Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Petr:

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Petr Tomasek <tomasek AT etf.cuni.cz> wrote:

…

You are obviously right that the exact pronounciation developed
between Biblical times and the times of the Masoretic codices we know
today. But this changes nothing on the fact that the Masoretic
tradition is a reliable one: the vast majority of changes that
happened to this tradition are simple sound shifts (and similar phenomena)
that have absolutely no influence on the ability to discern particular
forms, i.e. it has no influence on the meaning.

Thanks, I think you have explained more clearly what I write about when I distinguish between pointing as an indicator of Biblical pronunciation, and pointing as an indicator of meaning. 

So Karl's claim that because the Masoretic pronounciation doesn't
reflect exactly the pronounciation "in the biblical times" (which itself
may mean many things given the complicated textual history of the bible!)
it shouldn't be trusted - or worse, one can arbitrarily "vocalize"
the consonantal text is a complete nonsense.

But this paragraph is completely off. The pointing is just ancient commentary, and to be taken with a grain of salt just like any other commentary. And where I say it’s wrong in meaning, I mean that the meaning indicated by the pointing contradicts what the consonantal text in its context indicates should be the meaning.

P.T.

Karl W. Randolph.