kwrandolph at gmail.com
Wed Apr 9 23:17:46 EDT 2008
First of all, when I read Tanakh, at least for the last few times I read it
through, I read it without the Masoretic points. There are a few reasons for
it: I read using a font derived from pre-Exile Hebrew writing, and the
points don't fit in it (I don't know when I deviate from their points); when
reading with the dots, I came across too many (I didn't bother to count)
instances where changing the points changed a difficult to understand
passage to a simple, easily read one; I think the Masoretes were more
interested in preserving the sounds that had come to them from their
tradition than in having the text make sense, i.e. preserving tradition was
more important than understanding it; and I don't think they were as
mechanically rigorous in their parts of speech as are modern day
Having said that, I have noticed that almost every time there is a dispute
as to the meaning of a verse, changing the Masoretic points of a word or two
is enough to clear up the dispute. Almost every time. And here is a verse
with a dispute.
Karl W. Randolph.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:38 PM, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com>
> Hi Karl,
> Personally, I am reluctant to dismiss Masoretic pointing unless a
> motivated reason can be articulated more sound than simply that "it
> reads better". That is, for a repointing or emendation to carry weight
> it needs to (a) provide some explanation of the text as it stands since
> presumably the text was reasonably coherent to the Masoretes; and (b)
> provide some explanation for how the text came to deviate from the
> original reconstructed reading.
> So currently we have been treating the first issue -- the text as it
> currently stands. You propose a reconstructed text but need to give some
> outline as to how this was altered from a noun to a verb.
> David Kummerow.
> > Thanks, you all, interesting responses.
> > First of all, Noah does not come from the root NXM, rather the two are
> > to be
> > taken together as part of a story. Not all the names where the reason
> > the name is the same as the etymology of the words used in the reason.
> > In Job 42:6, is NXM a verb, or a noun NXMH with the first person
> > possessive suffix? Does it not read better as the latter? "For this
> > reason I
> > am rejected and my consolation is upon dust and ashes."
> > I'm beginning to wonder if this verb is similar to parakaleo in Greek,
> > where
> > the "calling to one's side" is often used for the derivative purposes of
> > consoling, upbraiding, instructing, encouraging, etc. and the best way
> > translate it is not for the primary action of calling aside, rather the
> > derivative meanings? So here the primary meaning refers to the action of
> > turning back, with the derivative understandings of turning back from
> > mourning (consolation), turning back from an action (repent), turning
> > from approval (regret), and so forth?
> > Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew