[b-hebrew] John Gill and his dissertation
kwrandolph at email.com
Sun Mar 27 02:28:27 EST 2005
Actually, dalet and resh are very similar in archaic Hebrew, so similar that I have to watch out that I dont confuse the two. They differed in the length of the tail, and almost nothing else.
At least in proto-Sinaitic there was a definite difference.
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: wattswestmaas <wattswestmaas at eircom.net>
> Dear Karl,
> Actually I agree with you, mostly. I do not adopt any opinion on this
> matter and at least the discovery of the DSS, which is unpointed, says
> It is a simple case that Gill has presented a number of arguments that I
> find difficult to ignore. It would be for example interesting to have the
> following satisfactorily explained.
> He compares Genesis 10:3-4 and 1 Chronicles 1:6 where Riphath and Dodanim
> become Diphath and Rodanim in Chronicles saying that it is impossible to
> mistake a RESH for a DALET if texts were copied from non-sqaure script. He
> actually lists quite a few examples but I have just put one here. It sems
> that the dalet and the resh are often mixed up. Now these letters are VERY
> clear in other scripts right. So what is the answer please?
> I am going to admit that I am missing something, simply because I am sure
> that scholars the world over are aware of these and the belief that hebrew
> was never a square script in the time of moses would have changed a little
> if this as not satisfactorily explained.
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
More information about the b-hebrew