Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com>]

George,

Is this not a false dilemma? Why do we have to say "either DSS
demonstrates that it's the old consonantal tradition or the Massoretes
adjusted the consonants of the text"? I think the Massoretes could
easily have adjusted the reading through emendation of the vocalic
structure, but that would still required some kind of justification.
There doesn't seem to be a justification for the "anomaly," as it's
been called. If they had wanted to change it, they would simply have
added kubuts, wouldn't you think?, yet even that wouldn't make sense.
I think it would *have to* come from the consonantal tradition. It
seems like since there was no other explanation for having Y$PW+W they
just added the shuruk to justify the placement of the additional vav.
They maintained the accent on the final syllable, though.

I'd also like to know of any possible difference the DSS might
introduce, but I don't think the choice is between consonantal
faithfulness on the part of the DSS and Massoretic consonant
distortion.

Regards,
Jason Hare

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:50 AM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au> 
wrote:
> It would be interesting to compare the textual evidence from Qumran. Does 
> someone have access to the Hebrew texts? This could tell us whether the 
> apparent 'pausal' form is part of an old consonantal text tradition, or a 
> later Masoretic emendation.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au