B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

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, modern 21st century detached from their hebrew cultural background, not brought up in either tradition or Judaism, non geographically familiar surroundings, non aramaic speaking, and further away in time than they were from their ancestors - 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 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. 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. 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, 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.

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, 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. 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.

So what qualifications do we have that are better than theirs? That is my contention.

Chris,

Just because they didn't have vowels doesn't mean they didn't need vowels. Just because people used to memorize things does not mean they were perfect at it. If they didn't need to write things down, why did they write things down in the first place with consonants only? They must have had a reason for writing these things down.

How do you know if they always were so precise or if they started being precise after mistakes already existed?
How much of what you are claiming about the Masoretic scholars is ancient hype and propaganda that was used to defend their religious beliefs?

Both sides of this debate can only guess how good the Masoretic scholars were and if they messed up or not.

Kenneth Greifer

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.

First Kenneth, I did not say that they did not need vowels to speak, I meant that the fact that vowels were not even considered important when the consonants were written. If it was absolutely necessary to maintain a correct pronounciation I am sure that vowels would have appeared at an early stage in the history of writing. From the time of Moses to Ezra is a long time without them.

Karl, the consonantal text handed down was faithful, do you believe that the consonantal text received by the masoretes was filled with errors? If you think this then I give up with this discussion. Have you read the story of Ben Asher? I am sure you have, 5 generations of faithfully studying in his family and a master grammarian to summarize. The fact that he was a Kenaite is of incredible importance, plus I doubt whether he or his family were influenced by greek myth, culture or philosophy. The masoretes were handed a consonantal text and knew exactly what it meant, they pointed it to make sure that it retained that original meaning even if it was not pronounced the same as Ezra would have said it.

Yes I too have a similar experience to you. My children are dutch growing up in English at home, sometimes Dutch but with Irish at school. Their accent often annoys me (out of fun, we often argue because I have a pure English accent) They pronounce English words with an Irish accent sometimes (not always thank goodness), even laying the stress on a syllable which I am quick to correct But despite three languages they never spell the written word incorrectly, always maintaining the English spelling.

My strong contention is that while the pronounciation may differ the meaning is not lost, except maybe in isolated cases I agree, but the essential meaning of every word has been faithfully preserved through 3000 years of linguistic, grammatical and pronounciation changes in the historical and geographical surroundings. This is the miracle. Now we can resolve ourselves to modern languages and see how meanings of some words have shifted even in the last 30 years, but we are not talking a secular language we are talking about a written language whose very meaning and understanding was vehemently guarded and held in awe regardless of surrounding influences dialects and cultural changes.

Please submit as many as you want, your most irrefutable if you like, masoretic errors, ones where they did not know any better, or they were influenced by some religious dogma, or simply mistakes.....

I want to see them for myself.

I would like everybody involved in this thread to read the article I a posted in the newest thread, "comparison of Tiberian and Qumran." He dispels hyperbole on both sides of this issue.

Jonathan Mohler

Galena wrote:Karl, the consonantal text handed down was faithful, do you believe that the consonantal text received by the masoretes was filled with errors?

It is almost impossible to write a text as long as Tanakh and have it completely without error. Having said that, the standards were so high that the number of errors that made their way into the MT consonantal text are so few that they are miniscule.

Galena wrote:Have you read the story of Ben Asher? I am sure you have, 5 generations of faithfully studying in his family and a master grammarian to summarize. … plus I doubt whether he or his family were influenced by greek myth, culture or philosophy.

If they were influenced by the Talmud, they then were influenced by Greek philosophy.

Galena wrote:The masoretes were handed a consonantal text and knew exactly what it meant, they pointed it to make sure that it retained that original meaning even if it was not pronounced the same as Ezra would have said it.

The evidence is that they did not understand every word perfectly. For example, in the Kethib/Qere pairs, the Qere is often wrong. If they understood the text perfectly, none would be wrong.

I’ve heard more than one story about a seminary student bringing in an unpointed scroll to a seminary class in Hebrew, and finding that the readings indicated by the consonants are different from those indicated by the Masoretic points. That’s where they are making a comparison between pointed and unpointed readings, whereas for me it was merely something that I noticed in passing.

Galena wrote:My strong contention is that while the pronounciation may differ the meaning is not lost, except maybe in isolated cases I agree, but the essential meaning of every word has been faithfully preserved through 3000 years of linguistic, grammatical and pronounciation changes in the historical and geographical surroundings.

There is evidence from the LXX that some of the lesser used words in Tanakh were forgotten. Again the LXX is not my cup of tea, so I don’t have detailed records.

Another indicator is that the definitions of some words as recorded in tradition from medieval period are clearly not the meanings as used in Tanakh. The Masoretes went with the definitions from their time, not that from Biblical times.

Galena wrote:This is the miracle. Now we can resolve ourselves to modern languages and see how meanings of some words have shifted even in the last 30 years, but we are not talking a secular language we are talking about a written language whose very meaning and understanding was vehemently guarded and held in awe regardless of surrounding influences dialects and cultural changes.

They had the written text in high regard, but that doesn’t mean that they understood all of it.

The reason I got into Hebrew was because I didn’t understand KJV. It wasn’t the words that had gone out of use that puzzled me, rather the words whose meanings had changed. When I tried reading KJV using the modern meanings, it often didn’t make sense. The Masoretes faced the same problem except in Hebrew rather than English.

Galena wrote:Please submit as many as you want, your most irrefutable if you like, masoretic errors, ones where they did not know any better, or they were influenced by some religious dogma, or simply mistakes.....

I want to see them for myself.

I already wrote to you that I had not made a list of such errors, nor have I even looked at the points in well over a decade, The only one that I can remember after so long a time is Proverbs 1:19. I claim that Proverbs 13:1 is another. I haven’t kept a record, nor have I even looked at the points in a long period of time.

Karl W. Randolph.

Galena wrote:
Have you read the story of Ben Asher? I am sure you have, 5 generations of faithfully studying in his family and a master grammarian to summarize. … plus I doubt whether he or his family were influenced by greek myth, culture or philosophy.

karl wrote If they were influenced by the Talmud, they then were influenced by Greek philosophy.

That's why I mentioned that there were 5 generations of Karaites including Ben Asher himself. They did not hold to the view that the oral law was inspired, nor did they regard the talmud as equal to the word of God. This is what this group stood for, and it was quite a large movement opposed to the orthodox beliefs similar to today, believed to have begun around the 2nd century BC. Therefore He and all his generations held that the scripture was the one and only authority and the he was first true grammarian, respected for his conservative approach to scripture. Karl, for all your arguments I have not seen one that is convincing. Best to agree that we do not agree, and respectfully, I put the masoretes as having the final authority on translation, I have a few notes myself where scholars have insisted that there is a mistake and yet they simply did not understand and in their arrogance insist on correcting where they have no business. These are the corruptors, men who have no respect for God but simply trust in the power of their own intellect. The masoretes have every reason to be respected and any mistake should not be automatically viewed as an error, Psalm 145 is a classic example where the intellectuals and the scholars in all their knowledge failed to see the most simplest thing. The ketiv and quere readings are NOT an indication of their ignorance, this is ridiculous, it is an indication of their refusal to change the consonantal text and highlights their respect and desire NOT to altar the word and their belief that each person has the responsibility to read for himself and decide. Unlike the high minded pride of intellectualism that has pervaded the bible bookshelves of the 20th century.

Karl I respect your knowledge of hebrew, and any comments you make about a passage, but on this point I am on the other side of the atlantic.

I would like you to tell me please

The only one that I can remember after so long a time is Proverbs 1:19

what do you have trouble with this one? I want to solve it for you.

Kind regards
Chris

Galena wrote:

Galena wrote:
Have you read the story of Ben Asher? I am sure you have, 5 generations of faithfully studying in his family and a master grammarian to summarize. … plus I doubt whether he or his family were influenced by greek myth, culture or philosophy.

karl wrote If they were influenced by the Talmud, they then were influenced by Greek philosophy.

That's why I mentioned that there were 5 generations of Karaites including Ben Asher himself.

In a message above, you called them “Kenaite”, descendants of Moses’ father-in-law. That sort of surprised me, as how did you get that information?

Galena wrote: They did not hold to the view that the oral law was inspired, nor did they regard the talmud as equal to the word of God. This is what this group stood for, and it was quite a large movement opposed to the orthodox beliefs similar to today, believed to have begun around the 2nd century BC. Therefore He and all his generations held that the scripture was the one and only authority and the he was first true grammarian, respected for his conservative approach to scripture.

Yet, I am a Christian, and from a Christian viewpoint, they did NOT believe the Scriptures. Because they did not believe it, they had to resort to excuses as to why they didn’t believe Scripture without appearing to disbelieve it. And those excuses were based on Greek philosophy. The Karaite excuses were just as much based on Greek philosophy as were the Talmudic excuses.

Secondly, they inherited medieval Hebrew, and much of the complexity of the points is due to trying to shoehorn the Biblical text into their Hebrew. Medieval Hebrew grammar was not the same as Biblical Hebrew grammar. Medieval Hebrew, like first century Hebrew, was tense based. You agree that Biblical Hebrew is mode based.

Galena wrote:Karl, for all your arguments I have not seen one that is convincing.

What you want are specific examples, and I’ve already told you why I can’t do that.

Galena wrote: Best to agree that we do not agree, and respectfully,

We may come to that.

Galena wrote: I put the masoretes as having the final authority on translation,

I don’t see how I, as a Christian, am to put myself under non-believer interpretation, when the text itself seems to indicate otherwise. That is, the unpointed text.

Yes, my willingness to question the Masoretes is partially based on being a Christian, but only partially. My Christianity gives me the boldness to go with the consonantal text when it disagrees with the Masoretic points.

Galena wrote: I have a few notes myself where scholars have insisted that there is a mistake and yet they simply did not understand and in their arrogance insist on correcting where they have no business. These are the corruptors, men who have no respect for God but simply trust in the power of their own intellect.

That’s not the issue here.

Galena wrote: The masoretes have every reason to be respected and any mistake should not be automatically viewed as an error, Psalm 145 is a classic example where the intellectuals and the scholars in all their knowledge failed to see the most simplest thing.

I have no idea of what you are talking in this example.

Galena wrote: The ketiv and quere readings are NOT an indication of their ignorance, this is ridiculous, it is an indication of their refusal to change the consonantal text and highlights their respect and desire NOT to altar the word and their belief that each person has the responsibility to read for himself and decide.

The Qere is where the Masoretes claimed that there was a copyist error. I just looked at Isaiah 49:6 where the Qere was indicated, and when I checked the DSS, there was a copyist error. But there are other times when the Qere is wrong, that there wasn’t a copyist error.

Galena wrote: Unlike the high minded pride of intellectualism that has pervaded the bible bookshelves of the 20th century.

Actually, you need to go back to the 19th century, to Gesenius and his contemporaries.

Galena wrote:Karl I respect your knowledge of hebrew, and any comments you make about a passage, but on this point I am on the other side of the atlantic.

Literally as well as figuratively.

Galena wrote:I would like you to tell me please

The only one that I can remember after so long a time is Proverbs 1:19

what do you have trouble with this one? I want to solve it for you.

Kind regards
Chris

Go ahead, give your rendition. See if you can make sense out of the points.

I can’t.

Karl W. Randolph.

Hallo again Karl

Galena wrote:
The masoretes have every reason to be respected and any mistake should not be automatically viewed as an error, Psalm 145 is a classic example where the intellectuals and the scholars in all their knowledge failed to see the most simplest thing.


Karl replied: I have no idea of what you are talking in this example.

Very briefly Psalm 145 and the missing verse that should begin with a nun. Many translations have manufactured an imaginary verse out of arrogance or simply a sense of misplaced duty in believing that they know better and have mistrusted the masoretes reliability. This is a separate topic, but that missing verse is intentional and if you are interested just email me, the explanations are simple.

Sorry for the mistake about Ben asher and him being a Kenaite instead of Karaite, awful mistake I know, but keyboard brain communication glitch there (something the masoretes would not have done )

Right now to Provers 1:19
כֵּן אָרְחוֹת כָּל־בֹּצֵעַ בָּצַע אֶת־נֶפֶשׁ בְּעָלָיו יִקָּח׃ I know what this says in English, unfortunately and to be honest, despite my myriad of reference books I can not find out what a qal perfect verb following a participle means, (it's hard to look these things up in an index and infuriating when you are trying to learn specifics). Anyway, having studied every dot I see no problem at all. What is the problem. It all looks perfectly fine to me.I see how in the hebrew the last verb יִקָּחrefers back to the qal perfect בָּצַע indicating that those who do the evil are the ones whose souls are being taken away. The whole of verse 19 closes verses 10 - 18. I looked hard, I can not see anything wrong at all. I wait with expectant agony to what you are about to let loose upon my uneducated senses.....
Kind regards
chris

Chris,

You are right, there is nothing wrong with Proverbs 1:19, except that it is a good example for the pitfalls awaiting the novice reader of the biblical text sans NIYQUD. One may indeed "amend" בָּצַע to בֶּצַע, but then one would have to put a comma after it. Thus:
כֵּן אָרְחוֹת כָּל בֹּצֵעַ בֶּצַע, אֶת נֶפֶשׁ בְּעָלָיו יִקָּח
perfectly rendered by KJV as: "So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof."
יִקָּח = היא-קח, where the fore-attached היא, 'he', refers to the בֹּצֵעַ בֶּצַע, the "greedy of gain".

Isaac Fried, Boston University