TiberianHebrew.com

I just found a new blog dealing with the reconstruction of the Tiberian reading tradition of the Hebrew Bible called TiberianHebrew.com. In addition to some resources and discussions on the pronunciation tradition, they have several audio recordings in this reconstructed tradition.

Hornkohl, "The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew"

Aaron D. Hornkohl has published an open-access volume on The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew.

Free Hebrew Linguistic Resources

In the recent Genizah newsletter, Nick Posegay highlights two important open-access works just published by Geoffrey Khan, which are worth downloading and checking out:

The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew, Volume 1

The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew, Volume 2

Description:

The form of Biblical Hebrew that is presented in printed editions, with vocalization and accent signs, has its origin in medieval manuscripts of the Bible. The vocalization and accent signs are notation systems that were created in Tiberias in the early Islamic period by scholars known as the Tiberian Masoretes, but the oral tradition they represent has roots in antiquity. The grammatical textbooks and reference grammars of Biblical Hebrew in use today are heirs to centuries of tradition of grammatical works on Biblical Hebrew in Europe. The paradox is that this European tradition of Biblical Hebrew grammar did not have direct access to the way the Tiberian Masoretes were pronouncing Biblical Hebrew. 

In the last few decades, research of manuscript sources from the medieval Middle East has made it possible to reconstruct with considerable accuracy the pronunciation of the Tiberian Masoretes, which has come to be known as the ‘Tiberian pronunciation tradition’. This book presents the current state of knowledge of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition of Biblical Hebrew and a full edition of one of the key medieval sources, Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ ‘The Guide for the Reader’, by ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn. It is hoped that the book will help to break the mould of current grammatical descriptions of Biblical Hebrew and form a bridge between modern traditions of grammar and the school of the Masoretes of Tiberias. 

Links and QR codes in the book allow readers to listen to an oral performance of samples of the reconstructed Tiberian pronunciation by Alex Foreman. This is the first time Biblical Hebrew has been recited with the Tiberian pronunciation for a millennium.

See also the forthcoming:

Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew

Description:

This volume presents a collection of articles centring on the language of the Mishnah and the Talmud – the most important Jewish texts (after the Bible), which were compiled in Palestine and Babylonia in the latter centuries of Late Antiquity. Despite the fact that Rabbinic Hebrew has been the subject of growing academic interest across the past century, very little scholarship has been written on it in English. 

Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew addresses this lacuna, with eight lucid but technically rigorous articles written in English by a range of experienced scholars, focusing on various aspects of Rabbinic Hebrew: its phonology, morphology, syntax, pragmatics and lexicon. This volume is essential reading for students and scholars of Rabbinic studies alike, and constitutes the first in a new series, Studies in Semitic Languages and Cultures, in collaboration with the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge.

Arrant on Non-Standard Tiberian Vocalization

Estara J. Arrant published the April Genizah Fragment of the Month on a fragment with intriguing patterns of Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization, along with some helpful background discussion for those not very familiar with the various Hebrew vocalization systems.

Is the Vowel Pointing of BHS the Correct Pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew?

I recently came across an old blog on ETC about the importance of the vowel pointings in the Hebrew Bible for reading Hebrew. The nature of the vowel pointings has been much debated in scholarly literature, but this question is also one which I am commonly asked by non-specialists who are beginning their study of the Hebrew Bible. Since the 16th-17th century debate over the inspiration of the vowels, a consensus has been reached that the vowels of the Masoretic Text (MT) were added to the consonantal base text centuries after Christ. There is still much discussion, however, on the philological value of the MT vocalization for the pronunciation of ancient Hebrew. Most now view the vocalization of MT as reflecting an old Jewish oral reading tradition of varying exegetical and philological reliability. So here I propose to answer the commong question, "Is the vowel pointing of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia the correct pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew?" The numerous examples to follow have largely been taken from Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

By way of background, we need first to understand the historical situation of the BHS pointing. BHS is a diplomatic edition of the Leningrad Codex (L), the oldest manuscript of the comlpete Hebrew Bible from A.D. 1008 or 1009, which reproduces the text of the codex exactly without alteration, even for obvious scribal errors. L, in turn, is only one Masoretic manuscript that differs at points from the other manuscripts in its own tradition. A difference I recently encountered was how L reads an active vocalization וַיִּמַח "and he destroyed" in Gen 7:23, whereas the Second Rabbinic Bible (which was considered the standard edition of the Hebrew Bible before L was used as a base text for critical editions) reads a passive vocalization וַיִּמַּח "and it was destroyed" for the same consonantal text. L also has numerous differences in vocalization from the Aleppo Codex, which is considered to be the best manuscript of the Ben Asher family vocalization tradition of which L is a part. Thus L offers one (often inferior) vocalization of the Ben Asher tradition.

The Ben Asher tradition itself is one of numerous Tiberian vocalization systems, albeit the most popular. An alternative system is that of the Ben Naftali family, which is closely related but different. For instance, the Ben Asher tradition vocalizes the text "in Israel" consistently as בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל beyisrael, whereas the Ben Naftali tradition vocalizes it consistently as בִּישְׂרָאֵל biysrael. Thus the Ben Asher tradition is one of numerous Tiberian Masoretic vocalization systems.

Yet the Tiberian Masoretic systems are not alone in the Masoretic traditions. The Tiberian vocalizations developed from the prior Palestinian vocalizations, which at times differed from it. The Masoretes in Babylon also developed alternative vocalizations. For instance, in the Babylonian-Yemenite MS Bodl. 2333, has השֶׁמשׁ hashemesh for השָׁמשׁ hashamesh of L. Thus, the Tiberian Masoretic vocalizations are one of a number of alternative, geographically situated Masoretic vocalization traditions.

Nor are Jewish vocalizations the only systems laying claim to the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew. The Samaritans also developed a reading tradition and vocalization system that differed at points from their Jewish counterparts.

What's more, each of these Masoretic vocalizations are attested only late, centuries after numerous other alternative vocalizations are attested. For instance, Jerome's transliterations of Hebrew words into Latin clearly show that he learned a pronunciation of Hebrew that differed at points from that of the Masoretes. דֹדְךָ dodecha in Jer 32:7 is transliterated dodach, and קָרָאתָ caratha in Jer 3:12 is transliterated carath. Origen learned the same vocalizations for 2ms pronominal and verbal suffixes even earlier, as he transliterates them the same way in the second column of the Hexapla. For אָזְנְךָ oznecha in Ps 31:3 he reads οζναχ oznach, and for זָנַחְתָּ zanahta he reads ζαναθ zanath. Thus even in the early centuries after Christ there were current, variant pronunciations of Hebrew.

In the Qumran manuscripts there is also evidence for differing pronunciations of colloquial Hebrew. Tov lists a number of differences:
1) lengthened independent pronouns (e.g., 3ms הואה < הוא)
2) lengthened pronominal suffixes for the second and third persons (e.g., 3mp במה < בם)
3) pausal forms in MT are non-pausal  (e.g., 6QpaleoGen for Gen 6:19 אתכה < אתך)
4) lengthened future forms (e.g., אקטלה)
5) verbal forms with pronominal suffixes as יקוטלנו
6) the perfect form קטלתמה for 2mp
7) the adverb מאד "much" with an adverbial ending מאדה.
8) long forms of the 2ms pronominal suffix (e.g., מלככה < מלכך)

Even earlier, during biblical times, there is evidence for differing pronunciations of Hebrew. The classic example of "Shibboleth" from Judges 12:6 does not deal with vocalization, but it is indicative of dialectical differences even as early as the times of the judges. A number of scholars, primarily by evaluating orthographic differences in ancient Hebrew inscriptions, have also noted differences between Northern Hebrew and Southern Hebrew.

Now most of these different pronunciations of Hebrew are very similar and historically related, so one can run into trouble by overemphasizing the differences without recognizing the core unity. But the fact remains, that there never was (even from earliest times) one official, authoritative, or "correct" pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew. Rather, what we see is that there were multiple spoken dialects of Hebrew with different systems of pronunciation surviving from early on and continuing even until later periods. The vocalization in BHS is that of the Leningrad Codex of the Ben Asher tradition of the Tiberian Masoretes of the early medieval era, one branch of the larger tree of possible pronunciations. So is the vocalization system in BHS correct? Yes, in that it reflects one system for pronouncing biblical Hebrew with deep historical roots. But if this system lays claim to being the correct system, the answer must be no. It is merely one of a number of ways that Hebrew has been pronounced by linguistic communities of Hebrew speakers over the many millennia. Learn it for the help it gives in teaching non-native speakers to read Hebrew, but also recognize its proper place among the various dialects of Hebrew.

The Vocalization of Proverbs 31:21 and the Rule "Lectio Difficilior Potior"

My wife and I have a family tradition of reading Proverbs 31 at dinner on Friday nights. Today I read from the New English Bible for the first time and was alerted to an exegetical issue in Proverbs 31:21 that I had not seen before. This issue is a question of vocalization from a like consonantal text, so it is not properly text-critical in my view, but a note in the NET Bible seemed to me to make it so.

MT vocalizes Proverbs 31:21 as:

לֹא־תִירָ֣א לְבֵיתָ֣הּ מִשָּׁ֑לֶג כִּ֥י כָל־בֵּ֜יתָ֗הּ לָבֻ֥שׁ שָׁנִֽים׃
"She is not afraid of snow for her house, because all of her house is clothed in scarlet."
"Scarlet" here is שָׁנִים shanim.

But the LXX and Vulgate understand the same consonants differently.

The LXX reads it as the number "two" שְׁנַיִם shnayim and attaches it to the "coverings" at the beginning of the next verse: δισσὰς χλαίνας ἐποίησεν "she makes two coverings."

The Vulgate also reads it as the number "two" שְׁנַיִם shnayim, but it includes it at the end of verse 21: omnes enim domestici eius vestiti duplicibus "for her whole house is doubly clothed." The NEB and NLT agree with the Vulgate in reading "two garments" or "warm clothes."

The difference between the readings is one of interpretation of the same consonantal text, but the reason I bring it up is that the note in the NET Bible that tries to use a text-critical principle to resolve an exegetical problem. The NET Bible note says that the reading of the numeral "two" is the "easier reading and therefore suspect." The note is alluding to the often-abused text-critical canon of lectio difficilior potior, or "the more difficult reading is superior." While there is nothing wrong with the principle in general, wrongly applied it can lead scholars in the wrong direction. In particular, the NET Bible is using the principle to determine the correct vocalization of an ambiguous consonantal text. But the question of vocalization is not properly a text-critical decision, and it is questionable whether the text-critical principle preferring the more difficult reading can be made to apply in these situations.

The vocalization of the Hebrew text was not indicated in the original texts of Scripture (with the possible exception of original vowel letters). This means that many passages of Scripture, even when the consonantal text is agreed upon, are ambiguous and allow for multiple readings. The readings one chooses, then, are actually exegetical decisions rather than textual ones. In exegesis, I question whether the lectio difficilior canon is applicable. What it is essentially saying is that the most difficult interpretation is likely correct. Thus, the numeral "two" cannot be correct, because it fits too neatly into the context and practically begs to be read. But in exegesis, contextual suitability is the primary canon. What exegete in his right mind would look for the most unlikely, hard-to-understand, stretched, contextually unsuitable interpretation? Vocalizations should be chosen based on which reading best fits in the context, not based on which one makes the least sense! This kind of thinking only makes sense if the vocalization of MT is assumed to be original and authoritative and alternative readings are seen as secondary corruptions of the MT. This is a methodologically flawed approach. In reality, the consonantal text is vocalically ambiguous and requires independent interpretive disambiguation by the reader.

So when determining which reading to read for שנים, we need to look at which fits the context best. In favor of the reading "two," we have the immediate context of the verse and common sense, which says doubling up garments is more fitting for keeping warm in snow than putting on extravagant scarlet garments. In favor of the reading "scarlet," we have in the next verse a reference to the extravagance of the woman's fine linen and purple clothes and the possibility of a somewhat stretched metaphor of scarlet clothing = richness and abundance of clothing = warmth. At first glance, it seems to me like the numeral "two" may actually be the better interpretation, but either way, the point is that the exegetical question must be resolved by appeal to the best fit in context, not the worst fit.