Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root
  • Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:00:57 +0000

On 28/11/2006 23:15, K Randolph wrote:
...
This goes beyond what I say.

However, as a historian, we have to play with the hand we're dealt.
With few exceptions, all we know of Torah is what is contained in the
consonantal text of the Masoretic text. Anything else is speculation.

Any copy made by hand contains some copyist errors, thus it is a
certainty that the text is not 100% as written by Moses' hand. But
what is the probability that a different alphabet was used? Given the
nature of the books, very slight. What about the orthography, in other
words the spelling? Given that the pre-Masoretes tended to add materes
lectiones to aid in pronunciation, it is possible that more of those
are in the text than as it left Moses' hand. Some difficult passages
may be blamed on copyist errors. But in general, unless you have a
paper trail to show otherwise, we have to assume, given my
presuppositions, that what we have is close to what Moses wrote.

Thanks for the clarification. I realised that you were not rejecting copyists' errors, and I accept that you now allow changes of orthographic convention.

I am glad that you admit to "given my presuppositions" here. For your idea is based on some clear presuppositions about the nature of the Torah and how it was revered, which may be accurate for 2000 years later in the Rabbinic and Masoretic period but which may well be totally untrue of the period immediately after the Exodus. As you say, "we have to play with the hand we're dealt", and the hand we're dealt includes no evidence for the 22 letter alphabet until several centuries after your Exodus date. There is a real possibility that Moses wrote down the Torah (assuming for now that he did write it down) in a script quite different from this, possibly an Egyptian script or perhaps something more like "proto-Sinaitic" with more than 22 letters; but then later, perhaps in the monarchy period, the Israelites adopted the 22 letter script which was by now the regional standard, and new copies of the Torah were written in this script.

I note that these kinds of script changes have been common through history, and especially over the last century in various countries, largely for wider political reasons; and while religious establishments have sometimes initially rejected the script changes they have soon come to realise the necessity of republishing even the holiest of books in the newly accepted script. In the history of the Hebrew Bible, this is known to happened with the change from palaeo-Hebrew type script to Aramaic square script. Why should it have not happened also at an earlier time? So, while we have no direct evidence of such a change, we have no reason to reject it as a possibility. Still less can we assume that this did not happen and so that the existence of later copies of the Torah in the 22 letter script is evidence with any significant value that it was initially written in this script.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page