Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Ruth

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ruth
  • Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:32:21 +0300

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:13 PM, James Christian wrote:
> Hi Yitzhak,
> I don't really want to get involved with the other issues you raise but the
> following most caught my attention:

But did you read the rest of what I wrote? It's really offensive to me when
people read only part of what I write. I think it is basic manners to read
all of what someone writes in a particular post if you are going to respond
to that post.

>> Karl, like I said, I do not want to discuss R)$ for the reasons outlined
>> in the
>> correspondence with you and James.  However, the same idea can be taken
>> (even more forcefully) to the -ym endings.  Yes, there are -m endings
>> for plurals
>> in the Bible.  But the common use is -ym.  In contrast, there are no -ym
>> endings
>> for plurals (with the noted exceptions) in the epigraphic pre-exilic
>> inscriptions.
>> There are many opportunities, but no -ym endings.  So while the -m endings
>> are present though very rare in the Bible, the -ym endings are completely
>> absent in the pre-exilic inscriptions.  This suggests that the
>> original spelling of
>> -m endings was updated to -ym at some point after the lastest pre-exilic
>> inscriptions are dated, which is the very early 6th century.
>>  (Nebuchadrezzar
>> was so considerate to destroy Judea just on the turn of the century).
>>  This is
>> only one example and there are many other examples of spelling differences
>> that only re-enforce this conclusion.
>
> I'm sure you are aware of the factors here. I haven't checked to see if what
> you claim is true but if we are talking about official inscriptions then
> differences are only to be expected. Perhaps there was an 'official'
> spelling for publicly viewable inscriptions. The data set is probably too
> small to be able to make strict conclusions, though.

Specifically, did you follow up the links I gave Karl regarding the
orthography?
There was even a specific note to you about your use of the term "minimalism."

Anyway, I think and as I see it, everyone who is familiar with the
data set thinks
that the data set is not too small for some conclusions -- such as that the
spelling of the Bible including the Pentateuch is no earlier than the
6th century
BCE. Also, the evidence is not just royal or official inscriptions.

> Further, I'm not sure I see how this relates to the dating of Ruth. You seem
> to be assuming that the consonantal order was considered holy from the word
> go such that no-one would ever dare add an explanatory note or use a more
> modern spelling when copying. Without the original autographs and a complete
> history of text transmission we are not really in a position to make this
> kind of conclusion are we?

Huh? Did you read what I wrote about the dating of Ruth. I suggest you
reread
that too. It is short, and it is easy to find. As you are using
gmail, it is near the
top of the thread, right after Yigal's post.

Yitzhak Sapir




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page