Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Will Parsons <wbparsons AT alum.mit.edu>]

Karl,

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:36:39 -0700, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:
> Randall:
> 
> The original link got me to the same place. I was away from the computer for
> a few days, so didn’t comment earlier.
> 
> I watched the video linked to by the instructor, and all I heard was what I
> understand as modern Hebrew. One of the comments about it, “Biblical Hebrew
> is Hebrew”. which is true, but then so is Chaucerian English English, so a
> native speaker of modern English should have no problem reading Chaucer? Or
> how about a native speaker of modern English reading Beowulf? Or for me, the
> reason I got into Hebrew on a daily basis was because I had trouble
> understanding Elizabethan English as used in the KJV. Similarly, a native
> speaker of modern Israeli Hebrew will think he understands Biblical Hebrew,
> but because of the changes in vocabulary meanings and grammatical structure,
> how often will he misunderstand the text?

This is a good point, but the problem can be overcome by proper study.
Shakespeare's language, although technically Modern English, is different
enough from contemporary English that the modern English reader will need
notes to understand numerous differences of vocabulary, meanings, &c.  (And
of course for Chaucer one will need *lots* of notes to understand them.)

> When we don’t even know how Biblical Hebrew was pronounced, other than that
> the Masoretic points coded for Tiberian Hebrew which was different from
> Biblical Hebrew, how can it credibly be claimed that by using modern
> pronunciation of Tiberian points we are thereby teaching Biblical Hebrew?
> He’s whistling Dixie.

I think it can be credibly so claimed.  Compare the situation of the classical
languages.  In the case of Latin and (Classical) Greek, we think we know
pretty well (mostly) how Cicero pronounced Latin and how Plato pronounced
Greek, and nowadays when Latin and Greek are taught, some approximation of
that reconstructed pronunciation is taught.  (I'm not in academia, so I can't
say for certain, but my impression is that there is more of an effort on the
part of some instructors to aim for a pronunciation closer to the
reconstructed original that previously was the case.)  However, using these
"restored" pronuncations is comparatively recent, and for centuries both Latin
and Greek were taught using pronunciations that diverged widely from anything
an ancient Greek or Roman would have spoken.  (The traditional English
pronunciation of Latin survives in the realms of law and botanical/zoological
nomenclature.)  But this doesn't mean that classical Latin and Greek weren't
being taught - indeed they were, and those that studied Latin and Greek in
those days frequently attained a level of expertise that would be exceptional
to-day.

Now the situation of Hebrew is somewhat different from that of Greek or Latin.
First, what is "classical" Hebrew anyway?  The Hebrew text of the Bible was
composed over a considerable period of time, during which Hebrew no doubt
underwent many changes of pronunciation and vocabulary.  I think I remember
reading (a *long* time ago) in some technical article that the language of
Jeremiah was considered "classical Hebrew".  So, for the present, if we take
the language of Jeremiah the language that one should aim for, how was it
pronounced?  I'm not up on what might be the current state of thought on
Hebrew historical linguistics, but I doubt that the level of confidence in a
reconstructed pronunciation of Hebrew of Jeremiah's time would be up to the
level of confidence in a reconstructed pronunciation of classical Greek or
Latin.  And even if it were, it would not be represented directly in the
Hebrew text that the learner has before him, which consists of a basically
consonantal script with a superimposed system of vowels representing a
pronunciation of more than a millennium later.

So the only practical basis for pronouncing Biblical Hebrew is the MT
consonantal text plus vowel signs.  But I don't think this is too bad at all.
First, although the vocalization of the MT represents a pronunciation no doubt
different in many particulars from that of Biblical times, I doubt that it is
completely at odds with it.  (Just so there is no misunderstanding here, I am
referring to the situations where the MT vocalizaton is "correct", i.e., is a
continuation of the historical pronunciation, not where the Massoretes got it
wrong and mis-assigned the vowel signs.)  So pronouncing Hebrew using the
Massoretic vocalization, while not representing the pronunciation of the era
of Jeremiah (or any other Biblical period) exactly is probably a lot better
that pronouncing Latin according to the old "English" way of pronouncing it,
and can legitimately qualify as "Biblical Hebrew".

-- 
Will Parsons