Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> Most of what we know of the consonantal text was preserved by the
Masoretes, but in this they merely passed on what existed before, making the
consonental text pre-Masorete. This is the text with which I am most
familiar.

Unvowelized text is not a "text" in any regular sense. Anything one wishes
could be read into it.

> It is demonstrable that sometines the Masoretic pointing is wrong when
compared against the meaning and context.

a matter of ideological preferences. bemotaw in Is53 seem wrong to some,
while perfectly legible to me

> the Masoretic pointing not as authoratitive in an analysis of the text as
the consonants.

This is meaningless. The MT is a sub-class of consonantal Tanakh. A
sub-class cannot be less authoritative than its class.

> Because I use primarily the unpointed text, my understanding may be
considered "pre-Masorete".

Your using of unpointed text is self-deception. When one reads shorthand
writing, he still subconsciously expands it into normal words. Similarly
with unpointed; you don't read, brsht, but bereshit.

> I find it hard to accept the concept that Hebrew was heard only while
davening during the Masoretic period: wasn't there anyone who spoke Hebrew,
albeit only as a "scholarly" language (in the same manner as Latin)?

No, there was not. The contemporary documents are in Aramaic.
But this is irrelevant. If if the Hebrew were a spoken language at the time
of the Masoretes, they were unconcerned with it. The MT they prepared is not
a grammar (why would they leave many words with odd grammar otherwise,
marking them as odd?). It is a liturgical guide, textbook for singing--as
evidenced by cantillation marks and dagesh kal.

Vadim Cherny