[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Essene and hatchet

Dear Stephen,
You obviously don't know me and have not been on orion long enough to 
recognize my bizzare and, I might say, hopefully idiosyncratic sense of 
humor.  If you reread my communication, and put it in the context of Herb 
Basser's communication to which it responded, you   will realize that it 
was meant in fun, totally tongue in cheek, and perhaps a little bit 
expressive of my view on a discussion which had (in mine opinion) gone on 
for too long and was not producing  significant results.  Akkadian is a 
great language and I higly recommend that everybody speak it, 
but  not everything in it is relevant to the Bible (only most of it) and 
to the best of my limited knowledge very little has been pointed out (with 
the exception of aohazey abot in Hodayot) which would make it relevant to 
Avigdor Hurowitz

On Wed, 25 Sep 1996 GORANSONS@UNCWIL.EDU wrote:

> To Herb Basser and Avigdor Horovitz,  I looked yesterday at Duke U. library
> for the Pseudo-Rabad Commentary, but it wasn't on the shelf, so I ask
> you whether you think G. Vermes made a valid criticism of the proposal.
> Vermes responded to it in Revue de Qumran 1960 saying that hetzen coul
> could philologically account for the Essenos form but not for the other
> form without N, Essaios. (The same issue would relate to Akkadian hassinu,
> presumably.) So do you disagree, by claiming it can account for the
> Essaios form, or do you agree with Judith Romney Wegner that these two
> Greek forms have separate etymologies (as K. Kohler and others said)?
> Thanks,
> Stephen Goranson
> Visiting Asst. Prof
> UNC-Wilmington
> home address: 706 Louise Circle J, Durham NC 27705