[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion ostraca
A lot of obfuscation is happening concerning the ostracon and the
"yachad" reading. The issues in the reading can be summarized
succinctly and examined by anyone with access to the Cross/Eshel
IEJ article and photograph. Cross, Eshel, and Goranson would
have us see in line 8 the sequence lamed-yod-chet-dalet. Goranson
has attempted to characterize anyone who disagrees as ill-motivated,
instead of, perhaps, seeing differently.
Here is why this yachad reading (as distinguished from the sincerity
of those who see the reading) is as phony as a three-dollar bill.
The lamed is a certain reading and the dalet at the end is a possible
reading, therefore those need not be further discussed. The third,
N-shaped letter is clear and its shape is not in dispute; only its
interpretation is at issue. There are six alephs in this text and ALL are
N-shaped (Cross's term: "inverted-V aleph", one of the most common
types of alephs). (Read the N-shaped second letter of line 7 also as aleph,
not Cross/Eshel's He, making a seventh.) There are between 3 and 12
Chets in this text, depending on judgments of uncertainties, and NONE
are N-shaped. The letter in question in line 8 is in form EXACTLY
like ALL of the alephs in this text and like NONE of the chets.
Therefore the routine reading of this letter which looks like all
other alephs, it follows, ought logically to be aleph. (How other
scribes in certain other texts wrote chets is irrelevant.)
For the second letter of the word Cross, Eshel, and Goranson have
read a huge, teepee-shape (inkblot?) on the ostracon as a yod,
although it looks like no other yod. There is no yod elsewhere in the
ostracon or anywhere in Cross's script charts that can be cited as a
comparable exemplar (by my checking). (The last letter of line 4 of
Ostracon No. 2 Cross/Eshel read wrongly as yod; read that instead
as aleph.) Reading this giant teepee, both sides of the tent which go
down to base level, as a yod is a decidedly odd reading. But there
need be no mystery. There is a routine Nun visible in the IEJ photograph.
No tricks, its just there. Its faint, but its there. If you're
working from a photocopy it might be missed, but in the IEJ
photograph it is there.
Cross, Eshel, and Goranson are asking the Qumran scholarly community
to accept extraordinary readings of letters which give routine
readings as completely different letters. The question is whether
there is any legitimate reason to urge these highly odd readings as
preferable to routine readings. It is not as if there is a reason to
expect the word "yachad" in this slot. Gilead Morahg in Jerusalem
stated publicly that the syntax of the Cross/Eshel reading, "and when
he completes Yachad", is grammatically not possible in any attested
form of Hebrew. So there are not only two letters out of four given
major surgery, but the end result is also odd syntactically. And there
is nothing in the text requiring any of this to begin with. It is not a
necessity in identifying the errors of the Cross, Eshel, and Goranson
reading to propose a reading that works. Nevertheless the routine
readings do give a perfectly reasonable word, as outlined in my
previous post. This "yachad" reading is like the "pierced messiah"
reading. It never existed, it does not exist now, but Qumran scholarship
is going to be living with this for years and years.
To those on the sidelines bewildered by the controversy, a good
diagnostic sign to look for in the reactions to this post is whether
it is met on the grounds of palaeography or on extraneous issues. If
the latter, remember the old rhetorical ploy, "point weak, raise
voice", and evaluate accordingly. (And thanks to the moderator for
forbearance on length of this post.)
Greg Doudna