## How far back in antiquity can we trace the oral tradition underlying Tiberian Hebrew?

Jan Joosten Wasselonne, France janj76772@gmail.com

Abstract :  In  an appreciable number of instances, the Tiberian Hebrew vocalization of words or forms in the Hebrew Bible differs between the early and late sub-corpora. This phenomenon suggests that the oral reading tradition underlying the received text of the Hebrew Bible reaches back further than is commonly envisaged.

Keywords : Tiberian vocalization, diachronic linguistics, reading traditions

## Introduction

Although the vowel pointing of the Hebrew text of the Bible emerged only during the Middle Ages, most Hebraists estimate that the information it encodes goes back much further. 1 Many linguistic features expressed in the Tiberian vocalization are atypical of post-biblical Hebrew, yet they seem valid in historical-comparative perspective. 2 It is hard to imagine that medieval scribes got such details right on the basis of their knowledge of historical Hebrew grammar. The pointing must reflect an oral tradition reaching back to a period before the disappearance of spoken Hebrew. 3

If one attempts to define more precisely the time frame when the oral tradition underlying Tiberian Hebrew was fixed, the Second Temple period is an obvious place to look. This is the period during which our oldest manuscripts were copied, the period of the earliest explicit commentaries on scriptural texts, and the period during which we first hear of attempts to define the canon. In a recent review of the question, Stefan Schorch has argued for the end of the second and the beginning of the first century BCE as the most likely period when reading traditions may have crystallized. 4  Much of his evidence is circumstantial: different currents, such as the Qumran group and the Samaritans, may have fixed their reading traditions in contradistinction to one another; the connection between the written words of scripture and Jewish halakha became much stronger from the first century BCE onward; public reading of scripture in religious assemblies is first attested in the first century CE.

1  See Buhl 1892, 207 -219; Grabbe 1977, 179 -197; Khan 2012, 43 -62.

2 For instance, the distinction of sin and shin, the characteristic vowels of the qal stem, the distinction between long and short forms of the prefix conjugation, and the distinction between infinitive absolute and infinitive construct of strong roots. See further Steiner 2007, 73 -83.

3 Paul Kahle (1927, 36 -56) formulated a strong challenge to this view, and his approach continues to be echoed by Semitists until today. H owever, Kahle's evidence has been refuted by several leading Hebraists. See e.g. Ginsberg 1930, 127 -138. For further discussion see Joosten 2015a.

4  Schorch 2004, 56 -60.

ָ

Some internal evidence also points to the Second Temple period. Some of the secondary traits in Tiberian Hebrew demonstrably go back to this time. 5 Masoretic formations such as ו ֶת ל ְ מ צ ַ 'shadow of death' (for earlier ṣalmût * 'deep darkness') and theological corrections such as the niphal of ראה in  the  formula:  'to  be  seen  with  the  face  of  the  LORD'  (originally:  'to  see  [ qal ]  the  face  of  the LORD') are almost certainly secondary, but they are already reflected in the Septuagint translation, showing that they were widely accepted in the Hellenistic period. Such cases indicate a slightly earlier time frame than the one Schorch argued for. It seems that at least some of the reading tradition had become fixed by the second or even third century BCE.

Evidence exists, however, showing that some of the tradition may be older still. In several instances words or forms are pointed in one way in early biblical texts and in another way in late biblical texts. This phenomenon suggests that during the Second Temple period, when the reading traditions that would be faithfully transmitted for centuries to come were established, learned tradents knew of variant vocalizations that had been in use for certain words in a distant past. However much the crystallization of oral tradition homogenized the biblical text, some elements of early Biblical Hebrew were transmitted alongside their later equivalents in uninterrupted oral tradition from the time the early texts were composed until the Tiberian Masoretes. Consequently, some of the vocalizations contained in the Masoretic text would appear to go back to the sixth century BCE or earlier.

## 1. Early and Late Biblical Hebrew

A few remarks on the history of Hebrew in the biblical period will set out the framework of the discussion. 6 The texts contained in the Hebrew Bible most probably came into being over a prolonged period. It is widely agreed that diachronic developments in the language have left their marks in the biblical books. Very roughly, a corpus of 'early Biblical Hebrew' (EBH) consisting of the books of Genesis to 2 Kings can be distinguished from a corpus of 'late Biblical Hebrew' (LBH) consisting of the books of Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes and Daniel. Although each corpus shows inner diversity and signs of diachronic development, the former is globally characterized as earlier than the latter. Since Wilhelm Gesenius, EBH is associated with the monarchic period (tenth to sixth century BCE), LBH with the Persian period (fifth and fourth century BCE). Books like Jeremiah and Ezekiel come between the two main corpora and represent a phase that has been called 'transitional Biblical Hebrew.' 7

The diachronic approach to Biblical Hebrew has been criticized. Notably, Ian Young and Robert Rezetko have published a number of studies arguing that the biblical corpus does not give any evidence of linguistic development. 8 Instead they would attribute differences between corpora to the stylistic choices of biblical authors. Their work has elicited many responses, both from established scholars  in  the  field  defending  their  views  and  from  newcomers  bringing  new  methods  and approaches to the table. 9 It is fair to say that Young and Rezetko have reinvigorated diachronic research on Biblical Hebrew. But by and large they have not been able to convince other Hebraists of their alternative approach. 10

5 Joosten 2015b.

6 See e.g. Sáenz-Badillos 1993.

7  See Hendel & Joosten 2018.

8  See notably Young, Rezetko, Ehrensvärd 2008; Rezetko, Young 2014.

EBH and LBH represent the same language, but distinct chronolects. Differences between the two are numerous. In regard to vocabulary, the Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew published by Avi Hurvitz contains 80 items. 11 In the area of syntax, too, many differences have been identified, even if they have not been gathered systematically. 12 In  regard to morphology and phonology, however, most specialists are happy to admit that the differences between EBH and LBH are unimpressive and few in number. 13 The Masoretic vocalization is said to have 'homogenized' the biblical corpus, masking subtle differences in vocalization and pronunciation that must have existed. Only recently has material come to light that shows this 'homogenization' was less complete than was formerly thought.

## 2. Earlier studies

The first scholar to point out examples of differences in vocalization between Early and Late BH was Shelomo Morag. 14 In defense of the basic dependability of the Masoretic pointing, Morag argued that irregular forms may represent late or dialectal features. As examples of late Hebrew forms he pointed to שׁ ְ הוּא and ֶ ם שׁ ְ ה in Ecclesiastes (Eccl 2:22; 15 3:18), instead of expected שׁ ֶ הוּא and ֶ ם שׁ ֶ ה . 16 The vocalization with shewa is similarly found in these specific combinations in some traditions of post-biblical Hebrew. 17 Morag also drew attention to forms of the nuphal stem, which in BH are found only in LBH ( נוּלּ ְ דוּ 1 Chr 3:5; 20:8), and become more frequent in post-biblical Hebrew. These forms differ from the more normative niphal only in the vocalization.

ְ

After Morag opened up this line of research, several other scholars added examples that had incidentally come to their attention in their own research. Daniel Boyarin signaled that the adjective ל ַ ל א ֻ מ ' miserable,' attested in Ps 6:3, turns up in the form ל ָ ל א ֲ מ (in fact plural ֵ ל ָ ל ִ ים א ֲ מ ) in the late book of Nehemiah, 3:34. The form ל ָ ל א ֲ מ is the one attested in Tannaitic sources. Boyarin remarks:

ֵ

…this instance gives important confirmation to the reading traditions on which the Massoretic  vocalization  is  based.  Indeed  the  Masoretes  knew  (or  better,  were  taught  by

9 See, e.g., the studies edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew , 2012.

10 See e.g. the thoughtful essay of Notarius 2018 and the recent recapitulation of the discussion in Hornkohl 2026.

11 Hurvitz 2014.

12 For a review, see Hendel & Joosten 2018.

13 They are far from non-existent. For instance, the piel of hollow verbs is limited to LBH texts in the Hebrew Bible.

14  Morag 1974.

15  BHS has שׁ ֶ הוּא with segol in this verse, but the Codex Leningrad indeed vocalizes with a shewa .

16 In other biblical books, šɛ is pointed with segol in similar environments: note šɛhēm in Cant 6:5; Lam 4:9.

17 A large collection of examples can be found in Bunis 2023, 59 -63.

ֵ

tradition) how to vocalize according to the late form precisely in Nehemiah, without any hint from the consonantal text. 18

On the face of it, early and late vocalizations were handed down to the Masoretes through oral reading traditions.

ֶ

ְ

Menahem Kister drew attention to the dual of the noun ן ק ֶ ר 'horn , ' which exhibits the form נַיִם ק ַר in Hab 3:4 (see also Gen 14:5; Am 6:13), but נ ַ י ִם ק ְ ר in the late book of Daniel, Dan 8:3 (twice), 20. 19 The latter form is the normal one in Mishnaic Hebrew.

ָ

Noam Mizrahi noted the plural ָ ב ַ י ק ְ ר 'innards' in the late Psalm 103:1, or perhaps rather the dual or pseudo-dual, if the form is the same as Mishnaic Hebrew י ִים ָ ב ַ ק ְ ר . 20 EBH systematically reserves the singular ֶ ב ק ֶ ר for this meaning. As Mizrahi notes, 'the dual -like form [in Psalm 103:1] is witnessed only by the vocalization.'

Richard Steiner has pointed to the difference between י ָ ב ִ ע ֲ ר 'Arab' in Isa 13:20; Jer 3:2 and י ְ ב ִ ע ַ ר 'Arab' in Nehemiah and Chronicles (eight times in all). 21 The form in the late books is Aramaicizing.

Nili Samet has contributed a very valuable study to the issue under discussion. 22 Focusing on the late book of Ecclesiastes she gathered several examples of vocalizations and vocalization patterns, where EBH uses different forms:

- חֹט ֶ א vs  EBH חוֹט ֵ א and  other  instances  of  confusion  between third aleph and third he verbs;
- the qiṭlôn pattern vs the EBH qiṭṭɔlôn pattern;
- the feminine demonstrative זֹה .

As Samet points out, the late forms in Ecclesiastes were preserved in spite of the fact that the book was universally regarded as Solomonic during the entire period of the oral transmission of its vocalization. The book of Ecclesiastes was transmitted with a reading tradition that differed on several points from that of other books of the Bible.

## 3. Methodological remarks

The evidence that has been identified thus far is of various sorts: some examples are phonological in nature (e.g. šɛhû -šəhû ), others are morphological (e.g. qarnayim qərānayim ), while still others are lexical ( ʾumlal -ʾămēlāl ). What they all share is that the distinction is expressed only in the pointing 'without any hint from the consonantal text , ' as Boyarin puts it. 23

18  Boyarin 1988, 63 -64.

19 Kister 1998, 246, note 9.

20  Mizrahi 2015 , 43, note 15. For the late date of Ps 103, see Hurvitz 1972, 107 -130.

21 Steiner 2016, 313, note 12.

22  Samet 2016.

23 Boyarin 1988, 64.

ְ

All scholars who have noted examples claim that they are indicative of historical development. In this view, the Tiberian vocalization preserves data attesting two strata of biblical Hebrew. In the earlier stratum, one said šɛhû , in the later one šəhû; in the earlier stratum, one pronounced ʾumlal , in the later one ʾămēlɔl , and so on. In principle, however, other explanations may seem possible. In some cases, the varying vocalizations might reflect distinct lexemes or distinct grammatical forms, not different ways of pronouncing the same word. Variant vocalizations turn up here and there in the Masoretic Text. In 1 Sam 13:21, the plural of the noun א ֵ ת 'plowshare' is ִ ים א ֵ ת , but in Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3; Joel 4:10 it is ִ ים א ִ ת . The word ל ָ ה ח ֶ מ 'mercy' in Gen 19:16 and Isa 63:9 turns up as ל ָ ה ח ֻ מ in Ezek 16:5. There are many similar examples. 24 Delitzsch in his Lese- und Schreibfehler lists 19 pages of suspect or irregular vocalizations in the Hebrew Bible . 25 Some of these variants may be evidence of distinct dialects, others may be due to uncertainty as to the vocalization of rare words at an early phase of the tradition, and some may reflect an exegetical concern to distinguish nuances of meaning or use.

ְ

Possibly, then, the examples that have been identified are not evidence of language change, but variants that only by accident turn up in the EBH and LBH corpora respectively. If so, no inference can be made as to the early roots of the oral tradition underlying the vocalization.

In order to decide between the two approaches: diachronic development versus random variation, a few methodological reflections will prove helpful.

First of all, it bears spelling out that only contrastive examples can be used as evidence. What we are looking for are cases where the EBH corpus attests one vocalization and LBH books another one. Late vocalizations in LBH that have no early counterpart prove very little. The first example presented by Morag is weak in this respect. Although it is found a few times in earlier texts, relative שׁ ֶ is far more typical of LBH, and the only other passages where it combines with third person personal pronouns are Lam 4:9 and Song 6:5, both attesting ֵ ם שׁ ֶ ה . Neither of these represents 'early' BH. Lamentations is transitional, and Song of Songs arguably LBH itself. 26

Furthermore, statistics have a role to play. Variant vocalizations attested once are weaker evidence than variations that are attested several times. Although ָ ב ַ י ק ְ ר in Psalm 103:1 lines up with Mishnaic Hebrew י ִים ָ ב ַ ק ְ ר , it is a hapax legomenon in Biblical Hebrew. Considering the aberrant form in isolation, one might be tempted to view it as a case where post-biblical Hebrew influenced the reading of the Hebrew text, rather than an instance of diverging vocalization representative of LBH. Similarly, voca lizations found only in one late book are weaker than ones occurring in more than one. Samet's evidence is of high quality, but its restriction to Ecclesiastes does leave open the possibility that these vocalizations are not typical of LBH, but of the particular book in which they are found -still interesting, but not necessarily diachronic.

Finally, an important distinction of historical linguistics needs to be taken into account. When one qualifies  a  linguistic  element  as  'late'  this  can  mean  two  different  things:  either  the  element  is

24 See e.g. Nöldeke 1912.

25 Delitzsch 1920, 62 -80.

26  See Dobbs-Allsopp 2005.

ְ

ֵ

ְ

considered late because it is attested in late sources (criterion of distribution), or it is considered late because it has some objective quality making it late (criterion of typology). The contrast between ל ַ ל א ֻ מ and ל ָ ל א ֲ מ is a good example of distributional lateness: the only reason to qualify ל ָ ל א ֲ מ as a late form (late in relation to BH generally) is that it is attested in Nehemiah and Rabbinic sources but not in earlier texts. A good example of typological lateness is the contrast between נ ַ י ִם ק ַ ר and נ ַ י ִם ק ְ ר : the former is a dual constructed on the singular, as is usual in Semitic (cf. ַ י ִם ג ְ ל ר ַ );  the latter is  a dual constructed on the model of the plural, a form produced by analogy after the dual had fallen from active use as a genuine grammatical category. The form found in Daniel is late because it occurs in Daniel and in Mishnaic Hebrew, but it is also late typologically: the distributional and typological criteria align.

ָ

Several other examples similarly align typology with distribution. The nuphal is clearly a late analogical development in Hebrew, based on the niphal but with an [u] vowel recalling the passive pual and hophal stems. 27 Aramaic influence accounts for the late forms ְ ב ִ י ע ַ ר , חֹט ֶ א , ְ רוֹן ז ִכ . Aramaic is the primary factor driving diachronic change in Hebrew during the Babylonian and Persian periods.

The distinction between distributional and typological lateness gives a handle on the question whether our varying vocalizations have diachronic implications or not. A case that is distributional only might be regarded as a random variation. Cases of typological lateness without late distribution would play havoc with the theory of historical evolution briefly presented above. However, where the distributional and the typological criteria are aligned, the diachronic explanation becomes more attractive. It is highly unlikely that random differences in vocalization should systematically be distributed in such a way that the typologically older form occurs in the earlier corpus and the typologically later form in the later corpus.

An example that 'ticks all the boxes' is that proposed by Richard Steiner, contrasting EBH ָ ב ִ י ע ֲ ר 'Arab' to LBH ְ ב ִ י ע ַ ר 'Arab': there is an opposition, both forms are well attested, and the distributional and typological criteria align. The EBH form is found twice, in Isa 13:20 and Jer 3:2, both of them arguably pre-exilic texts; the LBH form occurs seven times in unequivocally postexilic texts: Nehemiah and Chronicles. 28 The LBH form continues into Mishnaic Hebrew. The contrast is clear, and the attestation sufficiently abundant to exclude the possibility of chance influence of late Hebrew on an LBH passage. Typologically, the EBH form is the genuine Hebrew nisbe, while the LBH form is influenced by Aramaic. Aramaic is the main factor differentiating LBH from EBH.

## 4. Old and new cases

The argument for the antiquity of the Tiberian vocalization is of necessity cumulative. One or two cases  suggest  a  tantalizing  possibility,  but  five  or  six  begin  to  form  the  basis  for  a  persuasive

27  See Bar Asher 2014, 338 -339.

28 Neither Isa 13:20 (in an oracle on the destruction of Babylon) nor Jer 3:2 (for which see above at note 7) belongs to the core EBH corpus. Both texts are almost certainly earlier than Nehemiah and Chronicles, however, thus satisfying the criterion of distribution.

ֵ

demonstration. In aggregate, the examples that have been gathered are rather impressive. And there are several more.

ָ

ָ

1) A simple case is that of צ ָ ה נ ְא 'contempt' in 2 Kgs 19:3 par. Isa 37:3 vs. צ ָ ה נ ֶא (or rather the plural ָ צוֹת נ ֶא ) in Neh 9:18, 26. 29 The former represents a native Hebrew pattern for deverbal nouns ( nomen actionis ) comparable to ָ ה גּ ְ ע ָ ר 'rebuke , ' מ ָ ה נ ְק 'vengeance' and many others. The latter represents a pattern borrowed from Aramaic and attested almost exclusively in late Biblical texts (e.g. ָ ה קּ ָ שׁ בּ ַ 'request' in Esther and Ezra, ָ ה ָ ר בּ ַ קּ 'oversight' in Ezekiel) and post -biblical Hebrew (e.g. כפרה , קבלה , etc.). 30 One might argue that these are not varying vocalizations but distinct words. The semantics seem to be nearly the same, however, and the distribution favours the notion of linguistic evolution: in the early period, the verbal noun of the verb נאץ was formed in the normal Hebrew way, but in the later period, Aramaic influence interfered.

ָ

2) In Neh 1:7, the well-known paronomastic construction involving a finite verb form and an infinitive occurs with the latter vocalized as an infinitive construct instead of the expected infinitive absolute: ְ נוּ ָ ב ַ ל ח ֲ בֹל ח 'we have dealt very corruptly.' The use of the infinitive construct can be understood in light of the clear obsolescence of the infinitive absolute in later Hebrew: in LBH, this form is much rarer than in EBH, and in Mishnaic Hebrew it disappears completely. What is striking, however, is that the pointing does not normalize the form to ח ָ בֹל , the infinitive absolute: as it seems, the reading tradition preserves knowledge of the fact that in EBH the infinitive absolute was required in paronomastic usage, while in LBH the infinitive construct might be used instead.

ֲ

3) The next example requires more background information. As is well known, EBH uses the imperfect and the converted perfect ( yiqtol and weqatal in present-day terminology) to express repeated processes in the past: 'A spring would well up ( ל ֶ ה י ַע ) from the earth and water ( ָ ה ְ ק ו ְ ה ִ שׁ ) the whole surface of the ground' (Gen 2:6). When the description of repeated processes is relatively long, one or two converted imperfects ( wayyiqtol ) may be interspersed:

For whenever the Israelites put in seed, the Midianites and the Amalekites and the people of  the  east  would  come  up  ( weqatal )  against  them.  They  would  encamp  ( wayyiqtol ) against them and destroy ( wayyiqtol ) the produce of the land, as far as the neighbourhood of Gaza, and leave ( yiqtol ) no sustenance in Israel. (Jud 6:3 -4)

Although the entire passage narrates events that happened from year to year, only the first and the last verbal form positively express iterativity. The two middle clauses use the neutral wayyiqtol form. This syntax is entirely normal, being attested around a dozen times in the EBH corpus. 31 In LBH this type of alternation does not occur. Instead one encounters a number of cases of iterative weyiqtol :

In the time of their suffering they would cry out to you ( yiqtol ), and you would hear them ( yiqtol ) from heaven and give them saviours according to your great mercies, and they would save ( weyiqtol ) them from the hands of their enemies. (Neh 9:27)

29 Cf. Ezek 35:12 יךָ ָ צוֹת נ ָא .

ֶ

30 Hurvitz 2014, 77.

31 See Joosten 2012, 177 -178.

This syntax is normal in LBH. It is found in several other passages (Neh 9:28; 2 Chr 24:11; and perhaps Neh 3:14 -15; Eccl 8:10). Moreover, the usage is an expected one. Iterative weqatal has fallen from use in LBH thus creating a need for iterative weyiqtol in verb-initial clauses starting with the copula. 32

The difference between the EBH and LBH usages is expressed only in the vocalization. The contrast is clear-cut: iterative weyiqtol is never found in EBH, nor iterative wayyiqtol in LBH. The attestations are relatively numerous. Moreover, the LBH usage is typologically later than the EBH one. Note that the LBH usage does not in this case continue in post-biblical Hebrew, where the participle plays a much larger role.

ְ

4) Another somewhat involved example is the following. In biblical Hebrew, 'to fill someone's hand' ( מלא + יד ) is a wellknown idiomatic expression meaning 'to consecrate to a priestly office.' In EBH the qal is used when the action is reflexive (Exod 32:29 כ ֶ ם ל ְ אוּ י ֶד מ ִ 'ordain yourselves '), whereas the piel is found when the action concerns an external object (Judg 17:5 נ ָ יו ֶ ת־י ַד אַח ַ ד מ ִ בּ ָ ַ לּ ֵ א א ו ַ יְמ 'he ordained one of his sons '). A similar pattern is found with other verbs too, for instance אזר : the qal means 'to gird oneself,' the piel 'to gird another.'

The expression 'to fill the hands' is found three times in Chronicles, although arguably in a somewhat different meaning. 33 What is presently relevant is that Chronicles uses the piel , all three times, in a reflexive sense:

ַ

Whoever comes, filling his [own] hand ( לּ ֵ א ל ְ מ ) with a young bull or seven rams, becomes a priest (2 Chr 13:9). 34

This variation between classical and post-classical Hebrew is not encoded in the consonantal text and can only be observed on the basis of the vocalization. 35 The variant vocalizations are distributed in a way that sharply distinguishes the EBH and LBH corpora, 36 though admittedly all LBH examples are found in Chronicles. No relevant post-biblical material seems to be attested. 37 Typologically the LBH usage is later than the EBH one: it is well known that the piel of many verbs in time replaces the qal .

## Conclusions

Scholars have signaled cases in Tiberian Hebrew where a given word or form is vocalized differently in texts from different epochs. They have argued that such cases of linguistic variation attest language development. The claim is extraordinary. It implies that features not encoded in writing were transmitted  orally  along  with  the  written  text  from  the  sixth  century  BCE  or  earlier.  When  reading traditions were established for the books that ended up in the Hebrew Bible, those early features were not assimilated to the later features in use at the time, but preserved as they were -all of this, again, in oral tradition. 38 During the early Middle Ages, finally, this complex oral tradition -no doubt modified here and there during the intervening period -was written down in successive stages of exhaustivity.

32 See Joosten 2006.

33 Joosten 1999.

34 See also 1 Chron 29:5; 2 Chron 29:31.

35 Qal and piel are distinct as to their consonantal orthography in the participle, but the present expression is not attested in the participle.

36 Ezek 43:26 sides with EBH in this respect.

37 Cases in Ben Sira and the DSS are inconclusive because they are unvocalized.

A single example, or even two, would not suffice to sustain the claim. The variation could be explained by other causes than diachronic development, such as dialect or stylistic register. It could be due to inadvertent mixing of various traditions, or to a mistake when the vowels were finally written down. Taken together, however, the evidence grows in persuasiveness. In the checklist below, 13 cases are enumerated that seem to be sufficiently strong to pass muster. No doubt other examples can be found. 39 But even 13 is a significant number. What is particularly impressive is that in 11 cases out of 13 the vocalization found in the earlier text is typologically earlier than the vocalization in later texts. The former are characteristic of natural Hebrew, while the latter reflect weakening of the gutturals (no. 1), Aramaic influence (6, 7, 8, 10), analogical leveling (2, 4, 11, 12; possibly 9) or pseudoclassical reinterpretation (13). Such a conjunction of distribution with typology would hardly come about by chance, nor is it compatible with the idea of dialectal, stylistic or exegetical origin of the variation. Instead, it strongly suggests linguistic development.

David Carr has argued that classical texts in Antiquity would not simply be copied from ancient manuscripts, but that scribes would memorize them at the same time. 40 Explicit evidence for this view can be found in Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts, but the same procedure may be postulated also in Israel. A scribe copying the book of Genesis would not come to the mute consonantal text and copy it on the basis of his knowledge of Hebrew: he would know the entire text more or less by heart even before setting out to make a new copy. Oral and written transmission worked together, practically from the moment the work was created (or at least from the moment it became part of the scribal curriculum). In this model one can imagine the preservation of early pronunciations even when they were no longer in use in the living practice of Hebrew.

Our evidence does not guarantee that all vocalizations encoded in the Tiberian vowels reflect the time when the texts were created. Homogenization did undoubtedly happen. The name of Jerusalem was not  universally  pronounced יְרוּשׁ ָ ל ַ י ִם before  the  late  Second  Temple  period  ( cf.  the  Septuagint's Ιερουσαλημ ). However, according to MT the name ends in -ayim throughout the entire Bible, most often against the consonantal writing ( ירושלם ). There are many other cases where the vocalization in the  earlier  books  was  adapted  to  later  pronunciation. 41 In  conclusion  one  might  say  that  the dependability of the vocalization is comparable to that of the consonantal text. Textual criticism has shown clearly that the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted very carefully. Nevertheless, there are many secondary readings. Our task as critics is to weigh the textual material -vowels as well as consonants -and try to define what is genuine and what is secondary.

38 Similarly, in France, children are taught in school that the Old French noun roi 'king' was pronounced [rwè], not [rwa] as in contemporary French. Cf. http://blablablagr3.blogspot.com/2011/01/tres-ancien-francais-phonetique.html.

39 See e.g. Samet 2016, where additional cases in Ecclesiastes are proposed, and Hornkohl 2023 and 2024. Although Hornkohl does not focus on vocalization exclusively, several of his examples do involve variation that is limited to the Tiberian pointing. His conclusions are in line with the ones reached in the present paper -indeed, they go further, notably suggesting instances of diachronic variation within EBH.

40 Carr 2005.

41 See Joosten 2015b and Hornkohl 2023 for other examples.

Table 1 . Check List

ְ

ְ

|    | EBH                               | LBH                          | Typology   |
|----|-----------------------------------|------------------------------|------------|
|  1 | ם ה שׁ (Lam 4:9)                   | ם ה שׁ (Eccl 3:18)            | √          |
|  2 | ד נוֹל (Gen 21:3)                 | דוּ נוּלּ (1 Chr 3:5)           | √          |
|  3 | ל ל מ א (Ps 6:3)                  | ים ל ל מ א (Neh 3:34)        | No         |
|  4 | ִם י נ ר ק (Hab 3:4)              | ִם י נ ר ק (Dan 8:3)         | √          |
|  5 | י בּ ר ק (Isa 16:11)               | י ב ר ק (Ps 103:1)           | ?          |
|  6 | י ב ר ע (Isa 13:20)               | י ב ר ע (Neh 6:1)            | √          |
|  7 | א חֹט (Isa 1:4)                   | א חֹט (Eccl 8:12)            | √          |
|  8 | רוֹן ִכ ז (Exod 12:14)            | רוֹן ִכ ז (Eccl 1:11)        | √          |
|  9 | ֶה ז ( passim )                   | זֹה (Eccl 7:23)              | √          |
| 10 | ה צ ְא נ (2 Kgs 19:3)             | צוֹת ֶא נ (Neh 9:18, 26)     | √          |
| 11 | אָכֹל ל אכ תֹ (Gen 2:16)           | בֹל ח נוּ ל ב ח (Neh 1:7)     | √          |
| 12 | wayyiqtol iterative (Jud 6:3 - 4) | weyiqtol (Neh 9:27)          | √          |
| 13 | מלא qal + יד (Exod 32:29)         | מלא piel + יד (2 Chron 13:9) | √          |

ָ

ָ

## Bibliography

- Bar Asher, Moshe. 2014. Studies in Classical Hebrew. FWJ 71. Berlin: De Gruyter.
- Boyarin, Daniel. 1988. 'Towards the Talmudic Lexicon IV' . In Te'uda VI. Studies in Hebrew and Arabic in Memory of Dov Eron . Edited by Aron Dotan. Tel Aviv: University Publishing: 63 -75.
- Buhl, Frants. 1892. Canon and Text of the Old Testament . Edinburgh: T&TClark.
- Bunis, Ivri J. 2023. 'The Orthography שה as Hypercorrection: A Reexamination in Light of Guttural Weakening'. Leshonenu 86:52 -74 [Hebrew].
- Carr, David M. 2005. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature . Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195172973.001.0001.
- Delitzsch, Friedrich. 1920. Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament. Berlin: De Gruyter.
- Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. 2012. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781575066837.
- Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 2005. 'Late Linguistic Features in the Song of Songs'. In Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung . Edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn. BZAW 346. Berlin: De Gruyter, 27 -77.
- Ginsberg, H. Louis. 1930. 'Studies on the Biblical Hebrew Verb (Continued)'. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 46: 127 -138.
- Grabbe, Lester L. 1977. Comparative Philology and the Text of Job : A Study in Methodology. Missoula: Scholars Press.
- Hendel, Ronald, Jan Joosten. 2018. How Old is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. Yale: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300240382.
- Hornkohl, Aaron D. 2023. The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition of Biblical Hebrew. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0310.
- Hornkohl, Aaron D. 2024. Diachronic Diversity in Classical Biblical Hebrew. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0433.
- Hornkohl, Aaron D. 2026. '' A Relationship Worth Fighting For ' : A Response to 'Isn't It Time to Break Up with Linguistic Dating? '' The Bible and Interpretation . https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/relationship-worth-fighting-response-isnt-it-time-break-linguistic-dating.
- Hurvitz, Avi. 1972. The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute [Hebrew].
- Hurvitz, Avi. 2014. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew . VTSup 160. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004266438.
- Joosten, Jan. 1999. 'Pseudo -classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew'. In Sirach, Scrolls and Sages. Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15 -17 December 1997 . Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 146 -159. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004350359\_010.
- Joosten, Jan. 2006. 'The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System'. In Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting. Typological and Historical Perspectives . Edited by S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz. Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 135 -147.
- Joosten, Jan. 2012. The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Simor.
- Joosten, Jan. 2015a. 'The Tiberian vocalization and the edition of the Hebrew Bible Text'. In Making the Biblical Text. Textual Studies in the Hebrew and Greek Bible. Edited by Innocent Himbaza. OBO 275. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19 -32.

- Joosten, Jan. 2015b. 'The Tiberian Vocalization and the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period'. In Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Eibert Tigchelaar and Pierre Van Hecke. STDJ 114. Leiden: Brill, 25 -36. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004299313\_004.
- Kister, Menahem. 1998. 'Lexicographical Problems Early and Late'. In Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew. Edited by Moshe Bar Asher and Steve Fassberg. Scripta Hierosolymitana 37. Jerusalem: Magnes, 244 -263.
- Kahle, Paul. 1927. Masoreten des Westens. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
- Khan, Geoffrey A. 2012. A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and its Reading Tradition. Piscataway NJ: Gorgias. https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463235857.
- Mizrahi, Noam. 2015. 'Priests of Qoreb: Linguistic Enigma and Social Code in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice'. In Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Eibert Tigchelaar, Pierre Van Hecke. STDJ 114. Leiden: Brill, 37 -64. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004299313\_005.
- Morag, Shelomo. 1974 'On the Historical Validity of the Vocalization of the Hebrew Bible'. JAOS 94: 307 -315. https://doi.org/10.2307/600065.
- Nöldeke, Theodor. 1912. 'Inkonsequenzen in der hebräischen Punktation'. ZA 26: 1 -15.
- Notarius, Tania. 2018. 'Just a Little Bend on the S -Curve: The Rise and Fall of Linguistic Change in PostClassical Biblical Hebrew'. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 32: 201 -216. https://doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2018.1470846.
- Rezetko, Robert, Ian Young. 2014. Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps toward an Integrated Approach . ANEM 9. Atlanta: SBL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt14bs6gc.
- Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. 1993. A History of the Hebrew Language . Translated by John Elwolde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139166553.
- Samet, Nili. 2016. 'The Validity of the Masoretic Text as a Basis for Diachronic Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Texts: Evidence from Masoretic Vocalisation'. Journal for Semitics 25/2: 1064 -1079. https://doi.org/10.25159/1013-8471/2569.
- Schorch, Stefan. 2004. Die Vokale des Gesetzes. Band 1 Genesis. BZAW 339. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924039.
- Steiner, Richard C. 2007. 'On the Monophthongization of ay to i in Phoenician and Northern Hebrew and the Preservation of Archaic/Dialectal Forms in the Masoretic Vocalization'. Orientalia 76: 73 -83.
- Steiner, Richard C. 2016. 'Phonemic Spelling and Scriptio Continua for Sandhi Phenomena and Glottal Stop Deletion: ProtoSinaitic vs. Hebrew'. JNES 75: 311 -334. https://doi.org/10.1086/687600.
- Young, Ian, Robert Rezetko, Ehrensvärd. 2008. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 vols. London: Equinox.