Because of the many homographs in Biblical Hebrew, we have to depend on context to tell us when a particular spelling is for a noun, a verb, an adjective, and so forth. These are the same tools that the ancients used to read the text.
When one spelling is used for one binyan and the Masoretes pointed it as another binyan, how can it not be trusting the writers of the consonantal text over the Masoretes?
And you haven’t proven that they were correct.
Hey, don’t assume motives that have not been said. I reluctantly abandoned the points because the more I read Tanakh, the more I noticed that the meanings indicated by the points diverged from the meanings and usages indicated by the unpointed text.
Hey, don’t put words into another person’s mouth that he hasn’t said. Where have I once called the Masoretes “fools”? Where have I once claimed that “they were always wrong”? You owe me an apology.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:03 pm and declare yourself more knowledgeable and more reasonable in your conclusions. I think the Masoretic points should be accepted as-is, and if we disagree with them on occasion (as happens), great. But don't just reject them outright and act as if they were always wrong (which they certainly are not). You are too eager to call them fools.
However, I have one advantage over the Masoretes—the Masoretes learned Tiberian Hebrew as a second language. Tiberian Hebrew was a development of DSS Hebrew which had largely adopted an Into-European grammar, especially for verbal usage. As a result, the Masoretes tried to fit the square peg of Biblical Hebrew into the round hole of Tiberian Hebrew. It didn’t always work.
Karl W. Randolph.