...Precisely. But by what criterion is your "Jewish" different from modern Hebrew?
No it's not. It's irresponsible to lump together two different
scripts. ...
... its counterpart at that time whichAnd therefore it is inappropriate and irresponsible to call this archaic script "Hebrew", unless you are claiming as some do that it is the same script as modern Hebrew (and therefore necessarily the same as your "Aramaic" and "Jewish").
is more appropriate to label as "Hebrew."
The terminology with Naveh and you use, calling "Hebrew" without qualification a script which is quite different from what every contemporary reader of Hebrew calls Hebrew script, is irresponsible deliberate obfuscation.
It is obvious that the man on the street whom I will ask will tell
me DSS is "Hebrew" script. He will look at the Paleo-Hebrew
script and would be unable to identify the runes. But if we are
discussing contemporary scholars, then no, they will realize
that one is a "Hebrew" script and one is an "Aramaic" script.
And for someone who would like to read literature on the
subject, saying anything else is obfuscation, because he will
read "Hebrew" in the scholarship and think something else (namely "Aramaic" script) is intended.
...I have already had discussions with him on that list, including some relating to this subject area.
If you would like to ask Peter T. Daniels, perhaps you should
do it on the Aramaic list at yahoo groups.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.