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

Re: 4QLevi b ar

Here, I am commenting on my own message. I took out the photos
again last night.

As follows. In my view the word as it appears is
XSYH (note --  H at the end, not aleph as I think I wrote
last time).

Careful examination shows the top stroke of the HE and a bit
of the downstroke. It has no keraia and is unlikely to be

Does not XSD in Aramaic usually have a negative meaning?
Of course, a Hebraism XSYDH is possible.

For those of you unfamiliar with Qumran Aramaic, the
"emphatic" may be written in some texts as a HE not
an ALEPH. It is impossible to tell whether the form in
4QLevi b ar is emphatic singular or plural

M. Stone

> Received: by HUJIVMS via SMTP( (HUyMail-V7b);
>           Mon, 21 Oct 96 23:10:33 +0200
> Received: by pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
>           id AA156570; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 18:49:34 GMT
> Received: from vms.huji.ac.il by pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
>           id AA156563; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:49:31 +0300
> Received: by HUJIVMS (HUyMail-V7b); Mon, 21 Oct 96 21:54:30 +0200
> Received: by HUJIVMS (HUyMail-V7b); Mon, 21 Oct 96 21:54:19 +0200
> Date:     Mon,  21 Oct 96 20:58 +0200
> Message-Id: <21100096205855@HUJIVMS>
> From: <STONE@vms.huji.ac.il>
> To: orion@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il
> Subject:  Re: 4QLevi b ar
> Sender: owner-orion@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: orion@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il
> On the reading:
> 1. The material reading of a badly preserved text is always
> problematic.
> 2. We used a series of computer enhanced pictures on screen
> and we were both certain of the reading.
> 3. I had occasion recently to check it again and remain
> convinced.
> Of course, Rob Kugler has also done a very detailed study of
> the Aramaic Levi material, and he is free to differ in opinion
> from us. I suppose if we both sit down together we might reach
> a consensus.
> Or we might not!
> May I observe that I did not propose an etymology for Essene. I
> simply pointed out that in assessing the possibility of its being
> from XSY, the occurrence of this form in Qumran Literary Aramaic
> makes it more plausible than its absence previously from Western
> Aramaic did. I myself do not have an opinion about the origin of
> Essene and so do not need to resolve the matter in Macc. which
> I must leave to those wiser than me.
> Michael Stone