Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Matres Lectionis and critical analysis

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Bekins <pbekins AT fuse.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Matres Lectionis and critical analysis
  • Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:16:25 -0400

Karl,

>>Not only do we not have that many inscriptions,
>>but there is also the question if monumental texts,
>>i.e. those that would be inscribed on stone, would
>>follow the same orthographic rules as those written on
>>ostraca or on parchment? Also would monumental texts
>>tend to resist change more, i.e. deliberately contain
>>more archaicisms?

I almost brought this up, but decided not to complicate my argument. However, it does relate to the issue of stammbaum vs wave theory. Very often formal written dialects begin to distinguish themselves from contemporary speech by maintaining the older rules of phonology/ orthography while speech dialects are slowly changing. In my opinion, it is usually not the case that the writers are deliberately trying to "archaize" (unless they are really reaching back into history to create an artificially old looking document) but that these older forms are maintained as the standards of the literary dialect as they fall out of use in everyday speech. These older forms can also enter back into the speech dialect for use in higher registers of politeness, etc. So even within the same speech community you have tension between higher/lower dialects which complicates the issue more. The same types of processes affect both epigraphy in the shapes of letters used and orthography. The Phoenicians rigorously maintained pure consonantalism long after vowel letters had been introduced in the other scripts, it seems to me that this was a deliberate decision because they felt pure consonantalism was more formal.

>>...However, some words were always written certain ways,
>>e.g. )LHYM always includes the yod, the same with )Y$...

Barr and Anderson-Forbes both include lists of words with standardized spelling. I would also add that certain morphemes are always spelled plene such as the masculine plural noun marker -YM. So there was a certain amount of standardization. But for most words that could possibly have a mater (or two) in a medial position there is no discernible "system".

>>While the DSS are physically older, do they really represent
>>an older text than the MT?...

This is not my area, so I really can't comment, though it is a fair question and again relates to the issue of linear development vs cycles of diversity and unification. A text may be older chronologically, but may also be farther from the influence of the main text tradition so that it does not necessarily represent the parent text.

Thus, the heart of my position is that I would be interested in seeing exactly how much ambiguity is introduced by pulling off matres and removing the word division (my instinct is not much), but to create such a pure consonantal text from the Aleppo or Leningrad Codex is in no way a re-creation of the proto-text, which I think was your point as well.

Peter Bekins







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page