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

Re: orion Ostracon/N. Golb

I find the following thread amusing and a bit disconcerting.

>> 	Of course the work of Ada Yardeni and Joseph Naveh are highly
>> respected--certainly by me. But somehow Golb neglected to mention that the
>> work of F.M. Cross is also highly respected 
>Indeed there is much to respect in Cross's work on paleography of the 
>Qumran texts.  (And I like Esther Eshel and am feeling for her right now.)  
>But that is not the point.  The point is the yod isn't there in the line 8 
>word which has been read as "yachad".  This is not an ambiguous 
>matter of competing legitimate possibilities.  

Just isn't there, eh?  So, what were Cross and Eshel thinking?  You
infer that Cross doesn't know what a yod looks like.  I shall throw away
his seminal article on the development of the Jewish scripts now.  Thanks,
Greg.  All joking aside though, you may say that Cross and Eshel didn't
point out some difficulties of the reading, but it is a legitimate 
reading (IMHO).  And, though Yardeni and Naveh are also respected, I await
their solution before passing judgement.  Your categorial denial, first
of all, is obviously not relevant since many respected scholars do
see at least a possibility of reading a YOD, and, second of all, creates
a war-like tenor for the discussion.  It seems a bit unnecessary, eh?

BTW, I also disagree as to the suitability of the IEJ for making such

Bill Schniedewind
+  william schniedewind                          +
+  ucla, dept. of near eastern langs & cultures  +
+  los angeles, ca  90095-1511                   +
+  phone: (310) 206-2405; fax:  (310) 206-6456   +