Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

The funny thing is that it does not seem to be the case, but--as I wrote--I
will not call this more than circumstantial evidence; it is no way decisive,
either way.

NPL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lewis Reich [SMTP:lewreich AT javanet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 05 January, 2000 14:48
> To:   Biblical Hebrew
> Subject:      Re: Re[4]: Tel Dan & David
> 
> I'm a bit puzzled by this suggested criterion.  Doesn't it seem to ignore
> the cumulative nature of previous finds?  After all, the more is learned
> from successive finds, the less likely the next find is to contain
> something
> new....
> 
> Lewis Reich
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> 
> > Fred Cryer once mentioned as some kind of criteria that all
> > important inscriptions found in the area includes some new information,
> and
> > argued that this is not the case of the Tel Dan inscription--not even a
> > single word which we cannot translate. He found this to constitute a
> > problem, although it must certainly be reckoned circumstantial evidence
> and
> > not proof of anything.
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.