> Could it be that the pointing of the masoretes only show the
> pronunciation
> of the period? And that thus we cannot look to them as a good source for
> archaic vowel pronunciation? And that consequently the older LLX
> transliterations give a better source for understanding archaic vowel
> pronunciation? (within their limitations)
The answer is clearly No. We cannot learn anything regarding the old
pronunciation of Hebrew from the LXX. The Masoretes were extremely
careful
when they copied the text, and we have every reason to believe that their
vocalization represented the pronunciation that was used in B.C.E.
The Masoretes would not dream of changing anything or invent anything new.
Their aim was to reproduce the consonantal text accurately and to point
and
vocalize the text exactly as they heard it read in the Synagogue. However,
in one respect they had a problem which can be illustrated with modern
Greek
(I used this example at my defence). In Greek there are several letters
that are pronounced as the English "e" is pronounced, in exactly the same
way. Many errors are the result of this situation when people write down
what they hear others say, because they must all the time make choices of
which letters to write.
A similar situation existed when the Masorets worked on the text. On the
basis of transcriptions made by Josephus and Origen we see that the Hebrew
vowels were consistently transcribed except patah and shewa, and to some
extent segol. The vowels patah and shewa were both pronounced as an
"a"-sound in Masoretic times, and by hearing the text recited a
distinction
between the two could have been problematic.
> I interpret this to mean, "Even if the first vowel [of the Babylonian
> transcription
> of initial theophoric element Yahwistic names] is an 'a' sound, [and we
> assume
> that Yahwistic names use a pronounciation close to the pronounciation of
> yhwh],
> that does not necessarily argue in favor of a patah as the first vowel
> of yhwh,
> [because] the names Gedalyahu and Gemaryahu both [have] the sign
> representing GA as their first syllable, [and yet their MT
> pronounciation has a
> schwa] and these names have no theophoric elements at the beginning
> [that
> might otherwise cause the Massoretes to change the pronounciation for
> fear of
> profaning the sacred.]"
You have understood my arguments correctly. Moreover, the vowels "a" and
"e"
can be more open or more closed, to the point where the sounds can
resemble
one another. The Babylonian scribes would naturally choose the syllable
with the vowel they would use to pronounce the Jewish names, and this may
have been more open or more closed that the vowel used by the Jews.
Please also remember Zadok`s words about the shift from "a" to "o," which
probably had not yet occurred. So there are many uncertain factors in the
Babylonian writing.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.