🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <EGJ17G.E6...@deshaw.com>,  <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
[My own remarks to which Micah is replying are deleted for 
reasons of bandwidth.]
>Actually, you still miss my point.

Perhaps.

>To me, the holy "texts" of Judaism can not be limited to the written
>Torah, but to the Oral Tradition as well. Halachah currently requires
>a particular text (ok, there are three traditions right now). To me,
>this is therefor /the/ text.

There is no one text. It doesn't exist. You can flog the "Oral
Tradition" bandwagon until the cows come home, but if, at the end of
the day, you don't have a single text, you don't have a single text.
The Codes drivel require a single text. It doesn't exist. Therefore,
the Codes do not exist. I don't know what could be more simple.

If you are stating that this does not threaten the notion that the
Jewish people has a Torah, we don't disagree. This discussion is only
about the "codes" not the validity of the concept of Torah.

>Any attempt by a historian to create earlier versions of the text might
>be interesting, but not -- in the view of Orthodox Judaism -- relevant
>to defining the text of the Torah.

One more time: even an Orthodox Jew, in order to claim that there is a
single text, has to produce that text. The text you read in your Torah
scroll in synagogue is *not* what was written with fire in the heavens,
it is a *best guess* at the text by some very well-meaning typographers
in Venice who all converted to Christianity. It does not agree with a
dozen Masoretic manuscripts. In fact, the truly weird thing about this
discussion is that contrary to what most people think about this topic,
the ArtScroll text, the Miqra'ot G'dolot, and modern Torah scrolls do
not agree 100% with *any* Masoretic manuscript. That's because the
method followed in the sixteenth century was to adopt what someone
thought was the "best" reading whenever the manuscripts do not agree,
which results in an eclectic text that matches no manuscript.

>IOW, the idea that codes work with the mesoretic text speaks about
>the Jewish Torah -- written as well as oral.

They don't work with the Masoretic text because they don't have such a
text to work with. They sort-of work with one *version* of that text.
What we don't know is if they would "work" with a different manuscript
producing different codes (what I am referring to as the "duelling
codes" possibility). If a different manuscript provides codes you like
better, will you change your Torah scroll to match that manuscript and
declare it the one "kosher" text? And if Brendan's research provides
evidence that there are compelling "codes" in Moby Dick, are you going
to add that to the Na"Kh?

>Well, funny enough, I own the book Hamaymad Hanosaf: al hakesivah hadu-mamdis
>batorah (The Added Dimension: on the two-dimensional writing in the Torah),
>by Doron Vitztum, Published by Agudah Limichakeir Torani in 5749 (no Gregorian
>date given -- 1988 or 1989). The comparison to the Samaritan text is mentioned
>on pages 17-19, although admittedly they only use it for one experiment.
>
>You may doubt their claims if you'd like, but I didn't make it up.

I didn't claim that the Samaritan text hadn't been digitized--I think
it has. The question is whether any of the dozen or so Masoretic
manuscripts has and if so what the statistical programs say about those
texts.

>I just meant I don't think people ought to believe in G-d or follow
>the Jewish lifestyle because someone "proved" the origin of the Torah.
>It's not what Judaism is about. Putting such a peice into the center
>of your religion will necessarily give you a warped Judaism.

Well, I'm glad to end on a note of agreement.

Best,

--Jack
-- 
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree