Bible Lexicons

1. The original vowels in Hebrew, as in the other Semitic tongues, are a, i, u. E and o always arise from an obscuring or contraction of these three pure sounds, viz. ĕ by modification from ĭ or ă; short ŏ from ŭ; ê by contraction from ai (properly ay); and ô sometimes by modification (obscuring) from â, sometimes by contraction from au (properly aw).^[1]

In Arabic writing there are vowel signs only for a, i, u; the combined sounds ay and aw are therefore retained uncontracted and pronounced as diphthongs (ai and au), e.g. שׁוֹט‎ Arab. sauṭ, and עֵינַ֫יִם‎ Arab. ‛ainain. It was only in later Arabic that they became in pronunciation ê and ô, at least after weaker or softer consonants; cf. בֵּין‎ Arab. bain, bên, יוֹם‎ Arab. yaum, yôm. The same contraction appears also in other languages, e.g. in Greek and Latin (θαῦμα, Ionic θῶμα; plaustrum = polostrum), in the French pronunciation of ai and au, and likewise in the German popular dialects (Oge for Auge, &c.). Similarly, the obscuring of the vowels plays a part in various languages (cf. e.g. the a in modern Persian, Swedish, English, &c.).^[2]

2. The partial expression of the vowels by certain consonants (ה‎, ו‎, י‎; א‎), which sufficed during the lifetime of the language, and for a still longer period afterwards (cf. §1k), must in the main have passed through the following stages^[3]:—

(a) The need of a written indication of the vowel first made itself felt in cases where, after the rejection of a consonant, or of an entire syllable, a long vowel formed the final sound of the word. The first step in such a case was to retain the original final consonant, at least as a vowel letter, i.e. merely as an indication of a final vowel. In point of fact we find even in the Old Testament, as already in the Mêšaʿ inscription, a ה‎ employed in this way (see below) as an indication of a final o. From this it was only a step to the employment of the same consonant to indicate also other vowels when final (thus, e.g. in the inflection of the verbs ל״ה‎, the vowels ā,^[4] ē, è). After the employment of ו‎ as a vowel letter for ô and û, and of י‎ for ê and î, had been established (see below, e) these consonants were also employed—although not consistently—for the same vowels at the end of a word.

According to §91b and d, the suffix of the 3rd sing. masc. in the noun (as in the verb) was originally pronounced הוּ‎. But in the places where this הוּ‎ with a preceding a is contracted into ô (after the rejection of the ה‎), we find the ה‎ still frequently retained as a vowel letter, e.g. עִירֹה‎, סוּתֹה‎ Genesis 49:11, cf. §91e; so throughout the Mêšaʿ inscription אַרְצֹה‎, בֵּיתֹה‎ (also בֵּתֹה‎), בְּנֹה‎, בֹּה‎, לֹה‎, הִלְתַּֽחֲמֹה‎; on the other hand already in the Siloam inscription רֵעוֹ‎.^[5] ימה‎ Mêšaʿ, l. 8 = יָמָיו‎ his days is unusual, as also רשה‎ l. 20 if it is for ראשיו‎ his chiefs. The verbal forms with ה‎ suffixed are to be read וַיַּלְפֵהֻ‎ (l. 6), וָֽאֶסְחָבֵהֻ‎ (l. 12f.) and וַיְגָֽרְשֵׁהֻ‎ (l. 19).

As an example of the original consonant being retained, we might also include the י‎ of the constr. state plur. masc. if its ê (according to §89d) is contracted from an original ay. Against this, however, it may be urged that the Phoenician inscriptions do not usually express this ê, nor any other final vowel.^[6]

(b) The employment of ו‎ to denote ô, û, and of י‎ to denote ê, î, may have resulted from those cases in which a ו‎ with a preceding a was contracted into au and further to ô, or with a preceding u coalesced into û, and where י‎ with a has been contracted into ai and further to ê, or with a preceding i into î (cf. § 24). In this case the previously existing consonants were retained as vowel letters and were further applied at the end of the word to denote the respective long vowels. Finally א‎ also will in the first instance have established itself as a vowel letter only where a consonantal א‎ with a preceding a had coalesced into â or ā.

The orthography of the Siloam inscription corresponds almost exactly with the above assumptions. Here (as in the Mêšaʿ inscr.) we find all the long vowels, which have not arisen from original diphthongs, without vowel letters, thus אִשׁ‎, חֹצְבִם‎, מִימִן‎ (or מִיָּמִן‎); אַמֹּת‎, קֹל‎, שְׁלשׁ‎, צֻר‎. On the other hand מוֹצָא‎ (from mauṣaʾ), עוֹד‎ (from ʿaud); מימן‎ also, if it is to be read מִימִן‎, is an instance of the retention of a י‎ which has coalesced with i into î. Instances of the retention of an originally consonantal א‎ as a vowel letter are מָאתַ֫יִם‎, מוֹצָא‎, and קָרָא‎, as also רֹאשׁ‎. Otherwise final ā is always represented by ה‎: אַמָּה‎, הָיָה‎, זרה‎, נקבה‎. To this יֹם‎ alone would form an exception (cf. however the note on יוֹם‎, § 96), instead of יוֹם‎ (Arab. yaum) day, which one would expect. If the reading be correct, this is to be regarded as an argument that a consciousness of the origin of many long vowels was lost at an early period, so that (at least in the middle of the word) the vowel letters were omitted in places where they should stand, according to what has been stated above, and added where there was no case of contraction. This view is in a great measure confirmed by the orthography of the Mêšaʿ inscription. There we find, as might be expected, דיבן‎ (= Daibōn, as the Δαιβών of the LXX proves), חוֹרֹנָן‎ (ô from au), and בֵּיתֹה‎ (ê from ai), but also even הֽשִׁעַנִי‎^[7] instead of הֽוֹשִׁעַנִי‎ (from hauš-), ואשב‎ = וָֽאוֹשִׁיב‎, בֵּת‎ four times, בֵּתֹה‎ once, for בֵּית‎ and בֵּיתֹה‎ (from bait); ללה‎ = לַיְלָה‎, אן‎ = אַ֫יִן‎ or אֵין‎. (c) In the present state of Old Testament vocalization as it appears in the Masoretic text, the striving after a certain uniformity cannot be mistaken, in spite of the inconsistencies which have crept in. Thus the final long vowel is, with very few exceptions (cf. §9d, and the very doubtful cases in §8k), indicated by a vowel letter—and almost always by the same letter in certain nominal and verbal endings. In many cases the use of ו‎ to mark an ô or û, arising from contraction, and of י‎ for ê or î, is by far the more common, while we seldom find an originally consonantal א‎ rejected, and the simple phonetic principle taking the place of the historical orthography. On the other hand the number of exceptions is very great. In many cases (as e.g. in the plural endings ־ִים‎ and וֹת‎) the vowel letters are habitually employed to express long vowels which do not arise through contraction, and we even find short vowels indicated. The conclusion is, that if there ever was a period of Hebrew writing when the application of fixed laws to all cases was intended, either these laws were not consistently carried out in the further transmission of the text, or errors and confusion afterwards crept into it. Moreover much remained uncertain even in texts which were plentifully provided with vowel letters. For, although in most cases the context was a guide to the correct reading, yet there were also cases where, of the many possible ways of pronouncing a word, more than one appeared admissible.^[8]

3. When the language had died out, the ambiguity of such a writing must have been found continually more troublesome; and as there was thus a danger that the correct pronunciation might be finally lost, the vowel signs or vowel points were invented in order to fix it. By means of these points everything hitherto left uncertain was most accurately settled. It is true that there is no historical account of the date of this vocalization of the O.T. text, yet we may at least infer, from a comparison of other historical facts, that it was gradually developed by Jewish grammarians in the sixth and seventh centuries a.d. under the influence of different Schools, traces of which have been preserved to the present time in various differences of tradition.^[9] They mainly followed, though with independent regard to the peculiar nature of the Hebrew, the example and pattern of the older Syrian punctuation.^[10]

See Gesenius, Gesch. d. hebr. Spr., p. 182 ff.; Hupfeld, in Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1830, pt. iii, who shows that neither Jerome nor the Talmud mentions vowel signs; Berliner, Beiträge zur hebr. Gramm. im Talm. u. Midrasch, p. 26 ff.; and B. Pick, in Hebraica, i. 3, p. 153 ff.; Abr. Geiger, ‘Zur Nakdanim-[Punctuators-]Literatur,’ in Jüd. Ztschr. für Wissensch. u. Leben, x. Breslau, 1872, p. 10 ff.; H. Strack, Prolegomena critica in Vet. Test. Hebr., Lips. 1873; ‘Beitrag zur Gesch. des hebr. Bibeltextes,’ in Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1875, p. 736 ff., as also in the Ztschr. f. die ges. luth. Theol. u. K., 1875, p. 619 ff.; ‘Massorah,’ in the Protest. Real.-Enc.³, xii. 393 ff. (a good outline); A. Merx, in the Verhandlungen des Orientalistenkongresses zu Berlin, i. Berlin, 1881, p. 164 ff. and p. 188 ff.; H. Graetz, ‘Die Anfänge der Vokalzeichen im Hebr.,’ in Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wissensch. d. Judenth., 1881, pp. 348 ff. and 395 ff.; Hersmann, Zur Gesch. des Streites über die Entstehung der hebr. Punktation, Ruhrort, 1885; Harris,‘The Rise ... of the Massorah,’ JQR. i. 1889, p. 128 ff. and p. 223 ff.; Mayer-Lambert, REJ. xxvi. 1893, p. 274 ff.; J. Bachrach, Das Alter d. bibl. Vocalisation u. Accentuation, 2 pts. Warsaw, 1897, and esp. Ginsburg, Introd. (see § 3 c), p. 287 ff.; Budde, ‘Zur Gesch. d. Tiberions, Vokalisation,’ in Orient. Studien zu Ehren Th. Nöldekes, i. 1906, 651 ff.; Bacher,‘Diakrit. Zeichen in vormasoret. Zeit,’ in ZAW. 1907, p. 285; C. Levias, art. ‘Vocalization,’ in the Jewish Encycl.—On the hypothesis of the origin of punctuation in the Jewish schools for children, cf. J. Dérenbourg in the Rev. Crit., xiii. 1879, no. 25.

4. To complete the historical vocalization of the consonantal text a phonetic system was devised, so exact as to show all vowel-changes occasioned by lengthening of words, by the tone, by gutturals, &c., which in other languages are seldom indicated in writing. The pronunciation followed is in the main that of the Palestinian Jews of about the sixth century a.d., as observed in the solemn reading of the sacred writings in synagogue and school, but based on a much older tradition. That the real pronunciation of early Hebrew is consistently preserved by this tradition, has recently been seriously questioned on good grounds, especially in view of the transcription of proper names in the LXX. Nevertheless in many cases, internal reasons, as well as the analogy of the kindred languages, testify in a high degree to the faithfulness of the tradition. At the same recension of the text, or soon after, the various other signs for reading (§§11–14, 16) were added, and the accents (§15).