Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>

This is too nuanced for me, as it sounds in practice basically what I said
above.

>
> 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.
>

Elephantine papyri, Aramaic, how much did the Aramaic pronunciation of
letters differ from that of Biblical Hebrew? We notice that the name
Artaxerxes was transliterated differently into Aramaic than in Hebrew,
consistently so in Ezra. In Hebrew, he gave it the same transliteration as
did Nehemiah. How many other letters had different pronunciations in Aramaic
and Hebrew? Seeing as the pronunciation that has come down to us was from
native Aramaic speaking people, how inaccurate a guide to 1000 BC Hebrew
transliteration is it?

>
> > 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.


Can you prove that? On what basis? The few Biblical era  transliterations I
have seen of Hebrew names seem to support my observation.


>  However, in any case, the
> transcription of the name in English tells you nothing about the
> vocalization
> in Egyptian.


That was my question, how accurate is that for 1000 BC or thereabouts?


>  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).


Can you state with absolute certainty that there was absolutely no change in
Egyptian pronunciation from the 12th and 13th dynasties when Israel
transliterated names like Raamses, and the time of Thutmose III
aka Djeser-khau? Where are the documents that give you that certainty? I
have already ruled out late Aramaic transliterations as being proof, at
least for me, so what other documents can you point to?


>  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.
>

I need better evidence than transliterations into Aramaic to convince me.
But then, does the evidence that would convince me even exist? What would
convince me is a series of Egyptian names transliterated into Hebrew within
a couple of centuries of Solomon, and there is but one, and we disagree on
it.

>
> > 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.
>

I am asking for evidence, evidence that I can trust. So far you have
provided none. All you have provided is evidence from a different language
much later. And I have reason to believe that that different language had
significantly different pronunciations for some of its letters than did
Biblical Hebrew.

>
> >> 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
>

Where is your cache of Egyptian names transliterated into Hebrew around 1000
BC? I would like to see how they were transliterated then by those native
Biblical Hebrew speaking people. That is the only data I would consider as
proof for your position.

Karl W. Randolph.