Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Yes, there are some other incongruities in the article as well. The Hebrew
word "amah" ("cubit") does not mean "elbow", but rather "forearm".

Yigal

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
To: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] something else to fight about


> Dear Yigal,
>
> >As for biblical usage, scholars estimate the cubit at anywhere from
> >1.33 to 2.2 feet, says Joshua Schwartz, the dean of Jewish studies
> >at Israel's Bar-Ilan University, writing in the current Biblical
> >Archaeology Review.
> >
> >The consensus appears to be the 1969 view of Arye Ben David that in
> >Temple measurements, at least, a cubit was 1.84 feet.
> >
> >However, Asher Selig Kaufman is a "cubit minimalist" who puts the
> >length at only 1.43 feet. Historian Kaufman specializes in aspects
> >of the Temple Mount, the sector where the Temple once stood (called
> >the Haram as-Sharif or "Noble Sanctuary" by Muslims). His short
> >cubit provides the basis for controversial calculations on the
> >location of the ancient Temple.
>
> HH: From my experience, the general consensus is that the standard
> Israelite cubit was about 18 inches (1.5 ft.). Some posit a royal
> cubit as well, I think nearly 21 inches. The cubit did seem to vary
> in size slightly from nation to nation. There is considerable
> material on the Internet about the size of the cubit.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
>
>
>