Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Hi,

On 21 May 2010 16:32, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?


Yes!


> It's really offensive to me when
> people read only part of what I write.


Why?


>  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.
>

You raised many issues about the use of libraries. I didn't want to get
involved and stayed on topic with the inscription business which I found
most interesting. Nothing personal meant by actions. Please don't be
offended.


>
> >> 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?
>

No! Any reason why you think I should do?


> There was even a specific note to you about your use of the term
> "minimalism."
>
>
Erm. Yes I read your statement about the maximalist position. Don't remember
stating what maximalists believed so that I need to be corrected. I only
established an early boundary for composition and talked about possible
routes of transmission such as an original oral tradition. I then said I
would leave it to the minimalists to establish the late boundary along with
their reasoning. If you don't like this term then please suggest one you are
comfortable with. If it makes you feel any more comfortable substitute with
a phrase like 'people who like to give late dates to books in the bible'.
But as you may appreciate typing that out every time is not as fast as just
being lazy and typing minimalist so please give me another one word name if
this really is such an obstacle to understanding the simple concepts I
write.


> 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


People's opinions are of little consequence to the matter. What empirical
measure did you use to calculate the size of a suitable data set to make
which 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.
>
>
Please elaborate if this is truthfully and demonstrably the case.


> > 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.
>

Yes. You wrote that you believe it must have been pre Ezra because that is
what your model of the change of Hebrew would predict. I agree that the
original work was quite possibly pre Ezra but am not entirely sure we have
the kind of data we would need to work this out in the way you are
suggesting. However, what you have to say is definitely worth listening to
and I'm interested in learning more about it.

However, I do have reservations about what conclusions can be made based on
data from inscriptions. How indicative are Egyptian inscriptions of the way
people wrote day to day?

James Christian


>
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>