Edition 2.0
12 December 2011
David.Steinberg@houseofdavid.ca
Home page http://www.houseofdavid.ca/
The recovery of the phonetic shapes of Hebrew words attested in
inscriptions from the biblical period is often confounded by uncritical
retrojection of Masoretic orthoepy
onto ancient spellings. Quoted from Andersen 1999 p.
5. |
Epigraphic
Hebrew (EH) is the term used for Hebrew
inscriptions, largely from the pre-exilic
We are fortunate in having a fine grammar
cum lexicon of the corpus of EH (JEH
and IEH)
inscriptions as well as a number of scholarly collections of the material and a
reconstructed vocalization[2]. JEH documents have been preserved in
their original language and orthography and, within limits, can serve as a guide to the original
orthography of CBH.
On the negative
side, the fact that scholars of the highest caliber such as (in alphabetical
order) Anderson, Blau, Barr, Muraoka, Pardee, Rainey, Richter and Sarfatti are in contention about aspects of the vocalization
of Epigraphic Hebrew makes it clear that the information required to make
definitive decisions about areas of dispute is simply not there. On the one
hand, recreating the phonetics of dead languages is impossible beyond a certain
point. This is compounded by and the lack of almost any internal vowel letters
in EH (see Matres Lectionis in Hebrew
and Matres Lectionis in the Biblical Text). On the other hand, the
extreme paucity of epigraphic materials found to date means that we are working
with a miniscule basis of written evidence. This contrasts with, for example,
Latin and Akkadian scholars who have mountains of vocalized epigraphic remains.
Two issues in the vocalization of JEH, and hence of EBHP, have occupied me:
·
whether a case could
be made that the historic diphthongs written in JEH <w> and <y>
could have already contracted to [ô] and [ê] respectively?
and,
·
what, if any final vowels were not represented by vowel letters?
·
the pronunciation of the 3ms. pronominal suffix written <h> in JEH.
a. See Did Word-Final
Short Vowels Exist in EBHP and Were All Word-Final Vowels Marked by Vowel
Letters?
b. See Heterogeneous Diphthong
Contraction
3. The system (of the use
of vowel letters in JEH) was briefly as follows: (a) waw for û[3]. (b) yod for î. (c) he for â. In the final position ē and ō were also
represented by he. While the case for these equations is
reasonable, it has also been claimed that waw is used for ô and yod for ê. This argument is based entirely on the contention
that the diphthongs aw and ay had been contracted with retention
of the original consonants as vowel letters, i.e., historical spelling.
Ultimately, contractions occurred but at different times in different
dialects of NW Semitic and there is no unequivocal evidence for it in the
early period, apart from Phoenician. 4. The system of internal vowel letters was more
restricted since only waw and yod were
pressed into service for such vowels: (a) waw represented û. (b) yod represented î. Naturally they could also represent consonants and
diphthongs: the latter have to be regarded as consonants until and unless
contracted, when they became long vowels. All remaining vowels were not indicated at this
stage of development: ā was left unrepresented because it was not
considered feasible to use he internally, so
in effect ā was relegated to the zero-classification like the short
vowels. As for ō and ē, their time
would come, but so far we have no decisive evidence for their representation
in this period. What is needed is the occurrence of non-etymological vowel
letters that were not part of the consonantal structure of the word and whose
vocalization is equally certain.... For Hebrew orthography...
the official system called for the representation of all final vowels by
appropriate vowel letters (h, w, y). All known Hebrew inscriptions from the
9th to the 6th centuries follow this pattern.... The dubious or questionable
cases are the result of the misapplication of Masoretic vocalizations to the
inscriptional material.... When it comes to internal
vowel letters it is clear that they were used, but before the Exile the
practice was sporadic at best. Such vowel letters are attested as early as
the 8th century and their use may go back further. Unequivocal examples are
found in proper nouns and in distinctive verbal (and nominal) forms where the
function and probably the purpose are unmistakable. For example: o
ʾrwr
= ʾarūr, cursed, in the Shebna inscription (8th cent.) o
hbqyd =
hibqῑd, he appointed, from Arad (7th-6th cent.) But systematic use is
unattested in any Hebrew inscriptions or those of closely related dialects. Quoted from Freedman
1992 pp. 6-7. |
We should note the
JEH: second person masculine singular
suffix on singular noun <k>[4]; SC second
person masculine singular suffix <t>[5] and,
perhaps the second person ms. independent pronoun <ʾ[t]>[6]. See
the discussion on anceps
vowels. We can start with the reasonable assumption that JEP and PreExH are two
closely related registers of Hebrew written in the same scribal community at
the same period. This together with the evidence of BHQum[7] and TH renders it most probably that
these three forms, in JEH end in unwritten
vowels i.e. <k> = */ka(ː)/; <t> = */ta(ː)/; *<ʾt> = */ʾàta(ː)/.
[1] See "Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew
Inscriptions"
by I. Young.
[2] Ahituv, Gogel, Kang, Dobbs-Allsop, Davies1991, Hoftijzer and
Jongeling, Naveh, Renz, Donner and Röllig, Gibson 1971. An
interesting study is James
1987. For the vocalization of these epigraphs see Richter 1999
with the usual caviats.
[4] Gogel pp. 155, 158. If we had the evidence *<k> would also have been used for the second person feminine singular suffix on singular noun.
[5] Gogel pp. 81, 83-88. <th> is also frequent. If we had the evidence *<t> would also have been used used for SC second person feminine singular suffix.
[6] Gogel pp. 152-153. If we had the evidence *<ʾt> would also have been used for the second person feminine singular suffix on singular noun.
[7] See Qimron 1986.