Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:20 PM, K Randolph wrote:

> I find this interesting, in that in other discussions you have insisted on
> following even the Masoretic points as being Biblical Hebrew, where I
> questioned them. I am far more loath on changing the consonantal text than
> were the Masoretes, as where we find most Kethiv/Qere pairs, I prefer the
> Kethiv.

No, this is a misrepresentation of my position.  "Biblical Hebrew" in terms of
a language that in spoken form closely resembles the consonantal text of
the Bible was spoken only during the 7th century BCE.  Prior to that, there
was a much more archaic form of Hebrew.  Later than that, there was a
more developed form of Hebrew.  So after the 7th century BCE, I think that
the spoken form diverged considerably over time from written Hebrew.  This
includes also, all the Bible, because the Bible, with its system of
orthography, particularly the matres lectionis, represents a later system
than was in use even at the very end of the 7th century BCE.  So, the
Biblical consonantal text actually represents a reading tradition a few
centuries later than the 7th century BCE.  The vocalization and the
cantillation represent more developed forms of this reading tradition, but
one that goes back uninterrupted to this period -- a period during which
Hebrew was still spoken in the vernacular.  I think that where the reading
traditions diverge from one another in the vocalization, it might also
involve divergence in the reading tradition represented by the consonantal
text, so that one cannot separate the consonantal text from the
vocalization and cantillation.  They all go together when reading the
Bible.  Biblical Hebrew in my view does not refer to "Hebrew spoken
during Biblical times."  Rather, it refers and is used to denote the Hebrew
reading traditions, particularly of the Tiberian Masoretes.  The Kativ/Qari
pairs are not changes to the consonantal text, but generally alternate
reading traditions that have survived together.  Generally, the Kativ refers
to the earlier one, although the Qari too can have ancient roots.

In this case, I view the reading Shishaq by the Masoretes as
corresponding with the later vocalization of the name in Chronicles,
and both corresponding with the later vocalization of the name in Egypt
itself.  That is, just like over time, personal names change in
pronunciation, so too here, the pronunciation of the name changed.
"Shu:shvq" represents the earlier vocalization and "Shi:shvq" the
later one.  The later one has also survived in our spelling of the
name Sheshonk.

> There is no shame in retraction. But this brings back my earlier questions
> concerning Egyptian pronunciation as it was heard by Hebrew ears. Whereas
> ‘dj’ in 13th dynasty and earlier Egyptian was heard as a tsada, did it
> soften so that by the time of Thutmose III it was heard as a sin?

Karl, we have a lot of Egyptian words from the Elephantine papyri and many
other sources.  There has been a dissertation written about it
("Egyptian Proper
Names and Loanwords in Northwest Semitic").  So it's not an issue that we can
invent correspondences as fits our theory.

> I am on record as saying that it appears that Biblical Hebrew (as opposed to
> Masorete Hebrew) was a consonant-vowel language, that every consonant was
> followed by a vowel: in this name we see an Egyptian syllable closed by a
> consonant, did the ancient Hebrews hear the double consonant (r-k) as an
> emphatic?

Hebrew was not a consonant vowel language.  However, in any case, the
transcription of the name in English tells you nothing about the vocalization
in Egyptian.  At best, it gives you some idea of the pronunciation in Greek.
At worst, it's an area that allowed the scholar some creativity.

> A final point in this series of questions, I think the evidence
> points to the fact that sin and shin were one letter during Biblical times,
> that only under the influence of native Aramaic speakers was the one letter
> split into two, so that a softened ‘dj’ and ‘s’ would have been
> transliterated by the same letter in Hebrew.

I think that Samekh would have been used to transcribe the second sibilant
in Djeser-khau.  (I "think", because I haven't yet fully looked up all
the sources,
but please realize that I do look up a lot of sources for any of my comments.
Consider that Egyptian Sais is (probably) transcribed SW) in the Bible, the
names Raamses and the word Sol(am "locust" all use a Samekh for Egyptian
s).  You do not treat at all the letters in khau (which are consonantally 
חעו),
and your proposal that רח in Egyptian was perceived as emphatic in Semitic
is baseless (even if Hebrew was a consonant vowel language).  Again, for
all these letters we have evidence from much later than Solomon, in the
form of transcriptions into Aramaic by Judaeans, among other types of
evidence.

> All this paragraph leading to
> is that the ancient Hebrew would have heard “sisakka”, written שישק, from a
> quickly pronounced Djeser-khau? It is within the realm of possibility.

This is not a case of logic where you can argue your way into how it sounded.
If you imagine all kinds of possible correspondences, it's not in the realm
of possibility, it's in the realm of imagination.

>> However, that's Khau, representing a Khet, Ayin, and Waw.  There's no
>> Qof, and Hebrew scribes would not have confused a foreign Khet for a
>> Hebrew Qof.  And the first letter is still an emphatic, transcribed in
>> Hebrew
>> as a Sade.
>
> See above.

Where exactly do you treat the Ayin?

Yitzhak Sapir