Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Quite clearly, there were good kings and bad kings. There were periods when
the nation embraced Yhwh as their god and there were periods when they
embraced the neighbouring idols. However, you raise an important issue.
Evidently, if we are to take this story as historic then the copying of this
found scroll was an extremely important and unique link in the chain of the
transmission of the Torah.

However, for those who believe that there is some truth in the Samaritan
claim to have maintained a separate Torah tradition this isn't as
problematic as it would at first seem. The large agreement (except on
doctrinal issues) between the Judean and the Samaritan Torah suggests that
the Torah was pretty much faithfully copied continuously by at least one
line of devout in both kingdoms.

However, the burning question that Yitzhak brings to the fore is whether the
copyists of each generation felt justified in altering spellings to conform
with contemporary practice. The main problem with the issue Yitzhak raises
is that he is yet to show a testified period of inscriptions which conforms
consistently with the Torah spelling. His conclusions seem to be based on
far too many variables and far too many unprovable assumptions.

James Christian

On 26 May 2010 10:54, Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au> wrote:

> On 26/05/2010 5:00 PM, James Christian wrote:
> > Yitzhak,
> >
> > the reason I haven't responded to your response of a yodh suggestion is
> > because, to this very moment, I am still scratching my head in wonder as
> to
> > why you think your response is relevant to a practice of being lazy and
> > missing out the Yohds in gentilics.
> >
> > Further, things come in and out of fashion. You seem to be assuming that
> > there was a post-exilic period that Yodhs were used and that before that
> > they were never *ever* used in gentilics.
> >
> > Just when the consonantal sequence of the Torah was considered holy we
> don't
> > know with certainty. What we do know is that the internal evidence claims
> > that Joshua made himself a copy and every king had to make himself a
> copy.
> > We know that familiarity with the Torah and the teaching of it to his
> wife
> > and children was a basic responsibility of each and every family head.
> >
> >
>
> This is indeed recorded in Scripture.  But then, it also records that a
> certain 'book of the law' was found in the temple, and both the priests
> and the royal court were somewhat surprised by its existence and had to
> enquire what it was.  Can we really assume that what is commanded is
> also what was done habitually?
>
> Kevin Riley
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>