Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

I am assuming the transition from paleo script to Aramaic Square script occurred throughout the 5th century BCE, not overnight. You are right. There were a number of scribal mistranscriptions, and even when the scrolls were written in Aramaic script, particularly respected books were written in paleoscript and the Shem haMeforash in square scripts texts were written in paleo.  That is why I created the True Type fonts for most of the paleo scripts as well as Herodian fonts so scholars can use them in manuscripts they typed in Word.

Best,

Jack Kilmon

 

From: Dewayne Dulaney

Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 11:47 AM

To: Jack Kilmon

Cc: K Randolph ; b-hebrew

Subject: Re: [b-hebrew]Psalm 22:17 from Naḥal Ḥever: several issues

 

Paleo script because, according to text-critical scholars such as Emanuel Tov and others, some textual variants likely arose due to scribes mistaking one letter for another. In paleo script, several Hebrew letters are very similar, for example resh and dalet.

 

Dewayne Dulaney

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net> wrote:

Why paleo-Hebrew?  The script looks like a late Herodian style.  You can go to my website and download a TTF called “Habakkuk Scribal” which is very similar to this scrap.

http://www.historian.net/files.htm

 

Jack Kilmon

Houston, TX

 

From: Dewayne Dulaney

Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:42 PM

To: K Randolph

Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Re: [b-hebrew]Psalm 22:17 from Naḥal Ḥever: several issues

 

Thanks for the pdf. I look forward to reading it. Textual criticism has always been an interest of mine, especially when it impacts the meaning of the text.

 

Has anyone who has published on this topic done a transcript of the Hebrew into PaleoHebrew lettering to see what the variants look like?

 

Dewayne Dulaney

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:52 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

 

Sorry I took so long to reply.

 

Senior moments (I just forgot).

 

The image on this page can be blown up quite a bit, and on that basis I disagree with the reading given in the text of the .pdf document.

 

This scrap doesn’t have spaces between words, as a result one is misread. The final word that can be read is ידי followed by something that is not very clear, but can be read as ורג in the right place to have “my feet”. It looks as if the top stroke of the waw after the ידי has been smeared into the following Resh which is only partially preserved. The Gimel following the Resh is clear.

 

Yes, the editor tried to make the reading more clear, but by blowing the picture up quite a bit, one can distinguish between the editing and the original.

 

Oh yes, I also have the image you referenced in a later post, but this is the file I refer to whenever there’s a question because it’s the clearest picture I’ve been able to find so far.

 

Yours, Karl W. Randolph.

 

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Stewart Felker <stewart.felker AT gmail.com> wrote:

Here is the highest quality image of the fragment I could find:

http://i.imgur.com/wmds5kw.jpg

Directly preceding the word I've circled in orange is the infamous כארי or כארו. The DJD edition actually opts for the latter here, due to the elongation of the final letter (although it's been pointed out that this isn't ironclad). Whatever the case may be for this letter though, less attention has been paid to the final letter of the circled word. In MT this is simply ידי - but here the editors tentatively restore ידיה.

Regardless of however we might interpret that reading, upon closer inspection there are several difficulties with the final letter. There seem to be _two_ strokes comprising the left hand side of this letter - one curved somewhat inward, and one seemingly curved the opposite direction (which itself appears to have another slight stroke coming off the bottom of it, though this may just be a smudge). Further, there is a dot above and slightly to the left of this letter; and although it's obvious that there are several accidental ink artifacts in the fragment, this dot looks conspicuous to me.

Finally, is the larger mark a full space after this dot simply one of these accidental artifacts? It somewhat resembles ג to me, although the next word should be ורגלי (but the next clearest word that can be discerned is עצמ]ותי], in the line below).

Stewart Felker,

University of MemphisS

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

 

--

"In the world you will have trouble. But, be brave! I have defeated the world!"
—John 16:33, DDV (Dewayne Dulaney Version)

My Bible blogs: http://my.opera.com/Loquor/blog/ and
http://hasopher.preachersfiles.com/

My Biblical Languages and Latin Learning Aids Blog, and home of my translation of John's Gospel:
Let Ancient Voices Speak, http://letancientvoicesspeak.preachersfiles.com.

---

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

 

--

"In the world you will have trouble. But, be brave! I have defeated the world!"
—John 16:33, DDV (Dewayne Dulaney Version)

My Bible blogs: http://my.opera.com/Loquor/blog/ and
http://hasopher.preachersfiles.com/

My Biblical Languages and Latin Learning Aids Blog, and home of my translation of John's Gospel:
Let Ancient Voices Speak, http://letancientvoicesspeak.preachersfiles.com.