Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] 5th century BCE to 3rd century CE sociolinguistics (Buth, Kilmon)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>
  • To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] 5th century BCE to 3rd century CE sociolinguistics (Buth, Kilmon)
  • Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 16:38:41 -0500



-----Original Message----- From: Randall Buth
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 3:36 PM
To: Hebrew
Subject: [b-hebrew] 5th century BCE to 3rd century CE sociolinguistics (Buth,Kilmon)

PS:
I just noticed a misnomer that might make it more difficult to
appreciate the force of the evidence in my previous email:

anyway, in Greek-Semitic ostraca [sic] where the Semitic language is
unambiguous,
there are 9 Gk-Aram and 13 Gk-Heb.
In Semitic-only ostraca [sic] where the language is unambiguous,
there are 25 Aramaic and 16 Hebrew.

The above 'ostraca' were all ossuaries גלוסקמאות 'boneboxes', not
'ostraca'. The two cited inscriptions were also ossuraries, גלוסקמאות.
These were correctly cited as counter-evidence showing that
Kilmon's statement that ALL ossuaries were in Aramaic was not
just inaccurate and false, but highly misleading.

The previous email has been clarified with 'ossuary' inserted below
for clarification:


OK, I will be interested in the provenance and the descriptions of the former. The latter were only recently discovered and a curse written in Hebrew by a scribal hand for a box with an Aramaic name is interesting but it is one box out of a minimum of 15 in that tomb. I am more interested in the boxes in that same tomb written in a careless hand. Until all of the boxes are published you have no argument. You really consider the
34 Aramaic vs 29 Hebrew plus the hundreds in Aramaic is a "force of evidence?"

Jack

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, TX




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page