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

Re: orion on P. Davies on ostracon 1

Stephen Goranson writes:
>> The IEJ wording "no serious objection," I agree, was not
>> ideal (though they indeed have a right to that view), yet, with further
>> documentation of these hets, I would not be at all surprised that the
>> will become moot.  I speak only of those open to considering an Essene
>> connection, not those with anything-but-Essene loyalties. An N-shaped het
>> is not a new thing, though some react as if it were.

David Washburn replies:
>I would have to ask what this kind of cavalier write-off of any and 
>every non-Essene view contributes to the discussion.  Perhaps some 
>examples of other N-shaped hets would be in order, or perhaps it 
>would be better to address Philip's description of the actual letters...
>But I would like to ask Mr. Goranson to please drop this question-begging 
>label, especially since it would be just as easy to label his view as 

I would have to agree with David here.  First, at Jerusalem I talked with a
number of scholars, some of whom I know are supporters of the Essene
hypothesis, and none of whom agreed with Eshel's reading. In response to
Golb's speech, Eshel did in fact show a number of photos demonstrating an
N-shaped het. That isn't really at issue.  The problem is that all the other
hets in the ostracon are of normal shape, and the remains of the alleged het
resembles all the other alephs.  The alleged yod is likewise dissimilar to
the others of the ostracon.  Since we know how this ostracon's scribe drew
his hets, alephs, and yods (etc.), of what relevance are these examples of
other scribes using N-shaped hets?

-- Russell Gmirkin