I think we're all going to be turkey persons in about a week, now!
That would have been fascinating to see, Iriving. I've seen eagles and hawks hunt, mostly in the Sierras when I lived out there, but I've never seen one actually make a kill, not in real life, I mean. I've seen 'em make kills on television, but never in real life. But just watching them hunt and patrol the skies really is truly amazing. The majesty and regal bearing really isn't possible to convey unless you yourself are sitting at abount nine or ten thousand feet elevation and suddenly you watch them come from afar and go swooping across the sky.
Agreed Scott. It was fascinating. It was like Mutual of Omaha's 'Wild Kingdom' was being filmed in my front yard (I guess I'm really dating myself with that TV reference, huh?).
The character Vav is pronounced as /w/ in Yemenite Hebrew, so there is a "legitimate" form of Hebrew that does so. The general consesus (although there are those who disagree) is that in Hebrew, like other NW Semitic Languages, Vav was pronounced as /w/. An example that indicates such is the reduction of the diphthong seen in epigraphic Hebrew. e.g. Biblical Hebrew mot (mem-vav-tav) is, before the development of medial matres lectionis, mawt*. The LXX at times supports that some dialects of Hebrew used a softer sound as well.
This is a distiction based on ancient pronunciations verses modern pronunciations. Scholars can reconstruct ancient pronunciations by looking at ancient transliterations of a word. In the case of the vav, ancient transliterations of its consonantal form usually reflect a "w" sound or occasionally a "z" sound. Most often transliterations are found by looking at people or place names. One such example for the vav can be found in numbers 31:8, in the name Evi. The Greek LXX transliteration of this name has a strong "w" sound from the diphthong used in transliteration.
Originally Posted by Adelphos
I am not sure exactly when the consonantal sound changed but it was being transliterated with a "v" sound by the 11th century AD. Influences of Yiddish, as some have suggested, might be possible but I think it would be unlikely because Yiddish did not originate until the 10th century AD. I think it would be unlikely that Yiddish would have such wide influences that quickly.
Note: My Hebrew teacher, who was both Israeli and Jewish, was well aware of this issue. This is not, as someone suggested, something only found in Evangelical scholarship. However, it is more prevalent in Evangelical schools because they often teach biblical pronunciations rather than modern pronunciations; this is something I have always thought was foolish because the modern pronunciations are so similar and do not affect the meaning of the words at all.
Last edited by benelchi; 11-26-2011 at 03:35 PM.
I am well aware of the attempts to reconstruct the Hebrew, both textually and with regard to pronunciation, from the LXX, but doing that is foolish and an exercise in futility. I've explored that portion of the argument thoroughly, and though I have no intention of getting into it, the LXX can no more tell us about the Hebrew text than it can tell us about rocks on Mars.
In fact, I have already demonstrated from Matthew 1:1 -- the first verse in the NT -- that the LXX is corrupt throuogh and through, that the Traditional Text followed the earlier pronouncition of the vav as a "V" in its spelling of the name David, and that that is only one instance of a gazillion instances that can be brought forward to show that the Traditional Hebrew Text of the OT and the Traditional Text of the NT is far older and superior to the LXX and the Critical Text.
But I pass on further elaboration. Nobody who hasn't already seen it will be persuaded by anything I could say here.
I don't know how Mt. 1:1 supports in any way that the vav was pronounced as a 'v' in antiquity. The spelling of David (Δαυιδ) in Mat. 1:1 is identical to the spelling of David in the LXX and the spelling has the same diphthong'ed "w" sound one would expect in antiquity. Additionally, this is not an argument made only by evaluating the transliterations of the LXX but by looking at the transliterations in a number of different languages. I would be curious to see what evidence there was for a "v" pronunciation in antiquity. Especially in 2nd century BC or earlier literature. I would also be interested to see any scholarly support for such a pronunciation.
Originally Posted by Adelphos
As I said, I'm not going to get into it, but I will give you this hint...
As anyone who can pronounce Greek properly and who can actually speak Greek knows, the second letter of the Greek alphabet is pronounced as a "Veeta", not a "Beta". It has ALWAYS been pronounced VEETA.
If you'll notice, the Traditional Text of the NT spells the name of David correctly because the scribes of the Traditional Text knew Greek, unlike the scribes of the LXX and the Critical Text, who demonstrabley knew no more Greeek than an educated walnut. That's why the Greek in the Critical Text in B, Aleph, et al, is so corrupt that no Greek schoolboy could tolerate it.
That is as deep as I'm goiing to go here. I may write a paper on it and post it on my website, but I've already demonstrated the rapt ignorance of Greek by the scribes of the LXX, i.e., B, Aleph, et al. And yes, I am aware that there are numerous other manuscripts of the LXX than just B and Aleph.
While unrelated to the phonetic reconstruction of ancient Hebrew. You mentioned in your post the idea that reconstructing the Hebrew text from the LXX is "foolish" and while I believe that our prefrence should generally lie with the Hebrew text, looking to the LXX as well as other textual traditions can be invaluable to understanding the Hebrew text. Additionally, many of the "embelishments" of the LXX have shown to have an origin in an alternate Hebrew text (samples of which were found amoung the DSS).
Originally Posted by Adelphos
Sometimes ambiguities in the Hebrew text can be illuminated by looking at translations in other languages (like the LXX). For example, the LXX and some Hebrew manuscripts of Ho. 7:14 suggest a root of גדד instead of the MT גור; the prior is more likely original. The MT likely demonstrates a transcription error where the ד was incorrectly read as a ר.
First, I don't think that anyone disputes the existence of a soft pronunciation of the Beta; although it is suspected that both hard and soft pronunciations existed in Biblical Greek, grammar and context determining which was employed.
Originally Posted by Adelphos
Second, the spelling with the Beta is by far the minority spelling. Spellings in most NT manuscripts and in the writings of the Greek Fathers are almost unanimous in their pronunciation using diphthongs that sound much closer to a "w" and the Beta spellings that I am aware of emerge in only a few manuscripts from about the 5th century on, the early manuscripts still contain the diphthong spelling. I really can't imagine how all of these different sources could be attributed to the author not knowing Greek???? The strongest argument for spelling with the Beta is probably found in Josephus work and because of the case endings employed in his work, it likely represents an original spelling; however, even his work is late first century. Again, the question would be be "What early Greek (i.e. 2nd century or earlier) or other language document shows a "v" transliteration rather than a "w" transliteration? And how do you explain transliterations into other languages like Sumerian, Persian, Egyptian, etc... that also indicate a "w" like pronunciation?
Last edited by benelchi; 11-28-2011 at 01:52 PM.
As I told you, I'm not going to expound it here. And you also keep missing the point. If you think the scribes of B, Aleph, et. al. knew Greek, then that simply means you don't.
Read Aleph and B straight through. In fact, just read the first chapter of John in B and Aleph. If you still think that the scribes of B and Aleph knew Greek, then, as I said, you yousrself don't have the first clue about Greek. Not the first clue.
You can go here for just a short example --
If that link doesn't take you directly the portion in the article that is intended, just search on "shakes out" and then read the following short demo.
The entire text of B and Aleph is INUNDATED with this kind of textual absurdity THROUGHOUT the NT. This is why the cobbled-together Critical Text in the NT was FORCED to rely on the Traditional Text/Textus Receptus THROUGHOUT the NT COUNTLESS TIMES, because the scribes of B, Aleph et. al. were so ignorant of Greek that they made pure spaghetti out the text THROUGHOUT the NT.
As I said, after actually reading B, Aleph, et. al., if you still think that the scribes of B and Aleph knew Greek, then you yourself need to learn Greek.
You can also go here for a different category of blunders in B and Aleph, which are HABITUAL throughout both manuscripts --
Once there, search on "what can be said of manuscripts " and just read that paragraph.
The above are only two examples out of REAMS UPON REAM UPON REAMS of examples of the depraved character of these two witnesses.
Last edited by Adelphos; 11-28-2011 at 02:49 PM.