deuteronomy, liz, response
Banyai at t-online.de
Fri Mar 9 17:56:16 EST 2001
> > Well, don't forget the point made recently that the surface form
> > of such details indicated not the original composition but the
> > latest redaction. So Vince's observation need mean no more than
> > that Deuteronomy was copied by a scribe "ca.600" who modernised
> > the orthography, whereas Kings was not copied at that time or
> > copied by a more conservative scribe.
> But subsequently both were copied many times: how is it that they
> didn't undergo any more orthographic modernizations?
This is what you call canonisation.
The text was subject to alteration so long it was not everywhere available in the
jewish Diaspora. So long it was possible for a Jerusalem temple scriptorium to
make changes in the Thora.
But can you imagine a Jerusalem Temple to beg the Diaspora:"please send us back
all Thoras you have, that we may replace them with the newest update". Update
Thora 6.1. Or: "please be so gentle and make an errata in Deut. 33,3.".
No this not imaginable.
As soon as after Nehemia each Diaspora comunity got its Thora, may it have been
in Sardis or Alexandria, we got the canonisation. Later books had to get the
acceptance of the Diaspora, Daniel was sold by the Maccabees as having been found
by miracle; a prophecy not to be read till its time has come (Daniel 12,4).
Hardly what we may expect for the rest of the pre-Nehemia books.
This date, Nehemia, is the birth date of the Apocrypha. And the day of the
canonisation. This is the ground why there is for the books (pretending to be
older as Nehemia - that is except Daniel) no language rest later as Nehemia, but
some Nehemia flavour. It was coppied by Nehemia!
Amen, said Michael
More information about the b-hebrew