Meaning of proverbs 23: 4

[Isaac Fried]

Chris says
there might have been some vowel pointing from Ezra onward within the texts that they had received
Says I
I believe (others too) that the dagesh, the dot within the letter, is not part of the niqud, and has certainly nothing to do with the "doubling" of the consonant.
The dagesh is a vestige of a an ancient system to indicate a vowel. Now it appears following a patah, a qibutz and a xirek, not marked by a yod or a waw.
I don't think the "masoretes" would have dared, being Karaites notwithstanding, put a dot inside (inside!) a sacred letter, this is the doing of an earlier, much higher authority.
The dot in the first letter is to mark the beginning of the word, while the dot in the last letter, the mapik, has a grammatical function.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

Chris:

You either willfully ignore, or forget, that the Hebrew that the Masoretes learned in Yeshiva was not Biblical Hebrew, but medieval Hebrew. Medieval Hebrew has a different grammar and many words with different meanings from Biblical Hebrew. And the pointings that the Masoretes employed were for medieval Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew, which is why, from a Biblical Hebrew standpoint, some of the pointings contradict the written consonantal text.

Therefore, you overrate them as grammarians for Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

No, I’m not a fan of Noam Chomsky. While he in some places makes some interesting statements, there are other times that I find questionable. Basically, I’ve ignored him for decades.

Not very scientific, Karl. To be on the cutting edge of linguistics, scientifically speaking, you can't have ignored Chomsky. Also keep in mind Chomsky himself has changed his conclusions several times over the decades (in the field of linguistics). Also, his successors frequently disagree and/or amend his ideas. Finally, his opponents oppose him by interacting with him in their papers.

My biggest objection is where he leverages his international fame as a linguist to push destructive social and political policies. True, I should keep these separate, but I’m human and find that my emotional disgust at his political advocacy colors how I view his linguistic work as well.

This should not bother someone who claims to be a scientist. I don't agree with his politics at all, but I have no problem separating what he says in that arena with what he says in the arena of Linguistics.

Furthermore, these kinds of remarks weaken your credibility as a scientist/scholar. Not the least because you narrow your field of options when you don't entertain hypotheses and theories from other scholars.

I do not share your novel approach to the study of BH. However, I always entertain your thoughts and theories. I have spent the past week thinking about your speculation on חדל. I have carefully mulled over the idea that it might be a participle. I am not convinced yet, but I have not tossed it to the waves either. I will eventually write a reply with some of my thoughts on the subject.

[Galena]

Isaac said : Chris says
there might have been some vowel pointing from Ezra onward within the texts that they had received

Isaac fried Says : I believe (others too) that the dagesh, the dot within the letter, is not part of the niqud, and has certainly nothing to do with the "doubling" of the consonant.
The dagesh is a vestige of a an ancient system to indicate a vowel. Now it appears following a patah, a qibutz and a xirek, not marked by a yod or a waw.
I don't think the "masoretes" would have dared, being Karaites notwithstanding, put a dot inside (inside!) a sacred letter, this is the doing of an earlier, much higher authority.
The dot in the first letter is to mark the beginning of the word, while the dot in the last letter, the mapik, has a grammatical function

.

I remember something like this from a long time ago, but because it was a distraction from the learning of BH and because back then it was a little over my head I never saved or dug deeper into these things, never thought that it would matter either....that is....until....I met.... Karl

Chris:

You either willfully ignore, or forget, that the Hebrew that the Masoretes learned in Yeshiva was not Biblical Hebrew, but medieval Hebrew. Medieval Hebrew has a different grammar and many words with different meanings from Biblical Hebrew. And the pointings that the Masoretes employed were for medieval Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew, which is why, from a Biblical Hebrew standpoint, some of the pointings contradict the written consonantal text.

Therefore, you overrate them as grammarians for Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.

Please Please Karl, for goodness sake, please, this is not anywhere close to what I was saying. I said the following:

What I did say earlier in a thread, if I remember without looking, was that I believe the masoretes had inherited some biblical hebrew pronounciation which would have come down to them in the form of Liturgy, through the synagogue from very earlier on, but that the texts had aramaic and medieval influences in them. I have read a number of documents that quite clearly state that medieval hebrew and aramaic pronounciation is in the texts, but again I also remember reading from the same sources that remnants of BH are to be found in the medieval texts

Let me expand: Evidence from hand written papers and evidence from the Talmud (which I do trust, by faith, what the authors say) is that in the synagogue and in their shabbat meetings and Holy days, the Torah and the prophets would have maintained to a large degree some of the pronounciation of their ancestors since Ezra, But only in the Liturgical cantations and the public readings. This is what I am emphasizing NOT to the exclusion of the medieval or aramaic or dialectical influences in the final vowel pointing product that we see today ok? (as a side note, and so sorry to everyone else, no intention to cause controversy, but from an historical perspective Yeshua did actually read in the synagogue a hebrew scroll, not Greek, not Aramaic nor latin, but Hebrew, Biblical Hebrew - so at least we can establish it was still around at 30 AD) and can we not reasonably suggest with some confidence that while Yeshua the man, the preacher, may well have spoken whatever language in conversation, in the synagogue He would have read from Biblical Hebrew, handed down from the previous generations.

After all, look at this way, after approximately 1000 years Karl, despite all the changes in global languages, despite all the movements of peoples and Jews, despite the loss of about 95% of the spoken hebrew through the dispersion of the Jews, despite having no land and no government, despite assimilating and absorbing the Host country's languages, despite the formation and development of modern hebrew, despite the ashkenazi, the saphardic and the yemenite differences - Biblical Hebrew recitation and readings in the synagogue have weathered and resisted every form of change imagineable Karl after 1000 years down to the present day. Is it then such a bad and non scientific piece of reasoning to even contemplate the idea that quite some pronounciation and stabilised structure and consistency was actually put in place for future generations in the days of when Ezra brought back the scrolls from Babylon and the scribes set to work on diligently copying them. Is it so anethema to you Karl that this can not possibly be true? Is it also not possible that the absence of indisputable proof leads scholars to establish a theory based on the absence of this evidence? Despite there actually being clues to this possibility in the scriptural language itself when compared and analysed with thousands of documents non biblical and biblical (which by faith I believe their comments are trustworthy). This is what some scholars have actually put forward, I have to do a massive search to find this for you, but only if it is worth it? I have no proof, I am not in that position to collate and study and see the originals, neither have I been trained in semitic languages or anything, I am just a learner and non-qualified - no evidence, no back up, no skills or authority. But if it is worth it for you, I will hunt down these documents and comments and post links?

Just to end on a cheery note - Years ago I read about he yemenite hebrew that was discovered. I never saved any of the sources or websites. But on a new search a few days ago I found this interesting document, it has been said by both Rabbis and scholars in Israel (but by gentile biblical scholars I have not read this yet - just to state clear facts) that Yemenite hebrew is a purer form of biblical hebrew, now I don't know about this at all, I have no idea. I simply load the link for anyone's personal interest if they have not seen this before.
http://onthemainline.blogspot.ie/2010/1 ... enite.html

[Kirk Lowery]

Friends,

This thread has started to cross the lines for respectful and civil discourse. Let's keep focus on the topic of Masoretes themselves, and move away from philosophical, theological and personal comments.

Thanks!

[kwrandolph]

Not very scientific, Karl. To be on the cutting edge of linguistics, …

Actually, it shows a different goal. I never intended to be on the cutting edge of linguistics, all I wanted to do was to read Tanakh in its original languages.

I do not share your novel approach to the study of BH.…

Actually, my approach is not so novel. When I look at the paper uploaded by Ken Penner at http://www.academia.edu/4271352/History ... bal_System I see that others went before me. I think it’s an indication of the robustness of the data that I came to the same conclusion as others before me independently of them. I can’t think of a single place where I’m first, novel.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

1. There is no evidence that BH was ever spoken.

2. There were possibly various pronunciations. This is reflected, methinks, in the niqud, where the tsere, for instance, is possibly a compromise marking for a patax. Say
בְּרַאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אַת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאַת הָאָרֶץ

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

Not very scientific, Karl. To be on the cutting edge of linguistics, …

Actually, it shows a different goal. I never intended to be on the cutting edge of linguistics, all I wanted to do was to read Tanakh in its original languages.

I do not share your novel approach to the study of BH.…

Actually, my approach is not so novel. When I look at the paper uploaded by Ken Penner at http://www.academia.edu/4271352/History ... bal_System I see that others went before me. I think it’s an indication of the robustness of the data that I came to the same conclusion as others before me independently of them. I can’t think of a single place where I’m first, novel.

Karl W. Randolph.

I have said it before, your approach has a contribution to make, and I am always willing to glean from your hypotheses. My point here is that you charged Chris with medieval thinking, in contrast to your "son-of-the-reformation scientific" approach. I am only challenging THIS claim. Your method is a method, and that is fine, but if you are going to claim it is scientific, while not carrying out classic scientific interchange with other scholars, then I think you are being inconsistent. One of the hallmarks of scientific enquiry is that it's authority comes from being "peer reviewed." But you have set yourself up above other scholarly work. And when presented with proper scientific research on the MT for example, your classic reply is that you didn't bother to read it past the first few paragraphs.

As to the article I posted, it deals strictly with data. There is no axe to grind. He finds in the data evidence of preservation and corruption in BOTH the consonantal text and the pronunciation as expressed by the pointing. So there is evidence at the consonantal level that they preserved much of the original consonantal text, but there is also data showing that even in the consonantal text, the Masoretes were influenced by their dialect of Hebrew. Then as to the pronunciation, the author presents evidence that suggests they had preserved a great deal of the ancient pronunciation, but again even here, the evidence showed they were influenced by their dialect and by Aramaic as well. So it is much more nuanced, and thus more difficult, because we have to decide when we are faced with medieval pronunciation, and when we are dealing with ancient pronunciation preserved through liturgy. This cannot be done without leveraging a significant amount of linguistic science.

[kwrandolph]

Chris:

You either willfully ignore, or forget, that the Hebrew that the Masoretes learned in Yeshiva was not Biblical Hebrew, but medieval Hebrew. Medieval Hebrew has a different grammar and many words with different meanings from Biblical Hebrew. And the pointings that the Masoretes employed were for medieval Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew, which is why, from a Biblical Hebrew standpoint, some of the pointings contradict the written consonantal text.

Therefore, you overrate them as grammarians for Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.

Let me expand: Evidence from hand written papers and evidence from the Talmud (which I do trust, by faith, what the authors say) is that in the synagogue and in their shabbat meetings and Holy days, the Torah and the prophets would have maintained to a large degree some of the pronounciation of their ancestors since Ezra, But only in the Liturgical cantations and the public readings. … despite the formation and development of modern hebrew, despite the ashkenazi, the saphardic and the yemenite differences - Biblical Hebrew recitation and readings in the synagogue have weathered and resisted every form of change imagineable Karl after 1000 years down to the present day.

In Ashkenazi synagogues the readings are in Ashkenazi Hebrew, in Sfardi synagogues the readings are in Sfardi Hebrew, in Yeminite synagogues the readings are in Yeminite Hebrew, and so forth, so why is it so hard to conceive that in Masoretic synagogues the readings would be in Masoretic Hebrew? These differences exist in spite of the Masoretic points which all these traditions use. Can you imagine how much change there was before the Masoretes invented the points?

… I am just a learner and non-qualified - no evidence, no back up, no skills or authority. But if it is worth it for you, I will hunt down these documents and comments and post links?

What would be more useful is for you to sit down, using only dictionaries but no commentaries to channel your thoughts, and read Tanakh though cover to cover, ten times, become qualified, then come back and see how much of this you still believe.

As for me, I’ve heard these claims before, decades ago, even the claim that the Yeminite pronunciation is the most accurate.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Galena]

Karl said : As for me, I’ve heard these claims before, decades ago, even the claim that the Yeminite pronunciation is the most accurate.

Now here is an irony Karl, I presented a paper, or rather a link, that supports your comments about changes and the like, which in context of pronounciation I have never disagreed. I did this partly for any interest that others might have, but also just to demonstrate the sort of things I am aware of, that bring us together in agreement. Maybe you should read just the 4th and 5th paragraph from the bottom? It actually confirms a nice point on your behalf. Other parts of the paper confirm some things that I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to elucidate by reasoning.

Karl said : In Ashkenazi synagogues the readings are in Ashkenazi Hebrew, in Sfardi synagogues the readings are in Sfardi Hebrew, in Yeminite synagogues the readings are in Yeminite Hebrew, and so forth, so why is it so hard to conceive that in Masoretic synagogues the readings would be in Masoretic Hebrew? These differences exist in spite of the Masoretic points which all these traditions use. Can you imagine how much change there was before the Masoretes invented the points?

But, Unfortunately Karl, by your parsing of my full response above and only answering to a part of it you have taken it all out of context and mis-understood the points I was exhaustingly trying to make. But never mind. It would have been nice if you could have given me a little credit by perhaps imagining that I knew all this about the different pronounciations in synagogues today in different communities, I have heard some of these differences you see especially the ones from Poland.