Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lewis Reich" <lbr AT sprynet.com>]

Jim - 
 
Thanks for sharing with the list what I intended to post publicly but
carelessly sent only to you.
 
I fully recognize that "a thousand years or more" for the Masoretic oral
tradition only gets us back to the late first millennium or so.  But I was
being needlessly conservative, I think.  The Torah had a reading history
going back at least to the time of Ezra, 1500 years before the Masoretes; as
you noted, parts of the written text might plausibly have been written as
early as the 14 century BCE, and I imagine it was a recited text and not
strictly one to be read.  I don't doubt that pronunciation might have
shifted over that time, even in a text with a continuous reading tradition
about how to pronounce the text.  I think that type of shift is a more
plausible case to make than noting that the Masoretic pointing was only
fixed in the Middle Ages.  Quite true, but that pointing fixed a much much
earlier tradition of pronunciation, so I think we must look to how
pronunciation might have shifted rather than to the relatively late date of
the Masoretes' contributions in assessing what the Hebrew reflects.  I'm
sure the Ugaritic spelling may be more relevant to tell us how the name of
the king was originally pronounced, assuming we have a strong case for how
Ugaritic was pronounced; but it seems to me that the late date of the
Masoretes' fixing their pointing may be something of a red herring.
 
Lewis Reich

  _____  

From: jimstinehart AT aol.com [mailto:jimstinehart AT aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:38 PM
To: LBReich AT alum.mit.edu; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] TD(L


Lewis Reich:
 
I hope you were not replying to me off-list (because your comment is of
general interest), when you wrote:  
"The Masoretic pointing may have been set down in the Middle Ages, but that
doesn't mean the Masoretes simply 
 sat down and came up with pointing off the tops of their heads.  They were
the recipients of a continuous oral tradition  
 of reading that may have gone back as much as a thousand years or more."
 
The Masoretic pointing was done in the Middle Ages.  Using your view that
the Masoretic pointing may reflect an oral tradition  
 "that may have gone back as much as a thousand years or more", that would
get us back to the late 1st millennium BCE or so.   
 But that's over 1,000 years after (i) Ugarit went extinct, (ii) the
Hittites went extinct, and (iii) chapter 14 of Genesis was composed  
 (based on the majority view of mainstream scholars).  Accordingly, for a
truly ancient Biblical text like that, the Ugaritic spelling is  
 much more relevant than is the medieval Masoretic pointing.  We see
letter-for-letter spelling accuracy in comparing Biblical  
 TD(L/Tudhaliya to the Ugaritic spelling of that Hittite kingly name from
the 14th century BCE or so.
 
This part of the Bible has incredible historical accuracy.  If we look to
non-biblical sources from the Late Bronze Age, almost every  
 aspect of Genesis 14: 1-11 checks out perfectly, once one realizes that a
non-royal author would be expected to use nicknames for living rulers, 
 per the consistent practice attested in the Amarna Letters.  TD(L/Tudhaliya
is an appropriate  n-i-c-k-n-a-m-e  for an historical Hittite king who  
 meets both of the following two key criteria:  (i) historically he did
everything that Biblical TD(L is portrayed as doing at Genesis 14: 1-11,  
 and (ii) it would make complete sense for an early Hebrew author to use
"Tudhaliya" as this historical Hittite king's nickname (even though  
 his name was nothing like "Tudhaliya").
 
The letter-for-letter spelling accuracy here compared to the Late Bronze Age
Ugaritic source for this name also suggests that this ancient  
 part of the Bible may have been committed to writing much earlier than
scholars have thought.  This part of the Bible is truly ancient, and  
 very accurate.  It pre-dates the medieval Masoretic pointing by 2,000 years
or more.  That medieval pointing should not be relied upon to  
 try to undercut the pinpoint historical accuracy of Genesis 14: 1-11.  Nor
should Ezra or Daniel.  Rather, the way to check out (and confirm)  
the pinpoint historical accuracy of this ancient Biblical text is to compare
it to the abundant non-biblical sources we have for the Late Bronze Age.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois