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:
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.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.
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 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.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.
Jonathan Mohler