Still, I disagree. I think a much more plausible hypothesis is that
The Greek LXX more accurately reflects the pronunciation in the time
of the time of the Greeks than the Tiberian pointing. In fact, I'm a
little surprised than anyone takes a rendition from -250 and from +850
and considers the later one more accurate.
In further support of the hypothesis that the LXX is more accurate, I
note that the Tiberian Masoretes were not the only Masoretes. The
Eretz Yisrael and Babylonian Masoretes also recorded pronunciations of
the Bible, but in a way inconsistent with the Tiberian Masoretes. Is
there any other linguistic endeavor in which we would arbitrarily
assign more accurace to a later transcription than to a concurrent
one?
tet as о└ tau - all irrespective of dagesh. The only exception in this
small list is the initial chi in the LXX form of Keturah, but this could
be influenced by a Greek phonological rule which tends to avoid
successive unaspirated plosives
It's true that Greek doesn't like words that start Ket-, but Kat- is
common, and all of Kit-, Kot- and Kut- are attested.
2. Double letters in the LXX do not match up with anything in TH. (A
particularly striking example comes from I Chronicles 24:13:
XuPah [TH; P=peh with dagesh] -- Oxxoffa [LXX]).
short vowels in word initial syllables have often changed from "a"
sounds to hiriq since the LXX translators' times, cf. LXX Samson and
Hebrew Shimshon - so this might explain the hiriq in Rivka (and in
Milcah and Bil`am), and some other vocalisation anomalies.
I think a better explanation here is that TH regularly recorded chiriq
between the first two of three consonants, not just RIVKA and MILCAH
(names), but also Piel (DIBBER), infinitives (LISHMOR) etc. This TH
rule didn't exist in the days of the LXX.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.