Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Thanks, Bryan.
I am still unconvinced.

In looking at the drawing of the letters and their transcription by Yardani,
the heh and chet are often written identically, likewise often waw and yod.
As I wrote earlier, the one who wrote this stone would never have gotten a
prize for good handwriting. It looks as if it were written hastily.

Could it have been a propaganda sign for the revolt of 4 BC?

Looking at line 80, the letter following "three days" could be either a heh
of a chet, if the former, the word looks like "the sign". It would probably
need higher resolution images to clear it up.

>From what is available online, it is not clear.

Thanks again, Karl W. Randolph.

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Bryan Cox <b_coxus AT yahoo.com> wrote:

> Karl,
>
> I goofed the link to Israel Knohl's article in pdf.  Here is the link
> again:
>
> http://www.hartman.org.il/SHInews_View_Eng.asp?Article_Id=124
>
> Look at the bottom of the abstract and you see "Read the full article by
> Israel Knohl here."
> Just click on the "here" and it will open the pdf for you.
>
> His argument for resurrection is based on his reconstruction of the word
> following "By three days ..." in line 80.
> He says:  "In my opinion, the word that the editors read only partially is
> completely legible and can clearly be read as hy)x!" (cf. pp. 150-151).
> I note that he says 'clearly'.  What do others think from the drawing and
> images?
>
> Bryan Cox