Reconstructing the Pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew

	EBHP /EBHP/ [EBHP][2] (c. 850-550 BCE)	TH /TH/⁺ *[TH] (c. 850 CE)	PMT pronounced as IH /IH/ [IH] (present)
Vowel Length	Phonemic	Vowel length existed but not phonemic	No distinction of vowel length
*Dagesh Forte/ḥazaq*	Gemination ie doubling phoenemic[3]	Gemination may be phoenemic but if so it has very light phonemic load[4]	none
א	/ʾ/ [ʔ]	/ʾ/ [ʔ]	/ʾ/ [Ø] i.e. silent
ע	a polyphonic[5] letter in Biblical Hebrew pronounced /^c/ [ʕ] or /ġ/ [ɣ][6] depending on its proto-Semitic origin	/^c/ [ʕ]	/^c/ [Ø]
ה	/h/ [h]	/h/ [h]	/h/ Rarely [h] frequently [Ø] or glottal stop [ʔ]
הּ	Consonantal /h/ [h] at end of word	Consonantal /h/ [h] at end of word	/h/ [Ø]
ח	a polyphonic letter in Biblical Hebrew pronounced /ḥ/ [ħ] or /ḫ/[7] [x] depending on its proto-semitic origin.	/ḥ/ [ħ]	/ḥ/ [x]
פּ	/p/ [p]	/p/ Two allophones in complementary distribution פּ = p [p] and פ = p [f]	פּ = p [p] [8]
פ	/p/ [p]		פ = p [f]
ב	/b/ [b]	/b/ Two allophones in complementary distribution בּ = [b] and ב = b [v] (labio-dental, fricative, voiced)	בּ = b [b] [9]
ב	/b/ [b]		ב = b [v]
ו	/w/ [w]	/w/ [w] (possibly [v][10])	/w/ [v]
ט	/ṭ/ [tʼ]	/ṭ/ [t̪ˁ]	/ţ/ [t]
ת	/t/ [t]	/t/ Two allophones in complementary distribution תּ = t [t] and ת = t [θ]	/t/ [t]
כ	/k/ [k]	/k/ Two allophones in complementary distribution כּ = k [k] or [k^h] and כ = k [x]	כּ = k [k][11]
כ	/k/ [k]		כ = k [x]
ק	/q/[12] [k’]	/q/ [kʼ]	/q/ [k]
ס	/s/ [s]	/s/ [s]	/s/ [s]
שׂ	/ś/ [ɬ]	/ś/ [s]	/ś/ [s]

b. Table 33 - Original Typical Semitic 3 Way Opposition in Biblical Hebrew Reduced to 2 Way in Israeli Hebrew with Loss of Emphatics

(This could “deafen” the reader to word play founded on the three way consonantal opposition which is not “heard” using modern pronunciation)

c. Changes in Pronunciation Between the First Temple Period, Tiberian Biblical Vocalization and Modern Hebrew most of which Alter the Syllabic Structure

N.b. This is absolutely vital for scanning biblical verse. See also Some Impacts of Phonemic Change Between Biblical and Israeli Hebrew.

3. Problem 3 - Ancient Hebrew Orthography[13] Provides Some, But Not Much, Guidance Regarding the Placement, and Nature of Vowels

Ambiguity of Pre-exilic (JEH) Orthography

Word	Possible Range of EBHP Vocalizations and Hence Meanings (/TH/⁺ and [TH] within brackets for comparison)
דבר	/daˈbaːr/ (MT /dåˈbår/ [dɔːˈvɔːr]) "word" (noun) /ˈdabr/ (MT /ˈdɛ.bɛr/ [ˈdɛːˈvɛr]) "plague" (noun) /daˈbar/ (MT /dåˈbar/ [dɔːˈvaːr]) "he spoke" (qal SC.) /dōˈbeːr/ (MT /dōˈbẹr/ [doːˈvẹːr]) "is speaking/spokesman" (qal active participle) /daˈbūr/ (MT /dåˈbur/ [dɔːˈvuːr]) "is spoken" (qal p.p.) /duˈbar/ (MT /dubˈbar/ [dubˈbaːr]) "was spoken" (passive qal SC.) /duˈbur/ > /dˈboːr/ [dәˈboːr] (MT /dˈbor/ [dәˈvoːr]) "speaking" (qal inf. constr.) /daˈbōr/ (MT /dåˈbor/ [dɔːˈvoːr]) (qal inf. abs.) /dibˈbịr/ (MT /dibˈbẹr/ [dibˈbẹːr]) "he spoke" (piel SC.) /dubˈbar/ (MT /dubˈbar/ [dubˈbaːr]) "it was said" (pual SC.) /dabˈbịr/ (MT /dabˈbẹr/ [dabˈbẹːr]) "speak!" (piel ms. sing. imp.)
ישבר	/yašˈbur/ > /yišˈbur/ (MT /yišˈbor/ [yišˈboːr]) "he is breaking/will break" (qal* imperfect) /ˈyašbur > /ˈyišbur/ (MT /yišˈbor/ [yišˈboːr]) "let him break" (qal* jussive) /yušˈbar/ (qal* passive imperfect) /yiššaˈbir/ (MT /yiššåˈbẹr/ [yiššɔːˈbẹːr]) "it is being broken/will be broken" (niphal imperfect) /yišˈšabir/ (MT /yiššåˈbẹr/ [yiššɔːˈbẹːr]) "let it be broken" (niphal jussive) /yašabˈbir/ (MT /yšabˈbẹr/ [yәšabˈbẹːr]) "he is shattering/will shatter" (piel imperfect) /yaˈšabbir/ (MT /yšabˈbẹr/ [yәšabˈbẹːr]) "let him shatter" (piel jussive) /yašubˈbar/ (MT /yšubˈbar/ [yәšubˈbaːr]) "it will be shattered" (pual imperfect) /yašˈbīr/ (MT /yašˈbir/ [yašˈbiːr]) "he is breaking open/ he will break open" (hiphil imperfect) /ˈyašbir/ (MT /yašˈbẹr/ [yašˈbẹːr]) "let him break open" (hiphil jussive) /yušˈbar/* (MT /yušˈbar/ [yušˈbaːr] or /yåšˈbar/ [yɔšˈbaːr]) "it will be broken open" (hophal imperfect)
השבר	/hiššaˈbir/ (MT /hiššåˈbẹr/ [hiššɔːˈvẹːr]) (niphal infinitive or masc. sing. imp.) /hašˈbir/ (MT /hašˈbẹr/ [hašˈbẹːr]) (hiphil infinitive absolute or masc. sing. imp.) /hušˈbar/ (MT /hušˈbar/ [hušˈbaːr] or /håšˈbar/ [hɔšˈbaːr]) (hophal* SC)
משבר	/mišˈbaːr/ (MT mišˈbår [mišˈbɔːr]) "surf" (noun) /mušabˈbir/ (MT mšabˈbẹr [mәšabˈbẹːr]) (piel participle) /mušubˈbar/ (MT mšubˈbår [mәšubˈbɔːr]) (pual participle) /mušˈbaːr/ (MT mušˈbår [mušˈbɔːr] or måšˈbår [mɔšˈbɔːr] "breaken open" (hophal* participle)
נשבר	/našˈbur/ > /nišˈbur/ (MT nišˈbor [nišˈboːr]) "we will break" (qal* imperfect first person plural) /nišˈbōr/ (MT /nišˈbor/ [nišˈboːr]) (niphal inf. abs.) /nišˈbar/ / (MT /nišˈbar/ [nišˈbaːr]) "was broken" (niphal SC) /nišˈbaːr/ (MT /nišˈbår/ [nišˈbɔːr]) "being broken" (niphal participle)

4. Problem 4 - What Letters Were Prone to Be Miscopied in the Course of Transmission of Hebrew Biblical Texts?

Scripts and Scripture
All texts, later incorporated in the Hebrew Bible, which were brought into exile in Babylonia in the early 6^th century BCE, would have been written in Paleo-Hebrew scripts resembling those of the Mesha, Siloam and/or Lachish and with the orthography of Epigraphic Hebrew (see Gogel). A significant part of the authoring, and most of the redacting of the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic History, the major prophetic books etc. took place in Babylonia from c. 590 BCE to c. 450 BCE. The language of that area was Aramaic. Presumably during that exile span of time the redaction of scriptures probably went hand with: 1. Aramaic displacing Hebrew as the spoken language of the exiles; 2. The rapid acceptance of the Imperial Aramaic script for writing both Hebrew and Aramaic; and, 3. An increased and more uniform use of vowel letters in Hebrew writing, partly under the influence of Aramaic spelling conventions and partly to distinguish Hebrew from Aramaic pronunciation of cognate words and forms. It is of course possible that this orthographic change took place without the acceptance of Aramaic script. It is probable that the Torah, as a whole, the Deuteronomistic History, the major prophetic books etc. were ”published” initially in the Aramaic script in Babylonia. Of course the redactors would have drawn on documents written in the Paleo-Hebrew scripts and the orthography of Epigraphic Hebrew. Thus it may be that all surviving Paleo-Hebrew biblical texts (e.g. the Qumran Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll, the Samaritan Torah) at one stage passed through a form in Aramaic letters. It is likely that some of the later books of the Bible, such as Esther, Proverbs, Qohelet, Jonah, Daniel etc. were composed in Aramaic script. In examining likely errors, it is necessary to consider – Word Division - Paleo-Hebrew texts usually used clear dots to separate words thus minimizing the likelihood of an error in word division[14]. Biblical texts in the Aramaic-Square Hebrew script seem to have used blank spaces between words. Confusion of Letters (see tables of scripts in The Book of Hebrew Script: History, Palaeography, Script Styles, Calligraphy & Design by Ada Yardeni) a) Paleo-Hebrew Script – In Mesha and Siloam scripts confusion of letters is very unlikely. Lachish script, being squat and somewhat cursive, errors are more possible if the document were written in a very small hand it might perhaps be possible to confuse n = נ (n) and p = פ (p). b) Aramaic-Square Hebrew Script [15] – In Babylonia, the Jewish exiles would have adopted one or more versions of the Imperial Aramaic Script. The later Judean Jewish developments of the script are known as Square Hebrew or Jewish Script. The rapid evolution of this script as the script changed, so changed the letters that could be easily confused. The problem is that in copying texts might go from Mesha script to Lachish script to Imperial Aramaic script, to 3^rd century BCE Jewish script to Herodian script potentially exposed to changing sets of possible letter confusions at each stage. A less likely line of development might be from Mesha script to Lachish script to early Second Temple Paleo-Hebrew script[16], to 3^rd century BCE Jewish script to Herodian script.

Scripts and Scripture

All texts, later incorporated in the Hebrew Bible, which were brought into exile in Babylonia in the early 6^th century BCE, would have been written in Paleo-Hebrew scripts resembling those of the Mesha, Siloam and/or Lachish and with the orthography of Epigraphic Hebrew (see Gogel).

A significant part of the authoring, and most of the redacting of the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic History, the major prophetic books etc. took place in Babylonia from c. 590 BCE to c. 450 BCE. The language of that area was Aramaic. Presumably during that exile span of time the redaction of scriptures probably went hand with:

1. Aramaic displacing Hebrew as the spoken language of the exiles;

2. The rapid acceptance of the Imperial Aramaic script for writing both Hebrew and Aramaic; and,

3. An increased and more uniform use of vowel letters in Hebrew writing, partly under the influence of Aramaic spelling conventions and partly to distinguish Hebrew from Aramaic pronunciation of cognate words and forms. It is of course possible that this orthographic change took place without the acceptance of Aramaic script.

It is probable that the Torah, as a whole, the Deuteronomistic History, the major prophetic books etc. were ”published” initially in the Aramaic script in Babylonia. Of course the redactors would have drawn on documents written in the Paleo-Hebrew scripts and the orthography of Epigraphic Hebrew. Thus it may be that all surviving Paleo-Hebrew biblical texts (e.g. the Qumran Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll, the Samaritan Torah) at one stage passed through a form in Aramaic letters. It is likely that some of the later books of the Bible, such as Esther, Proverbs, Qohelet, Jonah, Daniel etc. were composed in Aramaic script.

In examining likely errors, it is necessary to consider –

Word Division - Paleo-Hebrew texts usually used clear dots to separate words thus minimizing the likelihood of an error in word division[14]. Biblical texts in the Aramaic-Square Hebrew script seem to have used blank spaces between words.
Confusion of Letters (see tables of scripts in The Book of Hebrew Script: History, Palaeography, Script Styles, Calligraphy & Design by Ada Yardeni)

a) Paleo-Hebrew Script – In Mesha and Siloam scripts confusion of letters is very unlikely. Lachish script, being squat and somewhat cursive, errors are more possible if the document were written in a very small hand it might perhaps be possible to confuse n = נ (n) and p = פ (p).

b) Aramaic-Square Hebrew Script [15] – In Babylonia, the Jewish exiles would have adopted one or more versions of the Imperial Aramaic Script. The later Judean Jewish developments of the script are known as Square Hebrew or Jewish Script. The rapid evolution of this script as the script changed, so changed the letters that could be easily confused.

The problem is that in copying texts might go from Mesha script to Lachish script to Imperial Aramaic script, to 3^rd century BCE Jewish script to Herodian script potentially exposed to changing sets of possible letter confusions at each stage. A less likely line of development might be from Mesha script to Lachish script to early Second Temple Paleo-Hebrew script[16], to 3^rd century BCE Jewish script to Herodian script.

The following tables outline what letters were very similar to other letters in the scripts in uses of the centuries if Hebrew text transmission leading up to the earliest Masoretic manuscripts of the tenth century CE. It can be clearly seen that there was much room for confusion. However, the most important guarantees of the integrity of the text have always been the competence and integrity of copyists and the fact that the text must make sense in Hebrew. I will illustrate the last point. The letters בכ (= b, k) have been very similar for about 2,000 years. It is clearly possible that some in some cases ב may have been miscopied as כ and visa-versa. However, for such an error to take root it would be necessary not only that the word undergoing the change still make sense in Hebrew but that it be appropriate to its context in the text.

Table A - Potential for the Confusion of Letters In Hebrew Bible Text Transmission

Table B – Confusion of Letters in Paleo-Hebrew and Aramaic-Jewish Scripts

[1] This is of Key Importance in Identifying Word Play see Encyclopedia Judaica article PROSODY, HEBREW, Jewish Encyclopedia article ALLITERATION AND KINDRED FIGURES, Wikipedia article Biblical poetry

For the impact of the merging of phonemes on the vocabulary of Israeli Hebrew see Encyclopedia Judaica vol. 16 para. 1645-1646.

[2] Note non-spirantization of the bgdkpt consonants

[3] For germination in Semitic languages see Lipinski 1997 pp. 179-184

[4] Blau 1976/93 p. 16 and See Hoffman pp. 99-101

[5] Polyphonic letters ח and ע (see Blau 1982 and Wevers 1970 ). Since the Tiberian massorites did not recognize the polyphonic nature of these letters it goes unmarked in their pointing. The easiest way for the student to determine the correct phoneme in an actual word is to look the root up in HALOT and check the nature of the consonant in the Arabic or Ugaritic cognate. In all these cases the biblical Hebrew consonant will be the same as that in Ugaritic and Arabic.

[6] also transcribed gh (=غ)

[7] other transcriptions x, kh, k.

[8] In ordinary speech the treatment of the spiratization /b/ [b]/[v]; /k/ [k]/[x] and /p/ [p]/[f] in IH is complicated (See Bolozky 1997 sect. 17.5.4.). In reading the biblical text these allophonic distinctions are maintained as marked in the MT.

[9] In ordinary speech the treatment of the spiratization /b/ [b]/[v]; /k/ [k]/[x] and /p/ [p]/[f] in IH is complicated (See Bolozky 1997 sect. 17.5.4.). In reading the biblical text these allophonic distinctions are maintained as marked in the MT.

[10] See Khan 1997a.

[11] In ordinary speech the treatment of the spiratization /b/ [b]/[v]; /k/ [k]/[x] and /p/ [p]/[f] in IH is complicated (See Bolozky 1997 sect. 17.5.4.). In reading the biblical text these allophonic distinctions are maintained as marked in the MT.

[12] also transliterated as ḳ

[13] According to the Encarta Dictionary, orthography is defined as: 1. study of correct spelling: the study of established correct spelling; 2. study of how letters are arranged: the study of letters of an alphabet and how they occur sequentially in words; and, 3. relationship between sounds and letters: the way letters and diacritic symbols represent the sounds of a language in spelling

[14] The positioning of these dots varied. Ancient Hebrew-writing scribes “hung” letters from a line, ruled or imaginary. I.e., the highest point of each letter, except lamed (ל) started from the line. The dot level is seen in: the Mesha inscription about the level of the bottom of most letters; the Siloam inscription and the Lachish letters about mid-height of most letters; the Qumran Paleo-Leviticus scroll right on the line, i.e. at the top level of most letters. In most Phoenician texts the words were not divided (scripto continua).

[15] ‘The term "Early Jewish" is used here … to designate the scripts developed in Judaea and used by Jews beginning in the Maccabaean period and continuing to the time of the First Jewish Revolt. It stands in contrast to Palaeo-Hebrew … and to the Aramaic cursive of the late Persian and early Greek periods from which Jewish. Nabataean, and Palmyrene, among others. were derived. The traditional designations, "Assyrian," "Aramaic," "Square" do not apply accurately to the several Early Jewish script types and cannot be used in scientific palaeographical discussion. The last-mentioned term, "Square," applies at best to the formal hand of the First Jewish Revolt (and later), or less happily to the Herodian book hands, and should be abandoned. We have chosen the designation "Early Jewish"; it could be argued plausibly that "Judaean" would be even more precise. However, the broader term seems a happier alternative since the Early Jewish script was in use by Jews outside Judaea (cf. the Nash Papyrus), and it permits us to speak of the scripts of the late Roman and Byzantine eras from Palestine, Egypt, and Mesopotamia (e.g., from Dura), which are continuous with the early series, as "Late Jewish."’. Quoted from footnote 5 of The Development of Jewish Scripts by Frank Moore Cross (1961) reprinted in Leaves from an Epigrapher's Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy (Harvard Semitic Studies, No. 51) by Frank Moore Cross.

[16] ‘The Palaeo-Hebrew script of Qumran is properly described as an archaistic survival from the book hand of Israelite times. It shows little development in the interval between the epigraphs of the seventh–fifth centuries BCE and manuscripts of Maccabaean or Hasmonaean date. Evidently the script was taken up anew in the era of nationalistic revival of the second century BCE, to judge from its use as a monumental script by the Hasmonaeans on their coinage, as well as its resurgence as a biblical hand. It is in the late Hasmonaean era also that the Samaritan Pentateuchal text separates from the main stream of Jewish tradition, preserving in its special hand the Palaeo-Hebrew tradition …. Moreover, in the second century BCE, Palaeo-Hebrew forms, dormant for some four centuries, begin afresh to evolve at a fairly steady pace. This new development is reflected in the series of MSS at Qumran, as well as in the coinage of the First and Second Jewish Revolts, and in the earliest Samaritan epigraphs. On the other hand, the earliest exemplars of the Palaeo-Hebrew hand at Qumran exhibit a remarkable fidelity of form and stance, when compared with archaic scripts, and were penned with fluid grace and speed. One can best explain these characteristics of the Qumran Palaeo-Hebrew hand by assuming that though relatively static, the old script was preserved alive in some narrow circle, presumably by a coterie of erudite scribes, as a biblical book hand. When the first of the Palaeo-Hebrew fragments were found in Cave I, an alternative explanation was proposed, that the fragments were in fact archaic, from the fourth or fifth century BCE. But later finds, including manuscripts in which there is extensive mixture of Palaeo-Hebrew and Jewish scripts (and in one instance a mixture of Palaeo-Hebrew, Jewish, and Greek scripts), have rendered this proposal inadmissible.’. Quoted from footnote 4 of The Development of Jewish Scripts by Frank Moore Cross (1961) reprinted in Cross 2003.