Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Hello James,

I'm sorry it is hard for you to have a discussion because you feel I am not
representing your position accurately.  You say that your position is that you
have no position, and also go on to comment on my ability to respond to
criticism as a PhD supervisor may not necessarily represent a position.

James, this is not a PhD theory.  It is a standard view accepted by all
scholars, even someone as conservative as Kenneth Kitchen.  However,
I feel it is also necessary to remind you that it is not me who raised this
view out of the blue.  It is you who suggested a position regarding the
Samaritan and Jewish traditions:

> Another item in our critical apparatus  is this George. The agreement we see
> that this statement is also in the Samaritan Pentateuch suggests this to
> have been a confirmed part of the Torah at least before the split of the
> kingdoms.

You restated this position to Kevin a few days ago:

> 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.

It was in the context of this position, that I posed a question.  I pointed 
out
that in the standard view of the spelling of the Bible, and the Pentateuch, 
the
spelling dates no earlier than the 6th century BCE, and as a result, the 
mutual
confirmation of the Pentateuch could not take place before the 6th
century BCE.

Again, this is not a PhD or anything of the sort.  I'm just reminding you that
in this model of suggesting a position and answering a question -- it is you 
who
suggested a position, and it is I who questioned it.

Furthermore, if you do think that I may be right, as you write now:

> Your model may be great. It may be completely right.

(Again, it's not "my model" -- it's the standard view of scholars
regarding Biblical
spelling).  So, if you really think that I may be right, -- that the
spelling of the
Pentateuch may indeed date no earlier than the 6th century BCE -- then you 
must
necessarily think that the mutual confirmation of the Pentateuch by
the Samaritans
and Jews as well as the Samaritan and Jewish traditions of the Pentateuch 
might
indeed date no earlier than the 6th century BCE.

(Conversely, if you still hold that the Samaritan and Jewish
traditions date before
the split of the kingdoms, then you necessarily think that I am wrong
and that the
spelling of the Pentateuch was not modernized over time.)

To complete your statement above so that I don't quote you out of context:

> But then again it might not be. We just don't know.

This suggests you have retracted this item from the "critical
apparatus" you have
suggested above to George.

James, I don't want to get your position wrong, so please explain what is your
position on this issue now.

Also, James, as you find it hard to have a discussion with me because I
misunderstand your position, I also find it hard that every time you make
statements of the sort, even though I have corrected you on this several
times now:

> Now, getting back to the missing Yodhs in gentilics

James, I don't think there are missing yodhs in gentilics.  Plurals of
gentilics do have yodhs!  It is other plurals that do not.

I'm really glad that we are finally getting somewhere, and it may seem
that in the light of the evidence I adduced, you have indeed changed your
original position -- the one that started this discussion in the first place.

Yitzhak Sapir