Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

Thank you for your comments, and for your endorsement of the pointing of
Deuteronomy, probably a stronger one than I would give it.

I agree with you that the work of the Masoretes is "post-canonical". But
that does not make the pronunciation which their works witnesses to
"post-canonical". You seem to be taking their work as invention rather than
writing down what they heard, if I don't misunderstand you. The
pronunciation is rather the product of that canonical process, if that is
the right way to put it, though it may have been corrupted in transmission.

I haven't looked at the specific verse in detail. But it seems that the MT
we have is apparently a grammatical error. It is most unlikely that a
process of oral transmission, by those who understand the text, would have
resulted in a form perceived as a grammatical error. It is far more likely
that such an error would be assimilated to the expected form. I would
suggest that the form found in Deut. is actually the original one, which has
been correctly preserved, and the grammar only appears anomalous because of
our limited knowledge, and perhaps because other similar occurrences have
been assimilated. Perhaps at an earlier stage the infinitive construct could
be used instead of the infinitive absolute, with the same meaning or a
subtle distinction. So don't emend the text too quickly even here.

Peter Kirk


-----Original Message-----
From: Reginald Wallace Ponder, Jr. [mailto:rwponder AT lycos.com]
Sent: 01 October 2000 06:55
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: RE: Deut. 4:26: Pointing and canonical authority


>Dear Peter,
     Thanks for commenting.  I have indicated my responses by my initials,
"RWP"

You wrote:

 Dear Reggie and Ben,
>
> You two may agree that "no canonical authority is invested in the
pointing",
> but I'm not sure that I agree with you, although I share at least with Ben
> an evangelical Christian approach.

I would describe my approach as "evangelical Christian," as well.  We can
clarify this further in a separate thread or off-list, if you wish.  --
RWP

 Of course the question of canonical
> authority is a very delicate one. But evangelicals usually consider the
> canonical text to be that "as originally given". It's hard to define that
> properly for the Hebrew Bible.

I would say that "hard to define" is exactly the point here. -- RWP

 But the pointing, although it was not written
> down at first, is very probably derived from an unbroken tradition of
> pronunciation going back to the authors. (It was certainly not "added by
the
> Masoretes" in the sense that they invented it, they just wrote down what
> they heard.)

It certainly is my belief that the Masoretic pointing has a degree of
authority for interpreters working with the text today.  This was why I
responded to Ben with my clarification about the nature of the Masoretic
pointing.  Although he may not have intended it, his suggestion that "the
pointing is fair game" for emendation expressed a viewpoint different than
what I wanted to associate myself with.  But his notion that "no canonical
authority is invested in the pointing" seems to me true in the sense that,
insofar as canonicity is understood as an historical process, the
Masoretic work is "post-canonical."
-- RWP

 Therefore the pointing is a witness to the meaning intended by
> the authors, and to this extent it surely has canonical authority, perhaps
> even as much as the consonantal text.

The pointing is indeed  "a witness to the meaning intended by the
authors," and thus has real relevance to our interpretive work today, but
as I noted in the previous section, it is "post-canonical" as far as I can
see. -- R.W.P.

 We are certainly not free to supply
> whatever pointing we wish and consider that the word of God.

Indeed.  In fact, if I took such a cavalier approach to the text I'm not
sure I would bother reading the Bible at all.  In the case of an anomaly
such as Deut. 4:26, however, there clearly is something unusual going on,
and at the level either of morphology, syntax, vocalization or even the
consonantal text as we now have it, something different than our typical
thinking seems to be called for.  I prefer to work at the level of
morphology and syntax.  Frankly, I still am working on an understanding of
this verse while acknowledging that Gesenius' explanation (cited in my
original post)is probably correct at least in most points.
     A word about my actual practice in dealing with the text may clarify
my position on the authority of the pointing.  I am writing a book on
Deuteronomy based on my sermons and Bible studies over the past several
years.  In the entire book of Deuteronomy, 4:26 is the only verse where I
even am *considering* an alternate pointing -- and in this case I still,
as I have said, am not clear about exactly what is going on in this verse
(though I have my ideas).
    I would never propose an alternate pointing without a
grammatical/contextual reason to question the Masoretic pointing.  In
Deut. 4:26 it seems we are dealing with a grammatical anomaly, which may
be explained in any number of ways.    -- RWP
>
> There is of course a separate issue of the reliability of transmission.
Very
> probably the consonantal text has been transmitted to us more reliably
than
> the other aspects of the pronunciation tradition, as now witnessed in the
> pointing. So for this reason we are justified in emending the pointing
more
> freely than the consonantal text. But this is not a matter of difference
in
> authority or of any kind of faith, it is a (supposedly) scientific matter
of
> textual criticism. Well, that's my opinion, at least.
>
> Peter Kirk

Thanks for your opinion.  I hope my responses have clarified these matters
and not muddied the waters further.  Shalom -- RWP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reginald Wallace Ponder, Jr. [mailto:rwponder AT lycos.com]
> Sent: 29 September 2000 23:57
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: Deut. 4:26
>
>
>    Dear Ben -- Thanks for your reply.  It has been helpful in solidifying
> my thoughts on Deut. 4:26.  I have responded specifically to some of your
> observations below.
>
> You wrote:
>
> >  Dear Reggie,
> >
> >  No doubt the b-hebrew gurus will answer you in full. My "take" is that
> only
> >  the Consonantal Text is "given" (the KeTiB), and that the pointing is
> added
> >  by the Massoretes to facilitate our construing of the text. So no
> canonical
> >  authority is invested in the pointing, ISTM.
>
>    I agree that no canonical authority is invested in the pointing, though
> it does represent the work of some of the best scholars in a community
> that had been using the texts liturgically for centuries.  In other words,
> it represents in most cases the consensus of Synagogue practice in that
> day.  This certainly is not infallible, but it seems basically reliable to
> me, with a few exceptions.
>                                             --RWP
>
> <snip>

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Peter_Kirk AT sil.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.