Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

The idea about the antiquity of the dagesh is actually not purely  
mine, I am sure I have seen it somewhere.
Other people may well have thought earlier about this possibility.
If you deny as implausible the claims that the purpose of the dagesh  
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, then not much else is left.
Any schoolchild notices right away that the dagesh appears quite  
systematically after a patax, a xiriq,
or a qubuc.
The "high degree of correspondence" you find between the dagesh and  
the niqud means, methinks, that
the niqud was done relative to the dagesh, namely, having seen (an  
earlier) dagesh in the letter B
of $BR שבּר assured the naqdan that it is $IBER with a xiriq under  
the letter $. By now, with a niqud in
place, the dagesh is redundant, you may remove all dgeshim (except B  
K P) and you will not miss them, say,
VAYABDEL וַיַּבְדֵּל of Gen. 1:4 versus this VAYABDEL  
וַיַבְדֵל .

The mysterious person, or persons, who added the niqud to the Hebrew  
bible must have been a man of
remarkable knowledge and understanding. He appears to have asked for  
no permission or authorization
from no higher authority, he just did what he thought is right, and  
within 20-30 years may have been
done with it.
There is, of course, no historical "sources" or "evidences" for all  
this, as well as for anything else said about
the invention of the niqud, or the purpose, or lack of purpose, of  
the dagesh.

The term "Masorates" is vague, but should refer, methinks, to later  
scribes who produced faithful copies
of the originally punctuated book, helping propagate, this remarkably  
pertinent and indispensable
vocalization system, into the world.
It is interesting that AHARON BEN MO$EH BEN A$ER in his (?) book  
SEPER DIKDUKEI HATEAMIYM

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/38509


supposedly written around the first quarter of the 10th century, is  
already at loss as to the origin of the
niqud, an invention he attributes to the "prophets".

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:

> 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?
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew