Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9149Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S and ShPT.

Expand Messages
  • Brian Colless
    Nov 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      That is exactly why I was careful to say "a new version"

      And now the discussion has started raging over lo' (thou shalt not)
      and 'al (which I had thought implied Please do not or Kindly refrain
      from in classical usage).

      I will respond to Yitzhak Sapir tomorrow.

      1.33 am on Monday 3rd of Novemeber, I think; my luakh says 5 Kheshvan

      On 2/11/2008, at 7:09 PM, victor avigdor hurowitz wrote:

      > Yitzhaq,
      > In the versions of the Ten Commandments I know, the negative is Lo
      > and not
      > Al.
      > Victor Hurowitz
      > BGU
      > On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
      >> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Brian Colless wrote:
      >> Yitzhak Sapir said:
      >>> What you read as a B, Haggai Misgav reads a Lamed whose top has
      >> been cut off. This makes for the aleph-lamed, taw-ayin of אל תעש
      >> ("Don't
      >> do.") <
      >> On 'A L T ` ´S as "Do not do"
      >> What have we here? A copy of the Ten Commandments? Or a new version?
      >> "Do not make [a pesel]"
      > Dear Brian,
      > I did not mean to second guess Haggai Misgav. He is the one who has
      > the
      > qualifications to read this inscription as well as the necessary
      > photographs,
      > and at this point, apparently, this is not even sufficient for trying
      > to read more
      > than a handful of words. Those letters there on the second line may
      > be the
      > ones Haggai Misgav reads as "judge" -- I don't know where the word
      > "judge"
      > appears. I feel that the Sin on the first line has only two <
      > marks, whereas
      > the ones I identified as Mem on the second line have three or four
      > (and the
      > second has them going >). I did this because I realized that the
      > words
      > "Don't do" are legible on the photo, and also because someone asked
      > how
      > the Proto-Canaanite forms are substantiated in the photo. Again, I
      > did not
      > mean to second-guess Haggai Misgav in his reading and if he, with
      > all the
      > information he has available is not willing to go much further, we
      > shouldn't
      > either.
      > Yitzhak Sapir
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic