On Wednesday 17 March 2004 03:35, Peter Kirk wrote:I'm sure this has been done, but I am not aware of the details. I suspect that one of the main pieces of evidence against Erasmus' system is the regular LXX transliteration of Hebrew pe, tav and kaf (whether or not with dagesh) as Greek phi, theta and chi rather than pi, tau and kappa. It is highly unlikely that the Hebrew letters were always pronounced as fricatives; it is much more likely that the Greek letters were at that time pronounced as aspirated plosives. Latin transcriptions of Greek also give evidence for that, in that Greek phi became ph, not f, in Latin (and still in English though not in many European languages).
...
We know quite a lot about how Hebrew was pronounced at various times
from transliterations of names in the Septuagint, in the New Testament,
in Origen's Hexapla, in the Vulgate, etc etc. If you want to go back to
the pre-exilic period, we know some things from cuneiform and Egyptian
hieroglyphic transcriptions of names, although there may be some doubt
about their original pronunciation.
This may digress a bit, but I think it also might apply to the discussion, but as I recall, the Erasmian pronunciation that has been in use for New Testament Greek was based on the same sort of extrapolation, especially pronunciation of names that carried over into Latin. But the current wisdom tends to downgrade the value of Erasmus' system and declare those proper-name pronunciation extrapolations suspect at best. I wonder if the same is being said, or could be applied, to pronunciation of Hebrew using names in the LXX and elsewhere? Note that I'm not saying I agree with the critics of the Erasmian system, I'm just pointing out that some have called this method into question.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.