Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

James, I'm happy to read that you thought over this during the last few days.
Actually, I hoped you were reading up on evidence, but I guess not.  You
suggest an idea that perhaps the author was trying to omit superfluous
letters.  Well, there's an easy way to check that.  Let's see if there's an
inscription that has superfluous letters but defective orthography not in the
Bible.  Yes there is!  Lachish 3 has -th endings for the 2ms suffix, but has
the spelling lhgd for Biblical lhgyd (found in the Bible always with a -y-,
about 25 times or so), hnb) for BIblical hnby) (found in the Bible over a
hundred times, also always with a -y-).  It also has )th for Biblical )wtw 
(it,
1ms suffixed direct object marker).  Unfortunately, the direct object marker
occurs too many times in the Bible that the concordance I have doesn't list
them, so I can't tell you how many times it is found with a final -w.  But it
is always spelled with a final -w.

Anyway, James, I think we pretty much have reached a dead end in this
discussion.

You seem unwilling to look at the evidence, that is, the body of
pre-exilic epigraphic
inscriptions.  I am beginning to suspect that perhaps you may be
trying to filter out
certain "potentially harmful" information.  This is the only way I can
figure out to
explain why we are having a discussion on whether you should spend 10 minutes
reading an article that I sent to answer a specific question that you
asked.  It really
boggles my mind.

So yes, there is a quick response.  I already told you, "the evidence
is not just royal
or official inscriptions."  But then you asked, "Please elaborate if
this is truthfully and
demonstrably the case."  So I sent a link to an article that deals
with the subject.
Now, you want to go back to the quick response.  I don't understand
why we're going
in circles.

James, I recognize that you have a life outside of this list.  I do
too!  While I enjoy
discussing Biblical Hebrew, discussing whether or not you are going to read an
article that I found that answers a specific question by you is
something I'd rather
not do.  If you don't want to read it, fine!  If you don't want to sit
down and read the
epigraphic evidence, that's fine too.

But James, what we need now is not a "linguistic apparatus" or whatever other
buzzword you come up with.  What we need is for you to stop beating around the
bush and contend with the evidence.  Unless you actually EXAMINE the 
epigraphic
evidence, there's no way that you can reasonably make any kind of statement
about it regarding the variety, number, breadth, or contents.  You aren't even
in a position to suggest "factors" that may affect the conclusion, nor
suggestions
about possible inscriptional standards that were not valid for some reason for
the Bible, or even the Ten Commandments.  It's very simple, a person -- any
person -- needs to examine the evidence to make reasonable statements
about it.

And James, if you tell me the local libraries you have access to, I'll
help you find
a handbook of inscriptions.  After you read through it, we'll be on
equal footing in
this discussion.  And, James, you too may be convinced too that the spelling 
of
the Bible is later than the pre-exilic standards.

Until then, however, we remain with the simple fact that the evidence points 
in
a very specific way.  All scholars, or at least, the vast majority of
scholars, of all
kinds of religious beliefs, accept the conclusion that the spelling of
the Bible is
exilic or post-exilic, based on that evidence, if they are familiar with it.

Also, until then, and until you decide you're willing to read the answers 
that I
post to your questions -- even if they are simply articles that I found that
answer your questions beautifully -- we can't continue the discussion.

Yitzhak Sapir