Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dave Washburn wrote:



Dear Dave.


See my comments below:

>Rolf,
>> What I do know is that there is no orthographic difference between
>> WAYYIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs in unpointed texts. Apocopation is found in both
>> groups. Further do I know that Origen in the third century CE did not
>> differentiate between WEYIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs. He transscribed both the
>> WE- and WAYY- prefixes as OU.
>
>That should tell you something about his knowledge of Hebrew!  I
>know Origen seemed to know some, but it would appear from this
>that either his pronunciation was pretty poor (i.e. he didn't speak it
>at all) or he had an awful time figuring out how to render it in Greek.
>Either way, I have doubts about how far to trust Origen on this point.

Origen is normally viewed as a good witness regarding the vocalization of
the Hebrew text (Se Waltke/O'Connor 1.6.3). You presume there was a
difference in prununciation between Masoretic WA(Y)- and WE- in his days,
but how do you know? What kind of evidence do you have?



>
>> The first time the five "groups" YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL,WEYIQTOL, QATAL, and
>> WEQATAL are seen in writing, is in the Masoretic text. So it is legitimate
>> to ask: On which basis did the Masoretes do their pointing? I am in the
>> process of research, and appreciate all material that can throw light on
>> this question.
>
>You're reinventing the wheel.  It's been done many, many times.
>Every so often somebody comes along who questions the
>Masoretic pronunciation (e.g. Loprieno), but the ideas never catch
>on because, from all we know about them, the Masoretes simply
>passed on what they had received.  I believe you said yourself that
>they weren't grammarians, so the idea of them inventing this
>system is less than compelling.  Their concern was preservation,
>not invention.
>
>On a somewhat related note, and to put it rather bluntly, how much
>evidence would it take to convince you that they did in fact faithfully
>preserve the language as it was passed to them, especially wrt the
>wayyiqtol?
>

I do not claim anything regarding the Masoretes and their pointing. I am in
the middle of a situation of research, and am open for any data or
suggestions. I have a working hypothesis which says that there are probably
just two conjugations in Classical Hebrew and not four. But I am willing to
change this immediately if someone presents a good case against it. The
best, so far, is Henry's analysis. And I have asked him to clarify his
views as to alternative interpretations.

Regarding the Masoretes, we have about the same view. They were extremely
faithful copyists who would not dream of changing the text in any way. They
faithfully copied what they heard in the synagogue. When I speak of a
possible  invention in connection with them, I just point out that we, in
the Masoretic text, for the first time see the difference in vocalization
between WAYYIQTOL  and WEYIQTOL*.This difference is the basis for the
modern view that there are four conjugations. So the Masoretes invented
*the points* which later were used to justify a four-component model, but I
don't thing they had semantic motives. So I ask: This difference, ist it
phonological, is it pragmatic, or is it semantic? What really surprises me,
is that people who have strong convictions regarding the Hebrew
conjugations never have asked this questions. And not only that, it has
never occurred to them that such questions should to be asked. They are
just parroting their teachers and their grammars!

I am willing to accept any good scientific evidence. But so far, I am not
aware of any written evidence before the Masoretes started their work in
the 6th century CE, which shows a semantic difference between WAYYIQTOL and
WEYIQTOL. In order to  use the LXX, the Peshitta, the Targums and the
Vulgate as indirect witnesses, one first needs to work out the meaning of
each verbal system, and then compare them. While past, present, and future
reference in these versions generally correspond with the Hebrew text, this
does not prove that past,present, and future is *grammaticalized* in
Hebrew. My point is that we cannot just compare the time references, we
must make a quality analysis as well. A good place to start, is the
Samaritan Pentateuch, where a Hebrew YIQTOL often is rendered by a
Samaritan QATAL, and where the Samaritan Targum often returns to the
YIQTOL. Why not try to find a difference between WAYYIQTOL  and WAYYIQTOL
in the Samaritan versions?

Back to Masoretic pointing and *evidence*. What is your answer the
folloving question: When the Masoretes heard the text recited in the
synagogue, did they hear a difference in pronunciation when the
interrogative H and the article H were read? Why did the point the article
with patah (with following gemination, but the interrogative particle with
hateph patah (without gemination). Was the reason phonological, pragmatic,
or semantic? And why did they point the interrogative MH with patah (and
following gemination)?

I would also like to hear your answer to the questions I asked Randall
yesterday:

"On which basis do you conclude that there are four semantic groups (four
different conjugations)? If your basis is function, in which sense do the
three prefix-groups and the two suffix-groups differ in function? If your
basis is tense, does each of the four groups represent one particular
tense? If your basis is aspect, does each group represent one particular
aspect? If your basis is just the difference in pointing, why don't you
conclude there are five conjugations because there are five groups?"

It seems to me that many hebraists have never systematically analyzed the
basis of their own view that there are four conjugations, but the view is
rather haphazardly woven together by taking a little here and a little
there. Others may refrain from such an analysis because of convenience. If
one gives a clear analysis of one's basis, one has to defend it as well,
and this may prove difficult in view of all the different meanings of the
verbs.



Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo






* I have earlier given examples to the list from Manuscripts with
Palestinian pointing where WAYYIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs to a great extent have
been confused. So far, nobody has reacted.