I wrote:I never took positions, nor suggested that they were "standard scholarly reasoning". I clearly stated that the spellings of these books had been partially updated after the exile. I also suggested that by careful examination of the differences between inscriptional, Samuel/Kings and unambiguously post-exilic spelling, it would be possible to study the changes in spelling, and particularly how this might vary between names and other words, and infer that at least some of the spellings found in Samuel/Kings are preserved pre-exilic spellings. For example, if the name David is spelling DWD in inscriptions and in Samuel/Kings but DWYD in Chronicles, the tentative implication would be that DWD is the pre-exilic spelling, and that this mater lectionis was introduced during or soon after the exile - which might also suggest that it was introduced similarly into other words of similar structure. I also suggested that this kind of study would not be circular reasoning but would be standard scholarly reasoning, although not unchallengeable if good evidence can be provided.
Huh? Since when is the assumption that the spelling of Samuel and Kings
-- as we have them today! -- are pre-exilic in nature? Since when is the
That is, since when is that assumption "standard scholarly reasoning."
assumption that if a book was composed in pre-exilic times, its current
spelling is pre-exilic?
also "standard scholarly reasoning"?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.