Comparison of Tiberian and Qumran

[Jemoh66]

This a pre-publication draft of a new article by Aaron D. Hornkohl, University of Cambridge.

https://www.academia.edu/15301763/_Pre- ... J.-S._Rey_

Alternate link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wi7v2k7ydwk21 ... s.pdf?dl=0

A startling statement from the article:

Though all forms of Second Temple Hebrew display features also typical of Classical Biblical Hebrew (= CBH) as preserved in the MT, and, on occasion, even phenomena that appear, at least typologically, to predate standard alternatives in Masoretic CBH,3 Hebraists generally view the linguistic profile of Masoretic Biblical Hebrew (= BH) as earlier than that of DSS Hebrew, whether in biblical or non-biblical material.

The paper is quite scientific and also balanced. In section 2, Examples of MT Hebrew Conservatism and DSS Hebrew Development, he offers two phenomena, one morphological, the other syntactic.
In section 3, Linguistic Innovations in the Tiberian Reading Tradition and the Preservation of Old Forms in DSS Hebrew, he balances the evidence. Although he prefaces his data with the following:

The Tiberian reading tradition merits special comment. Though apparently reflecting certain comparatively late traits sometimes at odds with the phonology and morphology of the consonantal text—or with the pronunciation thought to underlie that text (where reasonably certain reconstruction is possible)—generally speaking, it is best considered the natural offspring of an authentic though by no means solitary—Second Temple pronunciation with roots extending even farther back, embodying an extremely conservative tradition that safeguards early textual and linguistic details.

The paper is 24 pages long, but it is well worth the read. I think it should be included in any discussion relating to the importance of the MT in BH studies.

Jonathan Mohler

[Galena]

I'll be open and honest Jonathan, I started to read this a few hours ago, skipped a few pages and read some more, firstly I do not have any training in order to be able to even understand what is being said half of the time. Some of the abbreviations themselves are foreign to me and even if I read to the end I guarantee I would not even be able to know what on earth the conclusion would be. So I would greatly appreciate any summary you could give about what he is saying.
Thankyou
Chris

[Jemoh66]

It's a hard read Chris, I'll grant you that. But if you'll give it a day or two and reread it every once and awhile you'll start to digest some of it. It's how I do it. Articles are often over my head when I first read them. So I reread them. Basically he tells you in the beginning what each abbreviation stands for. He does so as he introduces the term the first time. Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) (Chronicles and Qohelet). Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH). Samaritan Hebrew, the Hebrew of Ben Sira, and Rabbinic (specifically, Tannaitic) Hebrew (= RH). The Masoretic text (MT).

Basically, he opens with the current consensus, that the MT is more conservative than the DSS. After years of research on the DSS, scholars by and large agree that DSS copies of Classical Biblical Hebrew reflect newer Hebrew (2nd Temple Hebrew), and that the MT actually reflects older Hebrew. That is, despite those places where even the Masoretes allowed their medieval Hebrew dialect to alter the text (which scholars expect), the MT overall preserves an older tradition than that of the DSS.

One of the examples he uses is the Infinitive Construct as a verbal complement. In Classical times Hebrew speakers felt free to use the infinitive construct as a verbal complement without adding the preposition –ל. The MT preserves quite a number of these. These same passages have been update in the DSS copies to conform to 2nd Temple Hebrew.

Jonathan Mohler

[Isaac Fried]

Except that there is no evidence that Biblical Hebrew was ever a spoken language. There is also no evidence for a "medieval Hebrew dialect" supposedly spoken by the "Masoretes" of Tiberias in the 9th century.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

… Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) (Chronicles and Qohelet)…

Already an argument against taking the time to read the whole article. Qohelet is not LBH.

Basically, he opens with the current consensus, that the MT is more conservative than the DSS.

Make that the consonantal text. Not the points.

I’ve read elsewhere that apparently late in the second temple period, that there was an effort to standardize the copies of Tanakh that were in circulation to a higher standard than what typified many of the mms in circulation. That would have been according to official copies kept in the temple. Those official copies would have been both more accurate and reflecting an older Hebrew than first century Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Galena]

Except that there is no evidence that Biblical Hebrew was ever a spoken language. There is also no evidence for a "medieval Hebrew dialect" supposedly spoken by the "Masoretes" of Tiberias in the 9th century. Isaac Fried, Boston University

WHAT? Tell me Isaac, is there a writen language on earth that was never spoken? where is your evidence that Sumerian was ever spoken? Akkadian? Do you think the language of Shakespeare was ever spoken? This is ridiculous, of course biblical hebrew was spoken, but maybe not in the Poetic fashion that we read, just like our mr. Shakespeare - that language was vibrant in the markets with the uneducated, BUT NOT as he wrote it. The bible is mostly poetic, cleverly written - and inspired - the words used HAD to have been part of a spoken language otherwise what was the point in the writing the darn things? And when people say there is no evidence this does not, can not, and will never ever mean that now we have evidence to the contrary. You do not know, the likelihood is there just as much as the unlikelihood.

Jonathan wrote: It's a hard read Chris, I'll grant you that. But if you'll give it a day or two and reread it every once and awhile you'll start to digest some of it.

Thanks Jonathan I will attempt anyway to crawl through this.

[Isaac Fried]

Chris,

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that Hebrew was not spoken in biblical times. What I am saying is that I do not believe that King David spoke to his wives and children the same way he sang the praise of his God. I do not believe King David ever uttered in his family room the word תַּגְמוּלוֹהִי, but rather התגמולים שלו, as I would say it today.
Mishnaic Hebrew לשוֹן חכמים was not suddenly invented, it was always there, it only took time for it to gradually, as in the latter books of the HB, become also the accepted language of the book.

The attempt to revive Biblical Hebrew literature, mainly by the notable pioneering writer Abraham Mapu 1808-1867 was soundly defeated by the simpler Mishnaic Hebrew, as spoken today.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

As for "Sumerian" and "Akkadian", also "Ugaritic", etc., I wold take their "reading" with at least three grains of salt.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Chris says
The bible is mostly poetic, cleverly written - and inspired - the words used HAD to have been part of a spoken language otherwise what was the point in the writing the darn things?
Says I
True! The spoken and written Hebrew languages shared the same root (root!) system and personal pronouns. It was the makeup of the words, their arrangement, the allusions, and the time references that were different in the precisely spoken language and the poetical written language. English has lost its root system and with it its natural grammar a long time ago, and therefore no comparison can be made between these two languages.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

… Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) (Chronicles and Qohelet)…

Already an argument against taking the time to read the whole article. Qohelet is not LBH.

This would be to dismiss the research before evaluating the data. When you write a good paper you should announce your thesis then set out to prove it through logical arguments, and back up your premises and conclusion with data. This is exactly what he does. He argument is good and based on sound premises. If one opposes his conclusion(s), one must prove that the premises are false. In this case, one would have to challenge the data. This is how you do science.

Basically, he opens with the current consensus, that the MT is more conservative than the DSS.

Make that the consonantal text. Not the points.

If you read the article you will see that he treats both the consonantal text and the points as two separate things. So to back up his argument he chooses linguistic data from the consonantal text only, showing that the MT consonants are more conservative than DSS consonants. Later, he shows where sometimes this is reversed, and the MT consonants display modernization (conformity to Medieval Hebrew), while in those passages DSS have preserved Classical BH consonants.

Finally, when he treats the Masoretic pronunciation, he shows how some of the language seems to preserve features of First Temple pronunciation. He does this by treating the phonological features of the vowel sound attached to the infinitive preposition –ל. He is not dogmatic. He is not afraid of counter-evidence. Neither does he suggest that the MT is fully representative of CBH pronunciation. He just shows how they seem to have preserved some phonetic/phonological aspects of CBH.

I’ve read elsewhere that apparently late in the second temple period, that there was an effort to standardize the copies of Tanakh that were in circulation to a higher standard than what typified many of the mms in circulation. That would have been according to official copies kept in the temple. Those official copies would have been both more accurate and reflecting an older Hebrew than first century Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.

I think that is the point of his paper and research; that new research is showing the opposite.

Kindly,
Jonathan Mohler