[b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL) -- CORRECTION
kwrandolph at email.com
Mon Mar 15 02:13:44 EST 2004
This was a question that I never expected
to ask. I had been taught in class that the
Masoritic points preserved the original
pronunciation. I didnt question my prof,
not even years later.
But if Rolf is correct, even some of the
pronunciations that we thought we knew from
the Masoretes are wrong.
When I learned the pre-exilic Hebrew font
face and noticed that the glyphs were very
similar to Greek, my reaction was, do you
suppose? . . . Nah.
Then I noticed in Nehemiah that apparently
the samech had the x or ks sound, that
in Ezra apparently Aramaic did not have
that sound, that in the New Testament I
came across a few places where I found a
t or a p where I expected to find a
theta or f according to Masoritic
pronunciations, and so forth, I cant help
Right now I have another question: is it
possible that Biblical Hebrew pronunciation
originally consisted of each consonant
being followed by a vowel? So that a house
would have been a beta, a door a
deleta, a palm of a hand a kapa and so
forth? I havent the vaguest idea how to
demonstrate this idea, just that as I try
to read the unpointed text out loud, the
intuitive impression I get is thats the
way it feels it should be spoken.
There are two things that need to be kept
in mind in these questions: 1) with very
rare exceptions, they make no difference
semantically, i.e. they wont affect
translations and 2) there is no definitive
way either to prove or to disprove these
questions (that I know of), so it just
makes them interesting speculation.
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: Polycarp66 at aol.com
> In a message dated 3/14/2004 10:21:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Polycarp66 at aol.com writes:
> I'm afraid you lost me here. If the tradition which the Masoretes recorded
> predated them and that's all we have that goes back even that far, how can
> know that the traditions don't reflect the original pronunciation? We can
> obviously know nothing regarding the original pronunciation unless it is for
> items as were virtually transliterated into the Greek of the LXX. Are you
> privy to some special revelation concerning this?
> I should have said "We can obviously know nothing regarding A MORE ORIGINAL
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
More information about the b-hebrew