Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

isaac,

from part I of your answer i deduce that the "nakdanim/dagshanum/masorah"
division is just your private theory and is not attested or backed up by any
scholarly accepted sources, or historical evidence. 

from part II i deduce that your certainty on what dagesh was, and was not, and
when; and 
how profane was considered the idea to desacrate a letter by dotting its
interior, 
has a similar status.

just your very personal suppositions.

would you agree with this conclusion?

--------------------------------------------

it is possible that, quite to the opposite, the late masoretes considered the
interpretation of an 
almost forgotten language, and the rediscovery of its smallest nuances (right
or wrong), as a holy 
mission, rather than a desacration. 

in fact, trying to understand your comments, the dagesh does not even touch or
deform the letter it adorns, even when it is "interior" to it.
 
also, the (kabalistic?) belief in the sacred/profane dimension of words 
and letters may be later than masorah. so, this consideration of yours may be
irrelevant to their time.
 
since dagesh and nyqud show a high degree of correspondence,
i see no reason, or evidence, indicating they were not invented together.

i wonder whether the cairo, leningrad and other collections contain any
additional material which could cast some light on these issues. 

nir cohen


---------------------------------------------

I

>>>fried wrote: You are asking one of the most perplexing questions of Jewish
history. But this is what I think:

1. At first there was a dagshan, possibly even during the first temple period.
He was a man of considerable authority, to the extent that he had the
authority, or, at least, found the audacity, to alter the shape of the Hebrew
letter by placing a dot in its interior (interior!). The purpose of this dot
was to serve as a mnemonic ––– as a hint, in the absence of any niqud (imagine
this: no niqud!), as to the proper reading of the sacred books. The dot was
placed in the letter following a present day patax, xiriq or qubuc. This dot
is mostly absent in the "gutturals" (not entirely clear to me why. Removed
later?) and also in an "unmoved" (namely, punctuated by a present day schwa)
letter. In the latter case the dagesh was moved ahead to the next letter. This
shifted dagesh is called now "QAL". At first, it used to appear in every
letter, as does the dagesh "XAZAQ", but was left later only in the BGDKPTs.
Obviously, the dagesh is superfluous in plene writing. 
The dagesh in the opening letters is a remnant of a dot placed there to
separate one word from another.
There is, of course, no manuscripts extant without niqud but with dgeshim.

2. Nothing is known about the Tiberias nakdanim, but I tend to agree with the
thinking that they were Karaites who "made ALIYAH" following the Anan schism
in the middle of the 8th century. They may have brought the niqud system with
them from Babylonia or Persia, and brought it to fruition in Teberias. Being
Karaites, they did not need any rabbinical permission, and fearlessly did what
they thought is right.
It took about 200 years for this niqud to be eventually universally accepted
by all other streams of Judaism, with some thinking it was made in heaven.    
 

3. Once the niqud was accepted, the "Masorates' (Qaraites, at first?) stepped
in to carefully preserve it, as well as the text itself.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 24, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:

> isaac,
>
> can you inform me the identity of the naqdanim, dagshanim and what YOU
> call masoretes? and perhaps a few sources which back up your story?
>
> nir
>

--------------------------------------------

II 


>>> De: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
Cópia: Biblical Hebrew list <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Para: AMK Judaica <amkjudaica AT hotmail.com>
Data: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:12:02 -0400
Assunto: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 102, Issue 18
The question, at first, is not what is the "evidence" for the  
antiquity of the dagesh, but what is its purpose.
I don't, even remotely, believe that its purpose is to indicate the  
"doubling" of a consonant, to call attention to a "missing"  
consonant, to help "preserve" a vowel, or to serve as an "indicator"  
of a BINYAN.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:04 PM, AMK Judaica wrote:

> 1) i'm not clear in which matters you think evidence is usually  
> circumstantial
> 2) i apologize in advance if this has been addressed previously and  
> i missed it, but what is your circumstantial evidence in this  
> particular matter?