jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com
Fri May 21 08:13:34 EDT 2010
I don't really want to get involved with the other issues you raise but the
following most caught my attention:
> Karl, like I said, I do not want to discuss R)$ for the reasons outlined in
> correspondence with you and James. However, the same idea can be taken
> (even more forcefully) to the -ym endings. Yes, there are -m endings
> for plurals
> in the Bible. But the common use is -ym. In contrast, there are no -ym
> for plurals (with the noted exceptions) in the epigraphic pre-exilic
> There are many opportunities, but no -ym endings. So while the -m endings
> are present though very rare in the Bible, the -ym endings are completely
> absent in the pre-exilic inscriptions. This suggests that the
> original spelling of
> -m endings was updated to -ym at some point after the lastest pre-exilic
> inscriptions are dated, which is the very early 6th century.
> was so considerate to destroy Judea just on the turn of the century). This
> only one example and there are many other examples of spelling differences
> that only re-enforce this conclusion.
I'm sure you are aware of the factors here. I haven't checked to see if what
you claim is true but if we are talking about official inscriptions then
differences are only to be expected. Perhaps there was an 'official'
spelling for publicly viewable inscriptions. The data set is probably too
small to be able to make strict conclusions, though.
Further, I'm not sure I see how this relates to the dating of Ruth. You seem
to be assuming that the consonantal order was considered holy from the word
go such that no-one would ever dare add an explanatory note or use a more
modern spelling when copying. Without the original autographs and a complete
history of text transmission we are not really in a position to make this
kind of conclusion are we?
More information about the b-hebrew