the LXX” sure, but that was five generations or more since
Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a native tongue by Jews. Therefore, having
grown up learning Aramaic pronunciation of the script, what is the
probability after so many generations that they ever learned the Hebrew
pronunciation of the script?

(Just because different languages share a script does not mean that they
share the same pronunciation of that script. Example: look at the different
ways Latin script is pronounced by different languages that utilize it. Even
the same language over time sometimes changes how it pronounces its own
alphabet.)

>
> …
>
> --
> William Parsons
>

Karl W. Randolph.