[b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root
farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 28 21:47:29 EST 2006
We do have some evidence of updating of the language beyond Matres
Lectionis. Something of a "paper trail" (to use your words) may be seen
in the differences between biblical texts found at Qumran and those of
Masada. Very interesting reading, for example, is:
Young, Ian. 2002. "The Stabilization of the Biblical Text in the Light
of Qumran and Masada: A Challenge for Conventional Qumran Chronology."
Dead Sea Discoveries 9: 364-390.
If you don't have access, I can supply a copy.
On 11/28/06, *K Randolph* <kwrandolph at gmail.com> <mailto:b-hebrew%40lists.ibiblio.org?Subject=%5Bb-hebrew%5D%20comparative%20historical%20linguistics%20was%20Re%3A%0A%09Nun-Tav-Vet%20root&In-Reply-To=456C7EBE.60101%40qaya.org> wrote:
> 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.
More information about the b-hebrew