...(Thank you for all of this, no particular comments on the earlier parts)
OK, the Pentateuch, in more or less its final form. But what is its date? That is another thorny issue with no easy reconciliation. And what is the date of the separation of the Jewish (proto-MT) and Samaritan Pentateuchs? There is evidence that this was much later than that of a deep religious division between Jerusalem and Samaria. So, yes, that supports the theory that there was a split but not a final schism for many centuries. But then one can only know in retrospect whether reconciliation is ever possible. If in the next century the remaining Samaritans become fully united with the modern Jews, does that in fact change what happened in the Second Temple period from a schism into a mere split?But since the facts seem to be that there was a split in the
5th century and there was one in the 1st century, if you want to state that there was at least one period of reconciliation between these dates, you need to provide evidence for this.
The Pentateuch. In any case, you are misusing my term for
split. A schism after which reconcilation was not possible
is more of what I meant.
It seems to me to be current in the scholarship for some timeIt is simply irresponsible to try to drive a wedge between descriptions of ancient and modern scripts in this way. The terminology with Naveh and you use, calling "Hebrew" without qualification a script which is quite different from what every contemporary reader of Hebrew calls Hebrew script, is irresponsible deliberate obfuscation.
now (use of Jewish to denote the Aramaic script). And since
Hebrew is reserved for the different parallel line of development,
I doubt any scholar would call Aramaic script Hebrew. If you
are speaking of modern script, that's different. But I'm
speaking of what scholars use in referring to ancient times.
You should also be wary of the use of "Hebrew" where it denotes the language of the scroll, not the script.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.