Mon Feb 10 07:52:21 1997

From owner-tc-list  Mon Feb 10 07:52:21 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id HAA14354; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 07:52:21 -0500
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970210125401.4b1f81f2@nd.edu>
X-Sender: Larry.Niccum.2@nd.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 07:54:01 -0500
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: Curt Niccum 
Subject: Re: Equidistant letters
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1272

At some point, the two questions currently circulating converge, and the
point of convergence is apparently rather late. The equidistant letter
theory only works if the form of the MT published in BHS is viewed as
miraculously preserved. With regard to the Massoretes, they certainly
predate Codex Leningradensis, but "perfect" conformity seems to be a modern
requirement. 

If these questions are pushed forward in time, they take on a different
character. Any change in orthography or morphology in Genesis (both of which
are inconsistent in the text of Leningradensis itself) would destroy the
equidistant letter theory. This touches somewhat upon the scribal practices
in the history of the Hebrew Bible. The evidence from Qumran is certainly
enlightening (multiple text forms, widely divergent orthography and
morphology). For those who wish to dismiss it, however, the Amoraim set an
acceptable margin of error for their copies of scripture and the presence of
kethib/qere readings also attests to a tacit acceptance (though in an
unusual form) of textual error.

I have no doubt, however, that the proponents of this equidistant letter
theory will choose to employ it to "purify" the text which is where this
really intersects with textual criticism.

Curt Niccum

Back