I have seen many variations of this and wonder if anyone could tell me which is the most correct?
These variations include:
מֶטָטְרוֹן (Meṭāṭ'rōn)
מְטַטְרוֹן (Măṭaṭ'rōn)
מֵיטַטְרוֹן (Mēyṭaṭ'rōn)
מִיטַטְרוֹן (Mīṭaṭ'rōn)
מֶיטַטְרוֹן (Meyṭaṭ'rōn)
מַטַּטְרוֹן (Maṭṭaṭ'rōn)
It is also interesting to note that three of these variations include an additional Yōdh. This spelling can also be seen in the Tal'mūdh where the name is written as מיטטרון, including Yōdh acting as a mater lectionis.
Could this perhaps indicate that the first vowel at least was most likely either a Ṣērēy or Ḥīrīq originally? There is also the question as to whether the first Ṭēyth should be vowelised with a Qāmāṣ or Pathaḥ? It seems that most variations would agree with Pathaḥ, but what of Dāghēsh Ḥāzaq being placed in Ṭēyth? It seems the majority would disagree with this.
Interestingly enough the earliest Arabic form of his name is: ميططرون (Mīṭaṭrūn), also referred to as Mīṭaṭrūsh. This could indicate that Ḥīrīq and Pathaḥ are the original vowelisation, with Ḥōlām becoming a Ū in Arabic as it lacks an Ō sound. Although one could also argue that Arabic lacks an E sound, hence it becomes an Ī. Then again, why would the Tal'mūdh add a Yōdh too? I find this very fascinating.
It could also be that the variety in the name's pronounciation also reflects a difference in the old vocalisation traditions. Namely Tiberian and Babylonian. From what I know of the two and their general notation, I would have to theorise that "Meṭāṭ'rōn" for example would be the Tiberian pronounciation. While "Mīṭaṭ'rōn" would better suit the Babylonian pronounciation.
In the Babylonian Tradition one would often find a Ḥīrīq or Pathaḥ where a Seghōl or Shă'wā would be in the Tiberian. In th Babylonian Tradition however, there is no Seghōl. E is represented Ṣērēy only, and Pathaḥ and Seghōl are one and the same. Producing an A sound as still can be seen in the Yemenite Tradition.
It would appear that since the spelling "מיטטרון" (with Yōdh as Mater Lectionis) is found in the Tal'mūdh Bāv'lī, that it does indeed reflect a Babylonian Tradition with Ḥīrīq being the first vowel. From my own study and personal opinion, the Babylonian Tradition also seems much older and natural in pronounciation than the Tiberian. Controversial perhaps, seeing how the Tiberian became and still is the dominant notation system. However it is indisputable that the Babylonian Notation predates it and came first (dating to at least the 6th Century C.E.).
The Babylonian Pronounciation also better represents the Ancient Greek and Latin Transliterations of Hebrew from Antiquity. Such examples can be taken from Jerome of Stridon (347–420 C.E.), famed as the translator who created the Latin Vulgate. Jerome transliterated "Burnings" as "Masarfoth". In the Babylonian pronounciation this would be מַשִׂרפוֹת (Maśīrfōth), while in the Tiberian it would be מִשְׂרְפ֣וֹת (Mīś'ră'fōth). Origen of Alexandria (185–254 C.E.), who created the Hexapla (A collection of the Biblical Texts in Hebrew, Greek Transliteration and Greek for comparative study) also provides us many examples of the Babylonian pronounciation being the most ancient. One is the transliteration ϊκερσου (Ikersou) "let them (not) wink", which in the Babylonian Tradition is pronounced יִקִרצוּ (Yīqīrṣū). While in the Tiberian it is יִקְרְצוּ (Yīq'ră'ṣū). Many other examples showing the Antiquity of the Babylonian Tradition can be found in the Septuagint (last quarter of first millennium B.C.E.) of course. One great example being the name of the Prophet Jeremiah (ע"ה), which in Greek is written Ιερεμιας (Ieremias). The Babylonian Notation marks this as יִרִמיָהוּ (Yīrīmyāhū), while the Tiberian marks his name as יִרְמְיָהוּ (Yīr'mă'yāhū). My apologies for skewing off topic a little, I do feel that more light should be shed upon this rich and ancient tradition though.
Anyway thank you for any help anyone can give, and for sharing your opinions on this too!
