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: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] comparative historical linguistics was Re: Nun-Tav-Vet root
  • Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:47:29 +1100

Hi Karl,

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.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


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.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page