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

Re: yahad ostracon (fwd)


Among other posts, I didn't save Fred's, which were what was driving the 
other comments.  I don't recall that he had anything to add to what he's 
posted before, however.



David W. Suter
Saint Martin's College
Lacey, WA 98503

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:50:58 -0500
From: Seth L Sanders <feste@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
To: orion@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: yahad ostracon (fwd)

> context; the one he mentions in the Cave 6 Gen. Apoc. text requires 
> that we read the *word* before we read the *letter*: always a dubious 
> procedure in epigraphical and palaeographical matters (i.e., the 

It is a common and legitimate practice to allow a moderate amount of
feedback to take place between an expected reading and the physical
traces. Of course, a convincing reading of a difficult has to be
physically plausible, and is always open to dispute.

But for a disputing argument to succeed it has to advance a better
alternative. So far, the only _meaningful_ alternative I've seen is
Doudna's verbal reading. Ironically, it brings up the same issue as
Eshel's reading: what is the person joining?

I will wait for full publication before having an opinion.

> especially problematical in this issue because of the state of 
> confusion in Qumran between the laryngals, and also because of the 
> extensive use of digraphs.

How are digraphs relevant here? As you know, there are no medial digraphs
with het or he.