Dear John, Only a small part of the Hexapla with Greek transcriptions does exist. Genesis chapter 1 is not extant. An old, but still very good source discussing Origen's transcriptions is E. Brönno, "Studien über hebräische Morphologie und Vokalimus, Abhandlunder für die Kunde des Morgenlandes," XXVIII, 1943. Brønno lists 9 examples and A. Sperber, "Hebrew based upon Biblical passages in parallel transmission," Hebrew Union College Annual 1937/38:, pp. 153-279, list 16 examples of WAYYIQTOLs from the Psalms. None of these are geminated, whereas the article often causes gemination. It is also difficult to distinguish between shewa mobile and patah. Brönno's study shows regarding patah that 57% are rendered with a Greek a-sound, 33 by an e-sound, and 8% by zero. As for shewa mobile, 12% are rendered by an e-sound, 16% by an a-sound and 68% by zero. The WAY- and WE- of WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL are rendered by Origen as OU.
The following quote from Z. Ben-Hayyim, "A Grammar of Smaritan Herbrew," 2000, p. 171, shows that neither in the Samaritan Pentateuch is there any distinction between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL: "In their (the Samaritan) tradition, as in the second column of Origen's Hexapla, there was no morphological distinction between what we know as waw consecutive and waw conjunctive. Neither of them caused gemination of the following consonant in the imperfect, just as they did not cause gemination in the perfect." Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Onsdag 15. Mai 2013 08:44 CEST skrev John Leake <[email protected]>: > To continue: > > So in Qumran texts Gen 1's יהי אור ויהי אור is יהי אור ויהיה אור? Really? And > what is the Hexapla transcription of this verse? > > John Leake > > ---------------------------------- > ان صاحب حياة هانئة لا يدونها انما يحياها > He who has a comfortable life doesn't write about it - he lives it > ---------------------------------- > > On 15 May 2013, at 07:17, John Leake <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry, Rolf, I don't quite get this. Are you saying that there's no trace > > of shortened forms of verbs in the consonantal biblical texts of the DSS or > > that Qumran Hebrew didn't have these forms? (I'm having difficulty > > remembering this and don't have any books with me but thought defective > > verbs at least showed consonantal differences in the Masoritic text between > > waw-consecutive/waw+jussive and waw+imperfect). > > > > John Leake > > > > ---------------------------------- > > ان صاحب حياة هانئة لا يدونها انما يحياها > > He who has a comfortable life doesn't write about it - he lives it > > ---------------------------------- > > > > On 15 May 2013, at 06:52, "Rolf" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> Dear Jerry, > >> > >> I would like to add one point regarding the origin of WAYYIQTOL to the > >> post I sent yesterday. > >> > >> Ken correctly observes that there is no distinction between WATYYIQTOL and > >> WEYIQTOL in the DSS. The same is true in the Greek transcriptions of the > >> Hebrew text in Origen's Hexapla. Thus, the WAYYIQTOL form was not known > >> before the middle of the first millennium CE., when the Masoretes pointed > >> the Hebrew text. > >> > >> (Please note that the Palestinian pointings of WEYIQTOLs versus > >> WAYYIQTOLs are not always the same as in the MT. For example, in the > >> Palestinian manuscript J in Paul Kahle, "Masoreten des Westens Texte und > >> Untersuchungen zur Vormasoretischen Grammatik des Hebräischen," 1930, the > >> six WEYIQTOLs in Daniel 11:5 (1), 15(2), 16(2), 17(1) are pointed as > >> WAYYIQTOLs. > >> > >> So, what was the origin of the WAYYIQTOL form? The Masoretes pointed their > >> text on the basis of the recitation of the texts in the synagoges—on the > >> basis of accentuation (stress) and tone. The difference between WEYIQTOL > >> and WAYYIQTOL is basically one of accentuation. It is natural to put the > >> stress differently in narrative texts compared with poetry and prophetic > >> texts. Very little Hebrew grammar was known in the days of the > >> Masoretes—it seems that they did not even know the three-radical nature of > >> Hebrew words. So, the pointing of the Masoretes was based on > >> pragmatics—the recitation in the synagogues and not om semantics—a > >> grammatical distinction between different forms. But in the Middle Ages, > >> the pragmatic pointing of the Masoretes were given a semantic > >> interpretation (cf. Kimhi), and the view of the WAYYIQTOL as an > >> independent grammatical form was born. > >> > >> When semantic meaning and conversational pragmatic implicature are not > >> distinguished, the result is confusion. Does anyone know of a single > >> grammatical study in any of the ancient Semitic languages, except my > >> dissertation, where this distinction is systematically made? > >> > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> > >> Rolf Furuli > >> Stavern > >> Norway > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> b-hebrew mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > _______________________________________________ > > b-hebrew mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
