Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jonathan:

I agree and have repeatedly insisted that the Masoretes were preserving a tradition when they invented their vowel points. But was it a tradition based on Biblical Hebrew pronunciation? Was it based on native speakers?

The evidence I see indicates that the vowel points were invented a millennium after the last native speaker died. During that millennium the grammar of Biblical Hebrew was exchanged for that of Mishnaic Hebrew, even the concepts of what the binyanim represented were changed. How much was the pronunciation changed during that millennium to reflect the pronunciation of Aramaic native speakers? How much was changed to reflect the changed grammar? How many words had their pronunciations changed to reflect a tradition started by some rabbi, a tradition that doesn’t reflect the original Biblical pronunciation? Then all of these changes were incorporated into the Masoretic text through their points.

One important thing to keep in mind, the Masoretes were trying to preserve a tradition, which is the reason for their inconsistency in pointings, inconsistencies that sometimes indicate incorrect readings. They were not trying to make their points fit any theoretical framework.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jonathan Mohler <jonathan.mohler AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Will,

To be honest I am using the term native speaker more broadly.  It is a current debate between theologians and linguists whether the science of modern linguistics can be applied to BH.  The main reason is that when a linguist studies a modern tongue, he/she has the luxury of filtering the data through a native speaker.  For example, native feedback allows the linguist to distinguish an allophone from a phoneme.  With BH we can't interview the Masoretes directly.  But I do believe that it is well established that they were preserving their tradition, that is, what they received as a long tradition of pronunciation.  In this light, the Masoretic pointing is a linguistic goldmine.

If they pointed the Heb text within an Aramaic framework, the text would show much more consistency.  Instead, morphological studies are showing that variation is mostly due to geographical/dialectical variation. See Gary A. Rendsburg's essay "Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew" in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, edited by Walter R. Modine.

Jonathan Mohler