Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Schmuel <Schmuel AT escape.com>]

Hi b-hebrew,

Subjet was: Re: [b-hebrew] Re:morpho-syntax,was Proverbs 5:16 - a 
declarationor a question ?

Schmuel
>> One reason I will bypass Karl's suggestion is that I consider the 
>> Masoretic vowels as part of the 
>> Received Text, not arbitrary or  guesswork.

Karl,
>How many times do I need to repeat that I do not believe that the Masoritic 
>points were arbitrary or guesswork? Is the fact that I believe that they are 
>sometimes wrong sufficient to bring that charge?

Schmuel
Hi Karl, I wasn't trying to accuse you of a belief you don't have, (and I 
wasn't in
that recent thread) I was simply taking a logical argument to its extreme, 
to contrast two positions. So my apologies if that had the result of appearing
to greatly exaggerate your own position. 

Now, there is in fact a view that considers the vowel points as inspired and 
true and accurate,
and the pointed Masoretic Text as a "Received Text".  
(Yes, within this view there are some nuances as to what exactly is the 
Masoretic text,
 and what about verses that have majority/minority readings, and of course 
special 
 issues such as the Tetragrammaton).

Clearly those that have that view will bypass arguments that are based on 
obscurities
and alternate translations that are created only by the removal of the 
points.  That is 
simply common sense.   So certain scholarly discussions might go on two 
tracks, 
one that accepts the points, and another that allows or focuses on the 
variations when
the points are removed.  All I am saying is that the track that I am on is 
the one with 
the points :-)

btw, John Gill was one of the men who wrote in this issue, as well as some 
others
quite a bit later.  I believe Thomas Strouse has written on it recently. They 
offer particular
examples of the exactitude of the text being maintained, often focusing on NT 
understandings
of particular words, that are in harmony with our Masoretic Text.  

While I am not familiar with all the issues on either side, I will simply say 
that I have 
very strong gut and spiritual sympathies for the Received Text view, some of 
which 
comes from an underlying belief in Inspiration and Preservation of the 
Scripture text,
in harmony with Romans 3:2. 

Karl
>Once more for the record, I believe that the points reflect a tradition as 
>it existed at the time of the Masorites. There is more than one reason to 
>believe that that tradition had changed from the pronunciation used when 
>Tanakh was written. 

Schmuel
There are many theories here.  

One obvious aspect : There is a difference between saying that some 
pronunciations changed (Aussie English has different pronunciations than 
American English even on many words of identical spelling and meaning) and 
saying that the vowels are not accurate and reliable in representing the 
meanings of the words.  Let's be careful not to mix the two.

Karl
>Further, there are demonstrable places where the tradition had erred, which 
>is possible from orally transmitted tradition. 

Schmuel
Well, this would be a key question.  Where would I find an article with say 
three to five of the supposed clearest cases of where the Masoretic points 
had supposedly erred.  So far I have never seen such an article. And  I would 
love to analyze the two sides of this question in a general sense, while 
focusing on the best case examples.  And I do have some very strong Hebraist 
friends who hopefully will assist in technical analysis, in addition to the 
scholars on this forum.

Karl
>But nowhere is this “arbitrary or guesswork”. Nor is it “made up”.

Schmue
Again, my sincere apologies.  I run into that viewpoint often ("tampering" is 
the most common accusation)  from a variety of accusers of the Masoretic 
Text, including the Christian Identity crew, and 
some folks who consider the Septuagint the "true text" and the Masoretic Text 
a late and untrustworthy creation.  (Of course those folks generally knew 
diddles about the Great Isaiah Scroll, the DSS in general, the Targumim, the 
Latin Vulgate or the Aramaic Peshitta or the early Rabbinics)

Karl
>I prefer to read Tanakh without the points because I found that where the 
>points are right, they are just so much extra clutter, where they are wrongc 
>they are distracting.

Schmuel
Again, who has written a scholarly article "these Masoretic vowel-points are 
wrong" 
that I could study?  Not just an offhand flippant claim, but a reasonably 
rigorous study.

It is a discussion that I have really not found anywhere, and I will be very 
interested in 
what is out there.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/