Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>]

Dear Yitzhak,

Considering the analysis of Cross and Friedman (since I have no means of
accessing their work) is it possible to determine which parts of the Tanakh is
pre-exilic or post-exilic? Or should I say Pre-Monarchal, United Monarchal,
Divided Monarchal, then Exilic and Post-Exilic?

I only ask these questions since they can help(?) us see the flow of the
language from the beginning (whenever that was) to the Intertestamental Period
to Qumran to Massorettes.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 05:54 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] History of matres lectionis


> The original thread has been declared off limits on this list.  The thread
> had essentially had two sub-threads under the same heading.  With
> Peter, some approach on my and his side could be seen through the
> discussion, and I think overall it has been informative as well as cordial
> and has lead me to research more into the subject, which is for me
> always a good thing.  If the moderators feel that continuing this
> discussion is best done off list I will do so and post the results in an
> offlist website for those interested to see.  However, given that both
> other participants to the discussion posted their comments to the list
> afterwards, and that the problematic sub-thread was probably not the
> one with Peter, I am posting this to the list.
>
> Hello Peter,
>
> You wrote: "there is no way of telling from inscriptional Hebrew which
> final he's are pronounced and which are silent."  Now that is an
> interesting statement.  Why would you insist that we have no way of
> telling only which final he's are pronounced?  What about medial
> he's?  How do we know that they are pronounced?  We may ask
> the same of any letter and dispute the transliteration into Greek as a
> different dialect than the primary one.  How do we know if final n's
> are silent or pronounced, for example?  In my opinion, unless it is
> possible to show that a particular final he must have been silent,
> there is no reason to believe otherwise.  This doesn't just apply
> to pre-exilic times.  It applies to post-exilic times as well.  It applies
> to the spelling of the Torah and to the rest of the Bible.  It applies to
> Qumran.  But each of these must be tested within their own spelling
> convention.  It goes for any letter, not just final he, of course.
>
> This is why the issue of determining a use of the final he as a vowel
> that cannot be explained as consonantal is important.  Simply relying
> on what scholars all "know" is not sufficient.  In general, the standard
> work on the subject appears to be Cross and Friedman's "Early Hebrew
> Orthography."  This work is divided into four main chapters each on
> Phoenician (EPO), Aramaic (EAO), Moabite (EMO), and Hebrew (EHO)
> orthographies.  Now for a few quotes:
>
> EPO: )nk = Heb. )anoki. ["I"]
> EMO: )nk = )anoki. ["I"]
> EPO: bt )by - Read Probably: "bet )abiya". ["house of my father"]
> EMO: )by = ")abi". ["my father"]
> EHO: $lxk - "$olxak" ["thy sending"]
> EHO: hyt - "hayat" ["was"]
> EHO: (t - "(at" ["now"], a colloquial form, corresponding to the longer
literary
> word, (attah.  There can be no doubt that the final accented a would have 
> been
> indicated in the orthography as it is regularly after the 10th century in 
> all
> Hebrew inscriptions.  In this case, as in a number of others, the evidence
> indicates that the long and short forms of the same word existed side by 
> side,
> the long forms being displaced in common speech and surviving only in 
> literary
> works.  In the past many scholars (including the Massoretes) have 
> generalized
> a particular vocalization, artificially forcing the common speech and the
> elevated language into the same linguistic mold, and incidentally playing
> havoc with recognized orthographic principles.  It is noteworthy that (t =
(atta
> has been preserved in the text of the Old Testament, Ezek. 23:43 and Psa 
> 74:6.
> EHO: )y$ - ")i$" ["man"] If the reading and the interpretation are
> correct then the
> yodh is a true internal m.l. ... Under the circumstances, it cannot be
> determined
> whether or not this word actually is )i$, "man".
>
> (From the respective conclusions:)
> EPO: The preceding analysis is sufficient to show that the Phoenician
> orthography
> of the 10th-9th centuries followed rigorously consonantal principles.  No
forms
> occur in which it is necessary or probable to suppose the presence of
> m.l. in the
> final position, much less medially.
> EAO: These facts necessitate a new view of the origin and development of the
> use of final m.l.  To regard their development as the spontaneous outgrowth 
> of
> historical spelling must be discarded at least in part.  There is
> small chance that
> historical spelling had so completely encrusted Aramaic writing in the short
> period between the borrowing of the alphabet and our earliest Aramaic
> inscriptions. ... It is simpler to assume that an occasional historical
spelling
> (e.g., the dropping of the final a of the first person pronominal
> suffix, *iya > i)
> suggested the principle of final vowel representation.   ... he for
> final a (perhaps
> suggested by consonantal he following a in the feminine singular suffix, or
some
> similar form).
> EHO: The epigraphic evidence for Hebrew orthography indicates that before 
> the
> 9th century, Hebrew was written in a purely consonantal script.  In
> agreement with
> Phoenician principles of spelling, final vowels were not indicated in
> the orthography.
> ... Some time after the 10th century ... a system of final m.l. were
> introduced and
> from that time on, all final vowels were indicated in the orthography.
>
> ---
>
> The above indicates some of the curiousities of the work.  The word (atta
"now"
> is seen by Cross and Friedman to have no final vowel because there is no
> final he in the pre-exilic spelling.  They assert this on the basis
> that final vowels
> were always written in the Hebrew orthography.  But this example forms one 
> of
> many others that are supposed to lead to the conclusion whether or not final
> vowels were used.  The same can be said for the relatively similar examples
> in Phoenician and Moabite ")nk" and "aby".  They even recognize the original
> consonantal force of the he in feminine singular words.  Yet they assert (in
the
> discussion of "now") that final a must have always been written down.
>
> That the -ah of the feminine suffix had originally consonantal force may be
seen
> from the following posts at sci.lang:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/browse_frm/thread/80dff4f8cf5d1c53/
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/browse_frm/thread/971da5160ced6d68/
>
> Overall, though, they outline that /h/ was pronounced in final position
> in some Arabic dialects.  The comment on the 98th sura is interesting but it
> is apparently written by someone just learning the Quran.  Perhaps this is
> the old classical rhyme that Gursey mentions on the other thread.  I'm not
> sure who Gursey is, but he is a regular poster on sci.lang and has posted
> on other places such as the linguist list.
>
> Similarly, the -h directional suffix is probably consonantal in
> Ugaritic as there
> are only very rare cases of possible "m.l."'s in Ugaritic.  It is also
> seen to be
> related to the Akkadian -i$ suffix and had originally in PS been pronounced
> *-isa.  In private mail, I have written to you that the PS form of
> "his king" would
> have been "malkuhu."  It appears, now that I have read the article on 
> Semitic
> in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages (2004), that
> the current reconstruction is "malkusu(:)", whereby prevocalic *s < h in
Common
> Semitic but preconditioned by the verbal root structure such that it
> was not lost
> as a root letter in verbs if it could be conjugated as unvocalized.
>
> The third person pronouns have been analyzed already quite clearly.
>
> There are some very few examples which remain:
>
> zh - this.  It is hard to suppose here anything but a vowel after the z.
> ph - here. This word is spelled in Ugaritic as a "p".  However, it is
> hard to make
> conclusions because this word is almost unknown elsewhere so it is not clear
> what it's etymology is.  This appears in a grave curse that also
> includes the word
> ")rwr" - "cursed", with a medial -w- that is likely m.l.
> kh - such. This word probably had originally a long -a sound as in Aramaic
> and Akkadian ka(h).  It is however similarly unclear whether the -h
> was originally
> consonantal because the etymology is unclear.  This appears in the Balaam
> inscription.
> &wkh - placename, "Socoh."  This placename appears in the Shoshenq list
> which may be of help in resolving this issue as well as a "lmlk" stamp.
>
> As for names like Yedidyah, or Shlomoh, you are assuming that the
> Biblical spelling in certain cases preserves the pre-exilic spelling.  Well,
> that is true, and we know that because of pre-exilic texts with which we
> can compare.  But then, you assume that in other cases not directly
> related to cases with which we can compare, the Biblical spelling also
> preserves the pre-exilic spelling, and that you can tell when the Bible
> does or does not preserve the pre-exilic spelling in those cases
> without pre-exilic evidence with which to compare.  That is something
> that remains unproven.
>
> Similarly, in the case of lamed he verbs you assume that a Massoretic
> m.l. -y- ("baniyti") is originally consonantal but a Massoretic m.l. -h
> ("yibneh") is not.
>
> And if you want to doubt m.l. before the 9th century, well then, you are
> now disputing Cross and Friedman's analysis which is essentially what
> you said all scholars "know" except me.  There is nothing wrong of
> course with questioning,and demanding answers.  Other scholars have,
> and mostly until now I have read some of their criticisms before I now
> read some of Cross and Friedman's work.  However, given the relatively
> consonantal aspect of the script, I think the question you should be
> asking is when is a letter not consonantal, rather than when is a letter
> consonantal.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of
Com-Pair Services!
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/267 - Release Date: 02/22/2006
>


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of 
Com-Pair Services!