Galena wrote:Thought it wise to begin a new topic rather than invade Gen 1:1 thread. I want others to provide their views and evidence as well. But for now - dear Karl, you said:
There are clues in post-Babalonian captivity Biblical books that indicate that the Jews who returned to Judea under Cyrus and later spoke not Hebrew, but Aramaic in the home and in the markets. Within a couple of generations, if not earlier, their pronunciation of Hebrew while reading the Biblical texts would be according to Aramaic rules, not Hebrew. By the time of the Masoretes a millennium later, the probability that accurate Biblical era Hebrew pronunciations were even remembered would be nil.
Secondly, I have found cases where even by meaning, the Masoretes had applied the wrong dots. But I was not in the market to bash the Masoretes, rather just to read the text, therefore I didn’t keep a record of which dots were incorrect. Now, as I wrote above, I read using an unpointed text, therefore don’t even see the Masoretic points.
There is so much in what you said but I want to address this particular point with you. I have a question:
1. What authority (positively speaking of course) what authoritative height places non-hebrew speaking persons,
I can “speak” Hebrew, but as a non-native speaker. Like me, the Masoretes were non-native speakers, taught by non-native speakers, having a dialect of Hebrew that had developed over many generations that had a different grammar than Biblical Hebrew, different meanings for many words, as well as different pronunciations. The Masoretes were careful workers, but at times their dialect led them astray.
A person who doesn’t know their dialect has one less distraction to trying to understand Tanakh and the language used in its writing.
Galena wrote: modern 21st century detached from their hebrew cultural background,
Was the culture in which the Masoretes lived the same as when Biblical Hebrew was natively spoken? my understanding is “No”.
Galena wrote: not brought up in either tradition or Judaism,
What in your mind is “Jewish tradition”?
Strictly speaking, those who have been brought up to live according to the New Testament have been brought up in a Jewish tradition. The writers of the New Testament were all Jews, writing within their Jewish tradition and according to Jewish beliefs.
What about people brought up according to a philosophical tradition based on a Greek model, using Greek philosophical standards to do their analysis and conclusions. Would you call that Jewish? If not, then you claim that the writers of the Talmud and the Masoretes did not follow Jewish tradition. (Source, a book I read many years ago on Jewish philosophies.)
Galena wrote: non geographically familiar surroundings,
The Masoretes did not live in Judea or Samaria.
Galena wrote: non aramaic speaking,
Speaking medieval Aramaic is actually a hindrance, a distraction, that makes it harder to understand Biblical Hebrew and Tanakh.
Galena wrote: and further away in time than they were from their ancestors
The Masoretes were 30+ generations removed from the last native Biblical Hebrew speakers. That’s so many generations that more hardly makes a difference.
Galena wrote: - upon what superior status did we aspire to reach that we can doubt that they made so many mistakes to the point that we now can apply our critical thought process and pull apart the masoretes' vowel pointing wherever we feel
“Feeling” doesn’t come into it. Critical analysis does.
Galena wrote: that we have a better understanding? Let me make it clear that I accept that there may well be two or even three possibilities in isolated words and we may well see opportunities to apply ambiguity or question another possibility. But I have never found evidence to question the masoretes' understanding of their own scriptures.
“Their Scriptures” has long ago passed into the public domain. That was true long before the Masoretes invented their points and applied them to Tanakh.
Galena wrote: I would also like to add that one comment you made is absurd, (it is the only comment that I totally disagree on though at this moment) and that is:
By the time of the Masoretes a millennium later, the probability that accurate Biblical era Hebrew pronunciations were even remembered would be nil
No way, absolutely not. We can in no way pass a judgement on the likelihood of something being true based upon our cultural mindset in our world today.
Have you lived in immigrant communities? I have. What I’ve noticed is that the children, even those who speak their parents’ language at home and speak it well, already speak their “native” tongue with an accent. That accent comes from the surrounding community. Even native speakers who have immigrated years before often pick up an accent. I noticed it because I speak those native languages too, and have learned them from living among native speakers.
I see no reason that ancient Jews would have been different, especially when the written language has no vowel indicators as does Biblical Hebrew.
Further, not all Jews reading Tanakh were equally familiar with Biblical Hebrew pronunciation, yet they were reading Tanakh. They would apply their Aramaic pronunciations to the Biblical text.
Finally, there’s evidence from transliterations of Hebrew names that the pronunciations changed over time.
Galena wrote: There is absolutely no evidence at all that this could even have been possible. Quite the contrary, in an age where we write everything down and forget even the shopping list our wives' gave us a few hours earlier, in those days they could remember whole scriptural stories from generation to generation,
Each generation has to learn anew.
Galena wrote: the written system in their world was a world of consonants where the necessity for written vowels was obviously not needed that is something we can not really grasp, later when the masoretes started to see the need to maintain the traditions and pronounciation , notice that I said that they started to see the need to maintain the spoken pronounciation they devised the most cleverest system ever imagined in the history of linguistics - a vowel system.
See above about pronunciations. The evidence is that the pronunciations they applied were those from the dialect of their time and place.
Galena wrote:Ambiguities? Yes certainly. Possible alternate translation? Yes certainly. Are they to be trusted, are they reliable were they qualified? Yes on all three. And lastly let us not forget that there were three languages on the cross that day: Latin, Greek and Hebrew,
Evidences are that Hebrew became the medieval Latin of its time and place—it was the official language for official records, high literature, religion, and in the case of the title on the cross, that being an official document, was written in Hebrew. That is no evidence that Hebrew was natively spoken at that time. And that is no evidence as for the pronunciation used at that time.
Galena wrote: and let us not forget that for all the rubbish that is raised about what language Jesus spoke, His second to final words were recorded in hebrew expressly.
Notice two things in the transliterations: 1) the pronunciation was different from the Masoretic model and 2) the translation is according to Aramaic.
Galena wrote: So hebrew was well known then. But you may say that the masoretes came 500 years later, indeed, but who is to say that pronounciation of hebrew scripture was lost, what 500 years and no one attended synagogues, no rabbis spoke the scriptures in Hebrew? Very difficult to believe.
The pronunciation was lost long before that 500 years, and even at that time was changing.
Galena wrote:So what qualifications do we have that are better than theirs? That is my contention.
On what basis are we not their equal, especially those who are not distracted by knowing Aramaic, Mishnaic Hebrew, Masoretic Hebrew and other cognate languages that had different grammars, different word meanings and different pronunciations than did Biblical Hebrew? In both cases, we are non-native speakers of Biblical Hebrew, the Masorete no more native speaking than I or anyone else today.
Now there is a place for studying all those cognate languages, and that is in comparative linguistics. Much can be learned from that. But what I emphasize is that such studies become a distraction, a hindrance, if one wants to master one of those languages as a second language, in my case Biblical Hebrew. In fact, they can make it impossible.
I am not knocking the Masoretes, they did careful work. All I’m saying is that the tools that they had at their disposal for the analysis and understanding of Biblical Hebrew were corrupted by 1) their dialect of non-natively spoken Hebrew 2) the Aramaic speaking milieu in which they lived and spoke as their native tongue and 3) the philosophic tradition in which they worked. Those of us who are not part of those three may have other blinders, but we can see how those factors influenced the vowel points that the Masoretes applied.
Karl W. Randolph.