Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "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.

For that matter, you can act like Humpty Dumpty in "Alice through the Looking 
Glass" and read anything into the pointed text as well. In fact, that is one 
of my complaints against Gesenius and his followers, is that they at times 
did exactly that.

Your two examples below, "bemotaw" and "brsht" you don't even have the 
consonental text correct.

> > 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.
> 
The MT is a superset of the consonental text, in that it adds the points 
which did not exist before. It is that addition that I do not consider 
authoritive.

> > 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.

How do you know? They didn't even speak Hebrew when quoting the text in 
discussions? Do you see why I have difficulty accepting your theory?

> The contemporary documents are in Aramaic.

So? How does that preclude scholars learning to speak Hebrew, if they so 
wanted?

> 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

I agree with Peter that this pronunciation reflects a spoken pronunciation as 
well. Or is your theory that some of what we consider pronunciation points 
were really unrecognized cantillation points?

If one is careful in reading in context and careful with his lexicography 
(not trying to make the words translate smoothly into another language) there 
are only rare verses that don't make sense, or have possible multiple 
meanings, when one reads the unpointed text. In fact, I find more problems 
with reading the pointed text. I think that about 90% of the ketib/qere 
instances are caused by faulty pointing somewhere in the context.

Come to think of it, you are arguing that the pronunciations at the time of 
the Masoretes was different than during Biblical times. If your argument is 
true, that would make the points of little value for the determination of 
meaning.

Finally, modern Israeli Hebrew is written without points, yet how many 
sentences can be read in multiple ways? Any? The same is true of Biblical 
Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm