Sound Changes in the (Pre-)Masoretic Reading Tradition and the Original Pronunciation of Biblical Aramaic

Suchard, Benjamin D.

doi:10.23993/store.74104

Cited by 22 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Though Hornkohl (2013a; has argued for the heuristic value of TBH, CBH is generally considered a single broad chronolect that includes regional, social, and genre diversity. More rarely, it is suggested that CBH can usefully be divided into chronological phases, i.e., CBH 1 and CBH 2 (Elitzur 2015;2019;2022). A previous study lending support to such an approach is Hornkohl's (2013a, 83-91) analysis of proper names ending in the theophoric element -‫ה(ּו)‬ ‫יָ‬ .…”

Section: Diachronic Diversity Within Classical Biblical Hebrew: the T...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Hornkohl

2023

Semitic Languages and Cultures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This volume explores an underappreciated feature of the standard Tiberian Masoretic tradition of Biblical Hebrew, namely its composite nature. Focusing on cases of dissonance between the tradition’s written (consonantal) and reading (vocalic) components, the study shows that the Tiberian spelling and pronunciation traditions, though related, interdependent, and largely in harmony, at numerous points reflect distinct oral realisations of the biblical text. Where the extant vocalisation differs from the apparently pre-exilic pronunciation presupposed by the written tradition, the former often exhibits conspicuous affinity with post-exilic linguistic conventions as seen in representative Second Temple material, such as the core Late Biblical Hebrew books, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, rabbinic literature, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and contemporary Aramaic and Syriac material. On the one hand, such instances of written-reading disharmony clearly entail a degree of anachronism in the vocalisation of Classical Biblical Hebrew compositions. On the other, since many of the innovative and secondary features in the Tiberian vocalisation tradition are typical of sources from the Second Temple Period and, in some cases, are documented as minority alternatives in even earlier material, the Masoretic reading tradition is justifiably characterised as a linguistic artefact of profound historical depth.

show abstract

Section: Diachronic Diversity Within Classical Biblical Hebrew: the T...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Hornkohl

2023

Semitic Languages and Cultures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Origins of the Biblical Aramaic Reading Tradition

Suchard

2020

Vetus Testam.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The many qere notes in the Aramaic passages of the Hebrew Bible show that the Biblical Aramaic reading tradition goes back to a different variety of Aramaic than the consonantal texts. While this qere dialect differs in important respects from every well-attested dialect of Aramaic, it closely resembles a small number of documents from first- and second-century CE Palestine. This suggests that this was the time and place at which the reading tradition was fixed, not just of the Biblical Aramaic portions of the Hebrew Bible, but of the Hebrew Bible in its entirety.

show abstract

1. The Tetragrammaton

Hornkohl¹

2023

The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition epigraphy and Second Temple deviations in the Tiberian pronunciation tradition.1.0. Ketiv-Qere, Qere Perpetuum, and BeyondThe works that comprise the Hebrew Bible reflect diverse authors, sources, genres, locales, social groups, time periods, and secondary hands. It would be reasonable to expect substantial linguistic diversity. Yet various processes of standardisation have resulted in the levelling of a great deal of the expected diversity, so that the combined Tiberian written-reading tradition is remarkably uniform. Even so, Tiberian BH shows signs of diverse idiolects, registers, genrelects, regional dialects, sociolects, and chronolects.Another aspect of BH diversity stems from variation in the traditions in which the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted. For example, the Tiberian, Babylonian, and Samaritan traditions present different manifestations of BH, with differences ranging from pronunciation to grammar.Even within the dominant Tiberian Masoretic tradition, readers confront differences between the written and reading components of the tradition, i.e., the consonantal text and the vocalisation, respectively. In many places in the text, such dissonance is explicitly acknowledged and marked by the mechanism known as ketiv-qere. In the majority of such cases-the approximate number of which, estimated between 800 and 1500, varies depending on the manuscript and expert opinion (Yeivin 1980, 55; Ofer 2019, 92; Habib 2020, 285)-divergence between what is written (ketiv = the Aramaic passive participle ‫כתיב‬ 'written ') and what is read (qere = the Aramaic passive participle ‫קרי‬ 6 This form may be attested in the phrase ‫ז‬ ַֽ ַ ‫ב‬ ‫לָ‬ ‫ּה‬ ֶ֖ ָ ‫ש‬ ָ ‫ר‬ ‫גְּ‬ ‫מִ‬ ‫ן‬ ‫עַ‬ ֵ֥ ַ ‫מ‬ ‫לְּ‬ (Ezek. 36.5), cf. ESV 'that they might make its pasturelands a prey', but the phrase is also analysable as an Aramaic-style infinitive (see below, ch. 12, §2.2, fn. 17). directional ְּ ‫לָ‬ ָ ‫רּוש‬ ‫יְּ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ yǝrūša ̊la ̊yma ̊)-conflict with the dominant spellings of the name in the written component of the Tiberian 8 Hornkohl (2013a, 91-95). 'to clear away' (1QM 10.1-2; cf. BH ‫ֹל‬ ‫ש‬ ‫נְּ‬ ‫*לִ‬ and RH ‫ל‬ ַ ‫יש‬ ‫-)*לִ‬ 20 The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition the apparent assimilation of n in these forms was possible only after the vowel following n had shortened to zero; 2. the distinction in preposition vocalisation, ‫ל‬ -, on the one hand, versus ‫ב‬ -and ‫כ‬ -, on the other, in qal I-y and II-w/y verbs, e.g., ‫ת‬ ֶ ‫ד‬ ‫לֶ‬ ‫בְּ‬ 'when bearing' versus ‫ת‬ ֶ ‫ד‬ ‫לֶ‬ ‫לָ‬ 'to bear' and ‫בֹוא‬ ‫בְּ‬ 'in coming' and ‫בֹוא‬ ‫כְּ‬ 'after coming' versus ‫בֹוא‬ ‫לָ‬ 'to come (in the Tiberian as well as Babylonian traditions, and with parallels in the Samaritan tradition); 3. the overall rarity of infinitives construct without a preceding preposition in all biblical consonantal traditions and the dominance of infinitives with ‫ל‬ -in late material, e.g., Tiberian LBH, BA, DSS Hebrew, the Hebrew of BS, and RH; 4. the predominantly late char...

show abstract

Sound Changes in the (Pre-)Masoretic Reading Tradition and the Original Pronunciation of Biblical Aramaic

Cited by 22 publications

References 11 publications

The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The Origins of the Biblical Aramaic Reading Tradition

1. The Tetragrammaton

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About