Are the Hebrew Vowel-Points Inspired? De Moor Weighs-In

Discussion in 'Languages' started by dildaysc, Sep 23, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dildaysc

    dildaysc Puritan Board Freshman

  2. Timotheos

    Timotheos Puritan Board Freshman

    Is this question somehow related to the Qere/Ketiv readings in the Hebrew OT?
     
  3. Logan

    Logan Puritan Board Junior

    Out of curiosity, what do you think modern scholarship could revisit?
     
  4. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    No the vowel pointings are not inspired, they were added in....middle ages??? Sometime in the last 2000 years I forget when.


    [And you need to make a signature: ]vBulletin FAQ
     
  5. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Boston wrote something also on the vowel points didn't he?
    Also, let the moderators moderate; otherwise we end up badgering members with multiple "you need a signature".
     
  6. Contra_Mundum

    Contra_Mundum Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger Staff Member

    You may be thinking of Owen?
     
  7. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritanboard Commissioner

    I found something relating to Thomas Boston on this question here; it also gets a brief mention in this academic work.

    I will look for articles on JSTOR and other venues when I get the chance.
     
  8. py3ak

    py3ak They're stalling and plotting against me Staff Member

    John Gill devotes a good bit of attention to the question in "A Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel Points, and Accents."
     
  9. arapahoepark

    arapahoepark Puritan Board Graduate

    Well the law and the prophets were written in a Phoenician style script before the Babylonian exile where they changed to an Aramaic style script that it is today...
     
  10. brendanchatt

    brendanchatt Puritan Board Freshman

    I recall being taught they were added around the 600s, idk. AD , that is

    To preserve the pronunciation

    Idk what's valid, I just recall vaguely being taught that by my Hebrew professor


    Sent using Tapatalk
     
  11. MW

    MW Puritanboard Amanuensis

    r th hbrw vwl-pnts nsprd? Clrly, ys.
     
  12. One Little Nail

    One Little Nail Puritan Board Sophomore

    that the Jot & Tittle are Inspired but not the the vowel points, seems an absurdity :think:
     
  13. Logan

    Logan Puritan Board Junior

    If they were penned that way by the original authors, there would be no discussion. But the entire discussion revolves around whether the vowel points were added later in history (say A.D. 600) as the evidence would indicate (there appears to be no external evidence that ancient Hebrew had vowel points). And if they were, were they inspired at that point?

    If I recall, Owen believed they had been added by Ezra.
     
  14. Bill The Baptist

    Bill The Baptist Puritan Board Graduate

    :up:
     
  15. iainduguid

    iainduguid Puritan Board Sophomore

    There are two separate issues here.
    1) were the Hebrew vowel points written in the original text?
    Some people have argued that they were, and that all current ancient Hebrew manuscripts are therefore incomplete (see link in original post).
    Most modern scholars (including all of the Reformed OT scholars I know) believe that the original manuscripts were unpointed (like modern Hebrew and the Dead Sea Scrolls) and that the current vowel points were added by the massoretes in the middle to late first millennium AD.

    2) did the original text imply a certain (inspired) set of vowel points?
    As Matthew notes, the lack of vowels does not mean that the consonants are infinitely plastic. The original authors had particular inspired words in mind that had vowels as well as consonants.

    Where the rubber meets the road:
    Not all sentences are as unequivocal as Matthew cited. Some could have more than one possible set of vowel points (though only one of these could be the original inspired meaning). In some cases, the greek translation of OT passages is clearly reading a different set of vowel points, just as in some cases it is reading a different set of consonants (including cases that concern jots and tittles, such as "Aram" vs "Edom"). In one instance I looked at just this week, in Genesis 14:5, the MT has beham ("in Ham") where the LXX has bahem ("among them").

    If you think that the present massoretic vowel points represent the original vowel points perfectly, then you won't bother with textual criticism comparing the Leningrad codex (BHS main text) with the Septuagint (whatever you think that is). You may still have to do textual criticism amongst the different Hebrew manuscripts, though, and it is hard to explain why the vowels should be perfectly preserved where in some cases the consonants are open to question.

    In most cases, both with vowel differences and consonantal differences, I would argue that the MT is correct. Different translations have different sympathies though: the RSV is much more Septuagint oriented, while the original NIV is distinctly more MT oriented. And the MT is clearly better preserved (i.e. there are less text critical questions, however you choose to resolve them) in some places than in others. The beginning of 1 Samuel is notoriously tricky, for example.

    Probably more than you wanted to know, but I hope this clarifies things.
     
  16. One Little Nail

    One Little Nail Puritan Board Sophomore


    I thought Owen argued for them in the Divine Original, though I could be mistaken, anyway Gill does. Christ's quote of the jot & tittle basically settles it (think necessary consequence here).

    Matthews point is valid, as the Hebrew would be incomprehensible without them. The fact that they are present in the Transmitted copies would favour the case as well, would it not, nevertheless Ezra being a Prophet would have been guided by
    The Holy Ghost so it would bring no aspersions upon the Text if this were so, though I doubt that he did, he may have been instrumental in getting the Levites to transcribe the Texts though, that seems more likely.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page