Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il>]

I certainly hope you're right, Jim, because I, for one, would be thrilled if
the Jehoash Inscription were the real thing. Also, I'd have another text t
teach in my historiography vs. epigraphy course.
Jonathan D. Safren, Editor
Mo'ed - Researches in Judaic Studies
Center for Jewish Culture
Beit Berl College
Beit Berl Post Office
44905 Israel
Tel. 972-9-7476396

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim West" <jwest AT highland.net>
To: "Jonathan D Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] RE: joash transcription


> At 08:26 AM 1/19/03 +0200, you wrote:
> >The Shiloah Inscription was found in situ in 1880. The Jehoash
Inscription
> >was "discovered" on the antiquities market very recently. These are big
> >differences.Jonathan D. Safren
>
> the great isaiah scroll from Qumran was found on the antiquities market as
> well, wasnt it.  and yet...  well we all know what happened to it.
>
> so the fact that something is found by a *commoner* and something else is
> found by an *expert* really is meaningless when we speak of authenticity.
> the *in situ* argument seems a red herring at best.
>
>
> jim
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Jim West, ThD
>
> Biblical Studies Resources
> http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
>
>