That's the answer I was looking for, ZC. Now it makes perfect sense, at least to me. Some things just can't be translated. In some cultures, the writing itself has a meaning.
But you did not explain how can Jewish writing have been preserved theologically and morphologically from Moses when both the alphabet and theology changed. I will explain in the following post.
The Hebrew alphabet of Moses' time and post-Babylonian period are two different lettering systems. The shapes, etc. are different. The theology of Judaism also changed. Most of the misfortunes that befell on the Jewish people up to the more or less 2nd century BC, were interpreted as God's righteous wrath and punishment for disobedient and unfaithful Israel.
In other words, Judaism did nto see a generic evil competing with God, just disobedience Israel and God's just punishing in order that Israel may return to observing the Shabbat and so on, which is exactly what the Jews did prior to the Maccabean revolt.
But then Israel is exposed to massive assimilation and hellenization and punishment precisely because they were observing the Shabbat and God's commandments! It is at this point, following the Maccabean revolt that apocalyptic Judaism is born, introducing dualism which older Judaism did not theologically recognize at all!
So, I don't see how we can speak of the same theology, whether expressed in letters or verbally when the Pharisaical, rabbinic messianic or apocalyptic Judaism is basically a 2nd century BC phenomenon which happens to have survived as the Talmudic Judaism up to this day. I just don't see seamless theological continuity you suggest all the way to Moses.
As you know, I do not subscribe to the idea of Judaism/the Torah "developing" over time, nor do I subscribe to Biblical criticism. Even in "apocalyptic Judaism" (at least the non-heretical version as recorded in the Bible) there is no figure like the chr*stian version of Satan.
Now for your points on the letters themselves. Personally, I am surprised more people haven't brought that up, but you seem to be the first one in the ten years of my being here who has.
I once bought an entire book just to read the afterword because it dealt with this very issue. The book is The Wisdom of the Hebrew Alphabet by Rabbi Michael L. Munk and the afterword (which runs from pages 232 to 236) was written by Rabbi Nosson Sherman. It gives the various Tannaic and Amora'ic sources for the various opinions. I can't sit here and type out the entire thing, but I'll try in my clumsy way to digest the contents.
Mar Zutra in Sanhedrin 21b says that the Torah was originally given in the Hebrew language and in Ketav `Ivrit (archaic Hebrew script), but in the time of `Ezra' the Jews chose to keep the Torah in the Hebrew language but in Ketav 'Ashurit ("Assyrian script") while the Samaritans kept the old alphabet but translated it into Aramaic. Rabbi Sherman notes the troubling theological implications and then delves into the Sages for the answer. He records three different Tanna'im, each with a distinct opinion.
1)Rabbi Yose says that Ketav 'Ashurit was introduced as the new script of the Torah by `Ezra', citing the expression mishneh HaTorah hazo't in Deuteronomy 17:18 as an authorization/prophecy of this (mishneh from the root word for "two," can mean to repeat, to copy, to make two of something; but it can also mean "to change").
2)Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi' was the compiler of the Mishnah. He said that the Torah was originally given in Ketav 'Ashurit which means not "Assyrian script" but "blessed script." When Israel began to sink into sin toward the end of the First Temple period G-d caused them to forget this script because they were no longer worthy; instead they used the mundane Ketav `Ivrit.
3)Rabbi Shim`on Ben 'El`azar, invoking two older authorities, said that the Torah was given in Ketav 'Ashurit and no other script had ever been used. This view is endorsed by four different 'Amora'im (Rav, Shemu'el, Yochanan, and 'Ashi).
However, the original opinion of Mar Zutra' still has to be explained. Rabbi Sherman says that "the preponderance of major commentators" explain Mar Zutra' in this way: The original script of the Ten Commandments was Ketav 'Ashurit. After the Golden Calf incident these tablets were smashed and the second tablets were written in Ketav `Ivrit. Until the time of `Ezra' the knowledge of the exalted Ketav 'Ashurit was reserved for pious sages who kept knowledge of it alive while the mass of Jews used theKetav `Ivrit. At the time of the Second Temple, when Israel was purified from idolatry, the Ketav 'Ashurit was restored to the people as a whole and it has been used exclusively ever since.
This is a mere summation. Orthodox Jewish FReepers will be able to give you much more information.
Again, if you are committed to traditional liberal critical studies of the Torah and of Judaism you simply are not going to accept this.