Biblical Hebrew Forum

[LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>]

Here is J and P in Genesis 4 and 5
 
J:
Adam
Seth
Cain
Enoch. 
Irad, 
Mehujael,
Mehujael 
Methushael
Methushael 
Lamech. 
 
P:
Enosh
Kenan.
Mahalalel.  
Jared. 
Enoch. 
Methuselah. 
Lamech, 
 
Lloyd Barré
http://freewebs.com/lmbarre
 



>From hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net  Sat Jan 31 15:46:24 2009
Return-Path: <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id EAEE64C014; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:46:23 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled
        version=3.2.3
Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net
        (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936464C010
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:46:23 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [66.167.95.185]
        by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67)
        (envelope-from <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>) id 1LTMjP-000335-Di
        for b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:46:23 -0500
Message-ID: <4984B8AB.40307 AT earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:46:35 -0600
From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <49845A3A.8070305 AT earthlink.net>    
<C5AAA677.2292%george.athas AT moore.edu.au>
        <acd782170901310735r58f5bbeo10aac744caddb0a9 AT mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <acd782170901310735r58f5bbeo10aac744caddb0a9 AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 
4d8cbcf25a45eb95a7d551d5673cf272239a348a220c26096f929a1f5e1e43b3b560bd0926024d3b666fa475841a1c7a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 66.167.95.185
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Sopherim and an 'Established' Text
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:46:24 -0000

George,
>> Harold, there are two major problems I have with this view. Firstly, it is
>> based largely on tradition which is fairly late - a good few centuries 
>> after
>> the period you've mentioned (300-200 BC). Secondly, it doesn't seem to do
>> justice to the text critical issues as evidenced by Qumran.
>>
>> I would argue on the basis of Qumran that there is a proto-Masoretic text
>> which is reaching a fairly stable form by the turn of the era. However,
>> there are also a plurality of other text types which make it difficult to
>> talk about a fixed text.
>>

HH: I was thinking about the Qumran issues before you wrote, and it
seems that what one of my quotes said could at least theoretically be
true. Even if there was a standard text for the temple, that would not
necessarily transform copying in Babylon, or Egypt, or even elsewhere in
Palestine. Perhaps the official copying text was a priestly matter, but
people who already had divergent copies of Scripture would keep them,
and new copies based on other pre-existing forms of the text would
arise. And new problems introduced by further copying would multiply, or
by texts based on translating from the Greek. Groups like the Essenes,
who were apparently alienated from the Sadducees, would continue their
manuscript tradition without regard for the temple exemplar, which they
might not have access to anyway. So it seems at least possible that
there was a standard text form accepted by the high priest, even if many
other manuscript families existed.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard