Dave: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Dave Washburn <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:02 AM, K Randolph <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Bryant: >> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Rev. Bryant J. Williams III < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear List, >>> >>> It appears that the pointing of the MT is what would be the issue since >>> the DSS does not have the pointing; also would the issue of Weak Verbs and >>> Liquid verbs be an issue for the "apparent" differences? >>> >>> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III >> >> >> Why stop at those? >> >> First of all, it’s pretty clear that the pointing of the MT reflects >> Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation, not Biblical Hebrew. >> >> >> I'm not sure this has been established. I'm not sure it *can* be > established. By “established” you mean proven? No, there’t too little evidence. But there are clues that point that direction. 1) Probability—what is the probability that the pronunciation had been kept pure over a thousand years after the last native speakers of the language died out and before the Masoretes invented the pointing system to record the vowels they used? 2) Greek transliterations—indicate there were pronunciation changes over time, especially when compared to MT pointing. 3) I saw a transcription from Nineveh of Hebrew names that indicate a different pronunciation. 4) Also Divided Kingdom period—the Amarna Letters gives clues that the pronunciations were different. 5) Within Hebrew itself—poetry especially seems to indicate that the pronunciation system was different than what was recorded by the pointings. No proof, but clues. > The consensus I've seen is that the Masoretes copied both the consonantal > text and the pronunciation as represented in the pointings, based on what > came to them. I don't know of many reputable scholars who believe they made > up the Tiberian system. As far as they knew, Tiberian pronunciation *was* > biblical Hebrew pronunciation. So this statement seems a little premature > to me. I know of no one who claims that the Masoretes invented the pronunciation that they recorded. In fact, I repeatedly argue against that claim. All they invented was a system to record the vowels that they used at that time. What would change the pronunciations? 1) the linguistic milieu—did Aramaic, the language used after the Babylonian Exile, have the same vowels as Biblical Hebrew? Most likely not. Yet many of these would be the vowels applied to the spelling after a few generations of no native speakers. 2) the linguistic milieu—when the grammar changed to Mishnaic Hebrew, did many of the individual words receive “corrections” over the centuries? “Corrections” recorded by the Masoretes? 3) time—people will not hear when they mishear and make changes, especially when there are no native speakers available to make corrections. So the end result of all mentioned above is that the probability is about nil that the pronunciation indicated by the points in the MT is the same as Biblical Hebrew pronunciation. > > > -- > Dave Washburn > > Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingszoo.com > > Now available: a novel about King Josiah! > > Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
