[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Of Yods and Eyes
>
> 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
> BTW, I also disagree as to the suitability of the IEJ for making such
> evaluations.
Well . . . I agree the "anyone with two eyes" statement was
poorly worded. I meant --even with one eye closed :-) -- that
the visible vertical stroke with the foot at the bottom of the
stroke extending to the left . . . seems difficult to me to see as a
yod. It sort of looks like a Nun to me. Vertical strokes
with no "hook" at the top and a distinctive left foot are not
usually read as Yods. And if the vertical stroke with the left foot
isn't the letter, what, er, is it? But in the end people will study the
photo and make their own evaluations.
As for the photo (speaking from experience) the photo in IEJ brings
out more readability of letters than the ostracon itself. If
the photo in IEJ which Esther Eshel had made, which is what Cross and
Eshel relied upon, isn't trustworthy, then the "yachad" reading is in
more trouble than the yod. On the actual ostracon, and in the color
photo of the ostracon, I found those letters and marks much less visible
to the eye. I think the IEJ photo is a good one and gives the information
to come to a reading on these and other letters. But, to each his or
her own.
Thanks to all, and now I retire for a bit and hope to listen and
learn from the knowledgeable ones whom many hope will come to
life on this list once again. Could someone get M. Stone to comment
on Zorastrian influence in scrolls texts? (This from a comment
long ago.)
Greg Doudna