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

orion 4Q448 readings, etc.

	In response to S. Goranson concerning readings, 
	it is true that different eyes see and interpret the
	same remains differently.  On 4Q448, however, while
	I personally have confirmed clearly to my satisfaction
	under microscope the correctness of both "Jonathan"
	readings of Yardeni--although in both cases the
	spellings are YNTN, not YWNTN--on that first letter
	of line 1 which has been read as an Ayin, that appears 
	to me clearly to be an error.  It is an understandable 
	mistake because it LOOKS like the Ayin immediately
	below, the first letter of line 2.

	However I can note two points that I believe anyone
	with even the photograph published in IEJ or any other
	photograph, without benefit of magnification, can see
	that might change this perception.  The first point is
	that there should be no assumption that the line 2 
	Ayin is complete.  By comparison with other Ayins,
	it APPEARS to be missing the tops of both of its
	arms.  By my interpretation, this is part of the same
	defacing which has removed the lower part of the Shin
	above.  But that aside, the line 2 Ayin cannot be 
	presumed to be the basis for evaluation of what an Ayin
	looks like.  Once this point is realized, the line 1 marks
	are no longer so convincingly an Ayin, by comparison,
	after all.

	The second point is that there is a distinct trace of ink
	to the right of the top of the Lamed ascender, the second 
	letter in line 2.  This trace is distinctly ink and it is not part 
	of the Lamed stroke.  It must be explained, and an Ayin
	above offers no explanation for it.  It agrees in position
	with the lower point of Shin.  The only other alternative
	is that that dot of ink is an anomolous spot of ink not
	part of any letter, but that is relatively far-fetched, 
	given that the reading of Shin gives the word that would
	routinely be expected from context to begin with.  That
	is my answer on 4Q448.  It is not motivated in any way
	by a desire to be for or against any interpretation of 
	the text; this is strictly a letter-reading evaluation.

	On the 4Q468 "Aristobulus" fragment, I agree with SG 
	that the second and third letters as Resh and Samekh 
	are broken letters and not as clear as one would like.  
	However the objection as to spelling--that the name
	Aristobulus would be spelled Aleph, Resh, YOD, Samekh--
	I reject based on comparative examples.  The name 
	"Aemilius", for example, is spelled Aleph, Mem, Lamed...,
	and Shelamzion is spelled Shin, Lamed, Tsade..., etc.  The
	spelling Aleph, Resh, Samekh is what one would expect
	for "Aristobulus".

	It is of course wholly true that the Aristobulus fragment cannot
	be known to be related to the text of the Peitholaus fragment, 
	even though they are on the same PAM plate.  The scribal 
	hands are different.  The question was also asked, "And even 
	if one assumed Peitholaus, what side would he have been 
	on at the time--since according to Josephus, he switched?"
	My answer is the text gives no basis to answer this question,
	and the question is irrelevant to either the reading or the
	identification of the name from the reading.  Nor do I have an
	opinion on the matter.  

	In any case, thanks to SG for the comments on the readings.
	With this kind of discussion perhaps we all can learn. 

	Greg Doudna