Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Will Parsons <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>]

Isaac,

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:43:36 -0500, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> Following the observation (in connection with the issue of qamats  
> qatan and gadol) that ASNAT of Gen. 21:45 is transliterated by the  
> LXX as Ασεννεϑ with a double N, and that Basmat  
> בָּשְמַת of Gen. 26:34 is transliterated by them as  
> Βασεμμαϑ with a double M, I briefly looked up other such  
> instances.
> 
> The name CILAH צִלָּה is with a dagesh "forte" in the letter L,  
> as expected after a xiriq. It is transliterated as Σελλα with a  
> double L.

A close transcription.

> Yet, LAPIYDOT לַפִּידוֹת of Judges:4:4, that is  
> also with a dagesh "forte" in the P, as expected after a patax, is  
> transliterated as Λαϕιδωϑ with only one (soft!) F.

This does not match the MT pointing exactly, it is true, but it is
unrealistic to expect the LXX transcriptions to match exactly in all
cases.  First of all, it is not as far from the MT pronunciation as it
may look at first glance.  In particular, the pronunciation of φ/ph
was almost certainly not [f], but [pʰ] (an aspirated [p]) possibly
transitioning to [ɸ] (a bilabial fricative).

The LXX transcribes the Hebrew pe/taw/kaph pretty regularly with the Greek
phi/theta/khi.  It would be rash to think we can know exactly how either the
Hebew/Aramaic letters or the Greek letters were pronounced at this time, but
these transcriptions certainly suggest to me that the Hebrew/Aramaic sounds
were something other that simple unaspirated stops [p]/[t]/[k] in all
positions, and that this is somehow related to an allophonic variation that
get reflected (much later) in the Masoretic use of daghesh.

That we don't actually see the pattern of distribution of [p] vs [f] of the
MT in the LXX can be explained in various ways.

One possibility is that the Hebrew/Aramaic unvoiced stops became fricatives
in all positions in this period (this would be quite similar to what happened
in Greek to the unvoiced aspirated stops), but later strengthened back to
stops (perhaps aspirated) in "strong" positions (i.e., word initial, or after
a consonant).  In this case the LXX transcriptions would be quite expected.

Another possibility is that the allophonic variation reflected by the MT was
already developing in the form of aspirated consonant vs fricative (e.g.,
[pʰ] vs [ɸ]).  In this case, both Hebrew/Aramaic allophones would be still
be transcribed by the same Greek letter (itself perhaps wavering between an
aspirated stop and a fricative).

Or perhaps no transition to a fricative pronunciation is reflected in the LXX
transcriptions.  Perhaps the Hebrew/Aramaic sounds were simply aspirated stops
and the Greek phi/theta/khi were the logical equivalents.

> In 2Sam 18:23 KIKAR כִּכָּר is with a dagesh forte in the  
> second K, as expected after a xiriq. It is transliterated as  
> Κεχαρ with only one (soft!) K. On the other hand, AKO  
> עַכּוֹ of Judges 1:31, with a dagesh forte in the K, as expected  
> following a patax, is transliterated Ακχω.

I can imagine someone translating the text into Greek - "Hmm, ככר, is that
[kikkʰar] or [kikʰar]?"

(Even though I stated above that pe/taw/kaph are "regularly" transcribed by
Greek phi/theta/khi, Κεχαρ/Kekhar would suggest the Masoretic pattern was
already present at the time of the LXX translation.)

Apart from details of how Hebrew might logically be transcribed into Greek,
one must also deal with the fact that the pronunciations underlying the LXX
spelling on one hand and the MT on the other were different.  It might be that
the LXX underlying pronunciation simply represents an earlier stage than that
finally codified in the MT, or it might be that the two pronunciations
represent divergent traditions.  And, of course, there might be simple
mistakes made, both in the LXX and the MT.

-- 
Will Parsons